Talk:Blew

Untitled

I've been looking for this EP for years... and I still am.

Gringo300 01:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Single debate

It's clear that this release was not a single but an EP. Why should it be listed as a single here?,

Never mind, sorry. Misread. Blackmorningsun 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC

OK, I actually own a real copy and two fakes. I know its supposed to be an EP and is well known as that but is there any official proof that it is actually an EP ? And record industry rules are that an EP is 5-8 songs I believe. This has 4.Many Nirvana singles have 4 tracks. It comes in a slimline 'single' case where as EP's usually come in an album 'jewel' case (like Hormoaning does). And is it an album ? no it isn't. Which is it more like, an album or single ? Unless you were told it was an EP, it has all the charachteristics of a single. It doesn't have any charachteristics of an EP let alone an Album. Maybe officially an EP, but here it fits the singles section more than the albums.

In the UK EP's are included in the singles charts, for example Mettalica Garage days revisted EP(6 songs). Some EP's with more songs will be included in the album charts. As in all countries if an EP sells enough to chart it will be included in either the singles OR albums chart but not both. There has never been a chart anywhere for just EPs. Hormoaning was an EP and included in the Japananese albums. In the UK there have been various EP's calssed either as singles or albums. I know "Blew" was released on an underground label but had it been a major release on Geffen and charted it would have been classed as a single with out doubt.

It is classed as an EP because it has 4 songs, and non of those 4 songs are alternate versions of other songs on the same release. See: Extended play. As for charts: EP's with 4 or 5 songs are counted as singles and EP's with 6 or more songs are counted as albums. Either way Blew is an EP.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blew.jpg

Image:Blew.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. 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 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuning

I am pretty certain that Bleach was not totally in standard. Blew itself is whole step down dropped C, and I am pretty sure Negative Creep was Drop D. Dakatsu1993 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Fairly conclusive evidence that this is the primary topic; and no evidence that "blew" is a common search term on Wikipedia for "Blow" or "blow" or "blow job" or whatnot. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Blew (EP) → Blew – This is the only most notable (see my comment below in the discussion) topic on Wikipedia by this title. If necessary, a hatnote can be added to the top of the article directing the reader to the disambiguation page Blow, but I don't see that being necessary myself. Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I disagree. If anything "Blew" should redirect to the Blow page as they are the same thing. I would recommend that it stays as Blew (EP), and if changed to anything at all it should be "Blew (Nirvana song)".QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Again, the issue is that Blow is a disambiguation page. Of the three entries at the top of the disambiguation page that were somehow declared the co-dominant topics, the only one that "blew" could refer to is Exhalation, but even that's a bit if a stretch since the word "blew" is not in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is incorrect, several things can be "blew", exhalation, explosion, blow job, Blew (surname), -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIC, the only applicable entry of those would be Blew (surname). More or less, I agree with Dohn joe's "vote". Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTDIC does not apply to blow job, since verb forms redirect to noun forms on Wikipedia, and this is the verb form past tense for the noun form. The choice of having a title at a verb form or a noun form is entirely a choice there is not any other reason to use noun forms instead of verb forms. Whilst explosion and exhalation can be considered DICT entries, blow job cannot. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• The primary meaning of "blew" is as the past tense of the verb "blow" :: e.g. "That gale blew the old apple tree down.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTADICT. Neither the verb blow nor its past tense blew are encyclopedic subjects, Anthony Appleyard. We don't have entries for them. They are irrelevant to encyclopedia article titles. --В²C ☎ 23:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It's unnecessary disambiguation. I've reverted the redirect of Blew to Blow. WP is not a dictionary. --В²C ☎ 23:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See #Primary topic for Blew? --В²C ☎ 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose several of the entries at blow are also valid for "blew". You could create a new dab page for "blew" with only the valid entries, which would fix some problems; but this is not the primary topic. Per WP:NOUN noun form article titles are used over verb form, but that does not make the verb form not the primary topic, or cannot dispute the primarity. Thus not having another article at this specific title is not a useful point since the verb form actions exist at the noun form article titles. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've WP:BOLDly converted this to a dab page, which can be moved to Blew (disambiguation) if this move request goes through. At the time of the conversion, "Blew" redirected to "Blew (EP)"; however on July 28, it redirected to "Blow", so on July 29 there was a change in target. From 2004 to 2015, it pointed to "Blow" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As things stand, there are two WP topics actually called "Blew" - the EP and the surname. This looks like a WP:TWODABS situation. The past tenses of nouns (?) that are not even the same word should be in a See also section, if on the dab page at all. This doesn't make any sense. Dohn joe (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Dohn joe: Just wondering: in light of Blew (surname)'s existence and your support opinion in regards to WP:TWODABS, would you think that moving this article then putting a hatnote at the top pointing to Blew (surname) would suffice? Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  Yes - that would seem to be the best solution. If people really want to keep a dab page, then it could also have a hatnote to the dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, I altered my nomination statement slightly in light of information that transpired during the course of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and merge Blew (surname) into the DAB at Blew. No reason to have both. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the primary topic evidence below. kennethaw88 • talk 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. B2C's evidence is convincing that when people search for "Blew" on Wikipedia the EP is clearly what they are most likely looking for. In addition, none of the other options are clearly of more long-term encyclopedic importance than the Nirvana EP. Jenks24 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic for Blew?

These are all of the uses of Blew on Wikipedia.

• Horace Blew has been viewed 268 times in 201506. [1]
• Russell Blew has been viewed 87 times in 201506. [2]
• William John Blew has been viewed 74 times in 201506. [3]
• Blew (EP) has been viewed 5331 times in 201506. [4]

Pretty clear winner. --В²C ☎ 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also Blew (surname), which was viewed 27 times in 201506. [5], but yes. Dohn joe (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha. Yeah, I got the names of the people with surname Blew off that page. Now that we have a dab page for Blew, I think we should fold the contents of Blew (surname) into it under a section called People with surname Blew, or something like that. --В²C ☎ 23:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, you missed blow job which is very frequently as a verb is just "blow" and past tense "blew". This is not a dictionary entry, this should be the primary topic, if you have a primary topic. The verb-form usually redirects to the noun form on Wikipedia, and we have the noun form at "blow job" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To argue that, you would need to provide evidence in reliable sources that "blew" is commonly used to refer to "blow job". Good luck with that. More practically, who the heck would use "blew" when searching for "blow job"? --В²C ☎ 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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