Talk:Dig Out Your Soul/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

speculative

This all strikes me as terribly speculative--Crestville 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is slightly speculative, but the specualtion comes from the mouth of Noel Gallagher in interviews such as the NME and Q, so there is basis for the specualtion. i do plan to find the links for what noel has said, and plan to put them up soon (T@yl0r 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

But surely stuff like "Boy With The Blues might be on it" is a bridge too far.--Crestville 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, i'm new at editing and creating articles, so it's your call on what is for the best. i've put a couple of links up to show where the information comes from. true on the point about the boy with the blues though. (T@yl0r 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Where was the information for the album tracks from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.64.162 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Live4ever.us

Would it be possible to stop referencing this site whenever a piece of news is brought up? They've claimed on no less than 5 occasions that "inside" sources have given them info that would later turn out to be false, such as claiming songs like "Stop the Clocks" and "Boy With The Blues" would be on the album, only to contradict themselves later. The site has proven itself to be completely unreliable on new information, and it's only correct informatin is news that has been relayed from more reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.135.92 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Technically this article should be Oasis's seventh studio album. The post apostrophe s is only dropped after plurals. MrMarmite (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Album credit nomenclature

As there seems to be confusion here, album credits are to be done as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Therefore, album credits are to be listed as such:

All songs by Noel Gallagher except where noted.

1. "Song 001" - 3:00
2. "Song 002" - 3:10
3. "Song 003" (Liam Gallagher) - 5:44
4. "Song 004" - 9:45
5. "Song 005" (Gem Archer) - 4:43
6. "Song 006" (L. Gallagher) - 2:19
7. "Song 007" (Archer) - 3:38

Etc., etc., etc.

So, as shown in the above example, after a person's name is listed once only the last name need be listed again unless he happens to have the same last name as some else listed previously. When this is the case, only the first letter of the first name (L. Gallagher) is to be listed, not the complete name. The wiki page even uses the Gallagher brothers as an example of this (no, I didn't edit them in it, lol). Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection Status

With all the craziness that's been going on with this page the last few weeks now, I vote to have this page protected until all the commotion (hopefully) settles down. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the protection request seems a little extreme, I only put in for a partial protection, not a full on lockdown for two days. Regardless, maybe this'll calm down all the excitment that's been going on here for the last few weeks now. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Page appears to be unlocked now. If the insanity continues, I'll specifically request for this page to be partially protected for an indefinite period of time so that all edits can only be performed by registered users. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for semi-protection status do to unregistered users continuously making/reverting edits. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Clocks

Who listed STC as a hidden-track and where is your reference? I really doubt the version that just leaked will be included on the new album. 80.2.179.52 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not been confirmed anywhere, nor, in fact, have the track times or the songwriters. I think these should be removed until they are officially confirmed.--Mr. Monobrow (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Stop the Clocks has to be removed from the tracklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.68.114 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, in order to keep things as real as possible, only confirmed and/or sourced information should be posted. Given that it hasn't, Stop The Clocks should be removed from the tracklisting as well as the track times and songwriters (as Monobrow said) except for confirmed writers (Bag It Up (Noel Gallagher), The Shock of the Lightning (Noel Gallagher), I'm Outta Time (Liam Gallagher), Ain't Got Nothin' (Liam Gallagher), Soldier On (Liam Gallagher)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalondan (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ain't Got Nothing is also not confirmed to be that Liam song from the leaked tracks either. I know the NME said it was, but in the very same article they totally contradicted themselves on that very issue, and they stated that Bag It Up was going to be the title tracks, something that wasn't mentioned by Noel in the MOJO interview (the only place where that song has been mentioned) and he also flatly denied the title track rumour in an appearence on Russell Brand's show the other week. --Mr. Monobrow (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Monobrow is correct. Stop the Clocks, the track times and the authors should be removed from all tracks, except for the author of Shock of the Lightning, which has been confirmed to be Noel's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.68.114 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The writers of Bag It Up (Noel) I'm Outta Time (Liam) and Soldier On (Liam) were confirmed in Noel's recent MOJO magazine interview --Mr. Monobrow (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

High Horse & The Turning is by Gem, while Noel wrote Waiting for the Rapture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.180.217 (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for these credits? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Album leak

Per WP:ALBUM#LEAK, an album leak should not be reported unless A) it merits an official response from the band or B) it receives broad media coverage. Leaks happen to most record releases, and a passing mention in the media does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, especially when it hasn't yielded a response from the band or its management. The Brothers Gallagher have not commented on the leak, while the label has not changed its release schedule because of the leak.

See Hail to the Thief for a rare example on an album leak is notable for inclusion on Wiki. --Madchester (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The leak has received media coverage from the most popular news source in Western Europe - the BBC. An international news source of that stature would qualify as "broad media coverage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.12.182 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Still fails WP:ALBUM#LEAK. Broad coverage implies reporting from multiple sources. The Beeb only makes a passing mention of the leak, with no reporting on the band or label addressing the issue. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Why do the reviews keep getting taken down? Reviews from The Quietus, FHM and The Riff have all been taken down for no apparent reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxLacey (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really getting annoyed by the perception in Wikipedia word of which reviews or legitimate or not. Just because the average person hasn't heard of the outlet, doesn't mean the review hasn't been read and respected by the more hardcore music fan. AxYoung (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ALBUM#Review sites for review notability guidelines. Wiki's not a platform for promoting up-and-coming websites. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic Rock

I noticed an editor (likely with multiple IPs) has been constantly adding "psych rock" as a genre in the infobox.

If you wish to add a new genre to the album, you carry the burden of proof to provide the proper citations and references for that entry per WP:V and WP:RS. You can't simply tell other editors to look at the reviews and figure it out themselves.

Furthermore, current reviews only give passing mention the album's psychedelic rock elements; none of the authors claim that belongs in that genre. You can't twist the author's commentary to fit your own argument per WP:SYN.

Thanks --Madchester (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention psychedelic rock is used only to refer to 60s and 70s bands; later bands get the term "neo psychedelia". Regardless it's no more "psychedlic" than any other Oasis record. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

Am I alone in thinking that this section is in the need of a big cleanup? Firstly, I think that the previews from when before the album was released should be taken off. It would have been useful before the album is released for people who were interested and wanted some speculation, but now that the album has been released, it should focus more on it's critical and commercial reception to date.

Also, there is too much focus on one critic. Someone has more or less quoted the whole review from Rolling Stone. No point to that. It should be a brief summary on the critics' overall opinion of it, maybe with a short quote from it. If people want to read the whole review, they can just use the reference.

So I suggest it should start out as something like "Dig Out Your Soul has generally received a very positive reception from critics and fans alike (which it has). It has been praised for this, that n' the other (maybe a common positive view that critics seem to share)..." Then give some brief summaries of positive reviews from certain critics, with short quotes from reviews included. (Eg. The Guardian gave the album 4 out of 5 stars, labelling it as [quote]). Then move on to talk about the not-so positive reviews, such as Rolling Stone, and give a few main points on why some critics have not received it as well, again with quotes from reviews.

Then talk about commercial reception. Not too much to mention here, just how many copies it has sold as of a certain date and it's chart positions.

Agree/Disagree? --Ike1000 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Alan McGee's praising the album could be cut down if not removed although. It definitely needs some serious trimming. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs cut down to about a quarter of it's length, at the most--A Chain Of Flowers (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(sic)

I think the '(sic)' should be removed from the Concept and Sound section. Surely '(sic)' should be used to correct a quote from somebody who has made a mistake. Liam is using slang. It's different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.51.137 (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Can people stop adding UK cities after Slane Castle. Unintentionally I'm sure, it makes the article suggest that Ireland is in the UK!--Play Brian Moore (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

I'd like someone to provide me with the link of a reliable website in which I could get the right lyrics of Oasis' songs. There're a lot of pages with their lyrics, but many of them contain mistakes, so I'd prefer an official website or something like that. Thanks for your help. --190.227.44.8 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)