Talk:Post-punk

Etymological origins on post-punk

So I've made a lot of edits recently on this, reading the full Jon Savage New Musick article from 26 November 1977, you will see that the article was his proposition for a new genre, it was his manifesto for "new musick" which would later be known as "post-punk". The article was similar to other punk history articles of the time, like Lester Bangs' Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung or Greg Shaw's writings from 1971-76 or anything from Creem.

Basically, the term "post punk" in that article is just used to describe the emerging period, while "new musick" was Savage's term for the genre. I've added a lot of the info from that article since it outlines what Savage regarded as being influences on post-punk or progenitors back in 1977.

I want to add early mentions of post-punk from 1977-78 by other writers like Paul Morley onto the etymology section too to better flesh out an image of how that term grew. It seems it was initially used by a few writers alongside new musick at the time, but then kind of fell out of prominence outside of marginal wrtiers as new wave music became the de-facto catch-all for everything from synth-pop, post-punk, minimal wave... etc. By the mid-to late 1980s, "new wave" falls out of prominence as other alternative music genres emerge, and then returns in the 1990s and 2000s amidst the post-punk revival where it becomes a more popular term. I'll add more sources soon. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally see it as an unnecessary complication of basic things. I'll just copy-paste my reasoning from the edit history :

it's doubtful Savage coined the term "new musick." "Musick" is an old-fashioned spelling of "music" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musick). The term "New Music" itself existed long before Savage's article – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Musik

P.S. I doubt you read the whole article of Savage, Aradicus77. At least, not carefully. Buf92 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually I'm starting to think that new musick is very similar to positive punk as a term that no one else really used besides the coiner of the term / publication so I'm going to amend the etymology section to specifically just be about "post-punk" and cut down on Savage being the one to coin the style or term. His coinage of "new musick" was an important stepping stone on what became post-punk but not quite it

Also what's with your tone mane? I'm just tryna submit suggestions why does every wikipedia entry have to have some guy try to start a fight, do you guys not love music? Do you not want to find sources to history and see what went down? Is this not what rushes your blood and makes you jump with glee everytime you listen to your favorite genres? Aradicus77 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

B) Aradicus77 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

>why does every wikipedia entry have to have some guy try to start a fight

Maybe that's because your edits tend to be rushed, and therefore not very valid for those guys? Worth thinking. Buf92 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

what is rushed bro, the main friction here is that I've always been reading that New Musick source through a scan by Savage on Twitter. I never knew there was an entry on that site you linked, which is where I saw the second half of the source. You corrected the issue and I thanked you and even said so on your talk page, but you keep tryna start a fight for no reason lol acting like Wikipedia is the Library of Alexandria when all it does is compile and paraphrase available sources Aradicus77 (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

> I never knew there was an entry on that site you linked

If you saw the phrase "the feelies" in his article, then you had the right page – you didn't need the other one. You simply made those sloppy mistakes (with feelies and New Musick) because you rush when editing, without giving things a second thought, which basically leads to WP:NOR. I can understand other editors' frustration with such an approach. Buf92 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Several remarks

Adding a wp:secondary source is mandatory for an analysis or to assert one thing: if there isn't a secondary source for advancing this author "coined" that, it is problematic per wp:NOR.

Including large excerpts from one source is considered wp:copyright infringement. It is therefore better to quote only the necessary.

"Etymology" is not the right section to namedrop the influences for the genre, as there is an Influence section below in the article for that to cover those acts who inspired the post-punk artists. Woovee (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there are large excerpts from one source, which creates clutter. I'm not sure what editorial reasoning was behind that decision. Buf92 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

All mention of "coining" has been removed since it's not even relevant. Other music genre pages don't use that language that much. At the same time, the current quotations are relevant because it first illustrates that Savage used "new musick" to refer to a plethora of bands and also the quote on what he felt brought about the style of music is important. But if anyone wants to trim it feel free, I did a lot of trimming to that section and from what you are saying Buf maybe it needs some more.

I just don't understand this authoritative angle of feeling like I'm not here to help and here to disrupt. It's bloody annoying Aradicus77 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

And how many times have I got to tell you not everyone has read Brave New World what is your obsession with that feelies thing Aradicus77 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

First, I didn't read Brave New World either. But I quickly understood he surely didn't mean the band The Feelies. So I tried to dig deeper to understand what he might mean, and I used AI's help, which pointed to the "feelies" from the book. Nothing complicated here. I'm not obsessed with that word. I just wonder why you couldn't try to determine what he meant before making your edit. He used "the feelies" in lowercase not for nothing.

Second, the current quotations look like clutter, honestly. There are too many of them with all those blue wikilinks. This could all be paraphrased in a few sentences with a few key quotes. I personally liked the paragraph at this stage: .

I wasn't going to trim it myself because I was expecting your back-and-forth (I've seen enough of you not being able to decide whether Savage "coined" the term, "defined" it, or something else). Luckily, that was dealt with, and the Lead looks okay. Buf92 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You do know articles are constantly changing? If you have a problem with something edit it. Who is going to back and forth you ? Legit never reverted anything you added.

Your old revision cherry-picks what Savage labelled "new musick". This new version I didn't want to paraphrase that much since it would also omit info, so the quotations at the moment is the amount I thought was enough to trim it to, unless someone else wants to have a go. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

OK I did a big trim. I think I might start working on a draft for New Musick being its own article because I'm finding a lot of information about that term and how it was more of an early development that would give way for what post-punk was, sources from Reynolds and Haddon seem to be the biggest in pushing new musick as this early Germanic form of rock music that thought American-isms were the devil and brought the mechanical, robotic, nihilist, dark, cold and bleak conventions that we associate with post-punk today. Following Eastern Bloc and Third Reich chic, outfits you would see be paid homaged to by Banshees, Joy Division, Bowie... etc. There was also a time new musick was used to refer to the Berlin cohorts (Bowie, Eno, Pop) Just lots of interesting stuff that is in big omission on this article. I know Wikipedia is probably not even the best place to fully convey this info anyway but I'd like it to be a bit more accessible to gain this. It seems someone in 2011 had also pointed out how it was wrong to merge post-punk and new musick onto one article and I'm starting to see that right now. There definitely needs to be a split so all this can be talked about more without it feeling like I'm cluttering the etymology section. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

All in all. I'll revert the section back to the one you linked, and save the info I gathered for a new musick article. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

At first look, the current version looks better than the previous one. Buf92 (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm only not sure if "New Musick" deserves its own article. It's not like some philosophical treatise or in-depth music essay, just an article from a popular magazine. Buf92 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Anything with adequate sources has an article on Wikipedia. See brainrot or 6-7 (meme). Who says that can have articles yet new musick can't? Post-punk is such a vast genre that you need entire articles to explain little microcosms like this to get a better understanding of it years down the line. This very article misses out the ideological warfare between the elitist excess that was perceived in new musick and the humble "authenticity" associated with punk. I don't want to cram it all here so given those sources talk about "new musick" it's best as its own article Draft:New musick Aradicus77 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In Etymology, this part "Article entitled New Musick: The Cold Wave" is not supported by a wp:secondary source.

"New musick: the cold wave" was the caption appearing on the front cover of that Sounds issue to illustrate a full-page picture of the band Kraftwerk

Advancing there is an "Article entitled New Musick: The Cold Wave" is an inaccurate fact per wp:nor. Woovee (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The title seems to just be "New Musick" according to this scan, "New Musick: The Cold Wave" was a front cover caption as Woovee says. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Edits overload

Aradicus77, could you take it easy and make fewer edits at once? I don't know if anyone told you this before, but it's hard, time-consuming, and usually pointless to track the long trail of edits you leave. At the very least, take your time to fill in the summary box after your edits. It might help slow you down a bit. Buf92 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Upd. It's a bit sad to admit, but I'm honestly losing hope this article will ever improve while editors like you, Aradicus77, are on board. Fixing such edits is the apogee of everything I've seen. And again, a whole series of edits with zero information in the summary boxes. Can it be considered as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? Buf92 (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

What is your problem bro, if you think adding across "Eastern Europe" is redundant then remove it and I will thank you. I'm not out here to fight you, why do you keep trying to make friction out of nothing? Do you think everyone speaks your language or something? I don't see why you nitpick little typos as if that's some kind of unforgivable mistake on this site to a user who has contributed a great deal to these pages Aradicus77 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

My problem, bro, is that I constantly see you flood the article (and not only this one, but I'm talking about this one now) with small, usually low-value changes in large quantities at once, with mostly empty summary boxes. I don't need your thank-you. I need you to stop flooding the page with such silly edits as the one I've just fixed, and try to fill in the summary boxes with brief descriptions of what has been changed, so others don't have to deal with all this mess after your editing rush. Do you understand that silly or low-value edits in large quantities over a short period of time reduce article quality and may constitute disruptive editing under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing?

I'm really considering whether I should take this to the DE noticeboard if you don't change your approach. Buf92 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about low value changes, I literally wrote the whole mention of regional scenes and modern developments like crank wave, windmill scene and doomerwave in the lead. I added the entire regional scenes section I added the entire extra genres section. Added mentions of landfill indie and indie sleaze. Wrote the entire influences section. Introduced the Sex Pistols Lesser Free Trade Hall performance as a pivotal moment, split the origins into a background section for pre-1977 developments. I added the whole mention of new musick. Are you ragebaiting bro? This article was like 20 years behind before I worked hard on it. YOU are nitpicking little fixable typos. And I've thanked literally almost 90% of your contributions here so far as it's refreshing to finally have an active editor contributing info to this page than just copyediting.

You are free to report whatever you want. I've told you numerous times I have no problem with you. If your only evidence of disruptive edits is random typos then wow dude lol good luck

The only thing is yes I should try not edit so quick. That's one thing I can take on from your advice, but not all these baseless threats. Also on your time consuming point. Please read WP:NOTOBLIGED."You are not obliged to edit wikipedia" you are speaking as if I'm making you have to go through my edits. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

only evidence of disruptive edits is random typos

It's not just random typos – don't belittle the issue. Listing Serbia and Bosnia among Soviet Union republics is not a typo; "fixing" my edit just to add the unnecessary and historically wrong phrase "and others across Eastern Europe" when all the Eastern European republics (except Moldova) had already been listed is not a typo. It's ignorance, if you ask any school history teacher. How can anyone trust the edits you mention here if you can't even write Jon Savage's article name correctly, so others have to fix it ?

I'm not obliged to edit WP, you're right, but you must verify your edits, because as W:EP says, "a lack of content is better than misleading or false content." Worth thinking.

I'm inviting Binksternet, Issan Sumisu, AwerDiWeGo, Valboo to comment if they have anything to add on this issue. Buf92 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with someone who makes many edits in a row. The annoyance for me isn't that great. Edit summaries are necessary, though, to communicate to other editors. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is that Aradicus77's edits, from what I've managed to see, contain basic factual errors, which any schooler is expected to know. Like, with listing Serbia and Bosnia under the Soviet Union alongside republics like Russia and Estonia. (I assume this was his original edit). Then I remove Serbia and Bosnia and expand the list with accurate republics (Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, etc.):

During the 1970s and 1980s, under the Soviet Union, an underground music scene influenced by the post‑punk pioneers in the West developed in republics such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and others.

Nothing more to add; all republics are basically listed. But for Aradicus77, that wasn't enough and he decided to "improve" the list by adding the redundant and silly "and others across Eastern Europe.":

During the 1970s and 1980s, under the Soviet Union, an underground music scene influenced by post‑punk pioneers in the West developed in republics such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and others across Eastern Europe.

There are other basic errors in his edits, like not being able to give the correct title of Jon Savage's article, so Woove has to fix it, or adding band The Feelies when Savage never mentioned them in his article. Those would be okay on their own, but they show a general pattern, and with a flood of edits usually coming from him over a short period of time, I don't think it helps the article improve. He seems not to value accuracy, but works on quantity. Thanks for your comment. Buf92 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You are lying. "the feelies" is said by Savage in the article, but I have never read Brave New World so I had no idea it was a reference to that. You said you used AI to tell you that so why are you saying something every "schooler" would know. You are just someone looking for trouble. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Easy on lying. I didn't read Brave New World either. But I quickly managed to determine that "the feelies" Savage used in his article are not The Feelies, the band. So I don't lie about that, his article doesn't mention this band. Buf92 (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You are lying because you are making it look like I added that band out of nowhere, when it's an honest mistake, and you keep stressing on it to try to make it look to whoever is just glancing these conversations to think I'm the one initiating conflict. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Please turn on some critical thinking. Yes, you added that band out of nowhere, period. You saw the word in his article, thought he was referring to The Feelies, and decided to put it into the article. That's it. Where the heck am I lying here?! I believe it was an honest mistake, but it was still a mistake made in a hurry. You didn’t initiate the conflict. I raised the issue because, for me, the Soviet Union thing was the apogee. I wanted to let you know not to rush edits so much, because it inevitably leads to sloppy mistakes. Buf92 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

YOU turn on some critical thinking. You are stepping out of line being antagonistic for something that could have been solved by a "hey I noticed you added the Feelies by mistake, it wasn't referring to it, I amended it". Same thing for the Eastern Europe mistake. I've noticed I think you are so angry about that one because its been contentious to use the term "Eastern Europe" hey I'm not from there so I didn't know that. You are the one starting long threads over something that could have been solved by a simple decent heads up. You are the one making bad-faith assumptions. Which is against the rules. You are the one being disruptive. Talk pages aren't to hog on one specific user, it's to talk about ways to improve an article. For a guy who's only been on the site for a month you have an awful lot of authoritative talking as if you own the place. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

My critical thinking tells me that in the age of Google it shouldn't take much to check which countries were part of the USSR, so it's a weak excuse. You're calling me a liar, but I haven't heard where I've lied. Anyway, it doesn't matter now. I only wonder for what reason you were banned in the past. Buf92 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm more of a "brash" editor, making a lot of pages and edits all the time. Yes I will take some advice in having summaries and stuff like that but also bare with me as I've told you numerous times. I'd like it if we were all working together to expand pages instead of it feeling like enemies to walk on eggshells around. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You told me a few times you want cooperative editing. I've heard you, but I don't recall ever being against it. At the same time, I've just pointed out your editing style, which could be improved if you double-check your edits. You seem to have had a history of WP:OR, for which you were banned in the past, so this whole thread doesn't come from nothing. I hope this discussion will lead to something. Buf92 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The WP:OR was something that happened in 2023, when I was 16 and didn't know how to use Wikipedia. Now I've contributed a lot that people have praised me for. The recent ban this year was because of an issue with another editor on this page. You have been here for only 1 month. I don't want to accuse you of being a ban evading user but that's just odd to me you seem to just be acting in bad-faith against me for no reason. Everything I've added to this page is sourced. YOU are the one saying to use AI and at Shoegaze were using AI to conjure up sources that didn't exist. If anything this thread should lead is to some kind of action against the way you have been editing. Not even taking the time to do your own research and find stuff out but relying on a chat bot to edit is like another user has pointed out "a serious character flaw" . This is what you are bringing upon yourself by doing this. For whatever reason you can't let bygone be bygones and want to have some kind of drama come your way. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia doesn't work that way where you witch hunt and bring up ban logs from 2 years ago for a topic that isn't even related to post-punk. Everything about what you are doing right now is uncivil. Post-punk talk page is for talk on the topic of post-punk and the page itself, not singling out 1 user. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so you're only 18 now – this explains why it's been so hard to talk with you constructively.

Regarding using AI, you're very, very wrong when you say I was "conjuring up sources that didn't exist". Jeez... I literally told you several times before (including on your Talk page) that I use AI as a search tool (just like I use Google). Reread it if you still don't get it. My sources are all verifiable – books and web articles. You can take your time and check those sources' reliability if you don't believe me, but stop talking nonsense.

I'm not at all concerned about that user's opinion, who apparently has some bias against modern technologies, like you. Either of you can go ahead and report that I use AI as a search tool. Your arguments, Aradicus, are collapsing like a house of cards.

Also, this page, like any other page, is for discussions about page development. I raised my concern about your edits, which are directly related to this page, so please don't tell me how Wikipedia works. You'd better check your edits and fill in the summary boxes.

Wow, look what I just found. You seem to have chosen that user's early edit to prove your point here, when he actually took back his words about "character flaw". So much for bad faith, eh, Aradicus? Buf92 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

"so you're only 18 this explains why its been so hard to talk with you". Admins please do something about this guy, I don't know who this guy thinks he is for only editing for 1 month and starting fights. I'm not talking to you anymore Aradicus77 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

For anyone reading this I wasn't lying about his conjured up sources, he changed them but here is what it was and Aradicus77 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course you're not talking to me. You've run out of arguments – or more precisely, you never had any throughout this long discussion.

What are you trying to prove here? Those Far Out Magazine links? Or the links containing "chatgpt.com" at the end of the URLs? I already discussed them with you on your Talk page – did you forget? I removed the Far Out links almost immediately after you pointed out that this source is considered unreliable on Wikipedia. As a newcomer, I didn't know about that, but I removed all the links myself.

The same goes for sources containing "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" in their URLs. The sources themselves were genuine. Those "chatgpt" mentions in the URLs are called UTM parameters, which simply indicate where the link came from. I just removed those UTM parameters from the URLs, and the issue was solved. I even told you on your Talk page that it wouldn't happen again.

So, do you have any other proof of my supposed bad faith, good-faith Aradicus? Buf92 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The early ideological war of post-punk, punk and new musick in the UK

I've been reading What Is Post-Punk?: Genre and Identity in Avant-Garde Popular Music, 1977–82 by Mimi Haddon (2023), which poses many interesting observations about the nature of the alternative music scene in late 1970s UK that gave rise to post-punk. Much of it centers on the initial tension between post-punk and punk itself. Jon Savage coined his term “new musick” as a way to broaden and evolve punk culture; in his view, infusing intellectualism into punk was a way to push it forward, whereas resisting that evolution meant stagnation. Chas De Whalley, on the other hand, was opposed to Savage, as he feared that post-punk would lead to another progressive rock–style scenario, where an authentic and fresh moment in rock music would once again be co-opted by elitism, viewing the attempt to elevate rock to "high art" through prog and art rock as a failure.

I think it'd be an interesting thing to highlight here. Reynolds also goes over a bit of it in Rip It Up, describing it as warring "post-punk factions" on page 19. This tension informs much of how post-punk was regarded until later on, as the book also highlights how many applied pejoratives to the movement at the time.

Note: the intellectualization of post-punk and new wave would led some American bands to react with the hardcore movement. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Re "the intellectualisation of post-punk and new wave would lead some American bands to react with the hardcore movement" - That makes no sense either grammatically or logically and reeks of gross misunderstanding of sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In this article there are sentences that don't contain any subject before the verb either. Woovee (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind I'm a Spanish speaker. What I'm saying there is that from the source on New Musick from books like England's Dreaming, Jon Savage describes the UK punk scene as fracturing between "arties" and "social realists". The "arties" would be represented by genres such as post-punk, new wave and new musick, who wanted to infuse "progressive" influences into punk, while the social realists felt this was not authentic and undermining the original punk ethos and so split into movements such as Oi!, UK82 and later hardcore. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Now here's a line from the Hardcore punk page. "writers have also attributed hardcore to a reaction against artsy and mellower sub-genres that punk grew into, such as post-punk and new wave".

here are the source: Ellis, Iain (2008). Rebels Wit Attitude: Subversive Rock Humorists. Counterpoint Press. p. 172. ISBN 978-1593762063.

Also read Theo Cateforis book on New Wave, around page 12 or so talks about Oi! and how it was a reaction to new wave and other pompous genres in the UK punk scene, then describing a hardcore takeover.

So please read before you accuse me of "grossly misunderstanding" sources Aradicus77 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Some of the divisions in the music scene seem to have been political in nature. Oi! was meant to appeal to "disenfranchised working-class youth" and to reject the cultural trends associated with university-educated intellectuals. Some of the bands embraced white nationalist politics, while others were opposed to racism and fascism. UK82 featured dystopian depictions of the Cold War and its potential outcomes, and its bands were writing protest songs against Thatcherism.Dimadick (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep 100% Aradicus77 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Post-punk journalism and Art school

I think these are two things that should be given its own sections as they are big potent topics in understanding post-punk. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

No they are not. Create separate articles first to establish notability and then come back here to argue sub-sections. For one thing, there were no such terms as "Post-punk" at the time, much less "Post-punk journalism"...the music only became so defined and grouped in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Post-punk was coined in 1977 and was used verbatim throughout the late 70s and 80s (it's cited in this very article someone had even used the term verbatim in 1976). It just wasn't as widespread as today. There's already a journalism section here in the article anyway supported by Simon Reynolds sources and Mark Fisher has cited that art school grants and culture in the UK is what advanced that whole scene in the first place, which is already supported here by a source that cites Leeds art school culture inspiring Gang of Four, Mekons and Delta 5. Should someone who doesn't know info like this even being making drastic changes here? Aradicus77 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This article needs to address the number of external links per sentence

Many sentences contain two, three, four (even seven) external links, which clutters the text. Wikipedia recommends one link per sentence WP:ELMIN. Buf92 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Most links are bands, artists, news publications or terms like "postmodernism". That stuff is not supposed to be unlinked. The only stuff to be unlinked here would be if a band like "Sex Pistols" were linked more than once, after a word has been linked it shouldn't be linked again later on. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing external links for wikilinks. This article doesn't include any external links other than in references. WP:OVERLINK is the policy on overlinking wikilinks and it says "Most longer articles average somewhere around one link per 20 words", this article currently averages a wikilink every 14 words. Which is more, but the 20 words isn't a rule, it's just an average. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I've confused external links with inline citation links. What I meant is called citation overkill WP:OVERKILL. Several sentences in this article have three to six citations each. I think even two citations per sentence can be excessive if placed one after another, let alone three or four. The thing is, they don't clarify things much and just create clutter. Buf92 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

When there is a trail of several sources ar the end of a sentence, it may be a sign that the claim was not strongly enough suported with one or two sources. It may also mean that the claim is wp:synth and consequently the border with wp:original research may become thin.

I have been accused of own by @Issan Sumisu. So I will stay away from cleaning this article. Woovee (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Other Names

New wave and new musick were used by writers to refer to post-punk groups but they are also their own genres. Should they be mentioned twice in the infobox or? Aradicus77 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd say there's worth in putting it in etymology, but having it in the infobox makes it less readable. Similarly, having new musick as both a synonym and a stylistic origin is contradictory. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

There are many genres that are synonyms as well as stylistic origins (freak folk was an AKA of psychedelic folk but since the 2000s is its own genre though someone added it as an aka on Psychedelic folk which makes it appear twice in the infobox as subgenre and synonym ), but yeah I just don't see that being common practice on Wikipedia so I'll amend the infobox here at least. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It's less about it being "common practice" or anything, and more about it just not making sense. It's saying a genre is the origin of itself, that's not possible. A policy I think you you should keep in mind is WP:NOTEVERYTHING: An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we are having a misunderstanding. Firstly, "new wave" was a term used in the 1970s and 1980s to refer to a lot of what we now call post-punk. This is in itself is its own genre and isn't cited as a stylistic origin here, but at the same time it's also not cited in "other names" even though there's reliable sources making this claim I am stating as you can see here: . Now "new musick" is another example of something that was regarded as another term for post-punk initially in the 1970s, but it was also described as a style of music by several sources as you can see in that correspondent page new musick.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for adding this kind of confusion with doubling the terms in infoboxes. Just pointing out and seeing what is the consensus on such paradoxes with musical taxonomy.

TL;DR: Just wanted to know what was the community's opinion on issues like this not that I want to make drastic changes Aradicus77 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I ended up adding a footnote to clarify Aradicus77 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Why exactly does it need a footnote, when that info is already stated in the body? There's a lot of instances of repeated info on this article, for example, it's mentioned three times that afterpunk is a synonym. Related, I don't really see a need in dedicated sections under "related genres" to either that or new musick, when they mostly clarify they're synonyms (with some slight differences), would these not fit much better only being discussed in etymology? That's the common pratice. That method would form two much more distinct histories: a history of the music; and a history of the term; rather than flipping back and forth at every chance. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It's complicated because "new musick" isn't quite post-punk, it's like an early primordial form of it so I'm not sure if that fits in the etymology section which is specifically for the term "post-punk" not new musick or afterpunk. So I decided to move those to related genres. But you can edit it if you think something should be changed. You said it's "common practice", but common practice on etymology sections is to define the term the article is about. This is a "post-punk" article.

Though I moved afterpunk because it is described as a term though the Spanish sources use the term as a genre synonymous to post-punk. In Spain there was also the term "rock siniestro" which is used in some of the sources. Not sure if any of that people want to encompass here but there's a lot to the post-punk genre that isn't mentioned on this page. Not to say every peripheral piece of info should be here but it shows how the view of the genre is very anglocentric and a big chunk of my edits here where to fix that by adding the regional scenes and terms. Aradicus77 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)