Talk:Oasis (band)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Plural verb, singular subject and predicate.

Should read; Oasis is an English rock band. Both "Oasis" and "band" are singular. "Are" is plural. Cixelsydon (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Per wikipedia's policy of allowing national variations of spelling and grammar for articles with a strong national tie, the band is a collective noun and treated as plural. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with saying "Oasis are..." or "the band are..."

Nev1 is very correct. We've been over this above (which, I see, you've just discovered). Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

-- This particular article doesn't have a strong national tie though, as the band is an international band, and arguments elsewhere object to the nationalization of the band. Personally I couldn't care less about that particular argument, I am just pointing it out. However it is not grammatically correct to state Oasis ARE, since it is a singular noun (Oasis, being the name of a singular entity, which is the band) and the word ARE is a plural linking verb, the correct verb should be "is" If you were to use the word ARE in a grammatically correct sense, you would have to change the tense of the word Oasis, which would be Oases, and then the article is no longer accurate because the name of the band has changed. Dsly4425 (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The national tie is indicated in the opening sentence, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

'Oasis are...' is perfectly grammatically correct in British English, which the article uses per WP:ENGVAR.--Michig (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article later says "Oasis played its first live gig in August 1991", which sounds more natural to this Brit. But I really don't care. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oasis/They are a British rock band.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

Don't really feel like starting the name debate all over again, but in the article it says "Liam suggested that the band name be changed to Oasis. This change was inspired by an Inspiral Carpets tour poster which hung in the Gallagher brothers' bedroom. One of the venues the poster listed was the Oasis Leisure Centre in Swindon.". Right. I stumbled on an interview where Noel talks about his trainer collection, and he says he got the name from a shop where he used to buy clothes, it's on here.--81.247.53.51 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism

Why do the editors of this page remove anything which seems slightly negative toward Oasis even if it is fact?

For example a previous edit said "This song would later carry a co-writer's credit for Neil Innes, who sued, now receives royalties on the song and also won damages because the melody of the title track of Neil Innes' album "How Sweet To Be An Idiot" was plagiarised by Oasis."

The current edit reads "This song would later carry a co-writer's credit for Neil Innes, who sued and also won damages."

The current version doesn't explain why he sued and makes little sence as it is.

The previous edit was not vandalisim but seems to have been removed as if it was. The page should be fact not cencored by Oasis fans to bend or obscure the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.255.195 (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Easy to respond to that. You advocate a text which states ""How Sweet to Be An Idiot" was plagiarised by Oasis". The outcome of the legal case does not claim that at all. There is no evidence to prove that Noel did anything other then simply write a song that sounded like Innes' tune, without any plagiarism at all. The chord sequence to Innes' song is about two hundred years old at least. Does that mean Innes' plagiarised it? Pop songs are by their market very simple. And it's easy for them to bump into each other, what with there being just eight notes and a simple audience to please. Some people like Innes sue and make a big deal out of it when this happens, whilst most others recognise it as and inevitable consequence of creating easy listening music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.195.247 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oasis ARE an English band

If the Proclaimers are a Scottish band the Oasis is an English one. Why be ambiguous when you can be specific! 124.176.75.38 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oasis split

Hi there. Can we please stop writing about the bands' split until something official has been brought out. There have been reports and a statement from Noel saying that he has left the band, but so far nothing that confirms that the group have split and are no longer active. Thanks.--Ike1000 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason for the line about Noel leaving in the introduction of the band. It seems to just be put in there because somebody 'got there first'. I don't think any other bands have one member highlighted as leaving in the introduction section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.134.166 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oasis 1991-2009

I am going to change this - Noel has left the band, the band has not split up - yet. They have performed without Noel before on several occasions. --PMBO (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

why not just wait until we get an official report that they have indeed quit instead of someone stating it on the page

Exactly; I've put a hidden comment on the article reiterating this. It's all very "heat-of-the-moment" now anyway – it's not like Noel hasn't walked out before... Let's just hold our horses until there's a proper statement. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I noticed its nomination at WP:ITN/C and found that after saying there that there was nothing in the sources other than some of them getting carried away that here in the actual article the band have been consigned to the past tense. Is there an official source on this split yet out of curiosity? --candle•wicke 03:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I see Wikipedia and the BBC have been plagiarising parts of each other. :) --candle•wicke 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit premature? Noel has left, but the rest of the band haven't announced that they're packing it in. Noel could be back in a couple of weeks - wouldn't be the first time.--Michig (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Was/were

Which one? It is currently "Oasis was" which struck me as odd considering they "was" British. --candle•wicke 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) It's 'were'. British band, British English. (I'm a news subeditor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.245.67 (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

it should be neither, they are still a band. Just the main bloke has left --Tukogbani (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't say 'Noel announced he was leaving the band' as this implies that he will be leaving at a later date. He has left the band, past tense. --95.96.146.115 (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

According to an AOL article's name (Oasis split 'a sad day' for music) they have all split up but then reading the article in question it only mentions Noel's departure. I am against saying they were a band, as currently we do not know their status. Wait for an official statement before we do anything abrupt!! --Ryan-McCulloch (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No more?

Oasis broke up today, that's what I heard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.155.5.49 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oasis haven't broken up, there has been no announcement of that. Noel Gallagher has left the band. Seeing as he's mainly been responsible for their direction, the future of the band has been cast into doubht, so its unsurprising to see media reports saying they've split. There's been nothing from the rest of the band though and no announcement that they're officially over, so at the moment they still exist.--Ike1000 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious (to those who might not know more about this), the concert organizer for the failed Paris concert announced "the group no longer exists", and Times also announced the group has broken up. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They broke up because the one that left was their main song writer, I just saw it on the news. MatthewWaller (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that until an official statement is made (discounting anything said in the heat of the moment), the article is sufficient – stating that the events have been reported by news sources as a split. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also removed the article from the Musical groups disestablished in 2009 category. --Yerpo (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that until a statement is released on Oasisinet, the group's official site, announcing that the group have broken up, the article continues to reflect the fact that they are still together (albeit without Noel for now).Julianhall (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear registered editors

{{editsemiprotected}} "Studio Albumus"? 90.197.107.184 (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Seems to be a clear typo. Tim Song (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Stupid mistake on my part. Thanks bro! It was quick edit since I noticed someone had put in the other releases by the band the other day, and I figured it'd sort out the confusion given this article's bound to get more 'casual' editors looking at it right now. I think discography sections like that should state if it's only the main studio releases anyway, myself....

(The Elfoid (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

video of the Rock en Seine quarrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMf9oYj6uGQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.48.167 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning

In here about there new guiness world record break, its a pretty impressive achievement but its up to you guys wether you want it to be included in the article
http://www.oasisinet.com/NewsArticle.aspx?n=775
--Tukogbani (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 I think its worth mentioning but its not up to me  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digoutyerarse (talk • contribs) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 

Chris is NOT an official member

Chris should not be included in the members list in any way. He is NOT a member of Oasis. The band even confirmed that. He never even appears with the rest of the band in interviews or videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPReader (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason For Noel Leaving

In this article it says that Liam smashed Noels guitar in Paris on the night Noel left the band. In fact it was Noel who smashed an acoustic guitar owned by Liam which was given to him by his wife Nicole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lylasunshine (talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

-Source? --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Noel's membership

Its a FACT that Noel Gallagher is not in Oasis , so could you change the members part.Put Noel in the Former Members section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindier (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Breakup

Is this really expected to last? They've broken up about a dozen times before and gotten right back together again. What makes this any different? Zazaban (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't any different, but I suppose the Wikipedia entry should stay current. They'll be back together and recording by this time next year, ala 1995, 1997, 2000.--A Chain of Flowers (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When have they broken up in the past? It's true Noel has left quite a few times, but this is the first time the group itself has broken up. Kohran (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they have 'officially broken up' about three or four times before. None have lasted this long I don't think, mind you. Zazaban (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When have they officially broken up? Oasis had plenty of in-fights and lots of individual members have quit over the years, but to my knowledge this is the first time the band itself has officially been terminated.Kohran (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken then, but I still don't really expect this to last. A year or two, tops. Zazaban (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that Liam has said his "new band" with all the same people that were in Oasis, save Noel, is likely going to be called "OASIS" do we go back to "Oasis is an" in lieu of "Oasis were.." at the beginning of this article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrhadam (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Liam is recording with Chris Sharrock, not Zac Starkey.

Liam is recording a new album with the rest of Oasis (without Noel) but in this article, it says that Zac Starkey is recording with them. Zac left Oasis some time ago and was replaced with Chris Sharrock so surely he is recording instead of Zac. I believe the information that Zac was recording with them came from The Sun so it is probably wrong. Shall I change the article from Zac Starkey to Chris Sharrock? --Jdbullrat (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny Introduction

Is that introduction really supposed to suggest that Oasis have sold 50 million albums, physically and a further 20 million either singles or downloads of albums!? Dream on.(Play Brian Moore (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Harry Wells?

Who's Harry Wells? I had never heard of him before, and I think Oasis would never play at a "run down waterhole" in a world of warcraft desert. Please erase that sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.35.124 (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding all these extra members.

Hi everyone. Please stop with this for the time being.

First off, the band CONFIRMED that Zak Starkey was NOT an official member of Oasis so we can not include him in the list of Oasis band members. Same thing with Chris and Jay, they were never not official members either.

As for the current band. Yes, I know Liam said that both Jay and Chris are currently recording with the current band but Liam said that is NOT 100% yet that the band is going to still be Oasis, therefore, if they do decide to continue as Oasis, then it's best to wait until there's confirmation before we add Chris and Jay as "official" members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationViewer (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he said it's still Oasis until they think of something else, at this point, the band includes Chris Sharrock and Jay Darlington. And the upcoming album is still the upcoming Oasis album, until it's confirmed that their name will be something else. Oasis is not a defunct band at this point, and everyone in it is still a current member. Iminrainbows (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are vs. Is

The lead should be "Oasis is an English rock band". Per Per British and American English differences#Formal and notional agreement, "In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare 'a committee was appointed...' with 'the committee were unable to agree....'. The band is a singular formal agreement, as the band members formed the group together in unison and agreement; the sentence refers solely to the band itself, not to the members. Ωphois 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

'Band' is a collective in British English, hence 'are'. This has been done to death already. See this above, and god knows how many other talk pages for articles on British bands. American and British English differences is clear enough, with the example: "BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well-known band." This article uses British English, so the former is correct.--Michig (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Recording Timeline

I am creating this section for discussion about the recording timeline I created for the band, from now on any edits made to the timeline without discussing it in this section first will be reverted. Iminrainbows (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got any problem with that, but we can't add the "Untitled 2010" because we don't know if the band will retain the Oasis name. Also I think that the timeline could be added in List of Oasis band members better.--Danoasis (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me, I'll put the timeline into List of Oasis band members without the untitled.Iminrainbows (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zak Starkey

Zak Starkey I think was considered full-time member of Oasis during recording sessions of Dig Out Your Soul. I also think there was a published picture with Starkey and the band all five clapping. So it is not right to omit him from the band's past member line-up. Actually I am putting Zak Starkey on the offical member list on the template and making sure to keep the status-quo.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't an official member, and left the band after recording Dig Out Your Soul. Since Alan White's departure, the band were a four-piece.--Danoasis (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No longer Oasis

There has been much controversy over whether Oasis is over or not, they have now confirmed that Liam's new band will not be called Oasis, therefor marking the end of Oasis.

Is this the best way to put it? I mean, the band members are still together and are still active. Anyone else think it might be better to put something along the lines of '1991 - present (under new name)'? Might be a bit in denial because i'm a huge Oasis fan! But what do the rest of us think?--Ike1000 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I'm a huge Oasis fan too, but Noel left, and the members who stuck for while have changed their name so their no longer is a band called Oasis. Soon enough Liam, Gem, Andy et al. will unveil their new name and then we will be able to start a new article about that band, but as for the Oasis page, Oasis is done. Iminrainbows (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"They also confirmed that they would perform live shows within 2010, and that the band would use a new name, [86][87][88][89][10][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]" Overkill much? Tony2Times (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the standard is for Wikipedia on the number of sources, but I do believe it is overkill, if not just to enforce the validity of the information. Kevinmon•talk•trib 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been resolved with Tony2Times on our talk pages, and it is just so there is no question over whether or not the band is over, and if any of the sources were proved invalid there would still be plenty left to back up the fact. Iminrainbows (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Last 'active date' for Oasis

Oasis ceased to be Oasis in 2009. Noel left and Liam announced that they would not be carrying on as Oasis. What justification is there for the infobox stating that Oasis were active until 2010?--Michig (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the band ceased to be Oasis in 2010, do not confuse Noel's departure with Oasis' end. Noel left the band in August 2009, and Liam and the other members were working as Oasis at that time until they decided to create a new band named Beady Eye this year. Also, this article was "Oasis are" until February 2010 when Liam ruled out the possibility of continuing as Oasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.143.30 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The new band started when Noel left. The new band is not called Oasis. They may have decided on what the new name would be in Jan/Feb, but since Noel left, they have been the band described in the Beady Eye article.--Michig (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bias towards recent information?

I think that theres way too much bias in this article towards recent events. Theres no way that much writing needs to be in place for their distablishment years as its only happened over a period of a few months. It chould be put into perspexctive with the other section of this article: for eg, the disestablishment section (6-7 months time period) is about the same size as the britpop era section (4-5 year time period), that doesnt make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If Oasis is just The Rain renamed, shouldn't they be on the same page? I

If Oasis was originally The Rain, but then changed its name (and a few band members), then shouldn't the two bands be on the same page? Taken from The Rain:

“ Shortly after Liam joined, the band was renamed Oasis, at his suggestion. ” — The Rain

If this is indeed true, then shouldn't The Rain be either a subsection of Oasis' history section, or a full-fledged section in the article? They're the same band, with just a few different band members. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly say so, yes. Essentially the same band with a name change, so no reason to have separate articles.--Michig (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Should I propose a merge of the two articles, then? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. I can't see there being a lot of opposition, but you never know.--Michig (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie doke. I've never proposed a merger before, should I just use the {{merge from}} and {{merge to}} tags, or is there also somewhere else to propose the merge? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be sufficient, and will point anyone interested to this discussion.--Michig (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is essentially the same band. But they originally had a different singer, some Chris guy (read Paul Mathur's Take Me There: The Story Of Oasis for reference from Bonehead). Liam was not a founding member, and he was the one who suggested the name Oasis.

ImGonnaDJ (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Small, superfluous article. Oasis were called The Rain in their formative stage. Big deal. Should there be "Seymour" and "On a Friday" articles for Blur and Radiohead respectively? Clearly not. Jplarkin (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Should defintely be merged. The article seems to be here more on fan adoration than any real significance to the music world itself. An insignificant article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Rain doesn't have a bloke called N.Gallagher in the line-up and this fella wrote all the songs for Oasis until I think the fourth album if I'm right? Seymour and On A Friday don't really compare as there is a significant line-up change when a bloke comes along who writes three albums for a band, off his own bat, that would see that band propelled into superstar status. If the band has a namechange as that happens then yes. Its a different band. The Rain weren't Oasis. Noel wrote for Oasis --Omar418 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the reason The Rain is tagged a "low importance article" of little significance, is because it is, a low importance article... and has nothing to do with Noel Gallagher who is Oasis. Noel Gallagher's sound and content is Oasis' sound and content. The Rain are alien to that. A brief mention of the name use, as is the case, is more than sufficient.--LisaSandford (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)