Talk:Erasure (duo)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robot Freaking Unicorn[edit]

\m/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.82.30 (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Release Dates[edit]

Just a nit here - Solisbury Hill & Make Me Smile (Come Up & See Me) were released in 2003, not in the "1980s" or "1990s" as the lead in sentence states.

Pet Shop Boys Comparison[edit]

Reason why we should compare Erasure and Pet Shop Boys - Both lead singers are homosexuals and the other member plays the synth. There were other Pop duos in the 80's.

Gay Icon Project[edit]

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd say that they can be classed as gay icons, since they are well known among the gay community and have songs with lyrics which LGBT people can relate to. Beno1000 22:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous[edit]

"As pop craftsmen, their work bears comparison with that of Irving Berlin, Lerner and Loewe, Rodgers and Hart, Gershwin, and other songwriting luminaries."

Are there some cites of critics to support this grandiose claim? Or is it just one WP editor who thinks so?

"Their productivity and record sales have declined in the last decade, Erasure remains an inevitable presence on the British singles charts, scoring at least one Top 30 hit with the release of every new album. Few bands have demonstrated the durability of Erasure."

Hitting the top 30 doesn't sound like such great shakes to me. And Erasure's only been around since 1986? (1985 actually-Ed) There are plenty of bands with a longer commercial lifetime than that.(Like who?-Ed) (And Erasure have had as many top ten's and top twenty's as Pet Shop Boys, last year they made number 3 with Breathe. They are still a successful pop act-Ed)

Back on goes the NPOV tag. Wasted Time R 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote somewhere that they'll be the only synth pop band remembered. I exaggerated. Excuse me, Erasure and all other synth pop bands. Gregorik (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

What about locking this page because of continuous vandalism? see history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.208.232 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add the adjective "electronic" ... Few electronic bands have demonstrated the durability of Erasure..." as this is the truth, so that the article will be entirely neutral.

"...through 1995, Erasure were the greatest pop phenomenon in Britain since ABBA." WHAT????? Shouldn't a truly great pop phenom have at least one #1 song?70.188.137.18 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)K. Rudasill[reply]

NPOV tag withdrawal[edit]

I've just replaced the inapropriate comparisons with more pertinent ones and added the adjective "electronic" when needed. Hence, I suggest to put out the NPOV tag.

I did some further toning down and general simplification, and removed the NPOV tag. Wasted Time R 20:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"(additionally, Bell was openly gay from the beginning, and he reflected this in his lyrics at a time when society as a whole was more ignorant around queer issues than it is today - making Erasure's success all the more notable)" This quote, while very true, seems only loosely relevant to the section it's in. Also it creates quite the run-on sentence. I'm not sure what to do with it, though. --Loltard 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

updating charts and tables[edit]

Xinger: If you are going to add chart statistics and do major work to the albums/singles formatting then do the work on a subpage of your own, then transfer it over to the main article once all the research is done and the formatting is complete. Moving two songs ("Chains Of Love" and "A Little Respect") out of the main singles table and into their own on the bottom of the section destroys the chronology of the article and makes everything look sloppy. If you want to include Modern Rock Chart peaks then find out the stats on ALL their Modern Rock entries, not just a few. Keep the article as one found in an encylopaedia... doing it bit by bit on the main article page leaves it in disarray. -- eo 00:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music Videos?[edit]

Where can I view Erasure music videos? Specifically I'm looking for "Make Me Smile". -- AS Artimour 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube maybe? -- eo 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Make Me Smile" video is featured on the double-DVD "Hits! The Videos". Look at the tracklisting of this DVD with the link below : http://www.erasureinfo.com/releases/videos/dvd_hits.html

Handwritten Q&A with Vince & Andy[edit]

I already posted one photo on the Erasure main page (and have others) - but there are a few things I'm not going to upload to wikipedia, namely these two handwritten questionnaires I did with the band 20 (ack!) years ago:

So if anyone wants to get anything from those to report here, or to link to them otherwise, please do. (I'm not doing it myself because of COI concerns.)

Andwhatsnext 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page??[edit]

I'm disputing this for now. I think moving a page with this many links to it without a discussion first should not have occurred. As there is (I assume) a yet-to-be-created page called Erasure (logic) and no other articles using the title of "Erasure" - perhaps it would be best to simply put a disambiguation/other uses link at the top of each article? The bands is certainly what is most associated with the word "Erasure". - eo 14:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've noticed that the Talk Page was not moved along with the main article? Clicking on the Talk Page for Erasure (the disambiguation page) leads to Erasure (the band) Talk Page. Something wasn't done correctly. - eo 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arguements for creating the disambiguation page: 

 There is an extensive set of logic pages on wikipedia, with the exception of erasure.
 The uses of erasure for logic and for a band name are disjoint.

Arguments against creating the disambiguation page: 

 There are around 50 links to the Erasure page that intend the band.
 There are more pop fans than logicians in the world.

Very sorry, I didn't know the conventions for such edits. Was just trying to do the right thing. I read the docs on disambiguation pages and didn't see advisories about discussing with maintainers.

What's the right thing now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EricGPrud (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No need for apologies - if others feel that (band) works better then that is fine. Actually a lot more than 50 articles link to the band (50 is just the default view setting when clicking on "What links here") so in a case such as this I'd like to see some discussion first. I've asked an admin about moving the band article back to "Erasure" - not sure if that will happen right away, but in the meantime some input from other editors will definitely help. - eo 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is EBX5 - EBX8 a rumor or true?[edit]

I saw a list for EBX5 - EBX8. Is this true? It seems logical, but I don't want to get excited unless there is a reliable source.

EBX 5:
  • Who Needs Love Like That (remix/Hamburg)
  • Always
  • Run to the Sun
  • I Love Saturday
  • Stay With Me
EBX6:
  • Fingers & Thumbs (Cold Summer's Day)
  • Rock Me Gently
  • In My Arms
  • Don't Say Your Love Is Killing Me
  • Rain
EBX7:
  • Freedom
  • Moon & the Sky
  • Solsbury Hill
  • Make Me Smile (Come Up and See Me)
  • Oh L'amour (remix/August)
EBX8:
  • Breathe
  • Don't Say You Love Me
  • Here I Go Impossible Again
  • All This Time Still Falling Out of Love
  • Boy
Thanks - Antmusic 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where'd you see it? It's a long-running rumor. Unless you see it on Mute or Erasure's websites I wouldn't expect anything. - eo 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

The external links do not immediately appear to meet the external link guidelines, please gain consensus as to why they should be included. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity in Brazil[edit]

Erasure made a HUGE success in Brazil in the late 80's and early 90's, when songs like "A Little Respect", which was included in the soundtrack of a Brazilian soap opera called "O Sexo dos Anjos" ("The Sex of the Angels"), "Stop!" (mainly the remix version by Mark Saunders), "Oh L'Amour" (live version), "Star", which was included in the soundtrack of a Brazilian soap opera called "Rainha da Sucata" ("Queen of the Strap"), "Love To Hate You", and mainly "Blue Savannah" conquered many Brazilian fans for the band. And they still have a strong and supporting fan base here in my country, including there is a Brazilian website dedicated to this fantastic duo, erasure.com.br. So they surely should tour here again in the near future!

(Please, Andy, forget the ridiculously pitiable machist behavior of those guys - a bunch of brainless headbangers - during your last Brazilian tour on 1997 in the Close-Up Planet Festival...) - Erasurian 15:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they came back to Brazil this year and they made nothing less than 5 very well received shows here! Therefore, you can easily conclude that they continue being one of the most popular pop acts in my country. Erasurian (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"is" vs. "are"[edit]

A lot of edits have been made recently saying that correct syntax would be to say something like "Erasure are an English band." But I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, it should be "Erasure is an English band." Even if a band contains two people, it is still a single band, so singular words should be used. Also the word "erasure" is a singular noun.

I see that some Wikipedia articles about bands with plural names like The Rolling Stones, The Who, and The Beatles use "are", and some bands with singular names like Tool, Dave Matthews Band, and Green Day are singular. I also see the opposite. Is there a Wiki standard for this?

Personally I think that "The Rolling Stones is an English band" makes more sense "The Rolling Stones are an English band" because "band" is still singular. Fnordware (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In British English we tend to use plural (see Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Suede (band), Pulp (band), Oasis (band), Blur (band), etc.) --Garik 11 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Don't Say You Love Me 'unique' downloads[edit]

Added a citation for evidence showing that each custom mix variant made and purchased of DSYLM was "limited to a single download". I've referenced an article by freelance journalist Sean McManus [here]. He's published, but not sure if he would be regarded a 'reliable' source, or if that matters in this instance. If it's a problem, info on the unique mp3s also exists on the Erasure biography page on the [Guardian website here] and briefly on the official Erasure website's 21 March 2005 news [Create Your Own Mix Of The New Single!] Opwerty (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistakes[edit]

There are several spelling mistakes and grammar errors in the section titled Releases 1995-2007

In spite of a return to three-minute pop songs, the 1997 album Cowboy did not restore the success of their 1986–1994 era. Cowboy enjoyed a short-lived success, peaking at number ten in the UK but lasting only two weeks in the UK Top 40. In the U.S. billboard charts it was one of their most successful records. The first single "In my arms" reached number 13 in the U.K. and entered the Top 2 in the U.S. Dance charts.The second single "Don´t say your love os killing me" made the Top 20 in the uk. The third single "Rain" was also only released in Germany.

Billboard should be a cap B and In my arms should be re-written as In My Arms, same goes for Don't Say Your Love Is Killing Me, as well as the spelling of 'Is' as 'of' ???? Did a child write this?

Also Don't Say Your Love Is Killing Me, did not make the UK Top 20, it only reached #23, therefore making the Top 30.

Oh l´amour was released. Original a commercial flop - It should be Originally.

Surely this should read - Oh L´Amour was released. Originally a commercial flop

The third single was a double a-side, features new versions of Here I go impossible again and All this time still falling out of love It maded the U.K. Top 20.

Here I Go Impossible Again/ All This Time Still Falling Out of Love did not make the UK Top 20, it peaked at #25. and Maded? That should be spelt simply as 'made'


If the page is to be kept locked so people can't correct daft mistakes like this themselves then please at least check it over first.

Upcoming releases[edit]

"To celebrate their first 30 years in the music industry, Erasure will be releasing an updated version of "Sometimes" as a single and a brand new compilation album entitled Always: The Very Best of Erasure. Release dates are 23 October and 30 October 2015 respectively."

Don't we usually have to treat upcoming stuff differently than this, lest Wikipedia becomes a news/rumor site of some sort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Depeche Mode discography[edit]

I have taken the liberty of commenting out the Depeche Mode discography at the bottom of this page. I see no real reason as to why the main Erasure page should have this discography as part of it. The fact that one half of Erasure was a member of the band for just one album doesn't seem justification enough to me and a link to the Depeche Mode page is all that is needed (which is in the document already). If the Depeche Mode discography is to be there, then why not a Yazoo one? And one for Andy Bell's solo career? And Vince's other projects? Opwerty (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Thanks. - eo (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Erasure. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Erasure. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erasure. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace new wave with hi-NRG[edit]

@Hiddenstranger It is anachronistic and ahistorical in the extreme to describe Erasure, an entirely synth-based act, as 'new wave' when they formed half a decade after the new wave had crested. In the UK, new wave denoted a more commercialised or 'artistic', though still guitar-based, variation on punk, entirely separate from synth-pop. Defining acts included Elvis Costello and The Jam, as well as American groups like Talking Heads and Blondie, but the new wave was more or less finished after 1980. For more on this, see what I wrote here and here, as well as on the talk page for synth-pop. I would also ask why it is that every source describing these synthpop groups as ‘new wave’ seems to be from the 21st-century, rather than contemporaneous with the groups’ peak success in the 1980s. Erasure, far from being a group of the new wave period, formed in 1985 and were an entirely synth-based pop and dance group. Their dance music was mostly in the electronic disco style known as hi-NRG, as is noted by several sources, and the group is listed on the Wiki page "list of hi-NRG artists and songs". The other day, I edited this page (while logged out, as it happened) to trim the genres listed down to 4, as Binksternet had previously done when Msftwin95 added sources for hi-NRG and dance-pop. Binksternet took the same approach toward the page for Aztec Camera, so to remain on his good side I suggest we choose four genres to represent the band, even if more are actually allowed. New wave has no place on this page, so it ought to go. If you could provide a third opinion again, @Ceoil, I'd be grateful. Many thanks. Janglyguitars (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 September 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Apparent consensus to move below as a WP:NOPRIMARY. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Is this the primary topic? Reading the 2007 discussion above (§ Moving page??), it seems this title was defaulted to when there were few other topics with the name. But there are now, not least of which is the poetic form. Pageviews by far favor the musical group, but I question whether it's more significant than just the concept of erasure (as erasing, social invisibility, etc.). (And as a side note, erasure poetry's pageviews aren't helped by its present confusing title; i.e., google doesn't give it a knowledge panel) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. There is no primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Erasure shows an actually significant interest in the current assumed primary topic with 32k views, and the hatnote clicks don't even reach top 20, with just 85 clicks. In turn, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Erasure_%28disambiguation%29 shows pretty much negligible traffic. Now, this could be because the navigation is all messed up, but with this kind of a ratio it's doubtful. I think the implicit usage argument is so strong that we need a more coherent significance argument to overrule it. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Based on page views, the duo are the primary topic. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No primary In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – looking at the evidence given, I'm not convinced that the pop duo aren't the primary topic (see Joy's comment). Sceptre (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now that you mention it @Sceptre, the evidence given is pretty scarce, so maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions at this point already. For example, let's start with looking at what does https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=erasure&pws=0 show. For me, it doesn't seem to show anything about the pop duo and I went as far as page 7. This is a bit strange, I would expect that the music topic has at least some prominent book coverage, which would in turn be quickly found by the search engine. An argument could be made that despite WP:NOTDICT, the term is inherently so ambiguous that it doesn't make sense to short-circuit navigation to a single topic because it could WP:ASTONISH the average reader. We could also look for parallels with Deletion, Removal, Expungement, Excision, Crossing out, Striking out, ... --Joy (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your Google search was focused on "books" topic !!
    When one does a general Google search, it is obvious that the pop duo is the primary topic !
    https://www.google.com/search?q=erasure
    AIRAZUR (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AIRAZUR yes, of course it focused on the books topic, that is a resource we commonly use to examine academic coverage of a topic which can be most relevant to the encyclopedia, because it gives us a glimpse into what is the potential of having reliably sourced articles. The results of a general search can likewise be relevant, but because of the nature of general search engines, which are obviously not encylopedias, there's often a distinction on topics that are popular, novel, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google Trends, page views statistics both show obviously that the duo Erasure is the primary topic for the word. AIRAZUR (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both recent pageviews and Google indicate that the duo is what most readers want and expect under this title. Station1 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if anything, the most common use is data erasure (such as erasing written text, files, harddisks), of which the computer form has an article -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom—blindlynx 23:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

post-move[edit]

Cf. Talk:Erasure#post-move. --Joy (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erasure_(duo)&oldid=1205502264"