Talk:Oasis (band)

British or English

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on concerning whether Oasis were English or British. Lots of editing but no talking. This is what the talk page is for so lets talk and reach a consensus. Bjmullan (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably stating the obvious but...they were both English and British. English is more specific, so I see no problem describing them as English. Vagueness isn't a good trait for an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 08:53, 22 May 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?

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)

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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImGonnaDJ (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, purely from an artistic standpoint. Oasis has always been when Noel was persuaded to join the band and wrote the songs for Oasis in the first couple of albums. Therefore The Rain never had any songs that went on to be the artisitic output of Oasis. --Omar418 (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely seperate, Oasis became so with Noel Gallagher who has nothing to do with The Rain. He is (was) the dominant figure of Oasis and wrote almost everything, Oasis sound is Noel Gallagher, the Rain are a completely different band. A detailed mention on Liam Gallaghers page is sufficient. I am removing the tag.--LisaSandford (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

When we reach a consensus here the merge tags will be removed, but please don't remove them simply because you have decided against the merge.--Michig (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The issue here is whether The Rain should remain as a separate article, or whether the content relating to that band should be merged to this article. Please concentrate on this rather than discussion of whether or not they were the same band. Bands with a claim to notability that solely relies on members going on to another band are generally best merged to the band that is actually notable in its own right.--Michig (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oasis are Indie Rock not Alternative as it doesn't mean anything. Whoever keeps changing it needs to state their point here and then leave it.

No such thing as Alternative.Indie Rock were Oasis.and it should stay this way

bollocks to that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.41.105 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oasis were part of the "Britpop" movement which is another genre of alternative rock so it would seem right that "alternative rock" be there. 174.30.123.133 (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC) No such thing as alternative rock or alternative.It is originally Indie Rock and it should still be but if it keeps getting changed then i will have to complain to wiki.