Talk:Oasis (band)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

GAN notes

OK, let's see......getting started....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lead looks okay, though:

...with their new drummer Alan White, while rivaling with Britpop peers Blur. - I remember the rivalry, just thinking how to phrase this better. Not a deal-breaker but food for thought for eventual FAC.

''In 2000, while recording their fourth album Standing on the Shoulder of Giants, Oasis lost two founding members and suffered a notable drop in popularity in America. - stick the 'in 2000' after album title which reduces a comma, also 'drop in popularity' sounds a bit colloquial - 'decline' instead?

* In fact, wherever there's a date followed by a comma, it can often go at the end of a clause without one. There are a few more. Not a biggie now but good for FAC

While Gallagher and his friends did not think Oasis were spectacular, - spectacular strikes me as an odd word. It gives me a visual rather than auditory connotation. Can we think of another? - ok, a little better

and a breaking point was finally hit - I know what you mean but an odd way of saying it. Can we think of another?

shambolic - I'd use something more formal. disorganized/inept etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::trip by the pair to Las Vegas Gallagher decided to continue with the band. - which pair are referred to here, also 'was persuaded to stay with the band' or was persuaded not to leave' are better for last part. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Need to add in why Tony McCarroll was sacked good

regarding country house and roll with it being released on same day, there is the documentary which talks more about this and how country house was rescheduled etc. Important to embellish this bit.

On the same documentary, Liam said he really liked Be here now which Noel didn't - this should be included and referenced.

Standing is among the band's lowest-selling albums worldwide. -isn't it the lowest selling? If so, should be exact.

Needs to be more elaboration on reviews and why particlar albums etc. were not so good e.g. Heathen Chemistry

Again, i am curious as to why NME called teh glastonbury show a disaster

Also, most important of all, there needs to be a paragraph on how oasis are looked upon in the development/history of 90s rock and britpop in general, of which there is none in hte article currently. Otherwise not a bad read. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no effort has been made to address these concerns, it has to fail. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the above suggestions and try and get them sorted. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 11:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay... in order of how you wrote the suggestions, Calisber:

1) - Rewording of Blur rivalry: [1]

2) - Rewording and replacement of colloquialism: [2]

3) - Minor rewording of sentence to make it more aural: [3]

4 and 5) - Rewording and rephrasing: [4]

6) - Rewording: [5]

7) - Tony McCarroll's sacking: [6]

8 and 9) - What's the name of the documentary and how can we source it?

10) - Still need to work on finding out the sales of that album... Note - I have found an MTV article from 2002 which mentions that Standing... is Oasis' lowest selling album with 189,000 copies sold at that time. I would use that but it's incredibly out of date [7].

11) - Still need to work on that.

12) - Strangely, that NME source is written in 2007 when that particular Glastonbury was in 2004. Instead of changing it I added in a BBC review source of that gig to consolidate the paragraph: [8]

13) - Okay, the addition of the paragraph seems easy enough in terms of sourcing, but where to put it? Top, middle or bottom?

I'll get onto doing those above things ASAP. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I presume 13 refers to 12 and is ok as is. My mind is a complete blank and I can't recall the DVD now. It was a friend's I watched a few weeks ago so I'll ask him at work today. Not reffed a visual medium before so will try to read up on how it's done. There should be something else written though, a book on 90s britpop or something at the library too. No probs, should be easy enough to find. Looking better its just the critique/place in 90s pop history that needs some beefing up. Contentwise that was the most important development needed in the article. If done well might not be too far off FAC. My game plan would be to renominate this for GA once some sources are ferreted out and go from there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Update-I remembered the name of the DVD now...

here is a review of the DVD I watched a few months ago. 'Twas rather fun and good if one likes the music. I'll have to see how to reference it now.... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you find out how to reference visual media? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Got distracted. Will look later. Am musing on looking in the library for some sort of britpop book...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

................actually if you look aways down this list, there's a 'cite video' template...I'll try and add some of what I remember from the DVD later. gotta run in a minute :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That DVD is already referenced in the article. Just copy and paste the ref tag in the appropriate area. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bands influenced by Oasis

Before adding lists of bands influenced by Oasis, can editors please find reliable sources. MySpace is generally not considered a reliable source - a lot of 'official' MySpace pages are anything but official. Bands saying that they like Oasis doesn't count as being 'influenced' either. There are loads of bands out there that are clearly influenced by Oasis, many of them not notable, but surely there are some notable ones that can be backed up by references? Please also consider whether such a list would add anything useful to this article before adding it. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, The Coral's official site doesn't make any mention of Oasis being an influence, although it states that Noel Gallagher is a huge fan of The Coral.--Michig (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It shows how important Oasis were (and still are) as a band and how other bands attempted to emulate them. Official Myspaces can of course be counted. They're official, what's unaccpetable about that? Also, on the official Coral myspace, second band in the influences section is none other than Oasis. Influences BANDS; The Beatles, Oasis.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES. From youtube: from 1:19 until about 1:25. Interviewer 'I know that you were inspired by Oasis and you played with them in Canada, is that right?. Turner replies, 'That's true'. Also, note that on the official Coral Website, [9], the fourth link in from the left hand side, on the second row provides a link to their official myspace page where it states in the 'influences' section: Influences BANDS; The Beatles, Oasis. There are two links found within minutes. I have not found a Libertines link yet but everyone has seen the famous video of Pete Doherty in the cue for Be Here Now.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Myspace sites that can be proven to be official are ok as far as they go. The Coral were helped out a lot by Oasis, and toured with them - they may feel obliged to put Oasis in the (long) list on Myspace. There are also about 112 other bands/artists listed as influences, which suggests they just listed all the bands they liked. I've read a few interviews with The Coral where they have talked about their influences, and haven't seen them mention Oasis. These lists are more trouble than they're worth - they just attract additions of unreferenced material. Doherty was an Oasis fan when he was younger - does that really qualify as an 'influence'? What about Coldplay? The Killers? Arctic Monkeys? What do we keep in the list and what to we get rid of? The only way to keep such a list on the straight and narrow is to cite reliable sources where those bands state categorically that Oasis were a major influence on their music.--Michig (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Arctic Monkeys? I've just provided a perfect source to show Alex Turner confirm that Oasis are an influence of his band. What more do you want. Also my factual source (Also, note that on the official Coral Website, [10], the fourth link in from the left hand side, on the second row provides a link to their official myspace page where it states in the 'influences' section: Influences BANDS; The Beatles, Oasis) is of more value than your opinion (they may feel obliged to put Oasis in the (long) list on Myspace). At the end of the day, they have included Oasis in a section entitled 'influences' and Oasis are second in the list, suggesting they are a main influence. I removed Coldplay myself, not really overly influenced by Oasis, far more influenced by Thom Yorke and Radiohead. The Killers became a band after Brandon Flowers went to see an Oasis gig and decided to form a band comprised of members with with a love of Oasis. I will add these three bands, having found adequate sources for them, to show the appeal of Oasis' music and how it influenced the formations of bands.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources, please add them to the article. That's why the {{fact}} tag was added in the first place. --Michig (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And 'loving' something and being musically influenced by it are not the same thing - I don't see a big Jazz influence in The Rolling Stones, for instance.--Michig (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Killers were influenced by Oasis. The Beatles have a whole page dedicated to how they influenced modern culture including bands that covered them. I think one should get over oneself, I've provided sources. My addition doesn't make the article any worse. It simply emphasises Oasis' influence. Is míse--Play Brian Moore (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing The Beatles here. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and add references if you want the list to stay. Leave the insults out and start following the guidelines.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the sources that you provided to the article. I don't think they're great as references, but at least they're some basis for including these bands in the list.--Michig (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing The Beatles here. We're not discussing The Rolling Stones here either! No insults were intended so apoligies if you took them completely incorrectly. It is extremely frustrating to have the dead horse flogged and flogged again is all. Is mise--Play Brian Moore (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"English" or "British" band?

The question has arisen over on the page for The Beatles as to whether the band should be described in the lead as "English" or "British". Since the discussion there has implications for this article as well, contributors to the Oasis article are invited to provide their input and vote in the poll found here. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

they should be "British" as Andy Bell is not English, whereas all the members of the Beatles were at least English-born —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.198.169 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Q and HMV Best Album Poll Results

I have edited the album pages of definitley maybe and morning glory as Oasis wiped the floor in this poll[[11]]

I thought the editor of the Oasis page may wish to mention it in the main Oasis page or the awards page somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWulf (talk • contribs) 09:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More Information and Citations needed for Album Sales

See this page on Linkin Park http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes_to_Midnight_%28album%29 We need a similar thing on Oasis album pages There are enough citations on this page to websites which may help. If we get exact info then perhpas the citactions warning could be removed and people would stop editing the album sales all the time. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--andreasegde (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA

FWIW I think it's pretty good, but I feel it would be a wee bit naughty of me to review it for GA as I have gotten me hands a bit dirty playing with it, so I'll leave it to someone else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed it. These suggestions are after some copy editing and other fixes.

• "The present lineup is completed by songwriter's rhythm/lead guitarist…"—I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.  Done
• The first paragraph of the "Resurgence in popularity (2005–present)" section needs refs.  Done
• The way the references are formatted within the article should be consistent—I don't care what style you use, but there should be some uniformity in the way you do it. Allmusic refs should credit the authors of the pages as well.  Done

That's really all I have. Tell me when done. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've formatted all the web references and credited the allmusic author. I've added sources for the "Resurgence..." section and correct the other wording problem. How's it look now, friend? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a few more—the refs starting with #55 are still a bit inconsistent with the others, and you write dates slightly differently throughout (sometimes 9th March 2008, sometimes 9 March 2008)—the only reason I'm doing this is because people will get nitpicky at you over at FAC if they aren't consistent. --Kakofonous (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yup.

2. Factually accurate?: Good amounts of referencing.

3. Broad in coverage?: Most definitely.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Great images, all of them free!

A bit more work and off to FAC we go! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Toward FAC (definitely maybe? bad pun I know...)

• Ok, I agree with Painbearer's shifting of section to -97 and rationale behind it. That album always seemed to me like a surgical attachment onto previous work. However, my feeling is for the two sections removed to remain as they add some context to how Liam and Noel viewed the album. Yes, an album page should go into more detail but there is plenty of more detail which could go on an individual album page (commentary on each song etc.). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oasis is Alternative Rock

I'm annoyed at Scarian reverting my Rock->Alternative Rock change in the genre box, twice, disguising it as a general vandalism revert. Oasis, in my mind, has always been linked with the whole alt-rock craze of the 90s. I know that my opinion is no basis for an article, so I present AllMusic, Amazon, and Oasis's official MySpace page, which all classify Oasis under "Alternative". Additionally, the Britpop article states that Britpop is a subgenre of Alternative. Give me a counter-argument. Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I never "disguised" it under a general vandalism revert; my edit summaries were "restore last good version".

2) Allmusic guide says the genre is "Rock" and it has an alternative "style". Two very different things.

3) That amazon link is an alternative rock search and Oasis is bound to appear on it. It doesn't prove a thing. Amazon really isn't considered definitive.

4) Myspace definitely does not meet WP:RS.

5) Rock is an umbrella term that removes POV. The BritPop genre is there because Oasis and Blur existed (and began) that particular genre movement.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock definitely applies to Oasis, but I personally don't put it in the infobox because Britpop (a subgenre of alternative rock) is specific enough, and Oasis is a fairly traditionalist rock band, particularly in comparison to most major alt-rock bands. But yeah, Oasis are alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BRITPOP ISN'T SUBGENRE OF ALTERNATIVE ROCK, NEITHER INDIE ROCK ARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.175.26 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oasis are not alternative rock. They are rock'n'roll or Britpop/Britrock. In the same way some terrible band like My Chemical Romance might be alternative rock but they are really emo.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of confusion over what alternative rock is so I would highly recommend everyone go read that article. It mentions in the lead that this genre is called "indie" in the UK, and many people have labeled Oasis an indie band in this vein. Alternative rock has taken on a different definition since the 90s and Oasis certainly falls into this definition. In any case, read the Britpop article and you will see that Britpop is a subgenre of alternative rock. Since Britpop for the most part no longer exists and Oasis has pursued a different sound since the mid-90's, it doesn't make much sense to say their music is still considered Britpop. Oasis most certainly is an alternative rock band. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That big band member graph diagram thing

Does anybody else think its cumbersome and unnecessary? Oasis' band member history is hardly on of the most complicated, and it isn't really that hard to figure who replaced whom at what instrument. Besides these changes aren't that important are they? Oasis are dominated by the Gallagher bros. indopug (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's the disambiguation link?

Not everyone is searching for THIS "Oasis", you know?

And yes, one could find the information even without disambiguation pages (I hope!)...

Or one could also simply go back to printed encyclopedias... which might not be a bad idea, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.65.51 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Be HEre Now Page

Someone has edited the Be here now page for the better with citacions for the album sales and chart positions. This needs to be done on all oasis album pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.14 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics

Does anyone know a website with Oasis' right lyrics? Sometimes it's not easy to find lyrics with no mistakes in Internet. --Pabletex (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Their official website, [12], is your best bet.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But once in that website, what do I have to do or where do I have to click to have access to the lyrics? I had already entered that website and I couldn't find the lyrics anywhere. --Pabletex (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Noel Gallagher

I've asked some questions at Talk:Noel Gallagher and I'd like someone to read the second paragraph of the section "Joining Oasis" to answer them in the talk page of that article. Thanks. --Pabletex (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of concision in the lead

The lead is not very concise and at some point, seems to be babbling. Some example:

• The present lineup is completed by rhythm/lead guitarist and songwriter Gem Archer, guitarist and songwriter Andy Bell and unofficial drummer Chris Sharrock. - isn't it much easier to just say, "The present lineup is completed by guitarists Gem Archer and Andy Bell, as well as unofficial drummer Chris Sharrock"? Who cares that Gem Archer and Andy Bell are also songwriters? Isn't that implied by the previous sentence that says the Gallagher brothers are the leading songwriters (which implies there are other songwriters in the band)?
• At the height of their fame, Oasis' third album, Be Here Now (1997), became the fastest-selling album in UK chart history, but lost much of its long-term appeal after the initial hype and positive reception tempered. While recording their fourth album Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (2000) in 1999, Oasis lost two founding members and suffered a notable decline in popularity in America. The band added replacements Gem Archer and Andy Bell for Heathen Chemistry (2002). - Oasis is a band that is approaching "revolving door" status. They are changing band members rather frequently and it is probably unnecessary and longwinded to mention them all in the lead of an article. I think it is much more concise to gloss over this period in the band's history like so: "At the height of their fame, Oasis released their highly anticipated third album, Be Here Now (1997). It became the fastest-selling album in UK chart history, but lost much of its long-term appeal after the initial hype and positive reception tempered. Oasis suffered a notable decline in popularity in America and lost three long-time members between recording and releasing Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (2000) and Heathen Chemistry (2002)."We don't need to get down to specifics like you are in the lead. That's not the point of it.

I would also recommend reading the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. No matter what kind of contributions you make to an article or what status you get it promoted to, you do not own it. Be more open-minded of people trying to improve the article by making it less wordy and more "approachable." Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)