Talk:Blew

message: I've been looking for this EP for years... and I still am.
Gringo300 01:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Single debate 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Blew.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tuning