Talk:List of gothic rock artists/Archive 3

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, rather than in the archives.

The 69 Eyes (Sleaze Rock / Dark Rock / Metal) Apoptygma Berzerk (Synthpop / Alternative Rock) Ayria (Futurepop) The Birthday Massacre (Alternative Rock / Pop-Rock) black tape for a blue girl (Folk / Ambient) Cradle of Filth (Dark Metal) The Cruxshadows (Synthpop) Dead Inside the Chrysalis Deadstar Assembly Deadsy The Dresden Dolls (Cabaret) Evanescence (Alternative Metal) Frontline Assembly (Electro-Industrial / Electronica) HIM (Alternative Rock / Pop-Rock) Jack Off Jill (Alternative Rock) Joy Division (Post-Punk)

Lacrimosa (Dark Wave on the first both releases) Lacuna Coil (Alternative Metal / Gothic Metal) Malice Mizer (Visual Kei / J-Rock) Marilyn Manson (Alternative Metal) Murderdolls (Horror Rock) Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (Post-Punk) Nightwish (Symphonic Metal) Nine Inch Nails (Alternative Rock / Industrial Rock) Orgy (Alternative Rock / Synth Rock) Rammstein (Neue Deutsche Härte) Razed in Black (Electronica / Electro-Industrial) The Smashing Pumpkins (Alternative Rock) Sopor Aeternus (Folk / Ambient / Dark Wave) Type O Negative (metal) VNV Nation (Futurepop) Wednesday 13 (Horror Rock / Glam Metal) Within Temptation (Symphonic Metal) Zeromancer (Alternative Rock / Synth Rock)

Lacrimosa

What about the band Lacrimosa (band)? I didn't find a discussion about them. Were they just missed because they are from Germany? 129.187.100.203 (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Never Goth rock. In early days, they're electronic. In later days, they're Metal. --Ada Kataki (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the description page: "Lacrimosa's musical genre originally was darkwave or rather downright gothic." Just because they changed doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the list. If The Cure makes the list, then so does Lacrimosa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.221.79 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"If The Cure makes the list, then so does Lacrimosa" How does it feel to be the dumbest person on the face of the planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.43.118 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Tags/Edit Warring

To begin, I am a complete outsider to this particular subject. However, I am an avid Wikipedia user, both as an editor and reader. I came across this article during RC patrol. The first line of WP:VERIFY reads:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

With that in mind, this article has no references. In the previous discussion, an editor gave several examples of similar lists that do have references. If you can't find any references that aren't verifiable per WP:SOURCES, then I believe this article should be deleted. I welcome any editor to reply, but after reading the previous discussions, I would ask you to read WP:CIVIL first. Ndenison ^talk 05:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a ton of band lists that have no references, including the one for punk if I am not mistaken. Take this one down then take them all down. You will have huge edit wars on your hands if you do that. Just sayin'. Also, other editors have discussed this before and have said that the list can say. Please read all of the discussions that have already taken place on here instead of coming in here and declaring something like that.Crescentia (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So can you please tell me where it says band lists are exempt from the verifiability requirement? In order to uphold the integrity of the project, ALL articles must be clearly sourced, none exempted. Quoting again from WP:BURDEN;

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

I am hereby challenging the content of this article. I personally do not trust what anyone says without something to back it up. I could say that all rabbits are 60 feet tall and have flamethrowers under their ears, and without requiring sources, no one could tell me I’m wrong. The same is true here. How does a reader definitively know that these bands are in this genre? They don’t, outside of a few editors opinion (although that opinion could be very well correct).

With that said, why is a list of bands necessary? Why not just put a few very good examples of bands on the Gothic rock article (another article that needs references)? I do know from experience that sometimes lists like these are very hard to maintain, almost impossible to verify, and are best just not being there. I notice that anon IPs add bands, and a few editors take them off, again with no sources. This will end and the integrity of the project will be upheld if the article is simply just removed.

The previous discussion did not answer any of these questions. I more or less appeared to me that a few editors have WP:OWN issues and bullied another editor away. Also, there is no discussion on the punk rock article about this. I’ll head over there in a second.

I do appreciate our quick reply and your willingness to open a dialogue on the subject. That’s one of the things that make Wikipedia great. Thanks again, Ndenison ^talk 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article has problems, mainly due to editors who could care less about many wikipedia policies, but I do not think that deletion is the right cource of action. This is a list for a very notable genre, and if you put this up for deletion, I will vote agaist your motion. The right response is to improve the article, not deletion. Dude101.2 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That includes you buddy. Stop reverting.Crescentia (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the problem with wanting references for EVERY band is that some bands that are called gothic rock by the mainstream press are in fact not gothic rock. This includes bands such as Marilyn Manson, Evanescence, Within Temptation, etc....If those bands are included just because some third rate Rolling Stone hack judged them to be gothic rock then the list will turn into a steaming pile of garbage. The people who have been editing this list for 1+ years pretty much know what is going on genre wise. I used to be a goth/deathrock DJ and have been listening to the music for 20+ years. I'm not saying that I am the end all of the end all, but I actually do retain some knowledge on this subject, as do some of the editors on here. The ONLY time we ever run into problems is when people come onto this page and DEMAND that bands be included or want it their way or the highway. If people come on here acting like they rule this page then they are not going to be treated kindly or warmly, and that could be said of any page. How would you feel if somebody came onto the page that you had been editing and keeping clean for over a year and demanded that things be done their way? I actually care about this article and I think that the only reason why you in particular are throwing a fit over this is so that you can have a little bit of power from trying to control a Wiki page.Crescentia (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So are you admitting this page is entirely original research? If the "mainstream press" can't it right, then it must not be verifiable. Ndenison ^talk 22:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream press has always gotten the term gothic rock confused with metal and shock rock. On the other hand reporters such as Mick Mercer, who has reported on the subculture for almost 30 years now, gets it right. His book is the one on the bottom of the list. People are going to add such bands as Evanescence to the list just because some ignorant reporter calls them gothic rock, even though they do not fit into that genre. The mainstream press is pretty ignorant when it comes to gothic rock and the subculture. Just because the mainstream press mostly gets it wrong doesn't mean the bands currently on the list can't be gothic rock. If you count on the mainstream press being right all of the time then you are doing yourself a disservice.It was the mainstream press that first claimed, after the Coilumbine shootings, that gothic rock was satanic and that all goths were dangerous. Obviously they were wrong, so why can't they be wrong about their abuse of the term gothic rock?Crescentia (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added all four of Mick Mercer's books about gothic rock as refernces for this list. They are widely known to be accurate and he is respected within the goth subculture as a leading authority on the subject.Crescentia (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what's needed. Thanks for taking the time to improve the credibility of the project. As far as I'm concerned this issue has been resolved. Ndenison ^talk 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Crescentia (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the bands, as far as I can tell, have any references. While the book is a good start, we cannot only rely on one book. Multipule sources must be referenced, and they should back up the claim that certain bands are in fact goth rock. Only one book would result in the article becoming onesided. Dude101.2 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added FOUR books and it has been officially resolved so knock it off already. Ndenison said it was resolved so it is resolved. QUOTE:'That's exactly what's needed. Thanks for taking the time to improve the credibility of the project. As far as I'm concerned this issue has been resolved. Ndenison talk 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)' ALSO the warnings about not adding certain bands are there for a reason....because people add them all of the time and they don't belong on the list because they are metal or nu-metal bands. Discussions have already occured about those bands and it has already been decided that they don't beolng. Look at the list of bands that have officially been ruled out by a concensus, it is at the top of this page. Stop fighting me on this when decisions have already been made about this article. Just because YOU want it a certain way doesn't mean it's going to happen.Crescentia (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added even more books and some magazines, which by the way have 16 issues. Do you want me to list every single one or is three enough for you?Crescentia (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the references that have been added the last few days (much, much better than no references). We could go to a third party if you'd like. I would however advise both of you to stop the edit war, you could possibly be blocked. Ndenison ^talk 02:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, I'm just another editor, just like you two. I stated my issues with a completely unsourced article (based up my view of Wikipedia as a valid reference tool), and it was fixed by a very cooperative editor who seems very knowledgeable about the subject at hand. I'll be more than happy to do whatever I can to settle the dispute for good. Ndenison ^talk 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I have tried talking to DUDE but he says I am being uncooperative if I don't want it done his way(in so many words), and he refuses to talk to me until I see it his way. I don't want an edit war. I just wish that he would stop reverting when things have already been settled. It's not fair that he says 'I don't agree with the decision', and then goes on doing the same thing. I want it to stop.Crescentia (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend not reverting his edits (for now), just so you don't get in trouble for 3RR and get yourself blocked, and making a report here. Give it about a day. If that doesn't help, then you can go all the way to binding arbitration, but try that first. Ndenison ^talk 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Crescentia (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested third party, hopefully this can get resolved. Ndenison ^talk 02:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, The reason I have ceased to communicate with Crescentia is that I have found him to be to be unpleasant, unwilling to compermise,ans domewhat of a bully. While I agree that the books are of some use, I am not going to go out of my way to borrow or buy a book foe wikipedias sake, and I don't think many people are. However, I am noy going to edit in the tag until it is disscussed. I'm kinda busy trying to get reference for the bands that the article claims are influental. Dude101.2 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I am being a little defensive, but that is due to the fact that you just came into this article and pretty much demanded that things be done exactly your way. Even when there is a decision made that ends the dispute you still want things done only your way. Before about a week ago I had never seen you edit this article before, and now you are ignoring anybody who thinks differently and doing things only your way. I have been in disputes before, but I have NEVER kept on editing an article even after somebody said a dispute was over. This is ridiculous. So, just becasue you don't want to read a book those books aren't considered good references? You have never even read them so how can you even form an opinion about them? Just having the titles of those books in the article is going to make people want to look them up and see what the author has to say on the subject. You have already had a 24 hour block put on you within the last two days, maybe it isn't my behaviour that is the problem?Crescentia (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that there have been problems from all parties, but those have all been addressed. I think we can all agree that we want a solution that will make this article as informative and correct as possible. References on the influential bands would be great, and if I were knowledgeable on the subject and were working on this article, that would be my next task. However, references have been added, something this article was missing entirely. I think the {fact} tags should stay, but I would disagree with any other tagging at this point. I also think we should wait for a third opinion. Ndenison ^talk 04:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I took WP:BOLD to heart and formatted the references. In two days this article went from 0 to 32. Let me know if there's a disagreement. Ndenison ^talk 05:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Wikipedia articles, including lists, should rely on reputable independent sources. They should not rely on the opinions or conclusions of Wikipedia editors. Excluding sources because they do not agree with an editor's point of view is inappropriate. If numerous sources make a claim or classify a subject in a certain fashion, Wikipedia should reflect that. If the claims are specifically rebutted by other reliable sources, we should also reflect that in the article. (General attacks on credibility, instead of specific rebuttals, are insufficient and inappropriate.) Even if you disagree with the sources, Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody better go to every single band list page and state this then. Have fun with the edit wars guys. I'm out.Crescentia (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move on

I propose that we move on. The references that were added make the article credible. More references should be used in the case of specific challenge (either way, adding or removing a band). The rule requiring an appropriate Wikipedia article for a band to be listed should continue to be followed. Please indicate below whether you agree or disagree. Please do not use this section to continue the debate; leave a very brief summary of your position if necessary. Ndenison ^talk 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree as proposer Ndenison ^talk 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I always assumed we were passing the buck onto the articles in the list. (Sure, it's not great, but it's at least sensible, as this is JUST a list.) If the article for the band stands up to scrutiny listing it as Gothic rock ... and those which have no articles (if there are any) require a reference to withstand editor scrutiny. - BalthCat (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Dis/Agree?: I have never backed the requirement that a band have a Wikipedia article to exist here, and have stated so several times previously. I WOULD accept the requirement that such a band at least have a *source*. (ie: If I have the energy to add it to this list, and reference it, but not make an article page for it, complete with title, cats, proof of notability, etc. it REMAINS here.) - BalthCat (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Witches and UltraNoir

These two were removed for being classified as synthpop on their page. In my opinion Two Witches at least is clearly gothic rock, and that's also said both on here wiki and on their homepage (Two Witches - Gothrock from Finland). UltraNoir is classified as new wave/gothic on their MySpace site. I know that band calling themselves gothic doesn't make them gothic, but at least there's some proof for this. Niera (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Witches absolutley qualify as Gothic Rock. They have appeared on countless Gothic compilations and songs like The Omen, Hungry Eyes and Irresistible certainly fit the proverbial mold. I'm also surprised to not see Advent Sleep on this list or their own wiki page for that matter. Same goes for old Apocalypse Theatre (Cain or an Open Vein era). Very Old School Goth (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In their early years, Two Witches were really a Synth group. --Chenti-Imentiu (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Samhain

Samhain are considered to be a deathrock band by many people. Since there are quite a few deathrock bands on this list I see nothing wrong with including Samhain. The entire November Coming Fire album is very goth/deathrock in theme and musical styling, not metal.68.53.221.128 (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a list of Gothic Rock bands, not Deathrock bands. Besides, Samhain is considered a metal band. Please do not readd them to this list. Very Old School Goth (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why is Alien Sex Fiend on here, among others? How the heck are Samhain metal? I can understand Danzig being called metal....but Samhain? Have you ever listened to them? To Walk The Night, Let The Day Begin, Archangel, Halloween II, Mother Of Mercy,etc... are all very deathrock/goth sounding songs. Maybe even horror-punk but not metal. They only sounded metal on the Unholy Passion EP when Jon Christ joined the band. Soon after it turned into Danzig. I'm adding them until a concensus is reached. Meaning, until other people join in the debate and agree or disagree.68.53.221.128 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They should be left off until cencensus is reached. They are metal and I don't think they should be on here at all.76.181.44.160 (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you think they are metal.68.53.221.128 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello IP user who helps keep the garbage away! At this point, after the work one user did sourcing a lot of the bands here, I believe bands that are deathrock must /also/ have been referred to regularly as gothic rock, otherwise they likely should be removed. For example Alien Sex Fiend is referred to first as gothic rock in their article. - BalthCat (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Alien Sex fiend isnt goth! they are deathrock industrial. Samhain isnt metal, they are a goth punk hybrid you journalist scum need to listen to records instead of reading about them. This persons point's are valid and he/she is right is right about Samhain not being metal. Maybe one or two songs off "final descent" but the rest are definitley goth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misereality (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Misereality, judging from your edits you know nothing about Goth, Deathrock, Horror Punk or any of the other articles you've edited. Please step away from the keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.114.166 (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Italics???

I noticed the bit about bands in Italics, and I can't help but wonder who would dispute that bands like Bauhaus, Sisters of Mercy, and Siouxsie and the Banshees are Gothic Rock (although I suppose Eldritch and Murphy don't like the label). I don't think there's any truly reliable source anywhere that would pose such a good argument as to render these absolute examples of the genre 'influences'. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Sources requested

Agatha Christie (band) / Агата Кристи

The English article for this group is essentially unsourced, however the Russian article looks much better, and appears to have some actual sources. Alas, I don't know Russian. The MTV.ru URL here appears to establish notability, all we need is a source for the genre, if that's the case. BalthCat (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pink Turns Blue

The English article is almost a stub, though it does call them Gothic Rock. The German Wikipedia article is in more detail, but still appears to have no concrete references, and I can't read German. A number of sites call them New Wave, which is oh-so-close, especially since the German article seems to say (Google translate) that the Cure and the Chameleons are similar in style, but it's not good enough! Seems close enough that I am going to trust the editor, leave it and tag for citations. - BalthCat (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The German article says that PTB was influenced by Chameleons, Cure etc. Their musical style is a mixture between Goth, Cold Wave and Indie, but the album "Meta" from 1988 is their darkest album and pure Gothrock. --Chenti-Imentiu (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. I assumed it was correctly added, but we still should have sources. Hopefully some one will find some in English. (Or at least link one in German.) - BalthCat (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Paralysed Age

English article (and I admit a youtube video) both make me think they may belong here. We just need sources confirming notability and some describing the genre. - BalthCat (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for addition to exclusion list

Rammstein

Since I don't recall this being actively discussed before, I'd like to suggest (rather than simply adding) Rammstein for the list of artists above. Looking for evidence that Rammstein may have contributed a notable amount of gothic rock, I find references to Rammstein's genre to instead be subgenres of metal or industrial, rather than gothic rock. (Discogs, Allmusic, website reviews, etc.) If consensus is reached, or if no one objects I will add Rammstein to the list of artists at the top in the next few months. - BalthCat (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

exclusion list? --Chenti-Imentiu (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "Previously discussed artists" at the top are essentially a list of "exclusions" based on consensus I pulled from archived discussions. It performs two roles. Firstly, I hope it gets people not to add those groups unless they take the effort to source their addition to the list. Secondly, it lets us remove them without a big explanation (when the additions aren't sourced or discussed) and say "see talk". - BalthCat (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Now i understand. We also should add Cradle of Filth. --Chenti-Imentiu (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth

We also should add Cradle of Filth. --Chenti-Imentiu (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia article describes them clearly as metal. Last.fm folksonomy tags include only metal. Allmusic.com refers to them as metal in all subgenres used. Unless some one disagrees, I think we should add them to the list above, as they are commonly added despite them being (so far) unsuitable. (Hey they might release an album of goth rock...) - BalthCat (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Advent Sleep

Apparently, someone has nominated the page for deletion. I have no idea what these people want. Can anyone contribute to that article in the way of notability? I don't really know anything about wikipedia except for the fact that, for some reason, Advent Sleep has yet to have it's own entry here on wikipedia and that opening a page is pointless because somebody just comes along and tries to delete it a second after you've created an entry. Anyone? Gothferatu (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Birthday Massacre

"70.160.184.113", Please see "Previously discussed artists" and stop adding The Birthday Massacre to this list. 76.181.236.40 (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cult

... is a Hard Rock band. They only played Goth under the names The Southern Death Cult and Death Cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.25.125 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cult does not need to appear on this page more than once. The Cult did not play Gothic rock, so they do not belong on this page. Southern Death Cult, sure. Death Cult, why not. But don't add them 3 or 4 times to the same list.RJS59 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree The Cult. Read the first line in the paragraph and google search the band. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You disagree that the band shouldn't be on here twice? Or you disagree because google told you that The Cult was Goth? You also seem to think that Evanescence belongs on this list, even after is has been discussed and added to "previously discussed artists" and has a history of being removed by the editors on this page. Or did you even bother reading that section this time before you blindly reverted. Again. RJS59 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Or was I supposed to read : " The band fuses a "heavy metal revivalist" sound with the "pseudo-mysticism ... of The Doors, the guitar-orchestrations of Led Zeppelin, and the three-chord crunch of AC/DC". Yeah. That's pretty "Goth". RJS59 (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the revert on the last one. I thought I was comparing revisions. Now to the matter at hand. You are acting very immaturely in this matter. Please stop with the edit warring, and angry comments and allow the Wikipedia process to happen. Most of all please stop taking all of this so personally. We all have the common goal of trying to improve Wikipedia not argue. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your "source" is MTV. Do I need to say anything else? You are part of a stable of revert bullies. You tag team revert and war with people in order to get them to break the 3 revert rule and then you block them. I'm standing my ground. Which, to you, means I am "acting very immaturely". So be it. But you don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong. RJS59 (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to bully you and if you really wish to call my efforts into question then by all means take it to the proper venue. I am attempting to explain to you, multiple time now, how things are done here. You cannot just delete sourced material without discussion. Especially after your actions have been called into question. I apologize if I have offended you, that was not my intention. My intention is and will remain to improve this encyclopedia. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI for those concerned, Southern Death Cult was a completely different band than The Cult. The only common member between the two was Ian Astbury. It can be argued that Death Cult was the same band as The Cult, since Astbury and Billy Duffy have been the only two consistent members of either one, but SDC was definitely a completely different band. ParadoxBacklash (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. In order to consider the two identical bands, one would need sufficient sources which treat the bands as identical. As we don't appear to have them, and the SDC article itself implies mere connection, the two should be considered separately. - BalthCat (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removing The Cult and adding Death Cult. The Cult were metallers IMO. I don't see the band responsible for Fire Woman belonging here. Very Old School Goth (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why IS The Cult still here? Since when is MTV a reliable source when it comes to any music genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.254.76 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh guys, are you choosing to ignore The Cult's debut album "Dreamtime"? That wasn't a Hard Rock/Metal release. They were still quite Goth Rock on that album. They belong on the list. Theburning25 (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Names in italics

According to MOS, band names are not italicized. A different manner should be chosen for indicating which bands are of particular importance. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate. We'll look into that. In the meantime thank you so much for blocking editors who make constructive changes to wikipedia pages like this one and then reverting their changes. Top notch! RJS59 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I am not an administrator, I have not blocked anyone. What I did was revert deletions of referenced material which were made without edit summaries or any attempt to explain the purpose or reason for the edits. I reverted what looked like vandalism. The anon. editor could have made an effort to explain his edits, but chose not to. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would especially have appreciated explanation for removing two bits of sourced information. I am not surprised someone reverted the change with prejudice. - BalthCat (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's mine, The Cult does does qualify as Gothic rock. Hard rock or heavy metal, maybe. Southern Death Cult already appears on this page.RJS59 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

SOME bandnames are italicised, as emphasis, rather than as a MOS issue. Does it say in the MOS NOT to italicise bandnames ever? If not, then I don't think the MOS applies here. - BalthCat (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, in light of what you have said, I think you are right. If there were band names and album titles, the use of italics would be important to differentiate the two. As that is not the case here, I do not think there is a problem. So, I will make a partial revert of my edit of the other day. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Aren't these in opposition to some policy? I recall them being put into place a year or two (or more D:) past but they came up as being not quite the proper use? - BalthCat (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've requested someone with a bot remove the flag icons as per MOS:FLAGS. Primarily Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. - BalthCat (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Death Rock

Who is differentiating what between goth and death rock? I keep seeing bands removed for being death rock (Bloody, Dead and Sexy, Tragic Black), yet there are a number of bands that have been on the list for a very long time who are most definitely death rock as well (45 Grave, Kommunity FK, Christian Death). That begs the question, where do we draw the line? Should we include death rock on here as part of the "goth umbrella" so to speak? It does have it's own page, but in many cases the line is blurred. On that same note, what about Darkwave? There are a number of those on the list as well. ParadoxBacklash (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If notable sources call it gothic rock, it doesn't matter what our opinion is. Hence the presence of The Cult. If a death rock band isn't called gothic rock by a source, it gets left out. - BalthCat (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Qntal?

Yes? No? Maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.240.248 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they mostly darkwave/folky? The article says gothic rock, but whatever I've heard from them has not fit the bill. A source would be appreciated. - BalthCat (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Seraphim Shock

Seraphim Shock might deserve a place on this list. But they, along with bands like Advent Sleep, are apparently not important enough to have wikipedia articles according to the deletion nazis. So I deleted them from the list because they're just a red link at this point. I know that we are talking about a generally "underground" genre of music so passing notability is next to impossible when it comes to half of the bands that should be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.244.53 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection

There is waaay too much vandalism on this page with people adding garbage like 69 Eyes, Dommin, Evanescence, Manson, fictional bands, metal bands, "ebm" acts, etc. Could somebody please make this page semi-protected? I just removed like 6 bands from this list that do not belong here by any stretch of the imagination. 75.180.56.145 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I spoke with [User:Bearcat] back in June about this issue. He said that semi-prot was not really used for situations which are not outright vandalism (at least in principle.) I said I would suggest we on this talk page that we add an editnote at the top of the edit page which reiterates the purpose of the list and probably includes the list of bands previously discussed in the first section. With that in mind... - BalthCat (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, hidden edit notes tend in my experience not to be all that effective. They'll stop some people, but many more don't read them at all (or don't care, if it isn't telling them what they want to hear.) In truth, I don't know how best to solve such matters; as noted, we're not really allowed to use page protection as a "just to keep the page clean" tool if the issue doesn't have to do with explicit vandalism, but a lot of the other tools that are used instead aren't particularly effective. So I really don't know what to offer — in truth, I've always believed that anonymous IPs should only be allowed to edit talk pages, with article editing restricted to registered users so that we can (a) properly explain the rules, and (b) have a real recourse available to us if the editor fails to respect them on an ongoing basis. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression from some of the other pages I've seen with semi-prot that endemic and continued addition of erroneous information despite talk page intervention was considered vandalism in a sufficient sense. (Should I have contacted a less scrupulous admin? :P) We frequently have IPs who come here, add something, and then fight with the editors to put it back in despite the talk page warning and/or a verbose edit summary. It's not JUST that a lot of IPs come here and add the wrong thing, it's that enough of them are defiant of our attempts to correct them (err... to rephrase for WP:OWN: to engage them in dialogue). -BalthCat (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope that your blanking of my proposed edit-note below was a mistake, because it appears redundant at the bottom of this page. It is similar, but not identical, to the wording above, because if we are allowed to add it, it will show up above the editing box, not here on the talk page. It exists here to be read, considered, and edits proposed. However, if you meant that an edit-box message would be "pointless redundancy", then I don't appreciate you blanking my text (against the policy of Wikipedia) and I think it's foolish to complain in here about the vandalism and ask for protection, when I have already talked with Bearcat about that, and the edit-box is my way of trying all reasonable methods of solving or mitigating this problem first, in case we go on to beg for semi-prot. - BalthCat (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Siglo XX

Siglo XX (band) is considered by some (many?) to have been goth (though more likely to be labeled as Coldwave or Darkwave). Reading the description of Gothic rock, their sound sure seems to meet the criteria. They were not sufficiently widely known to deserve mention in the Gothic rock article, but, to me, they seem worthy of inclusion in this list. --Mikebrand (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am strongly inclined to again attempt to include Siglo XX in the list. The following reference lists nine bands as characterizing the First Wave of Goth.

http://music.lovetoknow.com/Goth_Music

Seven of the nine are already in the list. The only two missing are Siglo XX and The Birthday Party. Considering WP's policy on published reliable sources, it seems clear that Siglo XX would be a legitamate addition to the list, even if not every editor agrees with the source's assessment of Siglo XX's degree of Gothness or notability.--Mikebrand (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Many bands failed notability. Were more notable than Siglo XX. Notable means people have heard of. Band doesn't sound goth to me. WJKovacs (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)