Talk:Foals (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:23307.jpeg

Image:23307.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:049-foals.jpg

Image:049-foals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Foals.jpeg

Image:Foals.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Television appearances

I tagged the television appearances section with {{trivia|date=March 2008}}, as I don't understand how relevant it is to know every time they appear on a television program. It looks like trivia to me, especially since it is just a list of discrete information. Any other opinions? The Baroness of Morden (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To highlight this, note that today the section was updated with a television appearance made by Foals on this very day; it's as though the section is kept up-to-date for no important reason. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Television appearances are one way to demonstrate notability - I don't see how it's irrelevant, or why it can't be a "discrete" "list" - would you prefer it if the line-breaks were deleted? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But do we need to know every single television program they've featured on? Lots of people have been on Buzzcocks, and some of them are has-beens; being on Buzzcocks doesn't mean you're particularly notable, and just how notable is "T-Mobile's Transmission"? The Baroness of Morden (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with article contents. Please familiarize yourself with this policy: Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, appearances on Channel 4 seem pretty darn important. The information is relevant, its layout is not particularly unreadable nor confusing, and it is not otherwise poorly-written. Why do you object to what you consider "trivia"? If it were "Foals was referenced on episode 1238 of Family Guy and Foals once appeared in the Illegitimate Community College Newspaper in the Music Review section" that would be trivia. This is not trivia, nor trivial. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: all of your arguments more or less also apply to the Discography section. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have since rewritten that section of the article. I don't really care for arguing with you; instead, why don't you just let me know what you think of the section now? The Baroness of Morden (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if it addresses your concerns, but it seems to be functionally equivalent (although you may have lost some details that could be added back in, but that's a minor side-note). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, I think it is more readable as it is now, and am glad that it's deemed equivalent to the previous version. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Band members/roles

The band members are listed on the right hand side, however there is no indication within the article as to what roles they perform. It would probably be a good idea to include a sentence in the opening paragraph along the lines of, "the band consists of XXXX(vocals), XXXX(percussion) etc". Hopefully there's a fan who knows who does what within the band who can do this? LGG203 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section makes a reference to the band having a previous title of "The Edmund Fitzgerald". Could this be reference to the SS Edmund Fitzgerald? Use of the definite article "The" would suggest that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan9000 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, it is of said reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.106.132 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

William Lamb?

Where is the information about this supposed new single? I havent been able to find any information on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.104.237 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Radio appearances

Not meaning to be pedantic but it's pretty difficult to appear on radio. One could appear on the webcam of a radio station but I think we should use a more accurate word. Any ideas? 137.205.17.89 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

THESE GUYS ARE NOT MATH ROCK "Foals are Math Rock" - Debate

Why is everyone calling these guys math rock? They rarely venture out of 4/4, and the guitar parts are far from rhythmically complicated. I say that these guys do not get referred to as math rock anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.116.165 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On the album "Antidotes", there are a few songs where the rhythm is not a simple 4/4: for example at the beginning of "Two Steps, Twice", and again at the beginning of "Tron", the song's main rhythm is in (I think) 6/8, and the drumming is in (I think) 2/4 or 4/4. Whether this justifies the term "math rock" is unknown to me, however. --Pierremegevand (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

6/8 and 4/4 are not complicated time signatures. Also, most math rock bands change time signatures quite regularly. My point was that these guys rarely venture out of these time sigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.71.233 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting into rather OR-ish territory here. If they're verifiably described as "math rock" in reliable sources, it's includable. However, they fairly clearly seem to consider themselves "reformed math rockers", which would be worth pointing out to put that in context, as well as any other "they're not math rock" assertions that are similarly verifiable. Alai (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, honestly, I can't believe people need to rely on "established" critical sources to determine what style of music this band (or any musical performance) falls into. And also, "math rock" isn't as acute as moving back and forth with non-conventional time signatures, it's all about textures and rhythms, Foals maintain this "Math Rock" sound through their overlapping rhythms and melodies. If one were attemping to percieve what genre Foals fall into on a more blunt level, at the very least it would be said that they are a Dance Punk band, with mostly Post-rock tendencies. I do not understand how one could contest this, in light of all their available work which displays a vast and obvious embrace of melodicism, ambience, polyrhythms and dance. If you want to know the truth, the person who began this element of discussion seemed rather insecure about others saying Foals are "math rock", considering the fact that the title of this segment is entirely in caps and is quite a final statement; they were not asking others to review whether or not they are math rock but were telling them not to out of their own personal disdain for the usage of the genre title on a mainstream band like Foals. Whether this disdain came from an insular devotion to balls out math rock, in the vain of Don Caballero, Hella or the production stylings of Steve Albini. Or, the disdain may have come from their adoration for Foals' mainstream/club status, meaning they may feel embarrased if Foals were to be considered anything more 'alternative' than the great misconception of "indie rock". Please, if anyone believes any of this to be wrong, please say, I'm very open to enlightenment.--89.241.14.65 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-punk revival.

I've decided to re-add post-punk revival to the genres per allmusic... Hope you don't mind 190.159.204.8 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blue Blood - UK Charts

Can anyone confirm to me that 'Blue Blood' has indeed peaked at #158 on the UK Charts? If it did, it deserves to have an article of its own again. I fear the old one has been deleted because the song hadn't charted yet. Neon Flow (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Genres

These are the genres according to allmusic:Alternative/Indie Rock, New Wave/Post-Punk Revival, Indie Rock, Math Rock. Include them all? Radiopathy •talk• 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dance-punk

The Foals play dance-punk more than any other genre. Almost every wikipedia-article about the band states this - it is only the English one that doesn't. Please stop removing the genre...

Also, but this is debatable, I think "Post-rock revival" should be added. If math-rock, a genre that only fits for 2 or 3 songs, can be added I really think "Post-rock" or at least "Post-rock revival". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.37.178 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that calls them 'dance-punk', then by all means use it. It's not enough that other articles call it something; it has to have a source. Please stop putting the genre into the article. Radiopathy •talk• 15:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

The primary topic of foals on Wikipedia and in books is obviously foals. This should never have been created in the plural slot - although there was a habit of the doing that with bookends parachutes and so on. Now only 2 articles, Friends and Windows have too many links to fix. As a temporary fix foals can still redirect to Foals (band), a solution which helps searchers and mobile users, but doesn't actually confuse. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm (slowly) fixing all the links in "what links here". It's now a bit under 250, I think. I redirected "foals" to "foal" because I'm willing to do the work to fix all the incoming links - but any help is welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 07:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Montanabw Seems they're going down - thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's because I fixed over 250 of them myself...  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foals (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514200543/http://www.rockforpeople.com/home/next-up-some-purebred-indie-rock-with-foals.html to http://www.rockforpeople.com/home/next-up-some-purebred-indie-rock-with-foals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109225948/http://spiltinc.co.uk/2012/10/22/foals-total-life-forever-2010-record-club/ to http://spiltinc.co.uk/2012/10/22/foals-total-life-forever-2010-record-club/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://angryape.com/news/foals-announce-uk-ireland-tour
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708195035/http://coupdemainmagazine.com/music/interviews/2838 to http://coupdemainmagazine.com/music/interviews/2838

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

EMO SCUM!! Be nice

who the fuck put emo down stupid minnie mosher trivium loving motherfuckers,,, LEAVE GOOD MUSIC ALONE!!!!!!

errr chill out there buddy, obviously someone who doesn't understand what emo actually is, but I could see where someone would be coming from in adding an "emo" label to them (unless it was just some "emo" scene kid), but na, they're not really that emo.

Single artworks

• File:Exit Alt Cover.png
• File:On the Luna Foals.jpg
• File:FoalsSunday2.png
• File:In Degrees.png
• File:Black Bull.png
• File:The Runner.png
• File:Into the surf.png

I came across the artworks listed above and researched their origins. The single artworks are not official and seem to be fanmade artworks that were posted to Reddit, using related artwork from the same photographers/projects that the albums' artworks derive from. However, these singles from Everything Not Saved Will Be Lost – Part 1 and Everything Not Saved Will Be Lost – Part 2 were not released with artwork specific to their inidvidual releases. They were simply released as singles with their respective album's artwork. Fanmade artworks are not appropriate for an encylopedia like Wikipedia. Re the file uploaders: @Temp144: and @Quidster4040: I'm sure these were mistakes in good faith, so no worries. Cheers! Οἶδα (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

British or English?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has only been a little bit of edit warring regarding the band being either a "British" or "English" band. I am opening this discussion to see if the band should be either one of the two. Pinging previous IP and editors 84.69.137.182, Jane, His Wife, and IndigoBeach. Please indicate your preference ("English" or "British") with your reasoning. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

English: Per information in this article, the band has been consistently based in Oxford, a city in England. IP editor's logic of "It's been that way for years so don't change it" seems obviously wrong and I shouldn't have to explain why, and HorrorLover555's point that English is a subset of British is sound. Perhaps if there are sources in which the band self-refer as British, as the IP editor says, but where they specifically say they aren't English, then there's a valid counterargument, but otherwise I don't see the point in fighting this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Although, the IP insists that they are British as it says on the band's website, I do not believe that it merits enough, and while I have seen at least a few sources referring to the band as English, I would like to see the input of others. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

English See Countries of the United Kingdom. As the band originated in England, which is a part of the United Kingdom. It makes no sense to refer to the band as British, and with use of MOS:ENGVAR: the band was formed in England, so I think it makes sense to use English, as the band are notable for being from England per MOS:NATIONALITY, with its categories noting the band as English. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

British (Summoned by bot) - unless sources can be provided that show that this band ordinarily refer to themselves as "English". the IP insists that they are British as it says on the band's website, I do not believe that it merits enough, actually it is more than enough and suggests 'British'. That they come from Oxford is academic, so does Layla Moran and both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair come from Scotland, but are not 'Scots', whereas Humza Yousaf and Sean Connery are/were. The default position for UK subjects is that they are 'British' - their citizenship - unless they and those who write about them ordinarily describe them as Eng/Sc/We/N.Ir. Pincrete (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete, Some published sources like Forbes twice in these sources here and here, and the New York Times, the band is referred to as English. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

They are English, first and foremost. Oxford is in England, and that is the city of origin they are an English band. You wouldn't see other English bands referred to as British. Americans use the term 'British' often when referring to English, which stems from England - a country within the United Kingdom. In essence they are a UK/British band when talking about bands in general from the islands, but Foals formed in Oxford, so are English. Deep Purple Fan (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC

Should the nationality in the lead section be represented as English or British? HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

British - English may add confusion as to if it's England, or an english-speaking country. So, keep as-is. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that potential confusion can be immediately removed by following up with specifically where they are from in England. This is how it starts in FAs such as "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool" or "Joy Division were an English rock band formed in Salford", also in GAs like Blur, The Rolling Stones, Bloc Party. Since the opening sentence already says "formed in Oxford" then I don't think that anyone is going to be left wondering whether FOALS are English-from-England, or just English-speaking. Even then, even if someone really was somehow confused by that, then they are both, so no harm no Foal. ---- D'n'B-t -- 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

English - Per Countries of the United Kingdom, it makes sense to refer to them as English. If the band was to be referred to as British, would the same be said for bands like Iron Maiden and Pink Floyd for example? (Both whom are notably English bands from England, whereas Foals is from a city in England.) HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

British Like other similar articles. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

English as to be consistent with many band articles mentioned above.---- D'n'B-t -- 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• English Ultimately, I don't think it matters a whole lot. But English is more specific and accurate. Being British just means that you can originate anywhere within the UK. Most of the English bands that I just looked up were designated as English, maybe 8 out of 10 searches. As stated above, the risk for confusion is low. I don't think we even need to consider that. So, in short, if they're from England, then let's be accurate and say that they're English. Seems simple enough. pillowcrow 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, as it does make a lot of sense. And with Countries of the United Kingdom which states that the United Kingdom is made up of four different countries, it would make sense to refer to the band as "English". HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment It's been almost two weeks now since my vote, with no further voting. So far it's 3–2 in favor of English. Are we good with closing the RfC and making the edit? pillowcrow 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait a little more, consensus isn't clear yet. Remember, it is not a democracy, so the outcome isn't necessarily based on votes. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. pillowcrow 20:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC looks to have closed, I'm not seeing much of a clear consensus or any further responses. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree to close as no consensus Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Same. As much as I would have wanted to have an "English" consensus, there just wasn't enough discussion. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.