Talk:Leisure (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:LeisureUK.jpg

Image:LeisureUK.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LeisureUK.jpg

Image:LeisureUK.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Pinging Indopug, Michig, Giusex27sc, Smalljim, JordanPowers95, Myxomatosis57 and WesleyDodds; editors who have been active this year and who have edited this album's genre parameter in the past.

This article has listed a number of genres, with editors going back and forth to remove or defend certain ones. Here are the genres the article has historically displayed, in chron order:

• Britpop[1]
• Indie/Alternative rock[2]
• Indie music/Alternative rock[3]
• Indie rock/Alternative rock[4]
• Alternative rock/Indie rock[5]
• Alternative rock/indie rock/Shoegaze[6]
• Alternative rock/Indie rock[7]
• Alternative rock[8]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing[9]
• Shoegazing[10]
• Shoegazing/Proto-Britpop[11]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing[12]
• Alternative rock[13]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing[14]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Madchester[15]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Madchester/Dream rock[16]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Madchester/Dream pop[17]
• Alternative rock[18]
• Alternative rock/Baggy/Shoegaze/Madchester[19]
• Alternative rock[20]
• Alternative rock/Madchester/Shoegazing[21]
• Alternative rock[22]
• Alternative rock/Madchester/Shoegazing[23]
• Alternative rock[24]
• Indie rock[25]
• Indie rock/neo-psychedelia/shoegaze[26]
• Indie rock[27]
• Britpop[28]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Baggy/Madchester[29]
• Alternative rock[30]
• Indie rock[31]
• Indie rock/Madchester/Shoegazing/neo-psychedelia[32]
• Indie rock[33]
• Alternative rock/Madchester[34]
• Indie rock/Madchester[35]
• Indie rock/Madchester/Baggy[36]
• Indie rock/alternative rock/Madchester/Baggy[37]
• Indie rock/Madchester/Baggy[38]
• Alternative rock/Madchester/Baggy[39]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Baggy[40]
• Alternative rock/Madchester/Baggy[41]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Baggy[42]
• Pop music[43]
• Madchester[44]
• Pop music[45]
• Indie dance/Madchester/Baggy[46]
• Madchester/Baggy[47]
• Pop music[48]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Baggy[49]
• Pop music[50]
• Alternative rock/Madchester/Baggy[51]
• Alternative rock/Shoegazing/Baggy[52]
• Alternative rock/Madchester/Baggy[53]

The shoegazing and baggy bits have most recently been supported by a blog reference: http://www.adriandenning.co.uk/blur.html. I don't think a blog is suitably reliable for establishing the genre.

What we need to do is assemble the best sources and tell the reader a summary of their views. Regarding the genre parameter of the album infobox, I do not think it is appropriate to dump the individual song genres all together and call that the album's genre. I think the WP:V bar is higher than that: what we need are reviews discussing the album itself, saying what its genre is. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything listed in this field should reflect the genre of the album as a whole, but what we get in many articles is a list of all of the genres that different editors think apply to individual tracks or even aspects of individual tracks, whether or not they are supported by reliable sources. We should keep it general, and yes, we should go by what the majority of *good* sources say, not blogs. We should also limit it to genuine genres, and Madchester and 'Indie music' are not genres. Different sources mention different genres as influences on diferent songs but I don't think we should go into more detail than just Rock or Pop to describe the album - anything below that doesn't apply to the album as a whole. If there are good sources discussing individual tracks that level of detail should only be covered in the prose. It was basically a commercial major label pop/rock album cashing in on various styles that were popular at the time. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've checked the reviews and some additional articles; some of them refer to the individual tracks rather than the whole album itself, categorizing songs as baggy, Madchester or shoegaze. ([54], [55], [56]). Nevertheless, some sources state that the album came during the height of the baggy movement (and I suppose NME makes a rather clearer statement on this). Allmusic review for the next Blur album, Modern Life is Rubbish also states that the album has baggy and shoegazing influences, while The New Rolling Stone Guide states that the album is caught up between "quasi psychedelia of shoegazing acts and Madchester bands. Jim Keoghan of The Quietus wrote that on the album "takes the baggy and shoegaze influences and producing something greater than the sum of its parts." These genres are also mentioned on the Consequence of Sound and The A.V. Club articles (the latter one also describes the album as "psychedelic-tinged").

To sum up, I believe the most relevant genres to categorize the album would be baggy and shoegazing. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To reply to the ping: I haven't done any research, but I do agree that we should categorise any album solely on reliable sources that assign genres to the album as a whole.  —SMALLJIM  20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leisure (album). 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/20090924015932/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

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) 18:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)