Talk:Blur (band)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blur (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  tag to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=122&title=free_blur_mp3_download&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705033037/http://news.qthemusic.com/2012/02/blurs_damon_graham_reunite_liv.html to http://news.qthemusic.com/2012/02/blurs_damon_graham_reunite_liv.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the dead NME link. Karst (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Oasis should be the only ones mentioned as being the rivals to Blur during the 90s. While Blur had some beef with Suede, I really don't consider it an official rivalry between the two bands. So in the "Britpop years" section, remove Suede and just have Oasis as the lone image in there. Dean12065 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how either pop-music rivalries can be classified as "official" or not. The salient point is: the members of these groups saw themselves as rivals, and so did the press.—indopug (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suede 

message: There should be a "Band members" section along with a timeline in the article. Dean12065 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely opposed to this, but the band has been the exact same for its entire history except for the brief period when Coxon was not in the band, during which he wasn't even ever officially "replaced" so I'm not sure how such a section would be useful. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Band members" Section 

message: I thought Blur were from Colchester? Scf1985 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin? 

message: I don't get why you are removing the musical style section. The genres were not sourced and this is supposed to be a good article. Plus, I added sources to information that wasn't sourced. Just because it's a good article doesn't mean it is perfect and can't be improved. Bowling is life (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, however, it must be more extensive, so that it continues to have the status of Good Article. My opinion is that they seek more information about their influences in reliable sources. Nothing more than that. Juan Pop Gamer (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical style section  

message: Can there be another image to be used for the infobox of the Blur article? I know a good portion of other music groups have cropped images used in their infoboxes, but I feel that Blur should use an image of all band members performing live onstage without having to crop the image. Is there a way to do this? 2601:407:4100:87A0:870:78E2:1CAA:9BD9 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for infobox 

message: Can there be a "Spinoffs" section in the infobox, with bands and projects being Gorillaz, the Good, the Bad & the Queen, Rocket Juice & the Moon, Fat Les, Me Me Me, WigWam and the Ailerons? 2601:407:4181:4260:E4EA:C95:1F2D:65B1 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so most of the bands and projects that have sprung off of Blur have been added to the infobox, but what about Rocket Juice & the Moon? 2601:407:4181:4260:E4EA:C95:1F2D:65B1 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one who added the spinoffs to the infobox when I saw your talk page message. There is no article for Rocket Juice & the Moon so I'm not sure if we can include it. Bowling is life (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is an article for Rocket Juice & the Moon, and it is linked to the article in the "Blur" template, and the article explicitly says that they were a supergroup. I think that the band should be added to the "Spinoffs" section in the infobox because of this, even though the band only put out one album. 2601:407:4181:4260:6590:35CC:EAD1:E4DC (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: It seems excessive to list every band that a member of Blur has been a part of. How many are actually described by sources as Blur spinoffs? Miklogfeather (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spinoffs" section in infobox 

message: I get that there's not really an objective way to consider the "years active", but I have some issues with the way it is currently in the infobox.
* The "active" ranges should end on the last year of activity of the range, not the year after. I have never seen any other article label it that way. For example it should be "1988-2003" instead of "1988-2004"
* I think there should be a distinction between the 2004-2009 gap and the others as they were fundamentally different in regards to personnel changes and uncertainty of the band getting back together. I would move that the years active be edited to "1988-2003, 2009-present" with 2004-2008 and 2016-2023 as hiatuses.
Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Years active"