Talk:Synth-pop/Archive 2

POV
This article suffers from POV, in particular the 1980s-present section. For instance, to say that M83's album Saturdays = Youth was supposedly the anchor album to a mainstream resurgence from 2008-onward by solo female acts is extremely POV and nonsensical. Imperatore (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A Synthpop "Era"?
It is rather strange to me that there is so much association between synthpop and the 1980s. I tend to view the matter differently: the late 1970s and early 1980s were the period during which the style originated and became popular; subsequently, the style metamorphosed and evolved. It just was no longer novel. (Otherwise, it seems almost like calling jazz "1920s music"--but jazz has always been relatively popular since then.)

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the style is more popular than ever. In 1995 I "re-discovered" Erasure (most of whose material has been made in the 1990s and 2000s, not in the 1980s, which is merely when they emerged, and whose commercial peak was in 1992, not the 1980s--moreover, they even had a #4 UK hit in 2005), I discovered A Different Drum in 1999, and I am accumulating music released in the current "noughties" musical scene (by bands such as Cut Copy, Hot Chip, Glass Candy, and Mirage) which, contrary to my expectations, actually has a largely synthpop sound. In fact, some of these bands (such as Glass Candy) have actually repeated the metamorphosis of some rock and punk bands into a more electronic sound, but twenty or so years later. So this general aesthetic doesn't seem to relate to a particular decade.

It might be better to distinguish between "old-school" synthpop of the late 1970s and 1980s and newer, modern synthpop which has evolved out of these roots. Brandon1978 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Bands not mentioned: Alphaville and OMD
Why is Alphaville and OMD not mentioned? Anyone who forgets or doesn't know these bands as major synthpop bands of the 80's and early 90's should NOT even write the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwangaetto2 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prescription: Find Reliable Citing and add to article Edkollin (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * oops - i just added mention of Alphaville before seeing this discussion. Alphaville have self-identified as 'synthpop' for some time - some the songs they released on the web in mp3 format in 2001 were labeled as 'synthpop' genre. If you're looking for a citation, you can use this: http://www.musicfolio.com/modernrock/alphaville.html. In the review of AV's 1986 album they point out that "synthpop was no longer a chart concern," alluding to the fading of the genre. On that note, I remember that on the recent Pet Shop Boys' biography I've seen on one of my local HD channels, they point out that the rise of grunge was part of the reason that synthpop music faded from the charts - it no longer became 'cool' to listen to this genre of music. I don't have any way to cite that, but maybe someone else does...
 * 87Fan (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a lot of reliable sourcing for both of these bands that would describe them as synthpop and successful. The highest level reliable sources are Academic publications and papers then books. Billboard's web site can give you every  song or album that charted for an act. At a somewhat lower level but still reliable, music publications (Allmusic, Rolling Stone, Spin, NME etc), Mainstream Media (The Times, New York Times, BBC etc.), Alternative Publications (Village Voice etc). Tabloid media like The Sun ,New York Post are not considered reliable, neither are band or fan websites. Social media is considered unreliable. As for grunge knocking out synthpop although this Allmusic article is about Celebrate the Nun it does mention this phenomenon.


 * For more detail: Wikipedia guidelines for Identifying reliable sources Edkollin (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will only speak for Alphaville, since I've done no research on OMD (although I do believe they're synthpop too; I mean, they opened for Depeche Mode's tour back in 1987). But anyway, when it comes to Alphaville, I believe I've found articles that call them synthpop (in case that's in doubt), like this one here, from Allmusic: http://www.answers.com/topic/afternoons-in-utopia-1.


 * As to whether or not they're 'successful,' I believe they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, having released an album that hit #1 in at three country's pop charts, and they have 3 singles that have all hit #1 5 different countries (all listed at their discography page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphaville_discography)


 * I have made an effort to avoid social media, tabloids, fan pages, etc. when I cite sources in the articles I've updated.


 * 87Fan (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Allmusic is certainly a reliable source . Musicfolio seems to be a portal that collects various reviews so I would go just go to the original source instead of them. As for OMD we have a nice academic source for them, check out reference #3 in the article. Extensive comment on OMD starts about halfway through the essay. You of course can use a reference many times in one article Footnotes. You are on solid ground. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, Synthpop faded from the charts YEARS before grunge took over. It was gone by the early 1990s and Grunge had no effect on the genre whatsoever. We had transitioned to hair metal, hi-NRG dance-pop and R & B domainating the charts by that point. Theburning25 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I forget to mention another group this article missed: NEW ORDER. Look up this group. Sample their music and read about their international fame during the eighties and nineties. They definitely should be part of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.168.69 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre of pop music or genre of rock music?
Let's start with the obvious there is a lot of music that is a hybrid of rock and pop music. The Sex Pistols had pop hooks and The Carpenters had elements of rock in their sounds. There are plenty of rock elements in many synthpop acts. Synthpop is named as it is because dominant element is pop music. Synth-rock is another genre that has been designated for synth music where rock is the dominant element. And most importantly none of the sources used in the article specifically say that synthpop is a genre rock music. Edkollin (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Not everything called pop is pop, but this clearly is - if it were not the case we would have to look to merging these articles.-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthpop is a genre of synth music. ;-) But kidding aside, isn't there an argument for calling it an electronica style before rock or pop?  The genre pretty much happened because of Kraftwerk, not because of 60s bubblegum groups. Theburning25 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "A popular subgenre of electronica "? The details in the article seem to support that. Edkollin (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Help requested
There is currently a discussion regarding whether the synthpop genre should apply to Pretty Hate Machine, and confusion regarding the application of genres generally. Outside opinions and help from editors with experience in such things is greatly appreciated. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Second Wave Section: Uncited and Originally Researched Material
This section is gradually turning into the most unencyclopedic section of the article. The main problem is editors who are so cocksure of what seems obvious that they add material be a without putting in the work required to find a cite for claims that an act is synthpop,notable and or influential. All material added need cites period. No if's and's or but's. If you add and act you must find a reliable source says that SPECIFICALLY SAYS AND ACT IS SYNTHPOP. If you claim an act is influential or helped future acts find success you must find a cite that specifically says that. This really is not that hard to do. For an act that is very obviously synthpop, notable or influential it should take no more then 20 minutes to find and add reliable citing. You have your music press Allmusic, Pitchfork,Spin, NME etc. You have Google or Bing News. These have advanced searches where you can look at archives. IT IS THE RESPONSIBLY OF THE EDITORS WHO WANT TO ADD MATERIAL TO FIND RELIABLE SOURCES, NOT ME. Sometimes I will do it because I like doing it and sometimes I won't. The only responsibility I have upon noticing uncited or original research is to delete it right away (I do have that right) or put a warning up. I would rather put a warning up and wait a month because it is just the courteous thing to do, and while the claims may be uncited they may correct and realiable sourcing might be found and the article improved. The down side this generosity is that correct and erroneous uncited material gets added and added, editors come to assume that somebody else will do thier work and the article becomes a mess which is what happened here. You have a busy life and don't have those 20 minutes. Wait until you find that time. The article is not going anywhere.

Here it the bottom line, reliable sourcing needs to be found for uncited and originally researched material within a week or so or it will be deleted and the section will be rewritten either by myself or more hopefully rewritten in cooperation with another responsible editor(s). Edkollin (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that editors feel that this article is the place to tout their favorite synthpop group or a place to list every synthpop act. No it isn't. There should only be a handful of the most notable acts listed for each section as examples. There is an existing list article that serves this purpose. Edkollin (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly factually inaccurate, too. For example, MGMT definitely did not lead the way for Hot Chip's mainstream success, and many of the other bands mentioned pre-date MGMT, too. Empire Of The Sun haven't been given as a major influence on MGMT, either. 90.204.147.180 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Above comment came from me, by the way. I will also have to add, I'm afraid, that your comment doesn't come across too well - always remember to be WP:CIVIL. Esteffect (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, one final observation - The final sentence and the artists included, whom appear to be sourced, are the kind of artists that I frequently see referred to as synthpop. I'd have to question the relevance of some of the others listed, however, such as Uffie. I'm not entirely sure there's anything 'synth' about The Killers, either, or at least not on Hot Fuss as is mentioned. Esteffect (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My post was not uncivil. I did not attack any editors personally or question their good faith. I was blunt about what I feel are common misunderstandings of how to edit articles particularly genre related articles and lists. The feelings I expressed above may be right or wrong but are based on several years of editing these types of articles looking at and participating in talk page discussions. My other tactic of finding citations myself or putting a warning was most of the time and was failing miserably as of late here. It was time for a change in tactics. The intent was to grab peoples attention, it was never the intent to insult people.   I tried a more bold or what you think is a uncivil tactic. The things I decided to shout are points I have repeatedly made but apparently have not been understood or understood but ignored. As far as the research tips it was not intent to demean people because then it would be demeaning myself as they were things I did not understand or thought were more complicated then they were.  Uncivil? I still gave people a weeks notice and noted that other editor participation would be helpful, help which I am grateful to receive, Notice is something that plenty of editors don't give before deleting things and doing major revamps. Edkollin (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree on your article points. The difficulty with synthpop as well as for electropop is that many music journalists of this era are labling acts synthpop that would have been called dance pop or post punk revival/new new wave a few years ago and that these terms are used interchangeably, an act is dance pop last week, synthpop this week and electropop the next week. As far as influence while there is plenty of material on influence for particular acts I have not come across any material describing influence on the current version of the genre as a whole. Influence on the genre as a whole in the perfect world is what should be a topic of a genre article. Another difficulty is trying to figure what acts to include,  it should be the most popular/notable acts, there is little material here either. In my view lack of citing does factor in what I believe is the "lets see my favorite act listed" nature of these articles. Sorry to end here I'm out of time at the moment. Edkollin (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that it's hard to establish as to which are most notable using sources. It's not hard for those following the genre to figure it out, of course. I'd suspect that a combination of chart positions and success, and highly-acclaimed reviews would be a good day to go. Annie's Anniemal, for example, didn't necessarily chart highly across the world, but is frequently quoted as one of the better synthpop albums of the decade, whilst also receiving good reviews back in 2004. LCD Soundsystem would be another of these. Artists such as Robyn, on the other hand, have had lots of success. Esteffect (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't that Original Research and Synthesis? Edkollin (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. If you're giving examples of critically acclaimed synthpop, then so long as you can prove (or reference) that it was critically acclaimed, I would imagine that it is not in violation of either of those rules. If you're saying it's definitive, or just that "they're often mentioned", then it would be. If it were original research, there wouldn't be examples in any genre-based articles; It's just a cause of good and reliable sourcing (and not just using the first media article that can be found, as it on occasion the case at the moment). Esteffect (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can say so so is a key group with, the genre is in a second wave as the section is titled or revival without citations specifically saying so. For post punk revival and female electropop there have numerous articles noting their rise I don't know for synthpop as much. You can say La Roux charted in the US and UK, but saying they are a key group as obvious as it is by their chart position does violate the rules. Edkollin (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC Edkollin (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of WP:MUSIC, as I should be as an administrator. The only solution by your admission is to not mention examples at all, which I think detracts from Wikipedia as a whole. If an artist has charted successfully and has been described as synthpop by more than one media article or outlet, I would personally see that as sufficient verification of their significance in such a 'revival'. I'm not sure what your means of verification, if any, would be, but feel free to suggest. Esteffect (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Electropop “2010 Developments” section sticks to what the citations say. A reader of that section will know that electropop is big and who the key groups are.   I just disagree with specifically  writing "revival" or "Key groups" if citations don't specifically say that.  If the sources don’t do their job or are lazy it is not our job to do it for them.  My “standards” have been common in the articles I have edited. Example: The  US has a much much more inclusive definition of what New Wave Music is then they do in the UK, but no source we have been able to find specifically says that.   But we did find sources that says US considers New Romantic, Synthpop  New Wave Music and a source that said the term  New Wave went out of fashion in the UK in the early 1980s because its meaning had become to broad. That is how we wrote the article without specifically saying the definition was very different Edkollin (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is possible to deduce, however, that if an artist is described by a source as 'synthpop' or 'synthpop influenced', and if said artist is popular (as can be easily found through reviews and chart positions), then that constitutes a revival in the sound of some sort, even if not stated explicitly. I'm not sure, however, if your objection is to the examples given and the artists, or the entire idea of a revival in the sound (which I'm sure is referenced in media articles out there). Esteffect (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection that there is a revival. Objection is to writing the words "there is a revival" or labeling a section a "revival section" without a reference specifically claiming there is one. Edkollin (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Section has been cleaned of originally researched. uncited material. Edkollin (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1990's section
Begun work on that section. That section is poor as uncited, originally researched material has been sitting there awhile. However unlike the 2000’s section new uncited originally researched material is not being regularly added thus the section is not in danger of becoming out of control. With that in mind will work at a more deliberate pace. Edkollin (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every 1990's electronica subgenres were synthpop or synthpop derivivative. Should they even be there?. Edkollin (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Synthpop and Electropop articles?
The two read almost identical to one another, so merging the two would make logical sense. 71.254.118.175 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Suicide
Should there be a mention of Suicide but Suicide, as it is noted as being "often cited as one of the first synth pop albums (although it has a harsher, more industrial leaning than many well-known albums of the genre)"?--Maceo (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are that "often cited" then it should be easy to find a couple of reliable cites and add it to the article.Be Bold. Don't wait for other editors to do the work Edkollin (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Owl City (They Suck(HARD))
Is it really relevant that Owl CIty got a number one single? Besides Owl City sucks more than a prostitution convention and are a shitty Postal Service ripoff. Seriously dont ever put Owl City in the same sentence as LCD Soundsystem or Phoenix. OwlCityFuckingSucks 0:00 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep it's relevant. Groups that "suck" are popular all the time. What matters for Wikipedia inclusion is that they are "notable" and a number 1 single means they are definitely that, and that they they are "synthpop" which has been reliably sourced. But if you can find reliable sources claiming they suck ie negative review it would belong in their article. Edkollin (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Era's(Particularly the division of 1991 - 2008)
I disagree that a current synthpop era has started synth 2009. I actually think that the whole idea of era is rather sketchy at best but from I can tell the I suppose current wave of synthpop (if you want ot say there is though music is much more complicated then that)started in the early 2000's. For instance, look at LCD soundsystem, Shy Child, and Ladytron. All those bands mentioned started much earlier than 2009 and were playing synth pop (they all started circa 2001). Worth revising by anyone who gives a damn.
 * I was convinced and give a damn and made major renovations to the sections based on what the article actually says. This was done to get the ball rolling. My hope is that people more knowledgeable then myself will build on my renovations and make these era's more accurate (based on reliable citing of course). The 21st Century section is really just a list of acts that use synths which who may or may not be synthpop. The section really needs to be expanded to explain how the sound evolved, how the popularity started to build culminating in the 1980's type popularity since 2009. I have noticed in the last year a lot of hybrid indie rock/synthpop acts becoming popular. Is their a genre definition for this? Anyway the article should acknowledge this.
 * Concerned fan January 20, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.141.253 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Technology
I think the changes in technology in 80s and current dsp and affordable stuff has a lot to do. Moog is already mentioned (as is the mellotron which to me I do not equate with this style of music). I think the 80s stuff can be characterized by midi D-Osc synth (digitally controlled oscillators) and the current wave can be thought to be largely driven by DSP technology. If one is to generalize.

Western Centric
There are many japanese synthpop groups that performed from the 70s straight through until today that do not fit into the western "era's" mentioned. Yellow Magic Orchestra is one of those.

Reverting List creep
I took the unusual action of taking out some acts that were synthpop and reliably sourced to revert list creep which could end up eventually making the article hard to read. We have a list for any synthpop group that received any type of notoriety at all. Acts listed in a genre article should only be the most popular or influential. I took out Japan and Bannanarama for being noted more for some other genre. Propaganda, Celebrate the Nun, The Communards, and Camouflage for RELATIVE lack of popularity. Real Life falls into the one hit wonder category but I left them in because they are seemingly constantly played during 80's formatted programs. Of course this is a subjective judgments by me that are not set in stone. Feel free to argue why a group should be put back in or should have been taken out Edkollin (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

New Order/ classification between Synth pop and New Wave?
There are a hundreds of categories and more being invented by people everyday. not that synth opo is a new term .I always thought synth pop as more sugary...maybe closer to dream pop. Depeche Mode is the best example to synthpop. Maybe the later years odf New order could be syth pop. New order defies category. Probably New wave which synth pop is a part of. Without their extended dance club mixes, New order was difficult and challenging pop,...Like Sucide, a punk band using syths. And they originally started out as a punk bank.....so whats the classification between Synth pop and New Wave.Starbwoy (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic has been extensively discussed in the New Wave articles. For the most part it depends on where you live. In the United Kingdom synthpop is generally considered a separate genre from New Wave because its roots are more in glam rock and disco then New Wave while had pop elements but was rooted in punk. Very early synthpop acts from around 1978 and 1979 like Gary Numan/Devo and early Human League are considered part of the New Wave because the music was stripped down,fierce and challenging thus punk influenced at least in attitude. Act from the New Romantic era(1981-1982) onward like the Human League when they became really popular, Depeche Mode, Dead or Alive had straight pop themes, dressed up and were not anti establishment thus not punk in most ways with the exception that most of the synthpop musicians got there start in the punk era. In the United States unlike the United Kingdom the original punk and new wave acts were considered on the fringe. Synthpop became very popular around 1982 thanks to MTV and a handful of influential alternative rock stations. Any non metal, dance or hip hop act were labeled "New Wave" at some point. 1980's Synthpop in the United States is generally considered the predominant sub genre of New Wave. I imagine in Canada the classifications were similar to those in the U.S.
 * Suicide is another case because their music was not "pop" in anyway. I have seen them labeled synthrock,synthpunk, post-punk. Edkollin (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Synthpop
significant overlap, no citations to support the notion that this is somehow a "genre" distinct from synthpop. See here for possible reason for this confusion, it boils down to a difference in journalistic terminology used in the US at the time, relative to that employed in the UK (the latter being the main exporter of synthpop in the early 80s). It is exactly the same genre of the music that is being referred to, but if someone can come up with valid citations that support a clear distinction, all the better. --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been floated several times. Can we actually do it this time and sort out the confusion. There is good evidence here that they are different terms for the same thing. If there are differences of emphasis we can deal with those in the article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree merger is a good idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Synthpop is a completely different genre in my opinion. But if you guys want to merge, it's up to you. Sinfully Wickid (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment we have evidence that they are the same, if you have any evidence to the contrary now would be a good time to present it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was considered a sub genre in the 1980s. This is 2011 and I have seen no evidence that it is considered distinct now. Edkollin (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Synthpop has sort of evolved into Electropop, I agree. But Disco has evolved into house. Doesn't mean that they still aren't two genres. Sinfully Wickid (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please supply evidence. Also it would help if you used colons to indent in a discussion rather than stars which create a bullet point.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But house acts late 1980's forward are described as "house" not "disco". "Synthpop" and "Electropop" seemed to be used in 2011 interchangeably.(Electropop used more,"indie dance" occasionally in the U.S.) Don't have a problem with the merged article saying they used to be distinct if reliable sourcing can be found, which will be tough. Edkollin (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the merge. --Waldir talk 18:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is consensus, can we go ahead with the merger or are other steps needed? If so, I'm volunteering to write the merged article but I'd like others who know more than me to help me with it and give advice; but I have other projects so I can't do it right away, but soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its probably a good idea to wait for 5-7 days as a minimum, since not everyone checks Wikipedia on a daily basis.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've never done this before, so please forgive me for any formatting errors. I've currently been doing an assignment on Electropop, and coincidentally, the differences from Synthpop. Now, I've not found much, but the only definitive source which differentiates between the two is. However, after listening to pieces listed as either for some time, there IS a slight difference in sound-based texture. Unlike the articles given, I find that synth-pop further exploits the sensation of artificiality, and generally electro-pop is more melodic. This is not definitive, and an actual musicologist should be found. In any case, a merger would severely mess up the information I am compiling right now, which I may share if I remember once I finish. To also mess things further up, t should also be noted that this info. states electropop and disco as the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.230.167 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lady Gaga Book is a book about her not necessarily about the genre so a complementary source might be needed. The other is a textbook for budding musicians so would carry some weight and yes does mess things up as no source directly says the terms are the same thing. Whatever the future holds the Hollin Jones book does provide a source for many things that have been uncited and adds some electropop groups and electropop influenced groups we don't list so a rewrote parts of the article we do have based on the book. Edkollin (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First stage of merger complete. --Semitransgenic (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job. Its looking better than the other two already. I will give some time for you to finish sorting out and improving then see if there is anything I can help with later.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * have tagged for time being, needs a lot of work, would suggest pulling in any RS content that can be found in related articles to flesh it out more. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good plan. I will take a look around.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Parralox
Put Parralox in the Electropop area:

http://perezhilton.com/2009-02-11-listen-to-this-10

http://parralox-music.blogspot.com/2010/08/parralox-supermagic-promotional-video.html

http://www.electricity-club.co.uk/html/tec_30.html

http://www.myspace.com/parralox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.11.190 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They don't appear to be notable enough for their own article. Also please read WP:RS.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Parralox we are signed by Warners Scandinavia, their music has been used by Vogue Italy and Marina Rinaldi, in two films in America too. And our new cover of Creep will be featured exclusively by Perez Hilton.com. Also Ian Burden from Human League has played bass on their last two albums. I´m collecting all the links and info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.150.245 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just make sure the links are reliable. Personal webpages, blogs or social media are not considered reliable. Edkollin (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger over?
I think it's time to tale out the merger special comments and warnings. There has been a normal or regular amount of activity for a few weeks now. Edkollin (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think we have probably moved on to cleanup and standardisation.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having said that, checking through citations results in some fairly substantial issues coming up and has pointed up some major gaps in the coverage. I would appreciate keeping the tag a bit longer while I try to sort those out.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its gone anyway, but nevermind. Just to put on notice that I am now working on cleaning up the final "Revival" section. I am going to cut down the very long list of acts and separate the revival acts from the ones who were influenced by or sampling synthpop and introduce some kind of framework that makes the pattern of the revival clearer. If there are any objections or points on that it would be useful to post about it here.-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Synthpop "influenced" acts should be in a separate paragraph about the influence with three or four(this number not set in stone) of the most notable influenced acts listed.
 * An act that has one synthpop song or synthpop influenced song or album should not be listed here or in the list for that matter. An exception might be an extreamly notable album.
 * Good work so far. The merger warning is coming back for a few days because substantial work is still being done and this articles history of list creep and unsourced additions. Edkollin (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and a good move I think as list creep is a major problem. I am going to take the citations (and any bands not listed there) off to List of synthpop artists, which is really the place for endless lists, when I have formed something more encyclopedic.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This now done, but I am not quite sure if I have the placing of various statements quite right - the complication being that movements don't conveniently fit in to decades, so it would be good if regular editors could take a look at that. I will come back to it when a bit of time has passed and I can be more objective. I am now going to focus on redoing the lead, as at the moment it is not a good summary of the article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the merger is done. Era's can never be perfect. Will take warning message out put this up for Wikipedia good article. Edkollin (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I will try to find time to finish archiving online citations soon.-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to save anyone from duplicating the work, I have decided to place all the citations in one standard template. It is a long job with a lot of saves, so I will post it in major chunks.-- SabreBD  (talk)  10:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That now done. They are all on the same template and websites are archived. This is a higher standard than demanded by GA status.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Caption for Ladytron pic
I have no idea why this caption has been singled out for attention, but the relevant sections of the MOS/Captions are: that "sometimes the date of the image is important", which I would argue it the case, given that the band, like many, have changed their visual image, and "most captions are not grammatically complete sentences". There is certainly nothing in the MOS that indicates they must be sentences or that dates are irrelevant.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)