Talk:New Order (band)

Metal Gear Solid 5
Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that the short version of Elegia was used in the E3 2015 trailer for Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain? I feel like this is one of the main reasons the band is relevant in 2015. The song is highly charged amongst fans of the series, which is one of the longest standing and most critically acclaimed series the medium has to offer.

Requested move 14 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Re "The band is probably unknown to anyone under 40 now", I'm well over 40 and I've never heard of them either. Perhaps they weren't as well known in the US as the UK. wbm1058 (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

New Order (band) → New Order – Page was moved without discussion and contradicts previous 2010 2011 discussion – AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I moved the page because it seemed uncontroversial and required no discussion. It was obvious to me that a rock band cannot possibly be the primary topic for a term that predates the band by half a century, and lacks the requirement in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of having long-term historical significance, unlike, say New Order (Nazism), which is probably what most people associate with the term "New Order". It honestly did not occur to me that this move would be regarded as controversial by anyone. In that spirit I have no objection to reversing it, although I think that such a reversal would go against our guidelines for naming. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update, it was pointed out to me that there is a RM discussion concerning the disambiguation page New Order (disambiguation), which isn't the same as the band article. Perhaps that is what AngusWOOF is referring to. I see no "contradicted" RM discussion about the name of this band article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many things called a new order. See and New Order (disambiguation). Move New Order (disambiguation) to New Order? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, because there is no clear primary topic, the primary term should be the disambiguation page. I actually performed this move when I moved the band article, but I see that move has now been reverted. The primary term "New Order" should not be a redirect to an article about a band. That's now how Wikipedia is supposed to work for disambiguating terms. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See old discussion at Talk:New Order (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't see that initially because I started with the band page, and that discussion wasn't on the band's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of the previous discussion in 2011 was no consensus so thus the (band) designation was not created. So why should a bold move be done to undo that result? There's nothing new about the notability/weight of the topics that would suggest one term is now less significant than the other. Also the band is still active, Should this discussion run into no consensus then the (band) article should move to New Order. If the original RM was moving A to B and that was no consensus, a bold and undiscussed move from A to B should not mean a RM of B to A  but a RM of A to B. That just baffles me how Wikipedia wants to do things. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should a bold move undo that result, you ask? Because our guidelines have evolved since then. I just checked the history of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and confirmed, while the arguments in that RM discussion were in line with the guideline back then, they are not relevant now. Shortly after that RM discussion closed, the guideline got a new criterion: a topic must have long-term significance to be considered primary.
 * We don't have the luxury of cherry-picking which part of the guideline to follow. If we choose page views, inbound links, etc. it's likely that the band is the primary topic by virtue of pop culture interests. But the meaning of "New Order" existed long before the band. And in 10-20 years from now, the current pop-culture meaning, known only to a fraction of the world's population familiar with English rock bands, will likely be forgotten, but the original meaning of "New Order" will still be recognized world-wide. So if we choose long-term significance as the criterion, the band isn't the primary topic. But we can't choose one or the other. Taking both into account, there is no primary topic, therefore the term "New Order" should be the disambiguation page. Again, I do not see why this would be controversial. The guideline is what it is, and if it should be changed, this discussion isn't the place to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just wanted to make sure it has a discussion before such a move. Consensus so far is to not have the band as the primary topic. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , as the active watchers of this article. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep like this - there are so very many things called "New Order", per the dab page, and so New Order should go to the dab (or be the dab). The band can live with "(band)" attached - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose (that is, Keep like this as DG says above). The term is too ambiguous to have a band as primarytopic.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lots of topics share this name, none having so much primacy as to take it over. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose many things are "New Order", a disambiguation page should be at the base location -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, keep as is, and undo today's move New Order to New Order (disambiguation). That there's a previous RM buried in the archive is unfortunate, but as it stands all broken links have been long fixed, and New Order (disambiguation) shows too many topics. The band is probably unknown to anyone under 40 now. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * sadly true :-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The term refers to many things, and there seems to be no good reason to assign the title on its own to a band. Davidelit (Talk) 10:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this appears to be the most rational decision. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as is - clearly the band is not the first thing that comes to mind for the typical reader - besides, this is making the page pop up at WP:MALPLACED which means we've got to deal with it. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- New Order may refer to New World Order (conspiracy theory). CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genres - need to be ordered as they are now.
I'm getting fed up of reordering genres - as they are - the band are
 * Alternative dance
 * synthpop,
 * post-punk
 * new wave,
 * dance-rock
 * electronica.

This is beginning to test my patience - they are ordered as they are now and into the future.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So where are the all the genres sourced? Do we copy the "Styles" from AllMusic verbatim? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Picking four genres
I see the most recent topic of discussion was about genres, but I'd like to raise the issue again with the goal of trimming the genre list down to four, as is preferred Wikipedia policy. My preferred four would be alternative dance, synth-pop, post-punk, and either one of dance-rock or electronic rock. 'New Wave' was not a term used to refer to New Order in England while they were active during the 80s, so it should be removed. 'New Wave', in an English context, referred to the late 70s era of artists like Elvis Costello, The Jam, XTC, Specials, etc. It was not a term used by British music journalists for most of the 80s, and certainly not for a mid 80s dance/synth-rock band like NO. Looking through the archives, I was able to find a user, Vauxhall1964, who echoed my frustrations nearly a decade and a half ago. I'm going to provide a few direct quotations from him, as he puts it better than I could:

"The idea that Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Wham! or Culture Club/Boy George were New Wave is wrong. As this article states 'new wave' in the UK stopped being used around 1980, several years before these groups appeared. They were never called 'new wave' in Britain as this term was obsolete by then. In the US 'new wave' was/is used as a catch-all term for any 'modern' sounding pop/rock from the late 70s until the end of the 80s (especially if it came from Britain)but referring to British acts from the 80s as 'new wave' will make no sense to those acts themselves or British readers. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"

"The poster who said “New Wave” was in fact, and extremely narrow music genre, which at it’s earliest, began around 1979, and at the latest, pretty much fizzled top a close by 1986." is simply wrong. The term was used 1977-1980 in the UK (where the term was coined). It was not in use in to the mid 80s at all. In America 'new wave' was used well into the 80s to describe anything and everything from UK synth pop, Aussie rock like Men at Work and goth rock like Siouxsie & the Banshees. In other words the US definition is almost meaningless as it's usage was so wide and indiscriminate. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"

"Absolutely no-one in Britain at the time or now would call the Thompson Twins, Haircut 100 or Flock of Seagulls 'new wave'. That term had ceased to be used in the UK by 1980. Haircut 100 were classed as 'New Pop', the Thompson Twins as 'pop' and the Seagulls as 'synthpop'Vauxhall1964 (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)"

Anyhow, that's why new wave has got to go - New Order are only one of many such British acts incorrectly tagged as 'new wave', but it's a start. The four/five genres I proposed would work best, I think, as they are all fairly accurate stylistic descriptors and not anachronistic to the time and place in which the band were active (England during the 1980s). Furthermore, two bands who I have always thought had quite comparable evolutions in sound to New Order were Factory labelmates The Wake (UK band) and Section 25. Neither of them have 'new wave' listed (perhaps because as lesser known groups, their pages have been edited by better-informed editors), but both have post-punk, the former have synth-pop, and the latter alternative dance. As the bands most comparable to New Order, I think these 3 genres work quite well for NO as well, and for the fourth I again would propose either electronic rock or dance-rock. Hope we can have a discussion on this issue soon. Jinglyjangle (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the same user I quoted already, Vauxhall1964, actually commented on this very page, which I somehow missed while looking through other talk page archives. Once again, he's spot-on:
 * "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)"

Electro rock?
The term electro rock appears nowhere in the article? The genres listed in the infobox are: Synth-pop, alternative dance, post-punk and dance-rock, with the note: "Heavily disputed for 10+ years in the Talk section - See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Order_(band)#House_and_new_wave - respond there before altering genre list or altering this comment." How are the lead sentence and the infobox to be reconciled? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to return both the lead sentence and the short description to just "rock", that being the broadest possible descriptor, and then get into more specifics later in the article. That said, of the four genres in the infobox, synth-pop is probably the least bad option if we're being more specific in the lead and short desc. CAVincent (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)