Talk:New Order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greater Manchester (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pop music  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Order are not presently active[edit]

Gillian and Hooky are no longer members. The three active members (Phil, Barney and Steve) are all currently working on the Bad Luitenant project, and not New Order. This is clearly spelled out in the article.

The band became inactive in 2007, and the members are all now doing other things. This is not to say that they could not reconvene, but right now New Order are not doing anything together.

Please stop changing the infobox to say that they are presently active, when they clearly are not -- Foetusized (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See also [1] -- Foetusized (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You assume that just because they are active with Bad Lieutenant that they cannot be active with New Order at the same time. This is not necessarily true -- people such as Al Jourgensen and Martin Atkins, among many others, have worked on simultaneous projects at once. The point is, when Peter Hook left the band, he said that meant New Order was over. Stephen and Bernard clearly said that was not the case. They have never made an official announcement that they are on hiatus, broken up or anything else. For all you know, they could be writing and recording as New Order right now, since the Bad Lieutenant album is finished. Until the remaining members of New Order say they are on hiatus or broken up, you must assume they are active. Leave the article alone. (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

From the band's semi-official web site, reprinted from the Macclesfield newspaper: [2] -- bolding is mine where the article clearly states they have broken up -- Foetusized (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FIRST came Joy Division, then New Order – and Macclesfield’s latest claim to musical fame is Bad Lieutenant.

Following the demise of New Order, three of the group’s former members have teamed up for a new band – along with a member of Blur.
Frontman Bernard Sumner, drummer Stephen Morris and guitarist Phil Cunningham have joined with Blur’s Alex James for Bad Lieutenant’s debut album, due out in October.
Rainow resident and drummer Stephen, said: "I think it’s going to be a great record. I’m only on a few tracks, but it’s great to be playing with them again – any chance to make a racket these days."
The record has been road-tested on his kids Tilly, 13, and Grace, 11. "They loved the version I played them, which is always a good sign," he added.
Bad Lieutenant formed after the acrimonious break-up of New Order – created by members of Joy Division after the suicide of Macclesfield singer Ian Curtis in 1980.
Bad Lieutenant is a 1992 crime-drama film directed by Abel Ferrara and starring Harvey Keitel.

In response to rumours an American band of the same name already exists, Stephen joked: "I’m sure we can settle it over a game of darts."
"Semi-official" is such a weasel word. Either a website is a band's official website or it isn't. Here's the thing -- Wikipedia's supposed to be all about verifiability, right? If a band of New Order's longevity and stature has broken up, it should be easy for you to produce a quote from either Bernard Sumner or Stephen Morris verifying the breakup, OR a statement on New Order's official website. NOT the conjecture of a non-official website. NOT the only semi-coherent rantings of a disgruntled former band member. And NOT the existence of a new band. Statement on the official site, or statement from the two original band members who DIDN'T quit. Otherwise, assume New Order is still a viable entity. (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I reject your premise. The article was published by a newspaper [3], and here at Wikipedia newspapers count as good quality verifiable sources. The band's official label-run website at has gone dead. The band may reform yet again, but as of now Bad Lieutenant is active and New Order is not.
Also, vandalizing other articles to make your point (diff and diff) is quite uncool and against Wikipedia policy -- WP:POINT -- Foetusized (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
So, you refuse to produce a simple quote from either remaining original members confirming the break-up of New Order? You've proven my point. You accept hearsay, and third-person conjecture, but refuse to add a first-person reference? NOWHERE in that newspaper article is a statement from Bernard or Stephen CONFIRMING the article's assertion that New Order is broken up. Newspapers get stuff wrong all the time. I undid my own second edit on the Foetus article, by the way. But I wasn't doing anything you don't already do to this article -- assume things without any firsthand proof. (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have missed where I completely rejected your point and your premise. A published newspaper article is not hearsay. You did do something with the Foetus (band) article that I never did with this article, which was violate the clearly stated policy at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point -- Foetusized (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. If you can produce a newspaper article stating they are broken up but that article DOES NOT contain confirmation from Bernard or Stephen that this is true, you certainly should easily be able to produce a FIRSTHAND quote from either of the two, if New Order is broken up. But you can't, because I'd bet no such quote exists. That seems to prove my point that New Order is not broken up -- if they were, Bernard or Stephen would have said SOMETHING about it SOMEWHERE. The last time either one of them commented on New Order, two years ago, they stated New Order was STILL TOGETHER despite Hook's assertions. Bad Lieutenant's existence DOES NOT cancel out the existence of New Order. Until I see a statement from either Bernard or Stephen confirming New Order is broken up, I am going to assume New Order is active and I will continue to defend this being reflected in the article. (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You need to read and follow the Wikipedia standards for sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, instead of stubbornly imposing the higher standards that you just made up upon this article -- Foetusized (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I really don't care about what you think about it anymore. A band of the longevity and stature of New Order deserves the highest credibility when reporting on something as serious as the supposed breakup of one of the most popular bands in the history of electronic music. Editors like you who report second or third-hand accounts to suit the story YOU want to tell instead of seeking the best information is the reason many people consider Wikipedia a joke, and why teachers and professors will not allow their students to use Wikipedia as a source. The fact that you continue to defend reporting the band's "breakup" based on second and third hand accounts, instead of using the time you are spending fighting me to simply find that firsthand account, indicates to me you know no such firsthand account exists. What is your agenda? Why are you so determined to force this article to state New Order has broken up based on what -- an article in a British newspaper? THE BRITISH PRESS, which is KNOWN the world 'round for printing falsehoods and misinformation? Or maybe it's from Peter Hook saying they're broken up just because he left the band? Or maybe it's the existence of what could be nothing more than a side project? ONCE AGAIN...All you have to do to shut me up and make me look like a fool is simply produce a quote from either Bernard or Stephen saying the band has broken up. You haven't yet, so I'm guessing you won't because NO SUCH QUOTE EXISTS...And again I say, the last time Bernard and Stephen were QUOTED on the subject of New Order, they said the band WAS STILL TOGETHER. I don't know what your problem is -- maybe you work for or are sympathetic to Peter Hook. That'd be a shame, because he is a pathetic, washed up, formerly great bass player who has an addled brain due to 30-plus years of substance abuse, whose idea of DJing is to put on a mix CD and pretend to twiddle knobs to look like a real DJ. The point is, if you cannot produce more reliable sources than the questionable ones you have presented, why don't you LEAVE IT ALONE? (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The Macclesfield Express is the local paper from New Order's home town. It is also part of the Manchester Evening News stable of papers. It is a reliable source and the information meets Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. A direct quote from the band is not necessary to meet WP:V. --JD554 (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say that it's reliable to quote people who are not a member of a band as to whether that band is still together, and it's not necessary to find out from the actual members of the band whether they are together or not? Again, this is the type of stuff that makes Wikipedia look like a joke to some people. (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A paragraph in THIS VERY ARTICLE states: "However, on July 20, 2007, Morris and Sumner released a further statement claiming that New Order would continue to work without Hook, expressing their stance on the on-off break-up situation. The statement read, 'After 30 years in a band together we are very disappointed that Hooky has decided to go to the press and announce unilaterally that New Order have split up. We would have hoped that he could have approached us personally first. He does not speak for all the band, therefore we can only assume he no longer wants to be a part of New Order.'" That is the two remaining original members saying the band is still together, less than two years ago. To my knowledge, they have not reversed their stance. If the last known quote by THE BAND THEMSELVES says they are together, why not just assume they are until THE BAND THEMSELVES says otherwise? Sheesh. (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JD554, thank you for the warning on edit warring. I let my passions get the best of me. I had come to the conclusion I needed to stop reverting and just attempt to reason here on the talk page late yesterday, but the reminder this morning was good reinforcement.

This edit war started, several days ago at a slow rate, over the Years_active field in the infobox. I would like to change it back to 1980–1993, 1998–2007, using the Macclesfield Express article mentioned above, and perhaps a second news article from a reliable source to confirm the year, as inline citations. I wanted to bring that idea up here before making any changes to the article, due to my behavior this past week. Thanks again -- Foetusized (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the years active date ranges. Looks like the discussion here has stopped while edit warring continues -- Foetusized (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have stopped discussing because I made a very reasonable argument and it stands. I continue to revert because it is absolutely ridiculous to state a band is broken up when no one in the band has stated such ANYWHERE, and the last comment made by the band stated the band was still together. (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
What reliable sources say they are still together? We have shown you reliable sources which say they have split. --JD554 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems that some of you either aren't listening to him, or don't want to listen to him. You ask him what reliable sources say they are still together? Didn't he just say that no one in the most recent incarnation of New Order has stated they are broken up? Why is this not good enough for all of you? It seems to me that a mob mentality is in effect here. Nightmareishere (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The reliable sources need to comply with Wikipedia's policies at WP:V and WP:RS. "Because the band haven't said so" doesn't comply with either. There are reliable sources (which have been given and comply with both WP:V and WP:RS) which say they have split-up. It seems to me that we're not the ones who aren't listening. --JD554 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Contact Music yesterday [4], quoting Bernard Sumner via Mojo Magazine:

"When I make music these days, I want it to be fun, nice, enjoyable and I find those conditions with this new band. This new album is really important for me. It'll either work - people will like it - or I'll stop making music. I don't want to make music as part of New Order."

It's not on Mojo's website that I could find, and I live on the wrong side of the pond to pick up a copy. Anyone able to provide a primary reference? -- Foetusized (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the magazine now and can confirm that it does say that. I've reworded the article slightly and added a reference to the original source. --JD554 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much. I repeated the reference to support a sentence that had been added to the lede. Hope this brings an end to the NO wikidrama -- Foetusized (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hannett / New york and Electro[edit]

It's actually stated as a matter of fact finally.... "their immersion in the New York City club scene of the early 1980s introduced them to dance music." no single person or band is genius, After the American/N.American Joy Division tour never happened, they still went ahead later as New Order to New York, where they took binders full of notes of the funk/electro scene that was happening in new york clubs at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What was written after I mentions this seems to sway the idea that they had to go to go else where to develop the style that became their signature. If anything, the person who gave them their style was Martin Hannett, who showed them how to use mixing boards and produce their own music

When they on tour in New York, they were influenced by the Electro sounds they heard.

I originally pointed to the connection to new york and electro/funk . First of all I dont hear Latin Freestyle in the early and mid 80's. I sort of jokingly said they made binders full of notes.

1. They didn't time to "emerse themselves. They went on tour and they visited some clubs after their gigs.

2. - Joy division/ Martin Hannett was highy original that's why they were praised right from the beginning. While they were punks, they stood by Hannett's extreme prodding of incorporating electronics in their first album, something people who made punk style music did not do. they thought of themselves as punks.

3. Joy Division and early New Order sound had a very industrial aspect to it, mirroring the city itself a once heavy 18th century industrial city.

4. By 2nd Joy Division album "Closer" there were song on that album that were already highly synthetic...just electronics, no guitars.--Starbwoy (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

About the pages for each single[edit]

There's a lot of original research all over them. The Ceremony article implies that the original version sounds superior production wise to the second version (certainly not the standard opinion. The reason why the band re-did it is fairly obvious.) Procession goes on about some "pop optimism" overcoming the gloom, giving the track a "mixed message" (no, not really...but that's just my opinion.) Both versions of Temptation have "structure", it's not an abstract ambient or noise piece...

And then you have the multitude of no-name bands and performers littering the pages for doing a cover or remixing the songs. Only the official remixes, like the Shep Pettibone Bizarre Love Triangle and True Faith, should be included. Cover versions should be avoided altogether, leave them to the pages of the artists who did them. JonasEB (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

house and new wave[edit]

I don't understand why certain editors are so adamant about keeping "house" and "New Wave" out of the genre description. I've added it a few times and it was removed. New Order has recorded plenty of house and new wave. Temptation, Everything's Gone Green, Blue Monday (their most famous song) are all new wave singles. Low-Life is a New Wave album. Power Corruption & Lies is a New Wave album. Round & Round, Spooky, Fine Time, Run, World (The Price of Love) are all house singles. Most of Technique and Republic are composed of house music. These aren't just one or two songs. New Order composed a significant amount of house and new wave to be classified under that genre. I'm restoring it (again) as I feel this is enough evidence for their classification. (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming you're American and using 'new wave' in its American meaning? In the UK New Order are not referred to as 'New Wave' which in a UK context means basically a late 70s more commercial brand of punk. The Buzzcocks were New Wave but not New Order and certainly not in the mid 80s when they were using synths heavily. Check out the wikipedia page on New Wave for more on the UK/US usage of thid term. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of New Wave. However, New Order may have produced house-influenced music, but not house music itself. Also note that the band isn't listed at List of house music artists, not through omission, but because they don't belong there. The article mentions the acid house influence, which is sufficient and accurate -- Foetusized (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. They made house-influenced music but they didn't make house records. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-Punk is the correct label for early New Order. New Wave is just a catch-all for bands of that era that doesn't describe anything. JonasEB (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How is post-punk not pretty catch-all in it's own right? Much like "New Wave", it was coined to describe 1st wave punk evolved, but diversely influenced music. I do suppose "post-punk" tends to be differed for bands "darker" or less commercial, or perhaps is even more of a timeline distinction--meant more to give a distinct identity to bands coming in around/after the 1980-ish demise of UK's original Punk/New Wave explosion. The term doesn't seem very sound-oriented though.

Still, more important on this site is whether New Order's New Wave ties can be documented. I wouldn't exactly say that's difficult, especially judging by the quick hint I even got when a Google search gave me "New Order New Wave" as a drop-down result. I can also judge this by the numerous "New Wave best of" lists I can recall which included something from the band. Let's face it, they've always been a pretty important name in the genre (even if it's more to their American audience, for whom they're a defining band. It counts here.). Excluding the genre here seems a little ridiculous. Theburning25 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of New Wave in the body of the article, just in the infobox where you have added it. As I said above, I have no issue with New Order being categorized as New Wave, but I think that it ought to be mentioned in the body of the article instead of just the infobox. -- Foetusized (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check technique and republic you’ll see it says house not House-influenced new wave, if you check the singles during that period they say house or acid house and once again not House-influenced new wave, maybe you guys could use wikipedia once in a while. (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just used Wikipedia and removed a bunch of incorrect mentions of "house" and "acid house" from the articles of New Order songs and albums. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

that's called original research, hopefully someone will change it back, oh, and block you from wikipedia. (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

i point it your flaw and rather than admit defeat you just edit out every mention of house and acid house, real mature (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what original research is on Wikipedia. Come up with some citations from reliable sources to support your position that New Order performed house music, not just incorporating house ideas into their alternative dance music, and don't edit these articles until you can add those citations to the articles. You didn't point out my flaw; you pointed out a flaw in all of these articles, which I then fixed. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess your right, sorry about that. (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

and your welcome (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic lists house music under New Order, and you'll find that Republic and Technique are also listed as such. I fail to see them as New Wave (certainly not since the mid-80s anyway) and most certainly not post-punk bar the first two albums, but I don't persist in removing links to them. DShamen 16:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of New wave was very poppy. Thats why they were always called "post punk" until the term disappeared in the early 90's. they were originally punks who were branded "post punk" right at the beginning. Its was was Joy Division with a a new sound and additional member--Starbwoy (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

New Wave became an American term...that became highly overused It became a catch all phrase for everything and anything that sounded a bit different in the U.S. It was marketing term. It was most used in U.S, it was used less in Canada, and mostly not at all every where else--Starbwoy (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


I'm translating this page for the Italian wiki an I need an clarification for understand the meaning of reflected the label's aesthetic of doing whatever the relevant parties wanted to do. Can someone help me? --Asdino (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Order (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Song Titles[edit]

  • In some cases, songs appear to have had their titles derived from lines in other songs.

I'm not sure that's what's happening, as:

  • the phrase "This time of night" appears in the song "As It Is When It Was" on Brotherhood but is the title of a song on Low-Life

Low-Life came out in 1985, Brotherhood in 1986.

  • and "Face Up" from Low-Life features the phrase "In a lonely place", the title of the B-side to "Ceremony".

Low-Life came out in 1985, Ceremony was released way back in 1981.

  • Also, the track "Chemical" from the 1993 album Republic featured the word brotherhood, which was the name of the 1986 album.

Again, the title was supposedly inspired by a song that was released years later.

Maybe the idea behind all this is that New Order re-use certain "themes", although -with the exception of In A Lonely Place- the terms in question are way too common to make a case, imo. At any rate, I doubt that any of those titles was inspired by songs that were released a year (or years) later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumorian (talkcontribs) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative rock[edit]

In many Wikipedia articles of the genre of their albums/singles are also credited as alternative rock. I think it should also be listed as a main genre.Myxomatosis75 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur, much of the first half of Brotherhood and a lot of Technique would definitely qualify as alternative rock.

Would also like to add that whoever seems to think that Gillian Gilbert is the bands sole keyboardist needs to watch a few more live performances. It's quite clear that Stephen Morris and Phil Cunningham play plenty of live keyboards at gigs, and Bernard Sumner has also been known to in numerous gigs. Gillian wasn't in the band for a few years, who was playing the keyboards then? What about Republic, which was full of keyboards? Are people suggesting that one person wrote all of those parts and the other three stood around doing nothing? In the studio, it's well known that all of the group (although mostly Bernard Sumner) contributed keyboard/synth parts, so it doesn't qualify to only have Gillian as a keyboardist there either - and this is in no way being detrimental to her as a musician - just pointing out the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2014[edit]

Add in the biography section "Reunion with new line-up, Lost Sirens: 2011–present":

In July, the group toured North America,[1][2] where they debuted the song "Plastic".[3]

Thanks for your consideration. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hudson, Alex (17 March 2014). "New Order Announce North American Summer Tour, Play Vancouver". 
  2. ^ "New Order Schedule North American Tour". New Order Now. 17 March 2014. 
  3. ^ Dart, Chris (2 July 2014). "New Order debut new song, 'Plastic,' at show in Chicago". CBC Music. 
Yes check.svg Done Sorry for the long wait. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2014[edit]

it's just too many genres,someone change it (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter what genres they are using. These as follows: Electronica, alternative dance, synthpop, house, rave, acid house, experimental, ambient house, new wave, alternative rock and post-punk. Someone needs to change it and leave this article protected. Malmsimp (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, the genre of the band should follow the WP:V guideline: there should be sources cited to say that the band has one or more genres. These will be from WP:Reliable sources that say what the band is overall. Second, what we put in the band's genre parameter is not a collection of every genre that they ever recorded or performed. The band's overall genres will be published in reliable sources, which will be cited. The genres will not automatically come from the album articles or the song articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The band is recognized as the first alternative dance group according to Allmusic. The band is also classified as synthpop ([5], [6], [7]), post-punk ([8], [9]), new wave ([10]), dance-rock ([11], [12]) and electronic or electronica. (I think the last one is already sourced in the article.) I propose the addition of these genres in this order.
Also the original infobox picture of the article ( 2005-06-11 New Order live.jpg ) and the caption (New Order performing at Southside Festival in Neuhausen ob Eck, Germany in 2005) were removed just before the protection. It'd be really great if these were restored. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: I've lowered the protection level to semi-protection, so the autoconfirmed users here should now be able to edit it. Admins are allowed to use semi-protection for edit warring between registered users and multiple IPs, because the IPs would have an unfair advantage with respect to our edit warring rules - see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Guidance for administrators #3. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please restore the before genres now.don't be bound by a sourse,NEWORDER is a true authentic “techno/electronic band”. not a rockband at all. change the before genres NEWORDER's page again now.♪ talk ♪ 6:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't class them as 'techno' at all. They've definitely had an influence on techno, and a number of their songs have techno elements, but they aren't techno. I'd personally be for the inclusion of house music, as a number of their records are housey, particularly on Republic, and also alternative rock. Then again, others will say that they make alternative dance records which contain large elements of house and techno. Down to definition I guess.

But I will add that the addition of subgenres such as 'ambient house' are utter nonsense. Making two or maybe three singles that slightly touch on ambient house does not make New Order an ambient house act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why can you declared that New Order are not 'techno'?? WHY?? I can't understand your ideas at all. New Order's tunes are all TECHNO!!! restore the before genres NEWORDER's page again already!♪ talk ♪ 13:22 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend we follow Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#Genre, and have them sourced in the infobox even if it is mentioned later in the article. As for number of genres, it is a group that influenced many sub-genres so having more than the recommended four would be fine, as long as they're sourced. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

NO!!! restore the before New Order's genres now! Don't you hear what I say?! Not TECHNO? Not Electronica? Are You Seriously!? Is that your seeking ideal New Order's image?! if so, I won't never listen the NewOrder again!!!! This NewOrder Fans are so corrupt!!!! God Damn it!! FUCK!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, watch your language and be respectful to other editors. Also note that Wikipedia is not a fansite; it is an encyclopedia. The band appears to be mostly categorized as alternative dance and synthpop and related genres; however, I couldn't find any sources that state that New Order is a fully techno band (aside from influences). I'm workin on electronica, though.
Also please stop your disruptive edits on New Order-related articles. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014[edit] (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)