Talk:Blur (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Don't Bomb...

Does "Don't Bomb When You're The Bomb" really count as a single? It was such a limited vinyl release (and I'm not even sure it was commercially released at all) and Blur weren't even credited on it. --Moochocoogle 03:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed "Don't Bomb..." from the list. As far as I can tell it was only released as a promo. --Moochocoogle 04:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps it shouldn't be credited as an official single. Still, I think should be mentioned. It was essentially a preview of the style of music that appeared on Think Tank, which was quite a change for Blur (though songs like "Black Box", so we should not this. Acegikmo1 06:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "don't bomb" was blown up by the metropolitan police. It was a promotional release to radiostations and so forth but a big case of something saying "bomb" wasn't appreciated and it was destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrikPatrik (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Suede

Completely wrong to state that Blur paved the way for Suede's success; the chronology is the wrong way round. Suede arrived at the beginning of 1993, they paved the way for Parklife.

Well I don't think the article actually says that. It does say that Suede benefitted from the success of Parklife. There was britpop before Parklife (Blur's 1993 album Modern Life Is Rubbish is also britpop, by the way) but it wasn't very successful until Parklife. --Moochocoogle 17:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... here we go straddling that Suede/Blur line again... I happen to think this comment is missleading as well. To many who know the genre, it is pretty well known that Suede were established in their own right at that particular time. It was moreso a culmination of Blur, Suede, Pulp and then Oasis that broke the scene wide open -- not just one album that got the press to pay attention. It was like any movement and depended upon who struck you first. But I have to say, as an afterthought on this, to even mention Suede as a tailgate in this sentence, is slightly insulting. I mean... they were mentioned after Menswe@r - come on! I don't entirely mean to be rude here, but Suede were at the barracades guys! Anjels` 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Life is Rubbish

Can there be a bit about the genesis of modern life? I think it's pretty important.

They went on tour in America (see the documentary Popscene) had a really awful time, listened to the Kinks on the tourbus, because they only took a few tapes with them, and that happened to be one, all of which leads to the turn to using only English influences.

It'd also be nice to stick some stuff in about the two promo photos, British Image 1 and 2, and the use of the Union Jack in comparisson to Morrissey's, which was only a few months before - though I appreciate that's a bit off topic.

Well if you know some good stuff that you think should go in the article then go for it. The in-depth stuff is probably best off in the Modern Life Is Rubbish article though. --Moochocoogle 15:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

A huge amount of this article is directly copied from the Allmusic biography of Blur. I'm going to list at the copyright violations page. john k 02:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI, The copyvio appears to have been introduced by User:Painbearer. john k 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the diff, by the way: [1]. john k 02:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tick, tock, Painbearer. Better get to removing the copyvio, or I'm just going to revert. john k 02:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've come to check out the page from wikipedia copyvio's, a lot of work seems to have been done on the article since the copyvio was added in January. I suggest that instead of reverting it, any sections of text that still appear as cut and pastes from all music.com be rewritten or cut from the article. --nixie 01:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of work, but there's still a huge amount of copyvio. john k 18:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done a lot of tidying/rewriting which has hopefully got rid of even more of the copyright vio Cavie78 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the NME

That section on the new album is straight out the NME. [2] Figured I should point this out. - 211.28.82.49 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Painbearer strikes again. I've removed the section for now. Anyone want to rewrite it? --Moochocoogle 22:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Boo

that's sound quite stupid. "Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages." I think that this relates about news too. But if you are such daring creature deleting it, go and rewrite it. I'm reverting back to my edit. Tomorrow I will deal with it if it is still here. Painbearer 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You realize that means "most web pages are not public domain resources", right? I understand that the wording is somewhat ambiguous (someone should get on that), but from context, and common sense, one should be able to infer that copying directly from the Internet is probably not acceptable. *shrug* - 211.28.79.52 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Musical characteristics

Most of the page is about biographical and occaisonal lyrical elements of Blur's production. But I think an encyclopedia article should also (try to) describe what is specific abpout them musically. I don't know how to do this, can someone?

Discography

I really don't like the new-look discography section. It is messy and it doesn't allow for non-album singles like Music Is My Radar. --Moochocoogle 15:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I think that the singles should be afforded a separate table. Acegikmo1 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the "Focusing in With Blur - Interview and Music" in the noteable release section as it was not present/ --81.105.242.85 10:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Andy Martin

Some other artists have really detailed, excellent looking record performance sections. Why's Blur's so dull and skimpy? RatnimSnave 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Coupland

I don't understand the contradiction in disliking American culture and grunge, and quoting Coupland in your linear notes? Can the author of that please explain it to me? //Richie rich

I'm not the author, but thought i should point out Coupland is Canadian, and Blur were massive in Canada even before the UK - There's No Other way got to number 1. So US reference is unrelated to Doug 81.106.131.118 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Dylan

Electronica

I just added Electronica to their music styles. (Think Tank, Music is My Radar...)

IS vs ARE

'Blur' is a singular noun. It refers to one group. Using "Blur are" is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zethon (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 August 2006.

I have already raised this issue on your talk page. "Blur are" is the accepted way of referring to a group in British usage. Please stop changing it.

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-war? I think not!

According to the article, Blur refused to have their "Song 2" used in a promotion for the military because they are anti-war. Yet the same song was used in the trailer for Starship Troopers - which is a movie ALL ABOUT WAR!! Makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, Starship Troopers is far more violent than any military ad would be. I think they should have re-evaluated that decision! Davez621 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers IS anti-war! And even if it wasn't it's a sci-fi film - are you suggesting Blur believe strongly that the human race should start a fight with some alien bugs? ;-) Cavie78 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but how many people actually got that message, and didn't just see it as a bugs and guts exploding on screen flick. Besides, the military itself is neither pro nor anti war. They simply follow orders from higher up. The military are involved in plenty of peacekeeping operations too.Davez621 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fo' shizzle, you're right about people's perceptions of Starship Troopers but I think you'd either see it as anti-war or just a dumb popcorn flick, definitely not pro-war. As for the recruiting video I know what you're getting at but I wouldn't let any of my bands songs be used in promotion for the military despite the fact I think we need the army to defend us, perform peace keeping operations for the UN etc. Anyways the point is Blur ARE anti-war - they were involved in the 'Don't attack Iraq' movement and Damon Albarn in particular has regularly spoken out on the issue Cavie78 11:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Blur (band) → Blur — 500 links point to Blur, a disambiguation page, but I doubt any are looking for a page related to optics. All of the pages listed on the disambig page have titles sufficiently distinct from the band's name to avoid confusion. Moving the Blur and Blur (band) to their natural homes makes more sense than fixing all those links Alcuin 23:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~

Support per above Alcuin 23:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose better to leave the dab page where it is. -- Beardo 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I would assume more people know the imaging "blur" than the band "Blur", since the band is considered pop culture while a blurry image is in just about every English speaker's vocabulary. --Wirbelwind 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose agree with Wirbelwind. Miss Dark 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, generally we have the thing that other things are named after as the primary topic. Recury 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment See also opposes at Talk:Blur#Requested_move. Kevin_b_er 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Fail

I am failing this due to lack of references.

• Five {{cn} tags
• The Ailerons [21] external jump
• References are not formatted correctly, they are missing retrieved and it's in the incorrect order, check the {{cite web}}
• Images are missing fair use rationales - Wikipedia:Fair use
• Remove the fan site per WP:EL
• Do not link solo years like 1989
• References come after punctuation with no space . [1] should be .[1]
  • Seymour changed their name to "Blur". Reference
  • Blur released She's So High in October 1990, which made it into the Top 40. Reference - Also wrong wikilink - UK Singles Chart
  • Blur's cultural crusade of British pride[8] but when released, charted at #32 and was dropped from the album. - Needs a ref and doesn't make any sense, what dropped from the album?
  • 15 weeks on the U.S. charts, peaking at number 52, - Needs a reference 'never "cracked" on the top 40 cracked is the wrong word. Us charts are also called Billboard 200
  • however, Think Tank was yet another UK #1 and managed their highest US position of #56. Reference
  • Alphabetize categories - not GA but makes it look better

More references, fair use rationales, format references to include all details. M3tal H3ad 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Here are some things to fix before going for GA again. The parenthetical years in the lead are probably unnecessary and look very distracting. There are still unreferenced paragraphs in "(1993–1995) The Britpop years and height of fame" and "(2004–present) Solo projects and possible reunion". All fair use images need detailed fair use rationales. The gallery of album covers should also probably be removed; a name, date, and chart positions don't make for good critical commentary (as required by WP:FU). The audio samples should appear in the main article space per Wikipedia:Music samples. The references are improperly formatted; there is no access date for any of the online ones. Try using {{cite web}} for the online ones. Also, I have serious doubts as to whether or not a site like http://www.musicfanclubs.org/ meets WP:RS; please go through all of them and replace unreliable sources with reliable ones. ShadowHalo 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Former Member"

Does Simon Tong really count as a 'former member'? Since he only played guitar for them live after Graham Coxon's departure does that really make him an official member? By the same token you could include all the horn players/singers/keyboard players/etc. who have appeared onstage live with the band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.215.245.225 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I've taken the liberty of removing him. Hope that sits okay with the rest of you. (GarethBrown-same poster as above)

Picture

Can't we get a picture of the entire band to represent them? Damon Albarn may think he is the entire band, but he is not. ——Anthonylombardi 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's free. Until we can get a free or freely-licensed picture of the entire band, well have to stick with this (is that pic even from a performance with the band?). WesleyDodds 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Current pic

I think it isn't right to have a pic of only Damon right now in the info box. However he's my hero, it just isn't right. There are three other members :P (Slowgaze 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

pov

Just reading over the article, I found the statement, "Blur were seen as has-beens", in the section discussing The Great Escape as POV and/or weasel-wordish. Seen as has-beens by whom? The statement seems to feed off of the (overblown) Oasis/Blur battle mentioned in the previous sentences, and assumes that because The Great Escape was less successful than What's the Story Morning Glory, that Blur were therefore "has-beens" (or at least "seen as" such... which is where my weasel words complaint comes in). However, my main complaint about this statement is simply the contention that they might, in 1995, be seen as has beens when their most critically and commercially popular work, Parklife, was released the previous year. I mean, even assuming that The Great Escape were an artistic and commercial failure (neither of which it was), I would find it difficult to claim that the band had fallen to the status of has-beens in so short a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.248.159 (talk) 07:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Bit Of A Blur - Alex James' autobiography

Surely it merits a mention in the article?

SteveRamone 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with this....

I was reading through this, and I took this out of the "The Britpop Years" section because of grammar and general nonsensical statements.

"On August 14, 1995, Blur released their new single, "Country House". Originally slated for release on August 21, Albarn had requested the single's release moved up to compete with the release of "Roll With It", the new single from Blur's rivals, Oasis - sparking the much hyped "Battle of Britpop". Blur's "Country House" ultimately outsold Oasis's "Roll With It" 274,000 copies to 216,000 during the week. On August 20, to radio BBC announced that Blur had won the battle, for cause that sold 58,000 the more than Oasis. In the albums of Britpop, didn't The Great Escape get the defined album to be Britpop, because of the few sales, and was the defined album exactly (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, by Oasis, that sold more than 19 million copies worldwide, and is 3rd best selling UK album of all time. In September, Noel Gallagher he says in the magazine "The Observer" that wanted that Damon and Alex, they diffused AIDS and they were died. In Brit Awards 1996, when the prize "Best British Group", they sing the chorus of Parklife."

If anyone knows what the original writer was attempting to say - or knows how it should be fixed, by all means, do so - please. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the band or their history - so I'll leave this for someone else.

Thanks, guys.Gobbleodobble 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Graham Coxon

Shouldn't he count as a former member? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and there's absolutely no mention (I could see) of his successful solo career. No exploration of the formation of Gorillaz or Albarn's other projects either. --Pipedreambomb (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Blur, not the band members' side projects. indopug (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know what to do with THIS

Similar to a message by Gobbleodobble earlier on this page. I found this bit:

On Brit Awards 1996, Blur, was nominated for 5 awards, won not because of any fault of sales because of The Great Escape. Oasis won 3 awards, in the delivery of the awards "Best Album", the band insulting Blur, and sings the chorus of Parklife for cause.

It's in the 'The Britpop years: 1993-1996' section. I'd say it's from the same author as the paragraph that Gobbleodobble mentioned. I'd fix it myself if I knew what it was about. Rien Post (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah i just copied this sentance and was about to point out exactly the same thing on the discussion. it was a really good article until all of a sudden it just became unreadable. i thought i may have forgotton how to understand engilsh or something, but im glad its not just me. can somebody clear it up please? i dont know enough about the band's history and what this is trying to say. cheers guys. Dark_Wounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Headings

As having, QUANTITATIVE, and not QUALITATIVE descriptors more informative, and nonpov, if not, less risky as being pov.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV before enforcing your opinion. In any case, the qualitative descriptors are explained thoroughly in the prose (with excellent references to reliable sources); and having these descriptors gives the reader a general idea of what the section contains. Displaying just years removes the neccesity of dividing Blur's history into sections at all. See featured articles (Wikipedia's best work) such as Radiohead, R.E.M. etc ... before reverting again. Also remember that any more reverts will be in violation of our three revert rule, and you will be blocked for edit warring. indopug (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Headings#Section headings. The qualitative descriptors you mentioned should not have anything to do with the pertinant section. Headings are names, and should not mention any information, as that is what the text of the section should do. Otherwise, just right the whole section in the heading. Headings are not used to tell what the section is about, it is used to name a section and the faciliate navigation in the table of contents. If that is the case, then you CAN'T divide Blur's history. In any case, WP:NPOV is a Pillar, which is more important then any policy you have stated as yet. If those articles violate NPOV, then they have problems too. This is the first explanation you have provided to YOUR revert. This is my 3rd. Who's edit warring?68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the link you provided that states that qualitative descriptors are not allowed in section headers. Further, WP:NPOV says that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources."; that does not mean that we cannot use section headings that give the reader a description of the contents of that section. Here, Blur's early success is further explained within that very article while as is Blur's "reinvention" in its own section. To call Blur's early years successful is NPOV as is saying that after Britpop they reinvented themselves (which just means that they changed their style)

Success is definitely not measurable. I have explained that is NOT what headings are for.68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot explain why any of those articles (see also: The Smashing Pumpkins, Joy Division, Metallica), which have been determined by rigourous community discussion, to be Wikipedia's best work (and hence follow all principles) also have the exact same format as this one, then clearly you have some personal problem against this article itself. Unless you can get all those articles to change, it wouldn't be consistent to change just this one. indopug (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to change all of the article. Look, when you add labels like that in the sections, it is name or telling, and in either case would still be POV, because if I can argue that the label does just that, label, that it is "formation" and then it labels "success", just to start, then success, just as an example, can only be subjectively defined. It is not OBJECTIVE (unfortunate that I forgot this word in the previous post).68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said that it has to be objective and not subjective? We are trying to critically discuss the subject here, not just give an arbitrary timeline. If you read the article it says that a couple of their early singles and the debut Leisure all charted very well, so where is the question of any sort of bias? Just clumping by years gives a very dull and unprofessional look to the article as it doesn't prepare the reader for what lies in that section. If you "don't have the time to change all of the article" then clearly you have an anti-Blur bias and are only concerned that any positive mention of Blur is removed from the article. indopug (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have time to change all the science articles to make them feature article status. I personally don't have any problem with you accusing me for my own personal agenda, but someone will come along and block you for incivility. (And so you know, I don't have a personal agenda. In fact, I wasted my precious time just to change the other articles you listed.)

We are trying to critically discuss the subject here, not just give an arbitrary timeline.

— indopug (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what pov is, and exactly what a history should do, give a timeline. If you have a problem with the years, then remove those headlines. Critically discussing the subject is original research with out citations and pov. If you have critical discussion, then address in a ==Critical discussion==, but don't do it in a history. Equally so, readers can confuse what would be critical discussion in a history if not told so explicitly. So leave the critical discussion out of the history.

...all charted very well...

— indopug (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no where in the history of the universe that has ANYTHING that can measure success, nor is there even a unit for the measure for success, and there will never be ever any of these things in the future of the universe. Of course that is pov. Headings are NOT to prepare the reader what will be mentioned in the section, headings are NOT to make an article look nice, and, as I have mentioned, headings are for navigation via table of contents.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sections like critical discussion are discouraged from a band article because they become POV dumps. Its much better for flow and when a critical discussion is included it becomes much more interesting. In this article, there is no OR because everything is cited to very reliable sources, so I don't know where you get that from. "Headings are NOT to prepare the reader what will be mentioned in the section", well, that's just silly. Reducing history sections in articles to just timelines is an indicator of poor prose; some thing we call proseline. In fact, not just band articles read higly-regarded Wikipedia articles such as Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe too; history sections are not merely timelines. indopug (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, headings themselves are not part of the article, as when you read an article, you read for the text, and not for the headings. Headings is a form of nomenclature, that really just distinguishes one thing from something else. Many things are name not because of what they are, but because they were named arbitrary. When you add more than just NEUTRAL indications of time, it already leans on the side of pov. Think of Pov as 0, where as words are +1 or -1.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Section headings are supposed to be descriptive of the text. Listing just years doesn't give an appropriate indication of why subsections are divided, then. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is your citation?68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need a citation for section headings? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean where in the wikipedia namespace did you find: Section headings are supposed to be descriptive of the text.?

For everyone to peruse: Wikipedia:MoS#Article titles, headings and sections WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." That's a pretty good assessment of the purpose, and would mean using qualitative descriptors is good. If I want to know something and don't know much about the band, I shouldn't have to read whole sections or lead-sentences to figure out which section I need to be reading. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD might be a useful place to get wider consensus in general instead of being WP:BOLD and over-riding consensus individually developed on each of many pages. However, the fact that several FA/GA all do something the same way should tell you that that way already has some wide-spread consensus. DMacks (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New album?

Two recent lists of "autumn album releases" in swedish newspapers have claimed that Blur's releasing a new album this autumn. Does anyone know were this rumor comes from? Stupid swedish media...Slipzen (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Former members

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Past_members and see that no one should be listed as a current member of a defunct band. Tom Green (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the article

The recent changes being championed by 70.21.58.96 are largely unnecessary detail:

• There's no need to mention the number of studio albums they released (or highlight the #1 UK singles) in this lead; they're more suitable for the band's discography article lead. And Fugazi didn't have that big an impact on the band. And we're only mentioning the members' primary instruments in the lead.
• I'm the primary contributor to this article and I have found no source that refers to the album cover painted by Coxon as a sign of "different Blur members were going their own directions, maybe putting strains on group." So it simply doesn't belong esp. without context as to why its being mentioned. indopug (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right on the Fugazi thing. It turns out that Pavement was the most frequently mentioned influence in articles on the self-titled album, probably because Pavement was trendier at the time, even though Coxon was a fan of Fugazi and other bands as well. So the Fugazi mention can be deleted, sorry for adding it. (I would argue that Pavement didn't have that big an impact on the band either, at least not that you can actually hear on the album, but anyway... it's what the media did say, so we have sources for it.)

I also didn't give the best reason to keep the information about Coxon doing the artwork- you're right there's no evidence it put strains on the group, but I think it's important to note (in a general way) the different contributions of different band members, esp. toward the end when we know that different members were looking to go in their own directions (not necessarily fighting, just each becoming more independent). So 13 was Damon's most personal album as far as songwriting (as the section notes, and I think was good to mention in the intro, since it's known for that as much as the gospel/electronica) and an album where Graham was really allowed to drive the musical style (as the section notes), it's also important to mention in the 13 section that Coffee & TV was the first single where Graham sang lead vocals (this was not mentioned before my edits) and it's not a bad idea to mention that he designed the album cover (as someone else had already put in, and you deleted), not to argue especially in favour of Graham or something, but to point out something which sets that album apart from the ones that came before. I understand maybe talking about artwork is too specific for the Blur article and might fit better in the 13 article, but at least the fact Coxon sang one of the singles, Coffee & TV, is significant for the Blur article.

Graham really must also be listed as an occasional lead singer in the lead paragraph, and probably the other members' backing vocals deserve mention as well, otherwise it's inaccurate. I've worked on featured articles such as Radiohead, and they mention exactly which members sing backing vocals. With Blur of course most (if not all?) members do sing at times, but Graham deserves mention in the lead because he's the only member besides Damon to sing on a single. So someone listens to only The Best of Blur and they do hear a song that Graham, not Damon, sings. Therefore it's right to mention him.

Finally I want to defend my changes to the lead paragraph. It's nice if you have worked a lot on the article, but that does NOT entitle you to prevent anyone else from making positive changes to it and allowing it to evolve. I worked a lot (under a real username) on plenty of articles and they have often been changed against my will. But if only one person (i.e. me or you) wants to revert changes to an article we did a lot of work on, that's not enough. After all lots of other Wikipedians did a lot of work on this article too, I'm sure. One article I've worked a lot on, Radiohead, is featured. This one is not anywhere close, so this article is one which can always use more positive contributions and improvements, instead of being locked into the state it was in when you finished your edits. Ok, so anyway, from my work on other featured music articles I've noticed there's a consensus that it's good to mention the number of releases of the band right up front. Not number of live albums, compilations, music videos etc., you're right that technical stuff fits better on a discography page. But if someone has no idea who/what Blur is, I think it does help to begin the encyclopedia article mentioning that they have done x number of albums and x singles, particularly to mention the biggest chart hits among the singles, which is an objective fact. For, say, Radiohead, we don't mention the number of singles in the lead. That's because their singles, even Creep, never had the commercial success of Blur's, and Radiohead are known more for albums. But any band like Blur that has had #1 singles in their native country should mention this fact in the lead- Blur are known both for hit singles and hit albums. Even if this was NOT the case, this article already mentions "Song 2" in the lead, which was not even a #1 single, and is only their most recognizeable song in the USA, not their own country. If you think that "Country House" and "Beetlebum" shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, I think we would also need to delete the mention of "Song 2," which even in America was not a HUGE hit (only modern rock radio), whereas Country House and Beetlebum were HUGE (#1 pop) hits in Britain. Check out other featured articles, you'll see that if an artist has had #1 singles, unless they've had a ridiculous number of them (Beatles, Michael Jackson etc), the names of their hits tend to be mentioned in the lead. Also, in addition to being a #1 hit, Beetlebum is seen by the band themselves and most fans and critics as a highlight of their career. Therefore it fits well to mention in the lead.

One other thing: if you didn't notice, part of the changes I made were to shorten unnecessary wording in the lead which talked about "The Battle of Britpop." The actual phrase, "The Battle of Britpop" is not that widely known, and is not the universal way a Blur (or an Oasis) fan would refer to this event. It's the title of the article on the feud between Blur and Oasis, only because it's a convenient title for the subject. But instead of merntioning "Britpop" and then a few words later, saying "The Battle of Britpop", it's more appropriate just to link "famous chart battle with rival band Oasis" to the Battle of Britpop article. Otherwise the intro is devoting too many words to this so-called battle, as compared with the rest of Blur's career. It's very unimportant that a reader who wants to find out about Blur in two or three short paragraphs learn the uncommon phrase "The Battle of Britpop". Really more notable to mention Country House + Beetlebum.

Whatever though, just revert again if you want.

Edit: there are also errors in the intro as it exists which my version fixed. "Your" intro implies that Blur became successful in the US as a result of Song 2. In fact this is wrong- Song 2 was commercially successful, but Blur did not remain successful in America for long after the song, so I changed it to say "found brief success" (they've always had a cult of US alternative fans- but as far as the mainstream, they are seen as a one-hit wonder). On the other hand, "your" intro also makes it sound like until "Song 2", Blur were ONLY successful in the UK. This is not true either. They were a popular band in various places, not only the UK, and they had several international hits before the self-titled album. They just didn't crack America. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I own the article or anything, just that your edits sometimes didn't flow perfectly with the prose around it.

• I really don't see the point of mentioning the studio albums and #1 singles up front. Why? For one it breaks up the chronological flow of the lead (which I like to mirror the article). The number of studio albums is also rather redundant to "recording of their seventh album Think Tank". As for the #1 singles, well, I plan to expand the lead into three paragraphs, so maybe then I can include their mention in the lead chronologically. To repeat, I just kinda don't like summarising sentences as they interrupt chronological flow. Also "your" lead devotes an entire para to one album, arguably to their least important one too, Think Tank. What's the point of that?
• As for the [[Battle of Britpop|chart battle]] link, such "Easter egg" links are discouraged as they confuse the new user. I've seen the issue raised on a number of FACs.
• "Song 2" is their most recognisable song worldwide; "Beetlebum", not so much. Its the first Blur song most non-British people hear. Besides--"is only their most recognizeable song in the USA, not their own country", why the British bias?
• Why remove mention of Pavement in the lead? All reviews/articles from the Blur-era contain overwhelming mention of that band.
• As for "Backing vocals" for all the band-members, that's kinda unnecessary and would make that sentence (the second in the article) very long and clunky to read. I will add the "Coffee & TV" vocals bit though. That band-members+instruments line is to get the idea of a very very basic who-does-what in the band.
• "American album", while that's a nice quote, I'd rather remove it for now as the rest of sources in the Blur paragraph are from 1997, and it just sits a little oddly.

While you may believe that "This one is not anywhere close", most of the edits you've are just matters of preference. Sure Radiohead is a great article, but it isn't necessarily the model for all band articles. I'm actually looking at Smashing Pumpkins and R.E.M. for ideas on how to go about. indopug (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New words

Blur are an English alternative rock band that formed in London in 1989. The four members of the band are singer Damon Albarn, guitarist Graham Coxon, bassist Alex James and drummer Dave Rowntree. Blur's debut album Leisure (1991) incorporated the sounds of Madchester and shoegazing. Following a stylistic change—influenced by English guitar pop groups such as The Kinks, The Beatles and XTC—Blur released the Modern Life Is Rubbish (1993), Parklife (1994) and The Great Escape (1995) albums. The band found mass success in the UK, while Blur's famous chart battle with rival British band Oasis helped to popularise the Britpop genre around the world.

In recording their follow-up, Blur (1997), the band underwent another reinvention, influenced by the lo-fi style of American indie rock bands such as Pavement. "Song 2", one of the album's singles, became Blur's first and only radio hit in the US. The last album featuring Blur's original lineup, 13 (1999) found the band members experimenting with electronic music and gospel music, as Albarn wrote more personal lyrics. In May 2002, Coxon left Blur during the recording of their seventh album Think Tank (2003). Containing electronic sounds and more minimal guitar work, the album was marked by Albarn's growing interest in hip hop and African music. Since a 2003 tour without Coxon, Blur have done no studio work or touring as a band, as members have engaged in other projects. Blur confirmed in late 2008 that the band will reunite in 2009 with Coxon back in the fold.

versus old (wordier) wording:

Blur are an English alternative rock band that formed in London in 1989. The four members of the band are vocalist Damon Albarn, guitarist Graham Coxon, bassist Alex James and drummer Dave Rowntree. Blur's debut album Leisure (1991) incorporated the sounds of Madchester and shoegazing. Following a stylistic change in 1992—influenced by English guitar groups such as The Kinks, The Beatles and XTC—Blur released Modern Life Is Rubbish (1993), Parklife (1994) and The Great Escape (1995). As a result, the band helped to popularise the Britpop genre and achieved mass popularity in the UK, aided by a famous chart battle with rival band Oasis dubbed "The Battle of Britpop".

By the late 1990s, with the release of Blur (1997), the band underwent another reinvention, influenced by the lo-fi style of American indie rock bands such as Pavement; in the process, Blur finally gained mainstream success in the US with the single, "Song 2". The last album featuring the band's original lineup, 13 (1999) found Blur experimenting with electronic music and gospel music, as Albarn wrote more personal lyrics. In May 2002, Coxon left Blur during the recording of their seventh album Think Tank (2003). Containing electronic sounds and simpler guitar playing, the album was marked by Albarn's growing interest in hip hop and African music. Since their 2003 tour, Blur have done no studio work or touring as a band, and members have engaged in other projects. Although they long maintained that they had no concrete plans of working together, Blur have confirmed they will be reuniting in 2009 with Coxon back in the fold.

getting started

as briefly outlined by hotpress this week the band was first written about by leo finlay. the contributions of this deceased man were invaluable to the bands success over the years. some claim that blur would not be where they are today without leo finlay. certainly he was the first person to tell them to change their name from seymour. finlays help was key to blurs success after he first saw them play in a pub. he should be mentioned in this article as he was offered to become the bands manager because of his expert guidance. over the years he became good frinds with damon albarn and also helped kick start the careers of the spice girls and the soltons of ping fc. the band even played at his wedding. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blur_(band)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safari102 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

13

Can we mention that the album's cover of 13 is designed by Coxon? Because someone keeps reverting and I just don't know fucking why those someones do it. I might tell something spicy but I will refrain. It's just a fact that I don't see why can't be mentioned on the page. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Its too much detail for this article—which tries to give a brief overview of twenty years of a band's history— and more suited for the 13 article. indopug (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is just a short sentence. "The album's cover is designed by Coxon." I put "Being gifted artist, the album's cover was designed by Coxon." Slightly longer, but it's not a whole fucking paragraph. It is short and even the longer version doesn't seem long at all. It would be long if dabbled into something else. But long - come on give me a break! It is short and I don't see any reason why it can't be mentioned in the article beside your stubborness. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary detail for the band article, and the phrasing "Being gifted artist, the album's cover was designed by Coxon" pushes POV boundaries. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. It is necessary and not that complicated for the band. It is just a fucking sentence. "The album's cover was also designed by Coxon". That's all, nothing more, nothing less. It is good and it should be pointed out. It isn't unnecessary. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"It is good and it should be pointed out" is not a valid reason to include mention of it. What importance does it have to the band's history as a whole? Why mention that album's cover and not Modern Life Is Rubbish or Parklife? Details about album covers are primarily reserved for the album articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "gifted" part isn't needed, but otherwise Mad Hatter brought up a great point here- though I've argued with him on the Radiohead pages. Editors of Blur article, particularly Indopug, seem to be ridiculously averse to *ANY* change to the page, which is odd since (unlike Radiohead, e.g.) this article is NOT featured nor even rated good, and would seem like maybe it could get there with some more edits from more people. Most people, including me, simply gave up in the past, because no matter how we justify our edits, Indopug instantly reverts them. Mention of Coxon's 13 album cover is just one example, and in fact, before this "gifted" wording several editors tried to add it to the article with a shorter, more neutral phrase. The fact is not trivia- it's notable for showing the varied contributions made by different band members on their final album as a foursome. Some other notable facts such as Coxon's vocal contribution on the album's single Coffee & TV, were also deleted by Indopug and only reinstated after threats of an edit war. Attempts to make the introduction more concise and easier to read while retaining the same information, were also reverted, multiple times. (I just tried again, we'll see how it plays out.) It seems like there is no particular rhyme or reason to the reversions. Cleaning up in various sections also tends to be reverted by Indopug, even if it shortens unneeded words and adds needed sources to the text! I think other editors need to watch this page to make sure any single editor is not exerting disproportionate control over its content and preventing anyone else from making positive contributions. Last time I tried to improve a section, I was reverted by Indopug, with the explanation that he himself was planning a massive overhaul of that section, so meanwhile others' work was unneeded. Well that was several months ago and I don't see his massive overhaul. Meanwhile we have an article on a very notable subject which will only be more notable in the coming year, due to the reunion, and which should get to featured with a little work from a lot of people. 70.21.58.96 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Years active"

Now that the band have confirmed reunion plans, there's bound to be many differing opinions about the infobox "years_active" tab. I personally think it should be "1989-present" since Blur never officially split;lso, we have to keep in mind that the info isn't too convoluted. Opinions? Suggestions? indopug (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox in the Jane's Addiction and The Verve articles have gaps in 'years active' and I think it's fair enough. Although Damon never said the band had officially split (as far as I can tell), Blur were not active between 2004 and 2008 so I think "1989-present" is misleading. Cavie78 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an easy way around this. Under "1989-present" there can be something in subscript saying something along the lines of "2004-2008 (hiatus)". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is too complicated. I support the gap that says "1989-2003, 2008-present". It really is misleading. That's my opinion, but I won't revert or edit. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But how do we know for certain what they were up to in their spare time? And how does this differ from U2 who are on the verge of releasing their first album in five years? Or what about Guns N' Roses and Chinese Democracy? They might have been recording but who is to say that Blur were absolutely doing nothing in the time they've been away? According to our article for Gorillaz, they preceded this so-called split, with their first album being released in 2001, so I don't see how that could be offered as an excuse. They were still going when Graham Coxon began his solo career - he had released three albums by his own departure in 2002, which itself precedes the hiatus by one calendar year. And The Good, the Bad & the Queen album seems to have been a side-project? So is there any source for the band being absolutely definitely 100% apart all this time? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lot's of people state the band have reformed - The Guardian, Mtv, Drowned in Sound, The Fly, The Telegraph etc. etc. Blur split then reformed, U2 took some time off in between records.Cavie78 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The band have never that they ever disbanded; that's why its at "1989–present". In fact, for the last three years, they've always said "not now, but maybe in a while" definitely. indopug (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not a split has been announced is IRRELEVENT. They were not active between 2003 and 2008 as they performed no concerts, released no material or appeared at no events under the Blur name. This MUST state 1989-2003 and 2008 (or 2009)-present. Tom Green (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Official website/forum

Seems to be the only place to ask this. Are they not approving new members on the forums, or what? When I read article it said Blur are canadian and formed in London Sure thats wrong Janepebbles (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reunion Gigs

I'm new to Wikipedia so not quite sure of policy. Is it noteworthy that at least two of the warmup gigs are at significant venues to the history of the band, ie East Anglian Railway Museum (return to first ever gig) and Goldsmiths College (where band met)? Also how relevant is naming the support acts at Manchester? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually considering that this is a 20+ years career overview of the band, none of this needs mentioning. Thanks! indopug (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

London or Colchester

There seems to be a bit of an edit war forming over whether the band formed in Colchester or London. Can we discuss it here, please, rather than hacking about with the article. The band formed mainly from students at Goldsmith's College in London, that much is verifiable (and sourced) fact. Albarn was originally from London but spent some of his childhood in Colchester. If anyone wants the article to state that the band formed in Colchester, please provide sources for this. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just had a quick flick through the Stuart Maconie book. As I see, Blur are associated with Colchester. probably because Dave Rowntree was born there, with Graham & Damon moving there before their teens. However, the seed of Blur were sown in London, specifically Beat Studios in Euston, where Circus rehearsed (with Damon & Graham), Dave joining in 1988. Alex joined in 1989, as a result of social connection with Graham, via Goldsmiths where they were students.

I vote London--Mr goodtaste (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm for London as that was where the guys came together/met and where the actual genesis of the band occurred. I'm not really sure how Colchester has relevance for the band as an entity. --WebHamster 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something we'd !vote on. We need to convey what the reliable sourcing says. You say the source says they are associated with Colchester, how does it word that? How does the source refer to their connections with London? If the source isn't explicit, is there another source that can be used that is clearer? user:J aka justen (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The associated with Colchester bit is just my impression; Dave Graham & Damon spent their early life there - i dont think that its relevant to the formation of Blur.

"Alex remembers that the first rehearsal with himself, Damon, Dave and Graham took place on the day before Goldsmiths' winter term of 1989 ended and the college broke up for the Christmas vacation. 'We went to the Beat Factory [in Euston] and we did "She's So High" all together for the first time'" - Stuart Maconie - Blur 3862 Days. The Official History--Mr goodtaste (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That would appear to support the assertion that the band "formed" in London, if you agree that their first rehearsal would effectively be their formation. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollercoaster Tour

Article states that Blur toured the USA as part of the Rollercoaster Tour. I think I remember that Rollercoaster was just a UK tour with MBV, Dinosaur Jr and JAMC - wasn't the US trip just Blur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}There is no photo of the band at the top of the info box, so I would like to suggest adding a recent photograph of the reformed band. I would recommend http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/13/1244847986578/Blur-001.jpg, http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/music/Pix/pictures/2009/6/12/1244821451682/Blur-002.jpg or http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b31/under_a_blood_red_sky/88431409.jpg Josheatslemons (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Please use the commons to upload the image and give information about its source. Someone will be glad to help once the copyright protection issues are dealt with. Celestra (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of NME/MTV awards

Mention of Blur winning MTV and NME awards has been repeatedly added, and repatedly removed by user User:Indopug, on the occasion when they used an edit summary claiming "As many other editors and I have repeatedly explained, music video awards are not important enough to include in an article that provides a 20+ years overview of a band;s career." I can find no discussion of this or consensus for the omission of this information in this talk page or its archive. I can see no valid reason for omitting this information. If there's a discussion somewhere that shows that this has been discussed and that it has been agreed that the awards are not included, please point us towards it so that we can leave the article in a stable state one way or the other. It seems strange that we wouldn't mention prestigious awards like this but mention placings on charts such as the Modern Rock chart (not even based on sales). Let's have some demonstrable consensus here rather than repeated reversion.--Michig (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point, these aren't prestigious awards. The article does mention the BRIT awards they won, simply because they are a big deal (esp. when Blur them for Parklife, as it was seen as a sign of indie coming to the forefront of the mainstream). MTV Europe Video Awards, on the other hand, aren't a big deal at all. Can you imagine how cumbersome this article would become if we had include every award Blur won? This is why we have separate Awards/Nominations articles.

As for discussion, if you had looked the revision history of the article for the past year and a half, you'd see me (and WesleyDodds and others, on occasion) explain how this info is not really important. indopug (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

These are hardly minor awards, and they don't appear to be mentioned anywhere else. You and another editor opining that they should not be included in the occasional edit summary hardly amounts to achieving consensus. Given that there is a difference of opinion between editors on this issue, achieving consensus on the talk page seems the most reasonable approach. If this discussion achieves such a consensus we can put an end to the constant reverting.--Michig (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we will seek consensus with this discussion. indopug (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind listing major award wins. The problem is the mention of these awards is always too specific (focusing pretty much on "Coffee and TV", because there are editors who really really really like the video). It's giving undue weight, when instead the focus on awards for "Coffee and TV" should be in the "Coffee and TV" article. And really, MTV and NME awards are not as important as Grammys or BRITs. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards for a video can be left out of the main text, assuming the band themselves didn't direct it, which in this case they didn't - the award is for the video director, not the band. The NME awards are one of the more important award ceremonies in the UK. The BRIT awards are very major-label pop-oriented, and not very highly-regarded by music fans, the NME awards are kind of the alternative equivalent. For pop/rock, the Brits and the NME awards are the two biggest in the UK that come to mind, the only other major one being the Mercury Prize, which can be for any genre. How about just having an awards section at the end, where these can be listed? And do we really need to mention playola charts such as the Modern Rock chart? ("The Universal" plays on a TV advert in the background while I type by pure coincidence).--Michig (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See this, for example, regarding the BRITs and the NME awards.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with ANY fact being added to a Wikipedia page, so long as it is not completely trivial, and it flows succinctly within the text. Part of my joy of browsing an encyclopaedia is to be informed of facts that I might not have considered before. IMHO the problems with the Coffee & TV video award info (and its constant companion, the Girls & Boys US chart position) was that it appeared to be (like some other content, if I'm honest), just bolted onto the text with not much consideration of the flow of the text. Its a pertinent fact (if not hugely important, but hey, whats important to one person might be banal trivia to another.) Reference the G&B US chart position; if one is mentioning the change in fortune of Blur regarding more airplay & a high UK chart placing, what is the problem in also mentioning a similar effect in the US - within the same sentence or two. If it flows, its OK (IMO). Similarly Coffee and TV, if its mentioned that the chart placing was disappointing, why not counterpoint it with a fact about its award winning video. If a way can be found to present it subtly and well, I'm OK with it. Hope my thoughts make sense and not too waffly or pretentious, just back from the pub! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested text compromises - "The album's first single, the disco-influenced "Girls & Boys", enjoyed significant radio play. It peaked at number five on the UK singles chart and number four on the US Modern Rock chart, where it remains the band's highest charting single to date.

After "Coffee & TV", featuring an award winning video [citation] and the first Blur single to feature Coxon on lead vocals, managed to only reach number 11 in the UK, manager Chris Morrison demanded a chart re-run because of a supposed sales miscalculation Mr goodtaste (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair. I don't agree that these facts are the least bit irrelevent or trivial, but I will happily incorporate them within the same sentences.124.184.17.138 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! I thought this had been solved. Indopug has deleted the amendments that I suggested, and which were agreed by another user. This apparently was not a consensus. However, I see no consensus to REMOVE the change either! IMO the changes were acceptable and seemed to have stopped the edit war. I think its perfectly acceptable to mention the placing of Girls and Boys in the Modern Rock Chart - it gives context to that tiny part of the article, and is sourced. Indopug may not agree that it is important, but I could find lots of facts in the article which, while on their own are not important, give context. (Besides, I think the fact it was the highest placed Blur single in the US is important.) I agreed that simply listing the awards Coffee & TV was too much (although I appreciate that other users disagree.) That is why I suggested putting 'Award winning'. Both these changes were acceptable to user 124.184.17.138 and did not adverslely affect the article. Why start the war again? Mr goodtaste (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with this version of the article as edited by Mr goodtaste. Some of the refs needed a bit of tidying which I've done.--Michig (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed these last two comments until now. I think "award-winning"—when used as an adjective—is an awfully peacocky term. indopug (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure other Blur songs won awards. That sort of thing can be dealt with in the individual song articles. Again, why is the focus exclusively on "Tender" and "Coffee & TV"? They weren't even the band's biggest hits. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because NME best single is an important category, as is winning 3 video awards (hence 'multi-award winning'). I'd explicitly mention that Tender won best single, but you consider that irrelevent, so the compromise is 'award-winning'. The only single which was of superior scale in terms of awards is parklife, so this is not trivial stuff to be isolated to song articles. And it creates more context than a sales miscalculation, that's for sure. Now, it was agreed that award-winning was acceptable, and that only now you criticise this is just odd and blatantly suspicious. If you can think of a 'non-peacocky' alternative for "award-winning" then by all means use it. But until then, stop looking for a war. 58.165.183.40 (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is still not relevant to this article and belongs in the individual song articles. A separate awards section is the usual way of dealing with these. --JD554 (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as my above argument stands. 121.217.5.35 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The wp:consensus seems to be for not including the wp:peacock statements. --JD554 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. An argument is required to revert what was for many months the agreed-upon edit. And as I have said, the awards these two songs won are particularly important to band history, only being superceded by 'parklife'. 121.217.5.35 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The use that "award-winning" is being used for here is simply as an adjective. It doesn't explain in any way how these releases were so important to the band. And it isn't necessary to, that's the job of the individual releases articles. --JD554 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already argued why they are relevent. Ideally, I would like to explain why in the article, but that was already frowned upon in favour of this. 121.217.5.35 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

←There is no need to explain in this article. The purpose of this article is to talk about the band. If you want to explain what releases won what awards, that information is best placed in the articles for those releases. --JD554 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

these releases are important enough to be relevent to band history121.217.5.35 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can everyone please try to agree on a consensus. We had a version that a majority agreed on above, but some editors have continued to remove mention of the awards as "POV pushing" or even vandalism. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. Please treat it as such and try to find a compromise.--Michig (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added an awards section to the article - I believe this is the best place to detail the band's awards, and can give a complete view of their awards rather than piecemeal mentions throughout the article. The awards are definitely worth including - hopefully we can agree to maintain the details in this section?--Michig (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An awards section is absolutely the right place for this as it gives context to the "award-winning" and it isn't used simply as an adjective to a song. Good call. --JD554 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have left out awards for videos because although these are often referred to as awards for Blur, they are actually, I believe awarded to the video director, which as far as I am aware in no cases was Blur themselves. There was also a best producer award for one of their albums, but again that's an award for the producer, not the band. Both video and producer awards are worth noting on single/album articles, but I think it's best to omit them here.--Michig (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally I'm in favour of this, as major awards are finally getting their place in the main article. And Tender's award is recieving credit. But I still feel the fact that the "coffee and tv" video won multiple awards should be acknowledged somewhere in the main article. Because it is something complementing blur's music (and helping to sell the single and album)which was widely acknowledged and became multi award-winning (the only blur video to do so). And lets face it, when we see a video clip we like , most of us cheer on the band and pay little attention to the director. I will also draw your attention to a comment by Indopug (Im not holding this against him, but I think it is important). Indopug reasoned that to make Blur a better article, we should model it off smashing pumpkins, which I agree is a great article. But last time I checked, there was a substantial section for pumpkin videos. Now the smashing pumpkins dont direct their videos (maybe some, but not some of the great ones, like Bullet with Butterfly Wings, Ava Adore, and Im pretty sure Tonight, Tonight (which was their multi-award winner). Such is emphasized in that article. So surely there is place for at least the widely-acknowledged videos in this article. 121.217.5.35 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Chemical World" release date

(Context: dispute over release date at the Chemical World article.)

The single release date must have been before 5 July 1993, because it entered the singles chart on Sunday 4 July (commonly noted in chart listings as 10 July, as it's the chart week ending on Saturday 10 July). See Chart Stats or search at polyhex.com. Indopug has pointed out a Select article from the July 1995 issue that says otherwise, but (for the reason I've stated) this is undoubtedly incorrect.

According to this fan discography page, the CD2 and 12" versions were released on 5 July, but CD1 and 7" were released on 28 June. However, I don't propose that a fan site be used as a citation in the article, so does anyone have a source that corroborates these dates? –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography book has release date as June 1993 - it only gives month so I can't provide an exact date.--Michig (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied over at Talk:Chemical World, best to keep this over there I think. --JD554 (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Compilation albums

Are their no reference on band's release of compilation albums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.70.36 (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't Bomb When You're The Bomb.

If Fool's Day is classed as a single (I know it's a single, albeit a limited, small run), shouldn't Don't Bomb When You're The Bomb be listed as a single, too? 190.44.91.129 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave at Goldsmiths

Recently Dave's history was changed from being a student at Goldsmiths to being a Colchester Council worker, then reverted. Without checking my book, I can't be sure, but I seem to recall he wasn't at Goldsmiths. He drove (I think) an estate car for his job which was useful for transporting gear. Can anyone check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr goodtaste (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thompson states that Rowntree was a Goldsmiths student. He may have also had a job.--Michig (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have checked with the Maconie Official History. Rowntree was a drummer for hire on the Colchester music scene, where he played with both Albarn & Coxon. He took a computer science course, went busking in France and returned to take a computer programming job with Colchester Council. At not time did he attend Goldsmiths like the others (Albarn was only a part time student) -- Mr goodtaste (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Name

I know it's nitpicking, but why did they choose to go with Blur instead of blur? Their name has always been adverted as the latter, with the lowercase "b." Just seems to me like if the band chose their name to be blur, they shouldn't be represented as Blur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.117.226 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but I expect it's Wikipedia's house style. I know for example, the pop group bis is capitalised when the band use all lower case. More pertinately, the poet e.e. cummings is the same! Mr goodtaste (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into it a bit more. a-ha for example specifically spell with lower case; it's their trademark. The official site for Blur spell their name with a capital; its their logo which is lower-case. Although e.e. cummings is usually spelt lower case, as per his poems, I believe he took issue with his publishers for using the same for his name. Can't be sure about bis. Mr goodtaste (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'd like to point out my recent edits. I wanted the article to be more professional in style. I am justifying this that important Brtitpop band such as Oasis works with more sections. That's why I wanted to capitalise on this and do this edit. I think that the article is better this way. Indopug thinks that solo careers are irrelevant. I disagree. I think that the reason for this is to point out what band members did while the band were on hiatus. That's why I think it is relevant to point out. My version lies here, what Indopug thinks is good lies up there. I think it's not. I think the article looks poor in formation and poor in construction. That's what I was trying to achieve on Blur. I was trying to construct the article in better way so that it works better. I firmly believe it's for the best for the article. That's why I think it is best to do it, or let's discuss it Indopug and find the best solution. I think you Indopug is a little bit against massive edits on article you've worked, you somehow declare ownership on your work. I've been for five years here and what I do doesn't belong to me - it belongs to Wikipedia. So I think that this structure - once again here works better than what is the current status quo of the article. That's why I am raising this question to you guys, who have been working your ass out here - let's make it best. I think that we can achieve something for the common good and that's it: better Blur article. That's all I am trying to say.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are my reasons for reverting The Mad Hatter:

• Solo careers: These are already covered in detail in the band members' articles, so discussing it here as well is a redundancy. Further, remember the focus of this article—the band Blur; any discussion of the members must be relevant to Blur. Details of solo careers, by definition, are irrelevant in a discussion of the group.
• Additional sub-sections: If it ain't broke don't fix it. The history section has four sub-sections, each dedicated to an approximate "era" of Blur. Further, the article's prose was written specifically with this structure in mind. So I'm not seeing how splitting these sections up will help.—indopug (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Years active, date Coxon actually rejoined the band, and mention of "Fool's Day" in lede

"1989–2003, 2009–present"

Don't recall any announcement about Blur disbanding in 2003. Also, the article actually states that they were active during this period!

"In 2009 Blur reunited"

First of all, they never split. Secondly, Coxon rejoined in 2008, not 2009. The 2009 dates were announced in December 2008, meaning that Coxon had already signed up for those gigs and rejoined the band from a technical standpoint. Are members of a band only recognized as such when they're on stage with the band? No.

"Blur reunited, with Coxon back in the fold, for a series of successful concerts."

Yes, and they also recorded together and released material. Sure, "Fool's Day" wasn't a hit, but it was the first song recorded with Coxon in a decade, and was pretty big news. Jplarkin (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fan club singles?

See the talk page for Blur discography.--92.237.84.183 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Thanks for adding the photos, but everyone is looking a bit old. Albarn's looks were an important part of the band's image, so a bit misleading to have him thicker-set, as here. Spicemix (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

justification/proposed changes

As the changes I attempted to make to this article were reverted, here is my explanation:

Firstly, I was not aware that a dispute about the bands origin being London or Colchester had previously taken place and I apologise for not looking through the talk page archives where I now know that it was previously discussed. This point can be debated at another time.

Now for the lead: I personally feel that having the lead immediately go through their albums and changing styles is not the greatest idea. Compare with Oasis for example, where the first paragraph describes their chart success and awards won. The next paragraph then describes the Early/Britpop years, their influence in this period as well as the chart battle with Oasis. I have added the point about Cool Britannia to further emphasise the cultural impact of Britpop.

Blur are an English alternative rock band formed in London, England in 1988. Originally known as Seymour, the group consists of singer–keyboardist Damon Albarn, guitarist Graham Coxon, bassist Alex James and drummer Dave Rowntree. They have had five UK number-one albums as well as four others which charted within the Top 20. They have won seven NME Awards, four Q Awards and five Brit Awards, including one in 2012 for outstanding contribution to music.

Blur's debut album Leisure (1991) incorporated the sounds of Madchester and shoegazing. Following a stylistic change—influenced by English guitar pop groups such as The Kinks, The Beatles and XTC—Blur released Modern Life Is Rubbish (1993), Parklife (1994) and The Great Escape (1995). As a result, the band are seen as pioneers of the Britpop scene which achieved mass popularity in the UK in the mid 1990's and formed the backbone of the broader Cool Britannia movement. The band were also subject to a famous chart battle with rival Britpop band Oasis dubbed "The Battle of Britpop"

In recording their follow-up, Blur (1997), the band underwent another reinvention, showing influence from the lo-fi style of American indie rock groups. "Song 2", one of the album's singles, brought Blur mainstream success in the US. Their next album, 13 (1999) saw the band members experimenting with electronic music and gospel music, as Albarn wrote more personal lyrics. In May 2002, Coxon left Blur during the recording of their seventh album Think Tank (2003). Continuing the electronic influences of 13 and containing more minimal guitar work, the album was marked by Albarn's growing interest in hip hop and African music. After a 2003 tour without Coxon, Blur did no studio work or touring as a band, as members engaged in other projects. In 2009 Blur reunited, with Coxon back in the fold, for a series of successful concerts and have continued to release several singles and retrospective releases. In August 2012, Blur headlined the concert of the 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony.[ref]

I am adding the following at the end of the 'Leisure' section explaining why the album received mixed reviews and why the band later dismissed it.

The album was released during the waning days of the Madchester period in the UK and as a result Blur and Leisure were seen as catching the end of a trend. Also apparent is the influence of the shoegazing genre, through tracks such as "Sing", "Repetition", "Birthday" and "She's So High". The band later dismissed the album, with Damon calling it "awful"[ref] and Alex complaining that it was tightly controlled by Food Records who wanted an album which "fitted in with what was happening at the time."

I now realise that a ref was not included for the above. That is quote is from the No Distance Left To Run documentary.

I added the following to the modern life section which describes the album, its influences and its influence on the Britpop scene.

Modern Life Is Rubbishs sound is highly-influenced by the traditional guitar pop of British bands such as The Kinks, The Jam, Small Faces and The Who. The album's songs explore a number of styles—punk rock ("Advert"), neo-psychedelia ("Chemical World"), and vaudeville music-hall ("Sunday Sunday"). Deriving from "the biting humor of Ray Davies and the bitterness of Paul Weller", Albarn's lyrics on Modern Life Is Rubbish are a social commentary and satire on contemporary suburban English life. While Rubbish celebrates modern British life, it also takes a cynical look at middle-class existence. NME summarised the theme of the "thinly-veiled concept album" as a "London odyssey crammed full of strange commuters, peeping Thomases and lost dreams; of opening the windows and breathing in petrol ... It's the Village Green Preservation Society come home to find a car park in its place". Modern Life Is Rubbish peaked at number 15 on the British charts, yet it did not make much of an impression in the U.S. Nontheless the band felt they had accomplished something; bassist Alex James told writer David Cavanagh in 2000, "Modern Life Is Rubbish was a successful record because it achieved what we set out to achieve. I thought everything was shit except us". Modern Life Is Rubbish remains highly regarded by critics, and is seen as one of the early, defining releases of Britpop, a genre that would dominate British pop music in the mid-1990s. Mark Redfern wrote in Under the Radar magazine that following Modern Life Is Rubbish, "[a] whole wave of Britpop bands followed in [Blur's] footsteps, and for a while, it was cool to be British again".

At the beginning of the Parklife section I have added the following to describe the album rather than jump straight to the albums release:

After the completion of recording sessions for Blur's previous album, Modern Life Is Rubbish, Damon Albarn, the band's vocalist, began to write prolifically. He told the NME in 1994, "For me, Parklife is like a loosely linked concept album involving all these different stories. It's the travels of the mystical lager-eater, seeing what's going on in the world and commenting on it." The songs on Parklife span many genres, such as the synthpop-influenced hit single "Girls & Boys", the instrumental waltz interlude of "The Debt Collector", the punk rock-influenced "Bank Holiday", the spacey, Syd Barrett-esque "Far Out", and the fairly New Wave-influenced "Trouble in the Message Centre".

as seen in my original edit, I have also changed the headings around in the history section, as well as adding subheadings (so its layout is more like the article on The Beatles)

For the Think Tank section I have fixed a few errors including correcting the date of the original announcement of the lunar landing song and the fact that (as the article states), the Think Tank sessions started in 2001 in 13 studio. I have also taken out the bit about the brief "hiatus" (it was barely a hiatus - the sessions commenced merely a year after best of/music is my radar was released). Also taken out unnecessary mention of side projects. This can go elsewhere. I have also mentioned that Graham contributed five songs to the sessions.

In 1999, Blur announced that they would record a song that would be beamed back from the European Space Agency's "Beagle 2" Mars Lander when it was planned to land in 2003; however, the plan fell through when the lander was lost. Recording for Blur's seventh album started in November 2001 at 13 Studio in London and was finished a year later in a barn on National Trust land in Devon. Recording also took place in Morocco where the band equipped an old barn with a studio.. Jettisoning the Britpop sound of Blur's early career as well as the lo-fi indie rock of Blur, Think Tank continued the jam-based studio constructions of 13. The album expanded on the use of sampled rhythm loops and brooding, heavy electronic sounds. Influences from dance music, hip hop, dub, jazz, and African music permeated the recording sessions, an indication of Damon Albarn's expanding musical interests and his control over the group's creative direction. Albarn also cited The Clash as an inspiration. After several weeks of uncertainty, Coxon confirmed that he had been asked to leave the band during the sessions for reasons connected with his "attitude". Coxon stated that "there were no rows" and "[the band] just recognised the feeling that we needed some time apart". Coxon only contributed to five tracks for the Think Tank sessions, "Battery in Your Leg", "The Outsider", "Money makes me Crazy", "Morricone", and "Some Glad Morning", of which, only "Battery in Your Leg" made it onto the final album.

Describing albums sound:

Think Tank, released in May 2003, was filled with atmospheric, brooding electronic sounds, featuring simpler guitar lines played by Albarn, and largely relying on other instruments to replace Coxon. Coxon's absence also meant that Think Tank was almost entirely written by Albarn. Its sound was seen as a testament to Albarn's increasing interest in African music, Middle Eastern music and electronic music, and to his complete control over the group's creative direction. Think Tank''

Thats the history section explained, as for my other edits:

• adding Best Video (Coffee & TV) to NME awards section - backed up in source
• proposal to split awards section into new article
• (aside from London vs Essex) adding categories for Brit/Ivor Novello award winners

^i dont see any justification for your revert of these changes.

as for your revert to me splitting the navbox, how does it make it complicated at all, It only makes the existing one smaller by putting the singles into a new one in the same style of other artists. The reason they are both in the same template is for mere convenience (so the singles box does not have to be added to countless articles). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks for posting. I'll reply to you by US Sunday morning. In the meantime, you can add back Best Video to Awards and the categories too, that was lost in the crossfire. As for splitting the awards off, you can start a separate section for that; another editor's also put a notice about hat.—indopug (talk)

I see no reason to list so many awards in the lead, and the album descriptions as they are sufficient. The bit about the writing of Parklife, for instance, is more apt for the Parklife article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Freakmighty:

1. Lead: awards are hardly the most important achievements of a band. Is The Beatles' importance based on the number of awards they won? In that light, I think the Oasis lead is dull and needs to be rewritten. I haven't read of Blur "forming the backbone" of Cool Britannia, and as it is you can't add something to the lead without expanding on it in the body.
2. Additional details to their albums: what WesleyDodds said. I think what's there is enough for this article. The rest belongs to the albums's articles.
3. Really, really not a fan overly-sectioned articles. I don't think each album needs its sub-section. It disrupts the flow of the prose. Plus we aren't only talking about the studio albums, but a lot of stuff they did in between--tours, compilations, infighting etc.
4. Think Tank stuff: yeah, this part isn't properly written yet, I'll look into it.
5. Rest replied above.—indopug (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing Indoplug, you haven't responded to my query about your revert to me splitting the navbox.FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no major advantage of splitting, but many disadvantages. The current template houses them well enough, but the proposed one again links to all the albums. Also, there's the fact the notable album-tracks remain in the original one, effectively splitting the songs across two templates. And the whole thing becomes huge to look that compared to the compact original.

"It only makes the existing one smaller by putting the singles into a new one"——I don't understand this; the proposed one has two boxes within Template:Blur. If you add Template:Blur to any article, you'd still see both boxes.—indopug (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As I also previously explained, the reasons why I put two boxes into one template is to spare the task of inserting the singles box onto many articles. However, I guess the singles box doesn't have to be on certain articles (ie. most apart from this article and the articles on the singles themselves), so I guess we can use two templates if we want to. I don't believe that the current template houses all 29 singles well enough (not even organised by album/date etc.) and I don't see why splitting them off makes it 'needlessly complicated'. It simply follows a format shared with other articles on musicians (eg. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Lady Gaga, Take That). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blur (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. I remember buying "For Tomorrow" when it was in the charts, and seeing the band live a few times, most notably at V97 where Coxon threw a guitar (can't remember which one now) into the air during "Advert" and proceeded to smash the thing to pieces. Unfortunately I threw out all the copies of Q and Mojo I used to have which would have been really useful as reliable sources about now, but there you go. A couple of immediate things are there's no mention of a Blur video released c. 1993 (post Modern Life Is Rubbish but pre Parklife) that I've completely forgotten the name of, a Japanese only live album released c. 1996 (unless that was actually a bootleg), and Blur's only 1998 gig being at Glastonbury Festival (to which James said some rather unsavoury things about Michael Eavis), and quite a lot of things are cited to books, which may be a problem in fact checking. More later. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. I thought this would take months. :)

As for your concerns about missing albums and gigs, this article makes no attempt at comprehensively discussing (or even naming) every such item. That would make the article too long and too dull, and details are for sub-articles anyway. What we've tried is to give a basic overview of the band and its very interesting story for the completely uninitiated reader.

FYI, User:WesleyDodds is co-nom on this GAN.—indopug (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Normally it does - you just got lucky with a (albeit lapsed) fan of the band finishing off a couple of GA reviews and spotting this as another one to have a crack at. :-D

Regarding the missing information, you don't indeed have to mention everything and anything, but I think a mention of major commercial releases (of which the video and Japanese live album are) and the Glastonbury gig should go in the article to give it a proper comprehensive overview. You don't need more than half a sentence for each. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources I've examined make much of (if any) fuss about Starshaped or the live album; as it stands it's needless to mention them merely for the sake of mentioning them. I tried looking up information about James' comments about Eavis, but so far all I can find is his original remark, not anything by anyone marking out what he said as notable in of itself (unlike Noel Gallagher and his infamous "catch AIDS and die" comment). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned by apparent content disputes over the past month - such as here on 11th August which seems to have substantial changes rather than the incremental improvement I'd expect to see leading up to a GA review, and here, here and here where there's a minor dispute over whether Blur are a "British" or an "English" band. Has a definitive consensus been agreed on this now? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely offended by your show of bad faith here, accusing WesleyDodds and myself of "tag-team ownership" after we each commented once. I refuse to participate in this review unless you withdraw your accusation and apologise.—indopug (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, I have expressed concern that some editors (not named) may be tag team owning, and have asked a second opinion to alleviate my concerns. To suggest I have only formed this opinion from your comments here is misleading, as I have based them from the article's history, its talk page, and other GA reviews - I particularly note the GA review for Modern Life Is Rubbish referring to a similar issue re: Starshaped that I mentioned above, with a particularly notable comment from the reviewer - "Ok, I'm happy to leave it for now if you feel that strongly (my emphasis)." I apologise if I gave the impression I thought you were taking strong ownership of the article, and I don't doubt your actions here are for the best intentions, but I just want to check that consensus has been reached for the current state of the article, including opinions from all interested parties. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really not sure what you mean by "consensus has been...from all interested parties" or how I am to determine that (or even who the "interested parties" are). What matters is WP:GA?, criterion number five. Is this article stable, i.e., free from edit-warring and content disputes? Yes.
• This diff pointed out by you above is actually my revert of an edit that changed several things. In the spirit of WP:BRD, we then discussed the changes on the talk page. Several of his unsourced changes and additions remained reverted, but I agreed that splitting off the awards section into a separate article and adding some categories were for the best.
• British/English: you've pointed to two unrelated things. One is a driveby IP who changed the long-standing status-quo; the other is to me changing a specific word because I didn't think it was best one to describe their pre-MLIR ideological shift.
• MLIR GAN: no idea what another article's GA review has to do with this one. Anyway, Starshaped had nothing to do with MLIR hence I was wanted to exclude it.
• "proper comprehensive overview" (your earlier comment): actually, per WP:GAN?, the article only needs to "address the main aspects of the topic", and "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles".—indopug (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• But your opinion of what "the main aspects of the topic" are may be different to mine, which in turn may be different to other people! The reason I brought up the MLIR GA review is I noticed you had a very strong opinion on the inclusion of Starshaped, which resulted (at least from my perspective) in the reviewer giving up arguing - and three years later, here you are again, having exactly the same strong opinion!

Have a look through Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1 and you'll notice a variety of different actions - some involve adding text, some involve deleting it, some things the reviewee didn't want to do. The requirement about "comprehensiveness" of an article means we can take shorter articles that don't have so much to say (such as Nord Stage), not that we can leave bits out of an article because a few people think they're not important and argue strongly about it. As for being free of content disputes, what are we doing now, if not disputing over content? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced FAC reviewer, the idea that this constitutes a "content dispute" in that it renders the article unstable is bewildering. Anyway, I will be off-wiki for a while; I've asked my co-nom to take over.—indopug (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, discussing content doesn't make an article unstable. But so far, the few comments I have made about what I would consider improvements to the article have been met by strong opposition, which I'm afraid doesn't inspire me with confidence that we're going to get a quick consensus on things out of the review. I'll carry on with things during this week, but I'll make sure I get a third party to close the review off one way or the other to avoid any personal bias I might appear to have. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"But so far, the few comments I have made about what I would consider improvements to the article have been met by strong opposition". I won't speak for Indopug, but my replies weren't "strong opposition". I was merely stating matter-of-factly why such information you indicated was not present in the article. I continue to look for sources, so I am not ignoring you, but as it stands there's nothing to really warrant adding that supplemental material based on the secondary sources I can track down. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Having had a short wikibreak from this, here are some more comments :

Lead :

• Shouldn't Coxon be listed as guitarist/singer - since "You're So Great" on Blur he's done a few lead vocals, notably "Coffee And TV". (O/T : I remember watching a live performance where Damon leaped into the crowd during "There's No Other Way", forcing Graham to sing lead, changing the lyrics to "Please don't kill the singer")
  • Done.
• Double dashes on the second sentence should be commas
  • Fixed.
• Worth mentioning the specific influence of Pavement in the second paragraph's opening sentence?
  • It wasn't just Pavement, so keeping it general.

Formation and Leisure :

• That December Circus should read "That December, Circus"
  • Fixed.
• "Blur released the "She's So High" single" should read "Blur released the single "She's So High""
  • Either is fine actually, but I've changed it.

Britpop years :

• I still think we need to include something about Starshaped here. I think most notably it is the only thing you could easily buy in the 1990s that had Popscene on it.
  • I don't see a need to add it unless a secondary sources makes a point of dwelling on it. As for "Popscene", that's always been on the US version of Modern Life is Rubbish, and a live version from Starshaped wouldn't be the same thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • My copy of Starshaped had the studio version of all singles from She's So High to Sunday, Sunday inclusive on it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That's a factoid more relevant to the "Popscene" and Starshaped articles than the main Blur page.
        • If Starshaped is to be excluded then why, must I ask, is No Distance Left To Run given a mention? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Good question. I think we may as well add it. I'll try to do so over the weekend.—indopug (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reinvention after Britpop :

• Chart position and certification for Song 2 in the US need a citation
  • Going to double check the Maconie ref if I can find it, because that might cover the chart and cert information.
    • Indopug fixed it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• 1999 tour, playing all singles in chronological order, needs a citation
  • Going to double check the Lowe reference. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Clarified. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Coxon's departure, Think Tank and hiatus: :

• Reference 53 does not cite James working with Sophie Ellis-Bextor and Marianne Faithfull
  • Cut.

• Reference 53 does not use the word "attitude" in relation to Coxon leaving
  • Found a new ref talking about the recording sessions. Going through the page history, the "attitude" bit seems to be one of the stragglers from a very old version of the article.

• Reference 56 does not cite that Battery in Your Leg is the only song Albarn wrote about the band.
  • Cut.

• Had difficulty loading reference 57 - seems to be problematic outside the US
  • Don't know what to do about that. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 58 mentions nothing on electronic music
  • Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The general concern I have about references is a lot of them, particularly the earlier years, are cited to books. A lot of it looks correct from memory, but it could do with somebody checking.

That's all I can find for the moment, so per my earlier comments, I am requesting a second opinion on this review. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

Are you still looking for a 2nd opinion? If so is it just regarding the articles stability? AIRcorn (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Second 2nd opinion

Taking a quick look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass

• Images are fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• There's an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Focus seems OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• MoS looks OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

• There are three sound files. The first two are placed in the article with little accompanying content in the article, and the first one has a caption relating to Baggy, which is unsourced, and information on which cannot be found in the article. Are the files for "There's No Other Way" and "Parklife" needed and justified? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Remove all of them for the time being. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount of reverting of edits by IP accounts. It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get a lot of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Another admin has been addressing the issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Article is well written; however, it tends to be elliptic - relying on prior knowledge from the reader, or asking the reader to fill in the gaps in the text. In the lead, which is an area that particularly needs to be very clear for the general reader, there are a number of jargon terms: "Madchester", "shoegazing", and "lo-fi"; I think "Britpop" and "indie rock" might be OK; certainly "hip hop" and "gospel" are widely understood. I think it's a question of thinking about the widespread use of a term, and judging if it was applied to a style of music that spread internationally, and lasted a long time. The Great Escape paragraph has "opinion quickly changed" regarding the album, and then some sentences about the media preferring Oasis over Blur. It's difficult to tell if the reader is meant to assume these two are related, especially as the Blur/Oasis appears to be general opinion of the band, while the start of the paragraph is specifically about the album. I don't think this elliptic quality is a huge problem, but it would be a worth a copyedit to make things a little clearer, especially in placing various music styles for the less knowledgeable reader so they don't have to visit other articles for further information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral. I noted that "The Great Escape was released in September 1995 to rapturous reviews" was unsourced, so checked a couple of contemporary reviews. The reviews, such as Mojo, don't read as rapturous. Can this be either adjusted, or a reliable source found which gives an overview of the initial response (selecting one positive review is not in general evidence of a widespread positive response). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Now backed by cited text. The Harris book says "The reviews of The Great Escape brimmed with ecstasy, as if the success of Country House had propelled the critics into a state of credulous excitement", and then is followed by some examples, including the NME review mentioned in the article. If the current phrasing used in the article is lacking in your opinion I'm open to suggestions on how to reword it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • An additional point on TGE reviews, in the Blur 21 booklet for the album, Alex James states they were the best reviews he'd ever seen. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Citation of reliable sources". Not a criticism or complaint, but when an article relies heavily on sources that are not available on the internet, checking takes time. I have not been able to verify some facts and quotes, and at least one item - the rapturous reviews of The Great Escape - appears to be inaccurate. On a quick second opinion I couldn't pass this, but nor can I fail it. If I was doing a full review I would order the books in order to check in detail. My gut feeling is that the article is sound, but for a green badge it really needs to be checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the desire to check sources yourself, but under WP:AGF, I wouldn't mind if you asked me to double-check something you had a question about. I own one of the books cited and Indopug has the others. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Original research" - as with the reliable sources criteria above - it can be difficult to rule out original research if the sources are not checked. The degree of influence from lo-fi, for example, is all cited to sources not available on the internet. A quick check, however, does bear it out - [3], and I think further research would support other such statements - but that time-consuming research is for a full review rather than a quick second opinion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Per above. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Major aspects. The bigger the topic the longer it takes to do the background reading sufficient to judge if the major aspects have been covered. To do the article justice would require getting some books on the band and the Britpop era and having a good read. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something on music style? Perhaps something on legacy and influence? Perhaps a bit more on "The Battle of Britpop", given the media coverage and that being such an iconic moment? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

All those aspects are threaded throughout the article and touched upon in basic terms, even if they haven't been given their own subsections as of yet. When we take this to FAC, the article will understandably be more detailed and comprehensive. But I feel it currently meets the 3a requirement of the Good Article criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• Have the external links been checked against WP:ELOFFICIAL? There are five links, when possibly one would be sufficient as the main site already provides links to Twitter, Facebook, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Trimmed accordingly. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

• I see no obvious fails. The article looks decent enough. I couldn't give an opinion on passing it just on a quick look, but a bit of research and background reading would confirm if the material is reliable. If I was doing the review I would ask for a copyedit, and perhaps a discussion with the contributors over expanding coverage to music style and influence/impact. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I had watchlisted this when I gave my second opinion, and noticed today that Wesley has responded. What is going to happen with this? Is Ritchie333 still OK with finishing the review, or would it be more helpful if someone took over? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • I am taking this off my watchlist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So is someone willing to finish the review or is this gonna stay a nominee forever? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Everything checks out here, and I trust Silktork's judgment, so I'll pass this. Wizardman 13:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Indie rock or not? Hiatus or not?

Please discuss to reach a consensus. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, it's one IP who keeps changing the details without discussing (and in direct opposition to what is sourced in the article), and several editors have reverted the edits. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I reported that IP to administrator intervention, but was instead told to seek arbitration (even though its just one user going against consensus and sources), so I guess one of us might have to try requests for mediation or something. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that several users favouring one version, with a couple of IPs, possibly the same person, favouring the other, indicates a consensus. If those 3 or 4 editors who disagree with the IP could indicate that here, if there's no dissenting input then the consensus would be documented and it would make it easier to deal with anyone editing against that consensus. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 1988 formation date is cited by two print sources. As for the History sectioning, there's a clear split between the Think Tank era and the reunion era - namely a 5 year hiatus/split. I don't see why a ten year segment of the band's history needs to be in one section when the other subsections in the history section are far smaller time frames. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention not splitting them makes for a massive section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that part of the warring ips edits to the 'years active' section (ie. changing it to Hiatus: 2004–2008) are better representative of the hiatus as Blur (apparantly) never announced a split. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For the genre, since it's not discussed within the article nor is it cited, indie rock should not be in the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason it's in the infobox is that more than merely show influence of indie rock, Blur pretty much reinvented and rebranded themselves as an indie rock band after The Great Escape. This reinvention is mentioned in the lead and discussed in detail in "Reinvention after Britpop: 1996–2000". Yes, the term indie rock isn't specifically used in the latter, but phrases such as "noisy American alternative rock bands", "lo-fi", "underground music" etc allude to that same type of music.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Allusions are not strong enough. You can't just interpret those terms into what genre the band has become. If they had become it, you should go ahead and cite it, but as for now this is original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Those allusions are backed by Allmusic's review of Blur listing them so and sputnikmusic's band biography saying they moved to indie rock post-Britpop. I'll keep looking though.—indopug (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Sentence

After 13 and the subsequent tours in 1999-2000, the band entered into a hiatus, during which band members pursued other projects. Graham Coxon recorded a string of solo albums, while Damon Albarn dedicated his time to Gorillaz, the animated band he had created with Jamie Hewlett.

Considering removing this as it is misleading - implying that all these events took place between the end of the tour and the Think Tank sessions. This isn't true at all. Gorillaz was started in early 1998 and the self titled album was in the recording process in 1999-2000; Coxon also released his first solo album in 1998 and his most recent in 2012. Additionaly Blur played at Meltdown in 2000, recorded and released "Music Is My Radar", released Best Of etc. Bear in mind that Think Tank sessions started the following year (in planning since January) its not much of a 'hiatus' isn't it. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I found that sentence vexing myself and couldn't quite figure out what to do with it. It seems like it was there originally just to work in a mention of Gorillaz. I wouldn't mind terribly if it was excised. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine apart from the use of hiatus, which indicates something much more substantial than just lowered levels of activity in Wikipedia band articles. FM's misunderstood a few things though: the sentence doesn't claim that either the Gorillaz sideproject or Coxon's solo work started during that time. The Best-of has already been written about in just the previous paragraph.

In short, I think we just need to change the word hiatus.—indopug (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I peeked at the source again (admittedly I skimmed it) and it doesn't seem to quite line up with what's being said in that part of the article currently. I'd be down for it being excised from the page or drastically rewritten. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed "the band entered into a hiatus" bit for now.—indopug (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Blur 21 – UK vs. US

So I know as a fact that the first two Blur albums Leisure and Modern Life Is Rubbish track listing on the UK and the US edition varies on the original album release. Does this goes the same for the Blur 21 boxset? or has the track listing been fixed as the original UK edition in all regions? --121.217.58.153 (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

This change request has to do with the opening sentence in the article. Please change Blur are an English alternative rock band to Blur is an English alternative rock band. I hope I don't have to explain why. Metropolan (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Declined - 'are' is correct British English. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy band?

On Pitchfork's review of their best of they called Blur a boy band. It was somehow in a positive light. I never thought so myself, but its from a credible source. Is this credible enough to add? -> source: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/830-the-best-of-blur/ Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity and problems with the presentation of "Song2" (1997) as a hit in the USA where as it was not a success commercially and non respect of two of the most important wiki guidelines: NPOV and OR

First of all, Billboard.com is the most WP:Reliable Source for Billboard as it is the official organism: "Allmusic.com" is a secondary source. It's always better to use a primary source when it is available.

• This official Billboard source says that *"Song2" didn't chart in the Billboard "Hot 100" in 1997. The "Hot 100" is the only chart that compiles the "Hot 100 Singles Sales" (which report numbers of units sold). Please read the official explanations of "Billboard magazine" published in the 90's in this issue via this source at the right of page 93 just below the title "Hot 100 Singles Sales" and this source at page 94 below "Hot 100".

• "Song2" was also number 6 in 1997 on Billboard "Alternative Songs" (previously called "Modern Rock Tracks") also via this other Billboard official source but Billboard Modern Rock Tracks is not based on singles sales or units sold. The Billboard "Modern Rock Tracks" ONLY lists the 40 most-played songs on modern rock radio stations, most of which are alternative rock songs. Please read what it is written on the "Billboard magazine" in the 90's at the right of the page 86 just below the title Modern tracks. It is not said that the modern tracks includes datas of singles sales or units sold. Billboard magazine ONLY says that "Modern Tracks compiled from a national sample of airplay supplied by Broadcast Data System's Radio Track service. 32 modern rock stations are electronically monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Songs ranked by numbers of detections".

To resume, "Song2" didn't chart in the Hot 100 like "Girls and Boys" in 1994: this means that the single failed to enter the Hot 100 as there were not enough copies of the single sold in the USA. "Song2" just receives heavy rotation on Alternative Radios as it was N°2 in the "Alternative songs" / "Modern Tracks" in 1997. Only 1997's Blur album went gold in the USA.

Consequently, I propose to change these parts in the article. Note that I follow the guidelines WP:Neutral Point Of View, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, so there is no WP:No Original Research.

Previous version presented facts like this:

• (in the lead)
• "Song 2", one of the album's singles, brought Blur mainstream success in the United States.

• (in the body of the article)
• In the US, the record received strong reviews as the album and the "Song 2" single became a hit. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" peaked at number six on the Modern Rock chart.

References

New version could present facts like that:

• (in the lead)
• The album including the "Song 2" single, brought Blur mainstream success in the United States.

• (in the body of the article)
• In the US, the record received strong reviews as the album and the "Song 2" single was popular on alternative rock radios. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" peaked at number six on the Billboard Alternative Songs. Yet, the single failed to break into the Billboard Hot 100. - Woovee (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

I think the above is correct, and that "hit" as per our Hit single article, indicates that a song made the Billboard 100. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Woovee and SilkTork. Further, there is apparently a false claim at the song article that it did chart. The claim is sourced to Whitburn, but Blur does not have an entry in his book of Top 40 Hits because they never had a Top 40 Hit in the US. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So I make the changes now. Woovee (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was arguing for the inclusion of "hit" on the basis of its ubiquity (which apparently made Blur GBP 2 million according to Select). If the word can only be used in the narrow sense to denote doing well on a country's main chart, then I guess "Song 2" isn't a "hit".

Anyway, I'm mostly okay with the new wording except "Yet, the single failed to break into the Billboard Hot 100"—it's absurd to list charts a song didn't chart on. Also, the alternative songs charts was known as modern rock tracks back then.—indopug (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Y'all might want to read this. The word "hit" is much broader than what the (uncited) hit single article suggests.—indopug (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence that the song charted at all in the US. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. That was never the the issue, which is whether you need to chart on the Hot 100 to be considered a hit.—indopug (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic sometimes makes mistakes. Why isn't "Song 2" listed by Billboard. They list the band's other two US "hits"? I see it now; its here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Look under Alternative Songs in the dropdown in your link.—indopug (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Indopug is right. I think this is more of a sourcing issue, since "Song 2" did in fact chart at number 6, but we weren't linking the correct chart. I would say that yes, the song was a hit, but I would specify which chart with proper sourcing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, exactly what you say was in the version of the article before Woovee edited: "In the US, the record received strong reviews as the album and the "Song 2" single became a hit. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" peaked at number six on the Modern Rock chart.[27][48] After "Song 2" was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—it became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.[44]"—indopug (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Indopug, that actually looks fine to me now. I'm not sure what I saw before, or how I missed that qualifier. Sorry for contributing to the confusion. Maybe consider combining the two phrases, because you say it was a hit, then go onto other things, then mention its peak chart position. How about, "the 'Song 2' single became a number six hit on the Modern Rock chart", or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, Billboard.com lists it at number six on "Alternative songs" (previously called "Modern rock tracks"). Billboard doesn't list it in the "Hot 100", neither Allmusic.com. Where do you see mistakes on the Billboard.com site? Woovee (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen mistakes on Allmusic, not Billboard. If the debate comes down to the proper label, "Alternative songs" and "Modern rock tracks", then I suppose we ought to list it as what Billboard originally called it, so Modern rock tracks, but that might be confusing to those who look at the source and see it listed under alternative. We could provide a note explaining that Billboard changed the title of the chart. Regardless, if the song peaked at number sixe on a Billboard chart then I think we can safely call it a hit, but if this is still contentious, then we should consider avoiding the term and simply describe its peak chart position. I.e., "'Song 2' peaked at number six hit on the Modern Rock chart", or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If a song charted at no. 6 on Modern, no. 4 25 on Mainstream, is described by critics as "their biggest hit in America" and was used everywhere soon after release, it is definitely a hit. Which is why it isn't just a "number six hit"; all these other factors are important too.—indopug (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Please, read my message below and reply below. The fact that a track is playlisted at n°6 on modern and 25 on Mainstream not 4 as your wrote, don't include sales or units sold. see my other message right below this one. Woovee (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, there aren't any mistakes on Billboard.com as Modern Rock Tracks has been renamed Alternative Songs in 2009. You can read either the wiki articles on Modern Rock Tracks and Alternative Songs.

SilkTork asked me to be concise. So, only read this:

* In the lead, it was said that "song 2" brought the band mainstream success in the states. This is not true: it was only the album that was certified gold in the USA, not that "song 2" single. Indeed, this single never entered the Hot 100, the one and only chart that included the sales: so how could it be presented as a hit. What is true is that the "song2" single was played a lot on modern rock radios, as it peaked at n°6 in the Modern Rock Tracks, exactly like the single "Girls and boys" in 1994. The use of the word "hit" is not appropriate: "song 2" just had heavy rotation on alternative radios". Woovee (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

An excessively strict definition of "hit". You should gain consensus for it at a much broader forum such as WP:SONGS or WP:CHARTS first, before enforcing it on individual articles. Especially when you want to do so against the express declarations of reliable sources such as Allmusic.—indopug (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not my issue, it's yours. Here, Billboard is the primary source, it is the organism that established these lists, Allmusic is a secondary source. The allmusic article about "Song 2" that you cited, says it is a hit but it is not in terms of sales according to Billboard. That's a fact. The wiki "neutrality" guideline is respected with the new changes as it is said and explained that the song then was used for advertisements. So, the popularity of the song is established. Woovee (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. When using a primary source, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Nowhere does Billboard say that not charting on Hot 100 = not a hit in the US; that is your own WP:SYNTHESIS. On the other hand, there is a reliable secondary source that says that it is. Also, please provide sources that define a US hit as being solely "in terms of sales according to Billboard".—indopug (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You may read the wp:neutrality policy as well. And, re-read the first post of Gabe with this part: "The claim is sourced to Whitburn, but Blur does not have an entry in his book of Top 40 Hits because they never had a Top 40 Hit in the US." You keep on confusing on purpose the use of a alternative songs chart that only reproduces the playlist on Modern Rock radios, and the Hot 100 that is the one and only chart that includes the singles sales. You can use the allmusic articles as sources but wp:NPOV has to be respected. It didn't chart in the Hot 100. So, the sentence mentioning that the single failed to enter in the Hot 100, has to stay to my point of view. Please also note that the allmusic biography doesn't state that it was a hit. Woovee (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I reply here to the previous remarks. 1) no, it is not absurd to include the sentence "Yet, the single failed to break into the Billboard Hot 100" and BTW, there's another similar sentence in the article "Modern Life Is Rubbish peaked at number 15 on the British charts, but failed to break into the US Billboard 200, selling only 19,000 copies there." This brings precisions and nuances. No more confusion for the readers, please. Inaccurate facts ("song 2" as hit) previously included in the article, have to be counter-balanced by precisions. 2) Billboard "mainstream rocks" doesn't include "units sold" or "singles sales": it just reflects the playlist of the mainstream radios. 3)re-read the sources that I put in my initial text right above this issue: they are explanations from the official billboard magazine. Woovee (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

This article has been fully-protected. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time or may be indefinite. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on the talk page for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolved. Article is now open for editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over "hit"

I've locked down the article as there is too much edit warring occurring. There needs now to be a consensus on the wording that appears in the article, and how to define the impact that Song 2 had in America (and globally), and the relevance that had for Blur. Thankfully, there are a number of sources which discuss the matter, so a solution should be found which uses wording common to the sources, and which would be readily understood by the readers of the article.

• The A to X of Alternative Music By Steve Taylor "...the key track for Blur Mk II is 'Song 2', a huge American hit with the lo-fi and rock crowds..."]
• The Rough Guide to Rock edited by Peter Buckley "...BLUR (1997), seen by many as a retreat to their early days of indie obscurity.....Albarn closed the door on pop with title such as 'Song 2'...."
• The Fender Telecaster By Dave Hunter "...its single 'Song 2' ... took them to new heights around the world..."
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Rock History "...the smash single 'Song 2' ..."

That's a starting point. What I suggest is that folks start putting forward numbered suggested wordings, such as:

• 1 "Song 2" was very successful in America, and brought the band a new audience....

That is not a suggestion, merely an example. The numbers make it easier to refer to in discussions, and the green ink of the example template makes the suggestions easier to pick out from the discussions. The template is created by writing {{ex| text }}. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My only concern is that wp:NPOV is respected and that one brings nuances and the two types of opinions expressed by journalists. Concerning the impact that Blur had in the USA in 1997, certain critics only recognize that the album was gold, due to the popularity of "Song 2" and there's also two new sources at the opposite that put the word "hit" next to "Song 2". It looks in the following sources below like the song was popular on alternative radios, (that what the Modern Rock tracks proves). According to several papers, the song became really popular in the months that follow its release because it was also played in various ads, even in sports events.

• US Billboard.com Top "Hot 100 which means that "Song 2" didn't chart in the Top 100 Singles Sales.
• Billboard.com "Alternative Songs" previously called "Modern Rock Tracks "Song 2" n°6 on the playlist of the alternative and college radios.
• Select magazine April 1999 article & interview "Song 2 [...] Number Two in the UK, it was Number One from Australia to Greenland. It all added up to “a very nice-ker-ching factor”, as Alex puts it. An estimated £2 million worth." Embellishments of the journalists... it never charted at n°1 abroad see below
• "Song" in the charts oustide the USA and the UK N°198 in France, N°78 in the Netherlands, N°28 in Sweden, N°4 in Australia]
• The Telegraph May 2001 article and interview. "Song 2 is a publisher's dream. It's not really even a song now. It is a soundbite for a certain kind of thing. It's been used for everything - but not for launching weapons of mass destruction."
• The Guardian 4 December 2003 scans "For much of the following year, Blur were on tour, performing in support of an album, the eponymous Blur, that would turn out to be their biggest worldwide-selling record to date. "
• Blur Biography on allmusic.com "thanks largely to the popularity of the single "Song 2."

Here are already a few sources. What matters is if the word "hit" is used, it has to be-counterbalanced by the sentence that "Song 2 failed to enter the Hot 100". I recall what user SilkTork said previously in this talk: "hit" as per our Hit single article, indicates that a song made the Billboard 100." User Gabe also said it "The claim is sourced to Whitburn, but Blur does not have an entry in his book of Top 40 Hits because they never had a Top 40 Hit in the US." The song was popular and present in the playlist of modern rock radios (=alternative radios) and then very famous in terms of publishing apparently, as Albarn said it because it was played everywhere in public places. Neutrality is the rule and all facts supplied by the sources have to be reproduced. I will be looking for other sources in the next 7 days. Woovee (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Woovee, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What the (unsourced) hit single article has to say is irrelevant. Gabe's comment was based on a misunderstanding of his; he thought the song didn't chart on the Modern and Mainstream charts either (and he subsequently regretted his involvement in the discussion). You've pointed out many Wikipedia policies, but could you quote the exact bits that back your point of view. I continue to be puzzled why we should take your definition of a "hit" (charting on the basis of Hot 100 alone), over the word of several independent reliable sources that have been provided here, who have declared "Song 2" a smash hit in the US. On the other hand, nobody has explicitly stated ' "Song 2" was not a hit in America because it didn't chart on the Hot 100" which is what you need to have to back your position (based on NPOV, STICKTOYOURSOURCES, RELIABLESOURCES etc) in this debate.

SilkTork, thanks for doing extensive research on this. As for your suggestion that a "solution should be found which uses wording common to the sources, and which would be readily understood by the readers of the article", to be fair the version of the article before Woovee edited (i.e. the version that had a silent consensus for it for years and was approved for GA by you), already takes care of this (presented as the pre-existing option 0):

2. In the US, the record received strong reviews as the album and the "Song 2" single became a hit. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" peaked at number six on the Modern Rock chart. After "Song 2" was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—it became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.

The only problem with it is that a user has a too-strict definition of "hit" (we know this because music scholars and critics quoted above clearly do not share his view).That it is not grounds enough to change.—indopug (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Thanks to both of you for contributions so far. I am seeing points in both arguments. As there is some uncertainty over the word "hit", is it possible to either word the passage without using that word, or to use quotes instead, or to explain what is meant by "hit" if using it. It does appear to be a little unclear. There appears to be more than one use of the word "hit". There is the narrow definition as mentioned by Woovee which relates to "official" hit singles, as mentioned in our article; and there is the general use of hit as something successful - as when people use it of any endeavour that worked well. I suspect that when writers are talking of "Song 2", they are using the term the second sense. It wouldn't hurt to clarify in the article the exact nature of the single's success. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indopug, The only problem is not that I've got a strict definition of the word "hit". User Gabe told you the same thing: Joel Whitburn's book about all the US top 40 hits "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits 1955-2009" doesn't mention once "Song 2". The reason is simple, it didn't make the Billboard top 100 singles sales.

For the word "hit" associated with "Song 2", there are not "several reliable sources" that support this: in fact, there are only two sources that qualify that "song 2" as a "hit in the usa": this one "The A to X of Alternative Music By Steve Taylor" (Steve Taylor is a english freelance journalist and a Dj for radio London "XFM") and this other source the "Song 2" article by Allmusic. That's not the majority.

For now, there's a very large majority of articles and sources available, saying that the "Song 2" single was popular without using the word "hit". There's no need to write the definitions of the words "popularity" and "notoriety": a song can become popular after being played on radios, advertisements, even without entering the Top 100 Singles Sales. That's the case here, the US customers bought in mass the eponymous album (1997) which includes "Song 2", but they didn't buy in mass the "song 2" single. The notion of popularity and notoriety is better established.

When one looks at another allmusic article, their biography, one sees that there aren't any sentence mentionning "Song 2" in the charts, bar the notion of "popularity". The journalist is yet keen to write about the success of another single "Girls & Boys" in the US Billboard Hot 100 : "The stylized new wave dance-pop single "Girls and Boys" entered the charts at number five; the single managed to spend 15 weeks on the U.S. charts, peaking at number 52, but the album never cracked the charts." The notion of popularity seems in the end more relevant, and closer to the truth.

For all these reasons, especially as "Song 2 " was clearly presented as a "US hit" in only two sources where as all the other sources above said that it was just popular and insist more on the commercial performance of the album, I'd say that this version seems more apt to me :

• 3. In the US, the record received strong reviews as the album and the "Song 2" single was popular on alternative rock radios. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" peaked at number six on the Billboard Alternative Songs. Yet, the single failed to break into the Billboard "Hot 100". After "Song 2" was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—it became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.

Woovee (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

References

I am going to merge the two versions together, and then see what you folks think.

• 4. In the US, the record received strong reviews; and the album and "Song 2" were popular on alternative rock radio. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" reached number six on the Modern Rock Tracks chart. After "Song 2" was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—it became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.

References

Essentially, the differences in the two versions were 1) The use of the word "hit" to convey the sense that the song was popular - this use is ambiguous, and could lead readers to think that the song had more significant chart success than it did, so I have preferred the version that says "popular". 2) The statement that song failed to reach the Billboard 100. I don't think that is needed once the word "hit" is replaced with "popular". There are many things the song did not do, but we don't list them, so I have removed that.

I would like confirmation from both of you that this version is acceptable; as soon as we have that, this version can be inserted in the article, and it can be unlocked. Alternatively, if there are no objections after seven days, I will take that as consent, unlock the article and action the edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Silk, I agree to compromise and am fine with your version, but "alternative rock radio" is excess detail. Also, I've not really seen a source that explicitly mentions that the album/song were popular on alt radio. My suggestion:

• 5. In the US, the album received strong reviews; Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold. The album's "Song 2" single was also popular, reaching number six on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart. After it was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—"Song 2" became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.

Another problem with the current version of the article is the lead, which has the ungrammatical "The album including the "Song 2" single, brought Blur mainstream success in the United States." A comma should be added after "album".—indopug (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

References

I'll make the comma edit. Still waiting for Woovee to comment on either version 4 or 5. If there's no further comment after six days I'll unlock and action version 6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting "alternative rock radio" after "popular" is not "excess detail": it is to follow the wiki policy of sticktosource. It is always better to be precise. (no more confusion for the readers, please). "Modern rock tracks" reproduces the playlist of alternative rock radios in the 90's, now it is in fact called "alternative songs". This is what is supported by the source at the end of the sentence : the song was "popular on alternative radios". There is no need to add another source but if one is needed, this one, "Rolling Stone, April 1997; America meet Blur" precises: "Song 2, a two-minute explosion of angst which Virgin are releasing as the first American single off the album... college radio stations which have been supportive of Blur". [college radios = alternative radios]

I'd also prefer that the source is "Billboard.com" instead of "allmusic". Indeed, user Gabe said earlier: "We could provide a note explaining that Billboard changed the title of the chart." So, I propose this below in the first version, for the title of the source: {...|title=Billboard Alternative Songs [previouslly called modern rock tracks]"...}

I also agree that the statement with "that song failed to reach the Billboard 100" is no more necessary. So, one could pick up one of these two versions (merging from the previous ones):

• 6. In the US, the record received strong reviews as the album and the "Song 2" single was popular on alternative rock radios. Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold, while "Song 2" peaked at number six on the Modern Rock Tracks. After "Song 2" was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—it became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.

or

• 7. In the US, the album received strong reviews; Blur reached number 61 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold. The album's "Song 2" single was also popular on alternative rock radios, reaching number six on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart. After it was licensed for use in various media—such as soundtracks, advertisements and television shows—"Song 2" became the most recognisable Blur song in the US. After the success of Blur, the band embarked on a nine-month world tour.

Woovee (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Fine we'll go with your no. 7 (which I have just numbered). My only opposition is the use of the Billboard website, which is notoriously unstable—it seems to completely change URLs every few months, rendering the links in the article dead. This problem is absent with Allmusic, which directly takes it chart positions from Billboard (via agreement IIRC) and meets WP:RS as well.—indopug (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this and coming to an agreement. I've unlocked the article and will action version 7. It's OK for both of you to now edit the article. If either of you disagrees with an edit by the other, please do not revert, but attempt to resolve it here on the talkpage. If you feel you cannot resolve it within a reasonable time frame, please contact me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Article plagued by WP:OWN

I've recently had problems with two WP:OWN editors, who simply will not allow any additions that don't conform to their vision of what the article should be. I added a Guardian piece which notes that Blur, Oasis, Suede and Pulp are the four most important bands of the Britpop movement, but this has been removed by both problem editors with no justification whatsoever. I also went through the article and removed incredibly biased usage of the word "only" ("it only charted at number 32", "selling only 19,000 copies" etc), and yes, this has been repeatedly reverted as well. WP:OWN reads: "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page... if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it." I therefore feel entitled to make positive contributions to this article. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:60D7:66:7DC2:A2B1 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how the four bands important to Britpop is worthy of inclusion here, in Blur's article, that too in the lead. Furthermore, that article is only a concert review that mentions this "Britpop big four" stuff in passing.

The use of the word "only" is backed up by the sources accompanying it; not sure why you think this is "incredibly biased".—indopug (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Finally, I've actually been given some kind of argument as to why this material shouldn't be included, rather that being faced with a wall of WP:OWN. Maybe "big four" isn't so important, but at least there's now a developing discussion.

All those uses of "only" shouldn't be in there - period. Sales figures and chart positions can speak for themselves: an unbiased encyclopedia doesn't need to tell readers, "This figure is not good, by the way!" It reeks of an attempt to discredit the band, and over the years we've seen plenty of attempts to subtly diminish Blur from the Oasis and Suede crowds. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:60D7:66:7DC2:A2B1 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that an encyclopedia should not tell its readers that. But that's not how the word is being is used here. Rather the "only" indicates how Blur themselves perceived the relevant chart position. For example, "After 'Coffee & TV' ... only reached number 11 in the UK, manager Chris Morrison demanded a chart re-run because of what he deemed was a sales miscalculation." Here the function of the "only" is that it explains why Morrison demanded a recount—he thought it should have charted higher.

In fact, without the "only" the sentence is unclear, "After 'Coffee & TV' ... reached number 11 in the UK, manager Chris Morrison demanded a chart re-run because of what he deemed was a sales miscalculation." Why exactly does he want a re-run? Did he perceive the sales to be too high or too low?

Similarly with "Popscene's" chart position—the "only" makes it clear Blur were disappointed by the number. Not that Wikipedia thinks it's bad.—indopug (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)