Talk:Oasis (band)

Live temporary members

Shouldn't Paul "Strangeboy" Stacey be on this list? I seem to remember he was second keyboard player on the Be Here Now tour, plus he played 2nd guitar at a Noel acoustic set sometime in the early 2000s... Artgarfunkelshairchad (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Further evidence that using a singular known with a plural verb is non-standard in British English: "parliament is in session" has "about 30,000" Google hits, while "parliament are in session" has "about 1,090". Maproom (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Parliament is singular. Band is singular. Oasis is a specific group of people. It'd be like saying "You and I". Oasis are a band, just as you and I are not. 68.177.128.33 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So, "the band are performing", "the group are performing"... do those phrases look correct to a native BE speaker? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Was that rhetorical? If not, then to me they do look correct. This has been discussed to death with football (soccer) teams. To quote from English plural#Discretionary plurals, "A number of words [...] may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it [...] In North American English, such words are invariably treated as singular". Fribbulus Xax (talk) 23:37, 28 August 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)

I put in a new reference which states they have sold 70 million actually —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.105.32 (talk) 14:34, 21 June 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)

Err, #5 with only 53,000 copies sold??? Come on, Iron Maiden has done far better than that in the US in recent years. I also have to contest the statement that their singles are getting either heavy or long-term airplay in the US as well. 70.168.32.250 (talk) 07:32, 9 June 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)

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 is over, but we'll never forget.

Lily

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)