Talk:List of gothic rock artists

|

Chronological Archives
1 , 2
Last archived 2007-10-14

Previously discussed artists

The following artists have been previously discussed for inclusion in this list and have been excluded as not falling under the definition of gothic rock. Please see the gothic rock article and the archives for previous discussions. If you wish to include an artist previously dismissed, please explain your reasoning below this list, rather than in the archives.

• The 69 Eyes
• Apoptygma Berzerk
• Ayria
• black tape for a blue girl
• Evanescence
• The Cruxshadows
• Frontline Assembly
• HIM
• Jack Off Jill
• Joy Division
• Lacuna Coil
• Marilyn Manson
• Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
• Nightwish
• Razed in Black
• The Smashing Pumpkins
• Sopor Aeternus
• VNV Nation
• Zeromancer

Bands need a Wiki link to be included

In order for a band to be included in this list, according to the top of the article, it needs to have a decent sized Wiki page. What that means is that if the band does not have a Wiki link then it does not get included. Two sentence articles don't count. Also, please make sure that the band is gothic rock. Just because a band is called 'goth' does not mean that it is gothic rock.Crescentia 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC

Why not, so only on wiki are the good bands, not the one outside,i am gonne make my own wiki page about gothic rock because you don't wanne give a change to the new generation gothic rock who are not on wiki yet. Bands as Voices of masada and elusive are gothic rock, also the trees is new wave not gothic, you really don't know what gothic rock is

Here a link to a gothic rock band or don't you wanne call them gothic rock

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=45770332 http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=107079838

if they are not gothic rock you really don't know where you talk about, or you just like to see the bands on wiki which you like

The bands have to have a Wiki link. Why include bands that don't have links? When people come to the page they want read and learn about the bands listed, so they have to have linked articles. The top of the article says that the bands have to have Wiki links, so do not direct you misplaced anger onto me when I have done nothing but follow the rules of the page.Crescentia 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in that case you get my excusus, sorry But they are gothic rock bands, so wiki wants only these bands who only they know, not the one who other know.

Are you a gothic rock collector

cheers

Crescentia and I are both gothic rock collectors, and thank God he was here to undo your edits while I was on vacation. You're accusing him of being ignorant, or of adding or removing bands from the list based on personal biases, and that's a really cheap shot when you've shown that you yourself are ignorant of Wikipedia policy as regards pages like this. To sum up, here's why your edits are getting deleted, and why the page can't include bands without a Wiki page:

1. Wikipedia has pretty strict notability criteria for including and keeping articles about bands. Otherwise, it would be stuffed to the gills with thousands of pages about local bands that aren't well-known, and people would use Wikipedia like MySpace to promote their band. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion.

2. The page only includes bands that have Wiki articles of their own, which have passed notability guidelines.

3. This page is specifically for gothic rock bands, not just any band which is associated with the gothic subculture. A lot of bands listened to by self-identified goths are actually playing some variety of darkwave or gothic metal, which is not the same thing. Read the article on Gothic rock thoroughly before making decisions about what bands belong on this list. Hint: A band that does not have a regular guitar player is not any kind of rock band.

4. If you're presuming to lecture us on gothic labels without even mentioning Strobelight, you're not as educated as you think.

5. Remember to sign your posts.--Halloween jack 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this being a hard-and-fast rule. For a LONG time Big Electric Cat had no article, and was a redlink. I think this is a good guideline for us patrollers, and is a valid warning to editors "Red links are prone to deletion". However, if a notable band is added, us being too lazy to write an article for them is not a valid reason to remove it from the list :) - BalthCat 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic reason. If you think an article-less band is notable enough to be included, by all means, write an article and then add them. Deleting bands without wikilinks is not a perfect rule, but experience has shown that it's the only way to keep the page from being flooded with non-notable bands. If we allow non-linked bands, then every time someone adds one, it forces other editors to look them up, and have a big debate over whatever facts they can dig up on the band on the talk page. Pages related to Gothic rock and deathrock have been plagued with people who want others to do their work for them. --Halloween jack 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, Google has not proven that time consuming, and Big Electric Cat is still a good example of why that rule, as a Rule and not a Guideline is a bad idea. I've spent time preening this list. - BalthCat 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So what bands do you want to include that don't have an article? Voodoo Church? --Halloween jack 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

None at the moment, I am simply cautioning against maintaining it as a hard-and-fast rule because eventually someone will ignore it (WP:IAR) but still be justified. It would be a shame to see people maintaining the rule for the sake of maintaining the rule. Not to say you will... it's a big Wiki. - BalthCat 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins are not gothic rock.....

.....so please stop adding them. Thank you.Crescentia 13:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the same person who keeps adding them or several different people, but I have a bit of advice for the person,or persons, doing so. The Smashing Pumpkins article states that they are an ALTERNATIVE ROCK band, not a gothic rock band. I don't know why you think they are a gothic rock band, but they are not. Is it because they dress in black or something? I don't get it.Crescentia 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably because of Adore, which had a lot of gothic influences in the writings, and the fact that Billy Corgan was trying to steer the band into a goth/metal direction almost from the get-go. He was in a goth band before the pumpkins which failed miserably, as I understand it, so that might be why. But no, The Smashing Pumpkins are not goth, and Adore sucked the big one anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin wade (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

gene loves jezebel

they are welsh not english, either change all english flasg to the union jack or check which bands are welsh, scottish, n irish or english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.83.50 (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true - although only the founding members were Welsh, so I have added a Wales flag rather than replaced the England one with it. A1octopus 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

List of previously dismissed artists

I put this list at the top, which is generally atypical, but I feel it would be a good section to leave up there, and expand on or anotate, as more discussions are archived. In fact, a box around it might not be a bad idea. If anyone disagrees, let me know :) - BalthCat 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Goth related

I think we should add a new section to this list that includes bands like HIM and The 69 Eyes who do not fully qualify as goth rock but are strongly influenced or cross into goth rock in one aspect or another. This will put an end to all the debate going on over the bands listed above because they can all be listed in this section of the arcticle. Who's with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.156.35 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No. They do not belong in a list of gothic rock bands because they are not gothic rock....period. Any band can say that they are influenced by gothic rock, but that doesn't mean that the bands themselves are gothic rock. Such a list is way to subjective and does not belong here.Crescentia

Frankly, I think it would be too problematic and not particularly worthwhile. Why? Well, HIM, which you just proposed as a band which is "strongly influenced" by or "crosses into" goth rock, has denied any musical connection to gothic rock. Are we going to be including bands in this list based on what they say about themselves, or what publications say about them, or some (probably poorly sourced) notion of what fans say about them? Plus, determining this is problematic. For example, the page for Play Dead has a source noting that they didn't really feel they belonged to the gothic rock community in the '80s, but their current MySpace advertises them as a gothic band. --Halloween jack 03:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also disagreeing with this suggestion. This is a list article, which should be kept on topic. - BalthCat (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think that would be such a great idea either, although I agree with your sentiment. Maybe we could have a link at the bottom under "See Also" that points to a "Sometimes thought to be, but not really Gothic Rock bands" page? Or something like that? In typical gothy tongue-in-cheek-but-actually-quite-useful fashion? An "Often mistaken as gothic rock" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadLeafEcho (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That would just mnake things even worse. Just leave well enough alone at this point. Crescentia (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"on the English Wikipedia"

I'm removing that segment as it references the Wikipedia itself (which is generally avoided) and is clearly in place so that editors can justify removing artists from the list without researching whether their inclusion is justified or not. Again... if you are unwilling to even Google to find out if an artist is a notable gothic rock artist which has escaped your radar and is simply missing a page, then leave the entry in place until some one IS willing to research the addition, or AT LEAST give it a period of time to be sourced or researched. (I don't mean to offend by being arbitrary, I made sure to come here to see whether it was discussed first, and it wasn't, so I'm being cutting it.) - BalthCat (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be included....period. Because if it isn't every single band who claims to be gothic rock is going to try to be included. If a band doesn't have a Wiki page the it shouldn't be included because this is a refernece list for people to look for gothic rock bands. If a band doesn;t have a Wiki page then too bad.Crescentia (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A band to be added...

For the most gothic atmosphere, and cathedral of sound, you cant beat the Dutch guys "Within Temptation". Got their own wikipage too :) Gothic Rock at it's finest.

Marcus the Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.180.182 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not gothic rock....it's metal. There is a huge difference between the two. Read up on the origins of gothic rock....please.Crescentia (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Before mother earth they are gothic metal, then commercial symphonic rock/metal crap. Der Blutsauger (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another band to be added

The band Spider Lilies should be added to the list of Goth Rock bands. You can check them out at on their myspace, http://www.myspace.com/spiderlilies

No Wiki article no add. Also, they sound darkwave.Crescentia (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AFI, HIM, and Within Temptation are not gothic rock....

.....so please stop adding them. This is getting a bit tedious. It was decided long ago that none of those bands belong here. Thanks.Crescentia (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why bands should have to have a Wiki article to be included....

This is a reference site. In order for bands to be included they should have a Wiki page. If they do not have a Wiki page it is usually because they are not a big enough band(influencial,etc..) to warrant an article or they are a band that only put out one single and then broke up. If a Wiki article wasn't required than every single band who calls themselves gothic rock band would feel the need to be included. As a person who has edited this article for well over a year it becomes really tedious having to delete bands that have nothing to do with the genre and have no Wiki page because they then have to be Googled to find out what they sound like, etc.... if they don't have an article. People should be able to just click the band and read about them on Wiki instead of searching all over the place online for them. Besdies this has been discussed before and I was under the impression that it was agreed to leave it up. The discussion is just a few lines up from this paragraph.Crescentia (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that bands without articles should be added, but articles are specifically not to have self-references, see WP:ASR, Wikipedia articles are not to mention that they are in the English Wikipedia, it is too much of a self-reference. If you want to note only bands with articles should be added, then hidden notes can be added to the article. — Κaiba 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is pure bias and hence should not be a part of Wikipedia

no offense to the author who keeps deleting everybody's contributions without explanation, but when my contributions were deleted with a simple 'Nope' as explanation I realized that this article is merely someones point of view and pure bias and should be deleted from the Wikipedia and replaced with something of more value

noted is the header 'The following is a list of notable gothic rock bands in alphabetical order.

Band names shown in italics are those bands generally considered to be (or to have been) especially influential upon the wider Goth scene or subculture's stylistic/aesthetic evolution and/or on the musical evolution of subsequent gothic bands. This is, of course, a topic of continuing debate/personal beliefs. Therefore, no allusion to authority or comprehensiveness is intended.'

may I repeat 'no allusion to authority or comprehensiveness' yet posts are deleted without warning or debate and by the author of the article itself if I am not mistaken

hence the article 'List of gothic rock bands' is meerly the private playlist of said editor and their pride and joy of intellectual bias and lofty ignorance

this article has no place upon the wikipedia, what would be better would be an article that can be debated and edited by people other than the editor in question

thank you

- NickEliot (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not biased at all. Type O Negative, Orgy and Disturbed are NOT gothic rock at all, and even their Wiki articles confirm that. It is not POV it is fact that those bands do not play gothic rock music. You are taking this way too personally. The bands are not gothic rock. Also, I did not author the article and I am not ignorant. Ignorance is adding bands without doing research as to whether or not they are gothic rock. Just because a self proclaimed goth listens to those bands does not make those bands gothic rock. Gothic rock is a certain style of music that those bands are not a part of. Bands are delted by me, and others, when they are not gothic rock, pure and simple. Just because the bands that you added cannot be on this list doesn't mean that this article should be deleted.Also, just because I took off the bands you added doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to edit this article.There is no debate needed when it is obvious that the bands don't belong here. I give explanations the majority of the time and I didn't in your case because those bands are widely known not to belong to the gothic rock genre.Crescentia (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bring Me The Horizon are not gothic rock at all

Please stop adding them, this is getting very, very tedious. I don't understand how people are considering them gothic rock.Crescentia (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Evanescence....?

That is one controversial claim. Mainstream media may call Evanescence goth rock, but they call Korn and Manson that too. Evanescence is more like a mainstreaming of the sound of Nightwish and Within Temptation. Those two are considered gothic metal bands, and that is a step away from gothic rock in itself. Maybe we should call in Voltaire on this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.23.36 (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been already decided that they are not gothic rock.Crescentia (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced and or tags

Why was this removed. this article is a complete mess, based of only OR. It needs sources. All wikipedia articles do. See WP:VDude101.2 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever heard of Gothic rock literature? There is no OR. Do you need footnotes for each Gothic rock group? Thats absolutely sick. --Ada Kataki (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. Three different people have removed your tags. I think that is a consensus that they don't belong in this article. Also, how is the list a complete mess? I, and others, have been editing it for the last couple of years and we have religiouslty removed any band that is not gothic rock. Meaning metal bands, nu-metal bands, shockrock bands, electro bands, etc.... How is acting in such a matter constitute the article being a mess? It contains only gothic rock bands. Also, I just looked at your info page and you are new to Wikipedia. Maybe you should learn a bit about this place before you go around asking for artciles to be removed and tagging others.Crescentia (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding tags is a great way to contribute to Wikipedia without, y'know, contributing anything. --Halloween jack (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my point. You say you remove bands that are not goth rock. Doing so is OR. If I may quote WP:CON " Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted". So far both WP:OR and WP:V override your so called consenus os these tags. You can't detrimine whst is goth rock, beacause everyone has a different idea of what goth rock is. And I am not new. I have edited as an Ip for some time and only recently created an account. Dude101.2 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't detrimine whst is goth rock, beacause everyone has a different idea of what goth rock is.

Nonsense. Read a few books about Gothic rock and don't waste our time. --Ada Kataki (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Gothic rock is guitar based goth music. That is not debateable. You don't know what you are talking about. Goth music and gothic rock are two different things.Crescentia (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, by that I mean editors cannot decide what a gnere is and who belongs in said genre. Look it up Dude101.2 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If editors couldn't do that then there wouldn't be ANY genre listings in Wikiland. You are making no sense.Crescentia (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. We not. But the book. --Ada Kataki (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, dude, Crescentia and I have been going by what's listed on that band's page. Certain bands may get listed at gothic rock from time to time, but then that gets debated and changed on their page. Evanescence, Marilyn Manson, Cradle of Filth, etc. sometimes get listed as gothic rock on their page, but that usually gets debated and corrected shortly. Half time time when we delete a band from the list, you can go to that band's page and see that they're listed as gothic metal, nu-metal, or another mainstream genre that often gets confused as "goth." --Halloween jack (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not valid source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself. and the book is not currently listed as a source and/or reference. Dude101.2 (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You have NEVER edited this page as far as I can tell, then you come in here acting as if you are now in charge of it. No luck. Did you see all of the crap non gothic rock bands I just had to delete five minutes ago because some kid probably added them? Those bands are NOT gothic rock and there should be no debate about it since it is obvious that they are not. You didn't remove them so I am of the thought that you do not knoa a lot about the genre of gothic rock.I removed the tags once again and will continue to do so every time you add them. Nobody agrees with you so just stop it already.Crescentia (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you want us to take whatever sources are listed on those pages and re-list them here so that every band name has footnote links after it, making the page an unreadable mess? There's no good reason to repeat sources on a list page that are already on the pages for the items on the list. That's not "Wikipedia citing itself," that's Wikipedia not repeating itself redundantly. --Halloween jack (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would help your case alot. However, not all band pages have thair genres sourced, so you can't take them at face value. And I would point out that I am not telling you to do anything. I am not trying to act as if I am in charge of it. However as this is a page on Wikipedia, it has to follow the rules of this ecylopedia. All I an doing is informing you of key wikipedia policies and adding the tags, which are competly true. Lists are not except from WP:V or WP:OR. Dude101.2 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: see List of Viking metal bands, List of progressive metal artists, List of gothic metal bands and List of folk metal bands to see how list should be set up. Dude101.2 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the ONLY person to ever have this sort of problem with this list. You add the tags and then want the rest of us to fix it. Since you added the tags why don't you add every single reference to the bands on the list? All you are doing is trying to make it more complicated for the rest of us who are trying to keep this list together. I am removing it yet again because again you are the only person who thinks they ought to be there. Three people against one. ALSO, you have been giving this warning about your repeat reverts 'Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a CONSENSUS among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.' SO, STOP REVERTING.Crescentia (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

HA!!!! You are going to EVERY band list page and adding those tags? LOL!!!!!!! I reverted all TEN of them. Crescentia (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in this article before (someone wanted there to be a source tag at the end of every single sentence on the deathrock page), and I stand by my assertion that it is a ridiculous interpretation of the rules to demand that sources from a band's page be repeated on any page that mentions the band. The only thing it accomplishes is to save the reader the trouble of following a link to another wikipage, at the cost of making the articles themselves utterly unreadable. --Halloween jack (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)