Talk:Second British Invasion/Archive 1

What is happening[edit]

This article was supposed to be entitled "Second British Invasion" as a result of a splitting of the British Invasion article. However do to an old redirect a Search for "Second British Invasion goes to the Second British Invasion section in the British Invasion article. If a redirect exists "Second British Invasion" you can not name an article with that name or rename this one. This does not change if the section in the original article is deleted. Until the mater is adjudicated I can not split the original article and rename this article. Edkollin (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from Talk:Second British Music Invasion.)

Move (2010)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Second British Invasion → [[{{{1}}}]] — This redirect page is preventing the Second British Invasion section from being split off from the British Invasion article as it will not allow me to create a separate "Second British Invasion" article because the software thinks there is an existing "Second British Invasion" article. I created a Second British Music Invasion article with the failed hope that this might overwrite the software. I would like to delete this article, move the Second British Music Invasion article to a Second British Invasion article and clean up any links issues with other articles.

I did attempt to apply to delete redirect page on February 16 and was told to go to the requested moves page if there was a technical issue preventing me from creating the Second British Invasion Page which there seems to be. Edkollin (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved that article here now. But in fact, you could just have edited this page when the redirect was there and replaced the redirect text with the text of your article. See this edit for an example. Ucucha 04:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

16 July 1983[edit]

The statement "On 18 July ... 6 of the top 10 singles, were by British artists eclipsing a record that had stood since 1965" is false. The 8 May 1965 record of 8 British acts in the top 10, tied on 25 May 1985, stands even today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.124.206 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that out because because the source is a blog that is claiming to recreate Newsweek Magazine. While Newsweek itself is a reliable source the blog is not so we can't use it. All your other additions while possibly true are unsourced and can not be added and will be taken out also. You may put them back if you have reliable sources for them. Even if something is totally obviously to be true we can not add it without reliable sources. Read this for better understanding Wikipedia:Verifiability. To verify chart positions try the Billboard archives[1] Edkollin (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The false material is still there, more than a month later.

Which other additions of mine are unsourced, I wouldn't know, since the additions that I can recall making all have documentation within Wikipedia. For example, I have repeatedly said that eight Second British Invasion hits reached #1 on the Hot 100 in the spring and summer of 1986, and that fact is evident from consulting the Billboard Hot 100 #1 hits for that year on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_1986_%28U.S.%29 and verifying that the eight mentioned acts are all British. Also I mentioned a number of Second British Invasion acts. Support for such statements is in the Wikipedia articles on each of the acts and/or Wikipedia's list of such acts, but this information no longer appears in the Second British Invasion article.71.103.143.39 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. These points need independent reliable sources for verifiability.--SabreBD (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I understand correctly, I need to show from independent sources, without referencing their Wikipedia articles, that six acts reaching #1 in the spring and summer of 1986, namely, Robert Palmer, Billy Ocean, Simply Red, Genesis, Steve Winwood, and Bananarama are British, but whoever mentioned Pet Shop Boys and Peter Gabriel, the other two acts reaching #1 then, doesn't have to do the same. Huh?71.103.143.39 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about being late with this. The Pet Shop Boys and Peter Gabriel were specifically mentioned as reaching number 1 by an Independent source I used The Village Voice. While you can't use Wikipedia article itself as a source you can uses the independent sources the Wikipedia article used. Edkollin (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal[edit]

Reliably sourced information reliably sourced was deleted regarding the beginning and end of the British Invasion in the lede. It was replaced by Original Research about when the invasion was "bookended" by two Human League hits. These changes were made without explanation. The Human League's "Don't You Want Me" has been reliably cited as being the beginning of the invasion so no problem there. The reliable cite used, a list of Billboard charts reliably establishes the Human League's "Human" as reaching number 1 in 1986. What the cite does not do is directly say the "Human" "bookended" the Second invasion or that it was the last song of the second invasion. We cannot write in the article anything about "bookends" because of this. A reliable sources did establish that Second Invasion songs charted in the spring and Summer of 1986 and that the invasion was over when replaced by Hair metal. Yet this was deleted for the uncited information.

It seems logical. The invasion ended in the Summer of 1986, "Human" was number one that summer therefore the invasion was bookended by "Human". Wikipedia guidelines specifically prevents writing material based on this type of logic

In conclusion a reliable source must be produced specifically saying "Human" was the last song of the Second British Invasion. Also reliably sourced information such as the information about Hair Metal should not be deleted unless an explanation is given. The explanation should not be of the "it's obvious, or everybody knows this is false" type. It should be that the information does not reflect what the reliable source says, or is not notable or related to the article etc. Edkollin (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute the term Second British Invasion, it should be the fourth[edit]

I watched a BBC Four series about the British invasions. The first being the Beatles and Stones led invasion that carried along dozens of other lesser British acts. This was of course in the 60's. The second invasion was in the early-mid seventies and was driven by Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Mott the Hoople and dozes of other 70's rock bands. They were packing out stadiums for years. The third invasion was the later punk movement. The fourth invasion of course being the 80's New Wave bands Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Culture Club, and dozens more. The fifth invasion was the Britpop era of the early 90's driven mostly by Oasis and Blur. There hasn't been a sixth one yet. Since the fifth invasion there have only been one-off bands making it big there, like Coldplay and Muse. It hardly qualifies as an invasion though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.0.105 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the common name used in the major sources, which is what counts on Wikipedia.--SabreBD (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punk was surely no invasion it was rejected at first in the USA. Britpop acts did well in US but was not a major phenomenon and was lumped in with Alternative Rock. Since 2006 there has been a female invasion of sorts that has gotten mention Amy Winehouse, Adele, Duffy, Ellie Goulding, Jessie J etc. This has been discussed in other articles. Edkollin (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The First British Invasion began with the Beatles. The craze went further with the Monkees and the Stones. Three lead-offs only because they were the most well known. A lot of the British in the 60s weren't well known until the 70s, for instance Rod Stewart, who was in the first supergroup in 1965 and in other bands during the 60s. While it's true, Black Sabbath, Sex Pistols, Slade and others emerged in the 70s, they hardly received the recognition deserved until the 80s British Invasion and when bands like Quiet Riot popularized Mama We're All Crazee. Later, Motley Crue, Metallica, Guns 'n' Roses and others began to cover Sex Pistols, the Damned and other British Punk that went unnoticed. It's not the way we want to remember it though, anymore than we want to remember that AC/DC was loud but not popular in the 70s.

Dionswope (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

typo?[edit]

"music from the United Kingdom was informed by the after"

what does informed mean in this context? i think this is not in my dictionary. --129.13.72.197 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 May 2016[edit]

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: No consensus. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second British Invasion → Second British invasion – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles (e.g. new wave of British heavy metal). The sources by a significant majority downcase the item. Tony (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — second relist by user:SSTflyer at 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is not a war, it's just a music-journalism label for a sub-sub-genre. We don't even capitalize genres (rock 'n' roll, Irish folk music, etc.), or sub-genres (heavy metal, paddy punk), so this does not belong upper-cased. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a term, not a genre of music. The i is capitalised. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a term"? How is that a rationale for capitalization? Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Anarchyte and per the nominator's ngram results [sic]. The ngram shows hits going back to the year 1820 which clearly do not refer to the 1980s term (think " the second British invasion of Buenos Aires in 1807"). But capital i results start spiking in the 1980s even as many newer books refer to other second British invasions. In short, there is no evidence in the ngram that sources referring to the music term are not capitalizing the i. Furthermore, if the first British Invasion has a capital i, and this term is derivative, why wouldn't this one be capitalized too even if the s in "second" isn't capitalized (like here)? — AjaxSmack 21:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better n-grams plot. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that iteration as well. That's where I got hits for text like: "In the West Indies, Martinique, which had evaded capture in 1759, gave up the ghost very rapidly when faced with a second British invasion in 1762" in a source from 2006. — AjaxSmack 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.