Talk:Oasis (band)

Oasis are an English band

See The Verve, The Who, Blur (band), Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and Queen (band). Shall I keep going? Also, "an British rock band"? Utan Vax (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying Engish implies nationality which is incorrect. Every single band outside the UK declare nationality in the intro. I could quote 1000s of bands for this. The an should be corrected to a.213.202.139.136 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why do all those bands have "English" then? Can you explain that? Utan Vax (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

POV.213.202.139.136 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha - good one. Utan Vax (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why English is there while all non UK bands have their nationality shown? It is POV. They don't want to be more specific as people know where Manchester is. Some people's POV is that English is a nationality intentionally or not. Using British is NPOV, correct and not misleading.213.202.139.136 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, ironically. Please show me the guideline. Utan Vax (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about guidelines. Guidelines are irrelevant. This is about improving things. Can you give any reason why their nationality isn't mentioned in the intro?213.202.139.136 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bands don't have nationalities, people do. The purpose of the lead sentence is to summarise and introduce, not declare nationality. There may be some argument for saying that British could be used, but there is no consensus for this change. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We are gonna put "English" because they're from a country called "England". That's how it works... logic. Utan Vax (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAMES says introductions should display nationality. Every band from outside the UK adheres to this.

Also more importantly WP:UKNATIONALS says we should use British for a NPOV unless there's something special or notable about Oasis's Englishness; which there isn't. They are the same as every other band. British should be used and to insist otherwise for no particular reason is POV.213.202.139.136 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect for me. See Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Do_NOT_enforce_uniformity. You've fallen into your own Wiki-lawyering. Also, that's an essay, so we're definitely not obliged to follow it. They've always been an English band since the beginning of time, ergo, it stays. Thank you. Utan Vax (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your the one trying to enforce uniformity. English is still misleading. British stays. Thank you.213.202.139.136 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both those policies are for biographies of people. Your summary of WP:UKNATIONALS is also incorrect, it says nothing of the sort. However, it if you're reading them you notice the sections that state; Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged and do not edit war.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said one band is not uniformly enforcing. I'll be a good editor and I'll offer a compromise which I think is fair. Intro says English, Origin says UK or vice versa??213.202.139.136 (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help me understand first. You still haven't explained why you think it should be changed. Or rather, you have, but it changes every time. Which is it?

1 - It is misleading. Who is going to be mislead by thinking the band is English?

2 - It is not their nationality. Bands do not have a legally defined nationality in the same way people do, so splitting hairs about it is pointless.

3 - It is POV. In what way?

4 - We should ignore guidelines. Exactly why in this case?

5 - Because WP:NAMES and WP:UKNATIONALS policy says it should. The policies you are quoting do not apply to bands, and do not say what you claim anyway.

Personally I have no particular problem with your compromise, but you've offered no sensible reason to justify it and overturn previous and current consensus. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oasis are not an English rock band. Oasis IS an English rock band. IS. not fucking are. it is ONE band, SINGULAR. I couldn't care less about the British/English debate, but at the very least use basic correct grammar, goddamn 124.185.94.54 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. There are other languages with their own separate grammatical nuances; British entities are not obligated to follow standard American grammar. Your change will not be implemented, by the way, just thought you'd like to know :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add - please note the use of "are" in this article from The Times[1] and this article from the BBC[2]. --JD554 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So the BBC and the Times each treated a band name as plural once. That does not make it correct usage. "Oasis is a band" is the normal usage even among Brits. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Albums sold

They have sold more than 60 million albums, not 50 as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.226.122 (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not nearly.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

They may have sold 60 million RECORDS, but not albums. There's a huge difference.79.66.60.23 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

Is the title for the last section a bit misleading? Whatever resurgence occured has now ended. They only managed to go #1 in two countries worldwide. Any views?--Play Brian Moore (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Top of the united world chart and sold 500,000 tickets in 2hrs a few days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.51.149 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They sold out Wembley twice in 2000. Should we call that section the continuation of their popularity then?--Play Brian Moore (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "resurgence in popularity" is a very difficult term to quantify. It seems Oasis' last two tours and albums have met with much more critical and commercial acclaim than the previous ones. Multiple singles are getting very constant, long-term radio play in the United States, always the most difficult country to crack; anecdotally at least, interest in Oasis in America and England seems at its highest point since the Morning Glory days. Did they not debut @ #5 in the U.S. w/Dig Out Your Soul? I'm fine with the term resurgence being used. Hrhadam (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming "commercial acclaim" is a round about way of saying album sales. The last 2 albums haven't sold exceptionally well anywhere and like I originally said, their most recent album 'only' managed to go to number one in two countries. I think the title is misleading but people obviously don't agree so I'll leave it here.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's changing sales figures

Anonymous IP's are persistenly trying to change Oasis' record sales to a higher figure than is supported by the citation. There is also a similar trend among all of Oasis' albums. I don't believe that it's a co-incidence and that these IP's are unrelated. Sales figures for other bands are also being reduced and random pro-Oasis material inserted into completely unrelated articles. DerrikLounds (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They are "thundering" disgraces if you ask me and they have caused one particular user plenty of time as he has had to go around reverting all their vandalism.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's easily dealt with. I'll prot the article. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:OasisChampagneSupernova.ogg

The image File:OasisChampagneSupernova.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:OasisLiveForever.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

more albums

oasis have sold around 65 million albums, almost 30 million from whats the story, about 15 from definitely maybe, approaching 10 million for be here now, the masterplan along with the live familliar to millions albums sold a combined 1 million. standing on the shoulders of giants sold another million, heathen chemistry sold 3 million and sont believe the truth sold around 5 million. so far dig out your soul has sold around 2 million. i dont know how much stop the clocks has sold but their overall album sales is at LEAST 60 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.234.69 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So as not to fall foul of WP:OR and WP:V, we would need a reference from a reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

official members

Zak wasn't an official member and neither is Chris. They should be signed as live members (Chris) or temporary members (Zak). Oasis have said this a million times, Oasis since 2004 is made up of 6 members: Andy, Liam, Noel, Michael Young, Karla Hart and Gem. Since Alan's departure there are no official drummers. If we said Chris is a member, then Jay Darlington is too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.133.195 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree--INDIE1000 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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)