Talk:Shoegaze

Requested move 20 December 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Shoegazing → Shoegaze – Accoding to Google Trends, "Shoegaze" is an, at least 10 times more popular term than "Shoegazing" for referring to this music genre. Also, see its talk page. talk@TRANSviada 21:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). ThrillShow (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Move: (Sorry for the impending wave of text.) I truly believe "shoegazing" is a terribly inaccurate title. Trying to prove that "shoegaze" is the proper name of the genre is almost like trying to prove that the Earth is round. It seems so obvious that figuring out where to begin is a tad difficult. Besides completely anecdotal evidence, I've only heard two real arguments as to why the title shouldn't be changed. First, "shoegazing" is supposedly more popular in Britain. Second, "shoegazing" has some sort of seniorty. I can thoroughly debunk both of these claims.
  
  1. As mentioned earlier, according to Google Trends, "shoegaze" is 10x more popular in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Google returns over 4,000,000 results for "shoegaze" and under 400,000 for "shoegazing."
  2. According to this source (pg. 47), NME was the first major publication to use the name shoegazing/shoegaze. Ostensibly, that should make them the authority on the subject. In the present day, they prefer "shoegaze" (see "The 10 best shoegaze albums ever"). Times change; "shoegazing" is antiquated and was used pejoratively for the genre, which is why most contemporary sources say "shoegaze" instead.
  
  Perhaps this doesn't feel empirical enough. Maybe we need exact numbers from reliable sources. In my manic conquest, I checked every source currently listed on the Wikipedia article. Out of 45 sources, only 5 weren't accessible in some format. On each of the 40 remaining sources, I checked to see if it used "shoegaze," "shoegazing," and/or "shoegazer." The results are overwhelming:
  
  Shoegaze: 26/40
  Shoegazing: 15/40
  Shoegazer: 10/40
  
  Even if we assumed that every source that wasn't accessible to me exclusively said "shoegazing" instead of "shoegaze," the winner would still be "shoegaze." If nothing else, we should at least agree with the sources we cite. ThrillShow (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Clearly the wp:commonname—blindlynx (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support sounds pretty open-and-shut to me. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Local scenes

WTF does “The Scene That Celebrates Itself” mean? KevinML (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Renaming

I see the Americans finally got to rename the page.

Anyway, here's how it used to be in a scan from Melody Maker in October of 1991: file:curve-melody-maker-1991-10-26.jpg

And this 1992-09-12 Melody Maker cover: Whatever Happened to Shoegazing?

I look forward to seeing similar evidence of 'shoegaze' from that period.

Dyaimz (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. As someone following the likes of Slowdive, Chapterhouse and Lush in the very early 90s and an avid reader of NME & 'Melody Maker', When the article makes reference to the particular set of bands operating in the UK at that time - for whom 'Shoegazing' was coined, the use of the more recent US term 'Shoegaze' feels highly anachronistic and inappropriate. I believe the short-lived 90s UK 'Shoegazing' scene was effectively dead (or at least in a deep hibernation) long before the 'Shoegaze' word gained any currency.

Incidentally 'Shoegazing' as a name may have been pejorative, but it wasn't entirely inaccurate, which is probably why it stuck and the unwieldy 'The Scene That Celebrates Itself' was put out to grass. I seem to recall Miki Berenyi's autobiography 'Fingers Crossed' addresses both terms. Breazecatch (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Um... plagiarism??

What does “The Scene That Celebrates Itself” mean? Is that plagiarism, and should I take it down? KevinML (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Breazecatch (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's "Shoegaze", not "Shoegazing"

As it was established in the move decision, the ubiquitous and more popular term for this genre is "shoegaze", not "shoegazing". Shoegazing is outdated, and was used as an insult against shoegaze bands.

Cosanostrapizzaman (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Damn. I always thought it was "shoe gays'" music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

'Ubiquitous' except that I've only really come across it on Wikipedia with its in-built N.American bias.

"Shoegazing is outdated, and was used as an insult against shoegaze (sic) bands" is as ludicrously condescending a sentence as one is likely to find. As if the gerund form is uniquely insulting! As if a 30+ year old name for 30+ year old music is inapropriate. As if you have an absolute right to retrospectively apply nomenclature, one which shall be be denied to those of us who acually treked out to record shops to get those 12-inches & EPs in the week of release, went to sparsely-attended gigs in tiny venues, or set up widely-ignored fan sites on the early internet. So, no, call the 21st century revival what you will: the 90s UK scene from which the name derives was -for better or worse- called Shoegazing. Breazecatch (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Popularity in 2024

My son is really into shoegaze and I guess it's big online right now, maybe a section to revival current day could be good 73.108.105.45 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Any content in an article has to be verifiable for reliable sources. Do you have any suggestions for reliable sources discussing the current popularity of Shoegaze? Donald Albury 02:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen some in melody maker108.93.160.61 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Shoegaze origins section and trimming

There's been friction when trimming sentences in the article and organizing the page through copyediting. I'm opening this talk page to further discuss this. If there are issues with the current article they are discussed and then changes are integrated, not reverted entirely. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit history, @Aradicus77 — since I started editing this page on October 9, what I’ve mainly seen is you engaging in (mostly) redundant trimming and reorganization of already concise, well-structured content I added. Honestly, I haven’t seen you contributing much in relation to new content.

Before I joined, the page was so poorly developed that it didn’t even include Cocteau Twins, The Jesus and Mary Chain, or My Bloody Valentine in the History section.

Here is how the page looked before me () and after my contributions over this short period ().

About the History headings:

1) Forerunners heading: Yesterday, you removed the timeframe from this heading (), even though other genre pages (gothic rock or grunge) include timeframes for their forerunners. As I wrote, I just can’t understand the logic behind this. Why can’t this heading outline a timeframe, while the following headings in the article do?

Your reasoning was: "Feels like way too broad to list it for 60s-80s when this stuff isnt even considered actual shoegaze music" ().

First of all, it wasn’t listed as just "60s–80s." You distorted the original wording a bit, which was "mid-1960s" (to cover all the important psychedelic pop bands) and "to early 1980s" (key post-punk/gothic output such as The Cure’s Pornography).

2) Origins heading: Now about this. My original heading was "Mid-1980s to early 1990s: Origins", to cover dream pop output (like Cocteau Twins) and the so-called "proto-shoegaze"/noise-pop (like The Jesus and Mary Chain). Your reasoning behind your timeframe (1980s-1990s) was — "Cocteau Twins who are cited in the origins section literally have songs from the early 80s" and that you would draw a line from which shoegaze takes its "origins" "after My Bloody Valentine, around 86–'88". I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I included direct quotes (someting not many editors even do here) into my sentences from reliable sources proving that shoegaze’s "origins" go back to Cocteau Twins’ dream pop (1983's Head Over Heels and 1984's Treasure albums) and The Jesus and Mary Chain’s Psychocandy (1985). That's why I outlined the headings' timeframes the way they were. You can watch a YouTube video essay on shoegaze called "Before Loveless: How Shoegaze Became Shoegaze" to better understand what I mean.

Now about your, I'd say, questionable content reorganization assistance..

3) You took a retrospective sourced quote from the "shoegaze godfather" Kevin Shields (My Bloody Valentine) about how many early shoegaze bands drew from Cocteau Twins and put it first in Etymology () and then in Imagery (), when it read just fine within the original History context (about Cocteau Twins' huge influence on all early shoegazers )? Imagery section, you sure? And then you say "you’re being lenient"?..

I was also not allowed to include the sourced statement that "the term shoegaze didn’t yet exist" in the sentence about how The Jesus and Mary Chain laid the foundations for the genre, despite not being labeled as such at the time. No, you need to trim that too , so that the text reads like a telephone book. It's probably me who WP:OWN the page, not you obviously. Buf92 (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Not contributing much in relation to new content" is crazy to say when I'm the one who added the entire forerunners section in the first place... I've made several articles across the site, not sure how much of an argument this is in the first place. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making about the headers. You mentioned that you added the “mid-1980s” label earlier, but there are Cocteau Twins songs from 1983 that have also been described as shoegaze. Also, suggesting I watch a video essay, especially one that largely reiterates information already found on Wikipedia, doesn’t really help clarify your argument.

I moved the Kevin Shields quote from the history section because it doesn’t relate directly to the development of shoegaze. It is more of an anecdotal observation about the sonic qualities associated with the term, particularly regarding effects that My Bloody Valentine hadn’t yet used at the time. I’m still considering whether it fits better under Characteristics or Etymology, but it definitely seems out of place in the History section.

Again, I’ve told you that articles tend to avoid being unnecessarily detailed per WP:TOOMUCH. If you would like to wait for a WP:Third Opinion to weigh in on further edits, that’s fine with me. I have no problem with your contributions. I’ve said several times that you have made some good-faith edits, but you seem to be responding quite antagonistically right now. Additionally, I integrated your edits I didn't revert them, not sure how this constitutes as me doing WP:OWN. I suggest you read on Wikipedia:Basic copyediting Aradicus77 (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the Origins section makes lengthy talk of influences rather than "origins". I still don't know where the split is made between shoegaze proper and what constitutes a "forerunner". As I've said it feels post-Cocteau Twins / JMC or post-MBV would be shoegaze proper. Having yearly header there would be inaccurate. Not sure if to rename it to "forerunners and influences" and somehow split sources that state certain artists "presaged" shoegaze between the artists who are sourced as "influencing" it. At the same time these year splits are confusing because shoegaze's development was not that linear, some important later influences by Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr. and Husker Du would not come until around 86-87, but they would not be considered shoegaze bands. I would have to gather more sources to create a clearer consensus at the moment.Aradicus77 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

>@Aradicus77: "Not contributing much in relation to new content" is crazy to say when I'm the one who added the entire forerunners section in the first place"

That's good, you laid the groundwork. But you can also compare how that section was before me () and after (), even in terms of reorganization, trimming, and providing quoted sources for the sentences. I think it reads way better, but let others judge it.

>@Aradicus77: "you added the “mid-1980s” label earlier, but there are Cocteau Twins songs from 1983 that have also been described as shoegaze."

I already wrote a few times (even on your Talk page ) that there are indeed 1983 outputs, like the album Head over Heels, which is widely considered a starting point for their dream pop sound. But there’s also a more mature work, the album Treasure (1984), which even this source mentions among the "key albums that influenced shoegaze." If you add TJAMC's Psychocandy album (1985), it becomes pretty obvious that the origins timeframe leans more toward the "mid-1980s" and until My Bloody Valentine's Loveless (1991).

>@Aradicus77: "moved the Kevin Shields quote from the history section because it doesn’t relate directly to the development of shoegaze"

He basically gives a historical (retrospective) account of the early shoegaze bands’ influences in relation to Cocteau Twins. Besides, it read well in context, right after mentioning Cocteau Twins themselves. Placing the quote under Characteristics or Etymology feels completely out of place, because Characteristics (in my view) is supposed to provide a general overview of the genre itself, whereas he talks about a specific period in the past rather than general shoegaze characteristics. And Etymology — what does it even have to do with that? I thought Etymology was meant to describe the term "shoegaze" itself.

>@Aradicus77: "you seem to be responding quite antagonistically right now"

I may sound antagonistic, I’m sorry, but that’s because we spend way too much time discussing things that should be too obvious to argue about.

>@Aradicus77: "articles tend to avoid being unnecessarily detailed per WP:TOOMUCH"

That's your opinion. I don't consider that phrasing in the sentence excessive. I think it helps newcomers understand that the term didn’t yet exist when TJAMC released their "proto-shoegaze" album Psychocandy ,. Of course, they can click on the citation link at the end of the sentence (that’s why I put it there) and read about it, but I thought it wouldn’t do any harm to start the sentence like this. Again, in my opinion, the sentence didn't read as "dry" as it does now.

>@Aradicus77: "not sure how this constitutes as me doing WP:OWN"

I was sarcastically using your language addressed to me () because you seem to think I WP:OWN the page. I could say the same thing about you.

>@Aradicus77: "still don't know where the split is made between shoegaze proper and what constitutes a "forerunner""

For me, it's pretty straightforward:

Mid-1960s to early 1980s: Forunners : psychedelic pop / Phil Spector's "wall of sound" / gothic rock (The Cure's Pornography)

Mid-1980s to early 1990s: Origins: Dream pop (Cocteau Twins), "proto-shoegaze"/noise pop (The Jesus and Mary Chain), My Bloody Valentine

Then comes The Scene That Celebrates Itself: Slowdive, Ride, Chapterhouse, Lush, Swervedriver, etc. Buf92 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"I think it’s helpful for newcomers to understand that the term didn’t yet exist when TJAMC" — but please note that this reflects your interpretation. On Wikipedia, we follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, so it’s best to align edits with those guidelines.

I just want to mention (in good faith) that repeatedly reverting edits can fall under WP:Edit warring, which is a blockable behavior, and can also give the impression of WP:OWNership of the page. I’m raising this only to help you avoid potential issues — not as a threat.

I’ve integrated your edits, including reinstating the forerunners year header after reviewing it again. Let’s continue working together constructively — maintaining a collaborative tone is important under WP:CIVIL.

You’ve acknowledged having been a bit antagonistic, and I appreciate that honesty. Just to clarify why I mentioned WP:OWN — some of your comments (such as suggesting that having contributed more recently gives greater editorial authority) could be interpreted that way. I understand this feeling — I had a similar reaction myself when I first started editing and encountered other contributors revising my work. We’re all here to improve the article collaboratively, not to turn editing into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason I removed the statement “although the term shoegaze didn’t exist yet” is that it falls under Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It’s an obvious point that doesn’t need to be stated explicitly. The original sentence, “Scottish band the Jesus and Mary Chain are credited with laying the groundwork that would later define shoegaze,” already conveys that this is a retrospective label — the word “later” makes it clear that the term didn’t exist at the time. This also relates to WP:REDUNDANCY and WP:NOTDICDEF. Again these are not my explicit opinions but just following Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Edits are made based on MOS not personal opinion, the latter would constitute as WP:Original research (and yes I do know the original quote makes mention of "although the term didn't exist yet" but paraphrasing / copyediting is part of trimming redundant / WP:Trivia information in articles, quotes aren't always displayed verbatim. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

>@Aradicus77: "I think it’s helpful for newcomers to understand that the term didn’t yet exist when TJAMC" — but please note that this reflects your interpretation."

I don't know if you read those quotes I put in the citation brackets or not before you rephrased the sentence (probably not, since you're quite busy with editing other music pages), but that phrase didn't reflect my interpretation. It's a rephrasing taken from this source, quote: "While they are often described as shoegaze, the term didn't exist when the band made their hazy experimental masterpiece, Psychocandy."

So the original (my) sentence technically didn’t break any Wikipedia rules, since the information was:

taken from a reliable source (WP:RS)

the wording reflected the source faithfully (no exaggeration or misrepresentation — WP:V, WP:NOR)

it was neutral (WP:NPOV)

Now you say it falls under WP:SKYISBLUE. But if you think about it carefully, is that phrasing really that obvious for an inexperienced reader who wants to learn about shoegaze? As I wrote before, there are people who call TJAMC shoegaze (,), and my source expresses the same idea.

You want to raise WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:REDUNDANCY, but the rules are not about what we’re talking about at all. This is getting a bit funny, honestly. If you don’t believe me, ask AI (it’s a useful tool if you use it correctly). Apparently, you are misapplying Wikipedia guidelines here.

>@Aradicus77: "want to mention...repeatedly reverting edits can fall under WP:Edit warring...give the impression of WP:OWNership...to help you avoid potential issues"

Thanks for advice. I know about 3RR.

>@Aradicus77: "I’ve integrated your edits, including reinstating the forerunners year header"

Thanks. But the original headings were "Mid-1960s to early 1980s: Forerunners" and "Mid-1980s to early 1990s." Those "to early" are important to better (approximately) cover the music genres of those periods. As I wrote above, the early 1980s are needed to cover gothic roots/Pornography and the early 1990s are needed for the album Loveless (1991). The pages goth rock or grunge use the same phrasing in their headings.

>@Aradicus77: "Just to clarify why I mentioned WP:OWN — some of your comments (such as suggesting that having contributed more recently gives greater editorial authority) could be interpreted that way"

You mentioned WP:OWN before my comments on greater editorial contribution. You mentioned it when I reverted your rephrasing in the TJAMC sentence we're talking about above. You can check the page’s edit history.

>@Aradicus77: "working together constructively"

As I wrote to you earlier on your Talk page, "I'm not interested in edit wars. If there’s a good reason for reverting" — fine. In our case with the headings and some of your copyediting decisions, I just didn’t see those. At least the Kevin Shields quote is now in a bit better place than it was in Characteristics, although I still think it looked more organic where it originally was. For the position you chose for this quote, I have an idea: to place a quote from Steve Sutherland, who coined the phrase "The Scene That Celebrates Itself." He was actually misinterpreted by the press, and he later explained that he meant the phrase in a good way. We'll see. Buf92 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Man you are telling me to ask AI? AI who's a hype man to whatever you say? It will literally always agree with you and barely challenges your arguments. I could ask for assistance from other editors to see what they think but I've been respectful and given you my viewpoint on the matter. User:Binksternet, User:Issan Sumisu. Aradicus77 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Goth rock page also does not use the year heading your claiming and neither does grunge. Again I mentioned WP:OWN because I literally made 3 edits that were all followed by a revert by you. Read on the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement... Aradicus77 (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You can add whatever you want. I'm not stopping you lol the main thing is that when someone edits a page I usually just do some copyediting and that's it. Not saying you have to agree with all my decisions, but I'm not making them willy nilly and disrupting the flow of the article. I'm trying to make it clearer according to WP:MOS. I've done this for hundreds of articles. My problem with your replies is that you feel as if I came to vandalize your edits or I'm preventing you from editing or something. It makes no sense that any copy edit I make is reverted by you. Fair if maybe some you disagree with, but man you were literally removing every single edit I made. Aradicus77 (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

>@Aradicus77: "telling me to ask AI?"

Yes, you can try. As I said above, it's a useful tool if used correctly (like a search tool). I know from experience that it often acts agreeably, like a hype man (it can be managed though), but in this case with the Wikipedia guidelines, to spare myself time reading those guidelines, I asked AI about them, and it found that my sentence met all the guideline criteria. I asked it about every single WP you raised, and it turned out that it's more like your personal preference not to include the sentence in the original wording.

>@Aradicus77: "I've been respectful and given you my viewpoint on the matter"

You raised a few WPs to support your viewpoint, though I think you should be more careful with them in the future. Other than that, you were respectful.

>@Aradicus77: "Goth rock page also does not use the year heading your claiming and neither does grunge"

Oh sorry, my first small slip (I just got a bit tired of this argument, I’m not gonna lie). Goth rock and grunge don’t use that phrasing — Heavy metal music does. I just kept mentioning the goth rock and grunge pages to support my argument that they all have timeframes in their "Forerunners" headings (at the time when you thought the Shoegaze page shouldn’t).

The phrasing with "to early" in the headings — "Mid-1960s to early 1980s: Forerunners" and "Mid-1980s to early 1990s: Origins" — just neatly covers the musical output we were talking about above in this thread, and it could draw from Heavy metal's History section.

>@Aradicus77: "I mentioned WP:OWN because I literally made 3 edits that were all followed by a revert by you"

First (above in the thread), you said you mentioned WP:OWN due to some of my comments about who contributed most to this page. Now you say you mentioned WP:OWN because I made 3 reverts. Did I actually make 3 reverts? I don’t remember, but if I did, that’s because I couldn’t understand your reasoning behind some of the decisions we're now discussing. I gave up on reverting further because, as I said, I’m not very interested in it, and I know about 3RR.

>@Aradicus77: "I'm not making them willy nilly"

Honestly, at the time, I had a bit of a different impression about some of your copyediting decisions, and we've already discussed them here, and I’ve given, I think, quite a good explanation. You often mention WP:MOS, but honestly, I think you could examine it a bit more thoroughly yourself. You seem to be very busy with other music pages, so, from what I’ve personally noticed (just a personal observation), you’re not always quite careful with details. Don’t take this as a personal critique, no. Managing several pages can split anyone’s attention. Buf92 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead rewriting

The current lead needs rewriting to encompass recent developments and be clear, information should be sourced in the body with no links in the lead per WP:LEAD Aradicus77 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

History

There seems to be not much mention of the first writer to coin the term "shoegaze" in the history section. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Shitgaze being an offshoot/subgenre of shoegaze is an original research

I checked all the sources in this article related to shitgaze, and none of them suggests that shitgaze was/is a shoegaze offshoot or subgenre:

– this source says the term "shitgaze" mostly existed as a journalistic "pun on shoegaze." No mention is made that shitgaze had anything in common (musically) with shoegaze, apart from this play on words.

– this one doesn't connect shitgaze with shoegaze either. It even differentiates them by saying, "Neighbourhood Council is more shoegaze than shitgaze."

– Vice doesn't use the word "shoegaze" in its article at all.

– Pitchfork's article overview on microgenres presents shitgaze as "a made-up style," rooted in "the scuzzy, lo-fi guitar pop" of American bands like Psychedelic Horseshit, Times New Viking, Vivian Girls, and "other likeminded acts." No connection with shoegaze is implied.

– another Pitchfork article. All the same, no mention of the word "shoegaze" or any connection with shitgaze.

I think it's more than clear that shitgaze has nothing to do with shoegaze (apart from sharing the 'gaze' in its name), and therefore should be removed per wp:nor. Buf92 (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Proto-shoegaze removal?

Why are a big chunk of the proto-shoegaze edits been removed? Citations of Brian Eno, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Robert Smith's guitar work with the Cure and the Banshees, Robert Fripp on Bowie's Heroes which were all sourced have all been removed. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

1) Brian Eno's 1974 debut album Here Come the Warm Jets has been retrospectively viewed as a forerunner to shoegaze.

This claim is a subjective opinion made by a person who doesn't have any connection to shoegaze. The Vinyl Factory is also more of a record label than an established music source like Pitchfork or The Quietus. His view that Eno "invented shoegaze" is a minority view, and per WP:UNDUE, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

2) Slowdive, who were fans of Eno's work, approached him to produce their album Souvlaki. Although he declined to produce, he spent a few days recording with the band, resulting in the tracks "Sing" and "Here She Comes".

This sentence obviously belongs to Slowdive's personal article or the article dedicated to Souvlaki. It doesn't belong in the "Roots and early influences" section.

3) Slowdive named themselves after the Siouxsie and the Banshees song of the same name, released in 1982, and took inspiration from the group in their early days, while Lush were originally called "The Baby Machines", a name taken from a Banshees lyric.

It's trivia, and it doesn't relate to the early sonic development of shoegaze. Who cares what Slowdive or Lush named their bands after?

4) Other influences include Robert Fripp's echo-laden guitar on David Bowie's 1977 song "Heroes".

Again, a minority view per WP:UNDUE. I have two books on shoegaze history at my disposal, and neither of them even mention David Bowie, let alone the song "Heroes". the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

5) The Eagle is a local student-run newspaper, and per WP:NEWSORG it can be considered "less reliable for statements of fact". I mentioned it's a student paper here: .

6) The founder of Creation Records, Alan McGee described early shoegaze acts as revitalizing "the psychedelic space rock of the '60s",while citing the Velvet Underground, Hawkwind and the Beatles' "Flying".

Alan McGee didn't say this. This sentence exists in the book, but it's not said by McGee and not in relation to shoegaze bands, but Spacemen 3 and Loop. Sorry, Aradicus, but I'll say it straight: misrepresenting reliable sources or performing original research, which I know you still have a history with, is either a sign of a disruptive editor (per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) or a lack of competence. Buf92 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In the book that I downloaded it says that Alan McGee said it. If it's a mistake that's a mistake man. I don't know why you always have to demonize someone, Wikipedia is literally built on good faith assumptions. I won't add back the stuff but you seem to be bullying and hogging this article a lot. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have a PDF copy of this book. He doesn't say the sentence you wanted to add. The sentence is said by the author of the book and not in reference to shoegaze bands, but Spacemen 3 and Loop. Wikipedia is built on a good-faith assumption, but Wikipedia also requires competence in accurately presenting original sources, which you almost constantly fail to do. Just have a look at the Shitgaze original research you conducted earlier on this page, which I had to clean up. (it's just one example). But it's enough, I'm reporting you to WP:ANI on lack of competence. Buf92 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The page 24-25 literally says "Alan McGee (Creation Records): When I went to sign them...." Aradicus77 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The sentence being referenced appears in the next paragraph after the Alan McGee quote.

Alan McGee (Creation Records): When I went to sign them, I never even knew they had great songs. At first it was just a great noise. It was extreme.

One step behind the Mary Chain and one step ahead of shoegaze were Spacemen 3 and Loop—two fiercely independent and criminally underrated groups from provincial towns in England who released their first albums in 1986 and 1987, respectively. Eschewing all pop sensibilities, these bands revitalized the psychedelic space rock of the ’60s—think the Velvet Underground, Hawkwind, or the Beatles’ “Flying”—by leaning into droning, heavy, distorted guitar trips that were also openly drug-influenced, none more explicitly than with Spacemen 3’s 1990 release, Taking Drugs to Make Music to Take Drugs To.

The entire second paragraph is not Alan McGee, it's the author of the book. The McGee quote ends with the first paragraph. Echoedits67 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That's fine. The ePUB I have at the moment cuts it into the next page in a weird way. But that wasn't even something I was trying to keep on the article. My problem with this guy is him being incessant of trying to get me to stop editing this article. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to ping you on WP:ANI regarding your recent corrections of original research by Aradicus77 on the post-noise article, which you described on the article's Talk page. It seems his editing approach hasn't changed, based on your last edit . I've personally had enough of this editor's competency – he's unable to work with sources. Buf92 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Do it then bro. You have nothing on me that's substantial. Little ce corrections on pages that I've edited 90% of the information is worthy of ANI? Lol ok. The post-noise article is one I even made, it was helpful to have a 2nd editor help flesh it out. You want to demonize the help and make it look like I was doing WP:OR. If you report me to ANI I will propose an interaction ban between me and you, since it seems you are specifically targeting me on articles, even going on pages like post-noise to rally up editors against me. This will prevent you from addressing me on articles or interacting with me on my talk page FYI. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You are so wrong man. Look at this . Here is my initial edit of that sentence "In December 2010, writer Ed Jupp would criticize the terms in a review of Twin Shadow:"

Someone else changed the wording to the other thing. I can't wait to see you make your report. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah go threaten fellow editors trying to improve articles and flag them as being disruptive. I'm not even attacking you, you are pushing me to have to say something because everytime I make an edit on this page you remove it. Wikipedia:WikiBullying Aradicus77 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

"There are experts, or those otherwise very knowledgeable of a topic, in every field who create and make major contributions to the articles relating to that topic. They may be familiar with where to find sources of information to establish notability and vouch for accuracy, and have better overall knowledge (see WP:STEWARDSHIP). But this does not constitute ownership of any articles. No article on Wikipedia is owned by any editor. Any text that is added to Wikipedia is freely licensed under WP:CC-BY-SA and other users are free to add, remove or modify it at will, provided that such editing is done responsibly. While there may be disagreement, generally consensus will determine the final outcome." Wikipedia:Ownership of content. You don't own the shoegaze page just because you have some books. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You also are ignoring the fact this user reverted your removals before I came back to examine what you had removed. I'm not the only one who sees issues at times with what you are adding. Also what do you mean by "clean up", why are you acting like I wrote this article? I added a few edits here and there and that was it. You are conflating me pushing back and questioning some of your additions as me wanting to keep some kind of version of the article up. All I'm doing is adding information I find once in a while, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. You try to improve articles. I thought you'd know that? You have your own bias in thinking that me adding info here is disruptive. You LIED saying Heroes was "Again, a minority view per WP:UNDUE. I have two books on shoegaze history at my disposal, and neither of them even mention David Bowie, let alone the song "Heroes"."

Your 2 books on shoegaze aren't the end all be all on the genre. I found sources on the Bowie claim just in 2 minutes of searching. If you want to be accusing me of stuff. I'm accusing you of WP:POVPUSH Aradicus77 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually I will add back the stuff. You have too many bad faith assumptions, and it's against the rules. You are not the authority of shoegaze on this site, everyone is free to contribute.

"Eno later produced David Bowie's classic song Heroes, which used the type of noisy production with distorted and reverberated guitars and a dreamy hazy atmosphere all of which became key ingredients of shoegaze."

Discover UK Shoegaze and Dream Pop

A Music Guide to Shoegaze and Dream Pop with Artist Discographies and Biographical Information

By Vernon Joynson · 2023 Aradicus77 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Citing Ryan Pinkard

I have a different edition of Pinkard's Shoegaze book. I might take out the page numbers, since User:Buf92 has complained that the pages don't align to his version of the book. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A simple fix would be to state the edition you're using with "|edition=". Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The page number he provided is still wrong, sadly. Buf92 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe I finally downloaded the right version which stated it was page 99 Aradicus77 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes

I added that writer Ryan Pinkard made the statement on the Tiktok for Gen Z being equal to MySpace for millennials phrase. And anecdotes criticizing Shoegaze from Pinkard's book. User:Issan Sumisu maybe you could aid as a WP:THIRDOPINION? As these were reverted by User:Buf92. Not showing who is making statements for one quotation can breach copyright and second it can misrepresent the source by not showcasing this is the opinion of 1 writer. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Not showing who is making statements for one quotation can breach copyright

Initially, when you decided to add this redundant phrase "writer Ryan Pinkard stated ..." to the sentence you didn't raise a copyright issue. You raised a WP:NOR issue against me, which was totally absurd and a gross misinterpretation of the policy. As I later (today) said, by this logic, the phrase would need to be included in each sentence based on Pinkard's book as well. Buf92 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

In this instance, I totally think "writer Ryan Pinkard" should be included. Not because of copyright, but because of WP:WEASEL: TikTok played a role for Generation Z similar to that what MySpace did for millennials is needlessly vague and nothing meaningful is being said. The clarification that it was made as a part of a larger argument gives clarity. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

When trimmed, the sentence is indeed "needlessly vague and nothing meaningful is being said". But the original wording was: By the early 2020s, TikTok played a role for Generation Z similar to that what MySpace did for millennials in the early 2000s".

I also don't understand why we should single out this one sentence and not start adding this phrase to all (or most) sentences based on Ryan Pinkard's book? We don't want to breach the WP:WEASEL policy, which I'm not sure applies in this specific case. Buf92 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Because the specific sentence being discussed is a part of a larger discussion not covered in the article, making it vague and meaningless without direct attribution. "How is Tiktok the generational equivalent to MySpace?": there's a lot of way that could be interpreted. It is WP:WEASEL to present it as an objective fact and not as one person's interpretation of a specific framework they have set out, which to discuss in more detail would be WP:OOS. Most uses of Pinkard's source are just citing information he states that are within the article's scope, not a theoretical framework out of the scope. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"How is Tiktok the generational equivalent to MySpace?"

In my view, it was hinted in the very first paragraph of the 2000s–2020s: Revival section – "A gradual reassessment began in the early 2000s, driven by new listeners discovering the genre through the internet, including the early social-media platform MySpace."

"In the early 2000s" → "new listeners" → likely millennials Buf92 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Aradicus77 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

What is your opinion on this edit bringing back the criticism expansion Aradicus77 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Listing three bands and two albums in the same order as the book's original sentence doesn't look like a copyright violation Binksternet. I thought at least this thing was cleared up. I hope to hear from you.

Original sentence: "...the experimental art rock of the Velvet Underground, the jagged proto-punk of the Stooges and the MC5, and the underground garage rock found on the Nuggets compilations and the even more obscure Pebbles..."

Paraphrased version which was removed: "The experimental art rock of the Velvet Underground has also been credited as a formative influence on the first wave of shoegaze bands in Southern England, along with the proto-punk of the Stooges and MC5, and the underground garage rock featured on compilations such as Nuggets and Pebbles." Buf92 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You "cleared up" nothing except the fact that you don't understand wiki policy. It's not negotiable: you can't just add a few words and remove a few words from someone else's copyrighted text. Everybody has been pointing you to WP:CLOP but you have not understood it or you don't care. It's a hard policy and you cannot ignore it. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The feeling is that this is more like some kind of personal grudge than a justified action. I might be wrong. Buf92 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

If you don't want to acknowledge a hard copyright policy then you will probably get blocked for violating it. If I were you I would be reading WP:CLOP rather than projecting about other people's motives. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge the policy, but it also says that closely paraphrased, and limited close paraphrasing of copyrighted sources may also be permitted as fair use. All my sentence took from the original was factual information (the names of the bands and the albums, and their chronological order). Everything else was closely paraphrased. But if you personally don't like the structure, you could rephrase it yourself. Buf92 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Shitgaze

Even if there is no source besides Psychedelic Horseshit on shoegaze influencing shitgaze, shouldn't it be at least mentioned in the body as inspiring the name of the genre shitgaze? There's sources for that. The term "gaze" derives from shoegaze. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

If you can find a place where it fits then it should probably be included. It should probably be only a sentence or two though. You could use those cites of Psychedelic Horseshit saying they were influenced by shoegaze there, though just for them (for context on how they coined the name), rather than discussing the genre as a whole. Maybe it would fit under 2000s–2020s: Revival? Some articles have "legacy" sections to discuss that sort of thing, although I wouldn't suggest adding that section just to discuss this point, as it's quite minor. Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Think it's worth two sentences, because it's true and uncomfortably funny. I mentioned it to a few friends recently who are long-term shoegazers, and they were highly amused at the term and understood it's intent within seconds. Although decades earlier, Flying Saucer Attack's cover of Wire fits in for me, given that the treble is so pleasingly abrasive.Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

haha Aradicus77 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources overload

Most of this article is citing 1 book by Ryan Prinkard 2024. Was thinking it would be best best to format some of these sources into a collection of pages like 80 - 90 and then have that be used because it looks like there is a recurring number of the same pages being sourced or just 1 source in a paragraph for 1 page and then a completely seperate sfn citation for just the next page when it could have been 80 - 81 for both sources for example Aradicus77 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shoegaze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Aradicus77 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ceoil (talk · contribs) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Some quick comments

• of the 120 references, some 60 (ie 50%) are cited to Pinkard, which is way, way too much given the vast literature out there.
• The article as is is really a development timeline. The "characteristics" section should be at least a third of the article. Would also add more on the type of effects and guitars used, the division between soft and hard shoegaze, the burying of the vocals, etc.
• The extent and severity of the backlash against the first wave in the British Weekly music press is understated. Would expand on this - Looking back now, some of it is very funny, but also shows how that press then was alL about image and had no interest in actual music.
• My Bloody Valentine did NOT influence Shoegaze: they were the original band! The "The Scene That Celebrates Itself" were mainly Ride, Lush and Slowdive, but collectively...at the time...they were all Shoegaze.
• Should be in BRITENG.
• More later. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Good points. I mentioned that Pinkard issue at the talk page prior. But yes there should be more talk on effects pedals on the page since its central to the genre, and I did try to add more talk about how much the press disparaged the term though another user had an issue with expanding on that point. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, re "disparaged"...maybe I should watch the talk page more. Slowdive in particlar got hammered and were mocked during interviews. Do you have access to Rock's Backpages? Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah I used it a lot, have any good articles or interviews I should read there? Aradicus77 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Aradicus, do you intend to revisit the article? Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Failing this due to lack of engagement, and also, the article wasn't ready as evidenced by an insufficient survey of the sources and focus on micro-trends without any appreciation of cultural origins or defining musicality. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)