Talk:Brett Anderson

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Untitled

He's in the Bisexual musicians-category, but the article doesn't mention anything like that. Proof? --83.92.81.174 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful awful picture of him. Can someone please replace it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.254.161 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, it's truly horrible, and his face isn't even really visible. I'm going to take it out, and see if we can find a better photo somewhere. Youandtheguys 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a stab at it, but I've never tried to fathom the images side of things before so I may have thoroughly messed it up. I tried?

Seriously though, if we can't have this image, can we at least not put the old one back? Youandtheguys 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality

The recent addition of him saying in 2005 that he's a bisexual man who's never had a homosexual experience. The thing is, this fails to take into account that he famously and controversially claimed exactly the same thing in the early 1990s. If anyone can find evidence of this, can we amend the article?Chapwithwings 07:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it would be right to label Brett Anderson as a bisexual. In order for him to have the "bi" tag, he would have to have had a homosexual experience with another man ( either he kissed and/or even had intercourse with another man). I think in my opinion as of now we should still consider Brett Anderson straight ( heterosexual) until there is enough evidence to back Brett's claim of bisexuality. Lostinsidemyworld 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover I have some other additional info to support my statement regarding Brett's Sexuality here:

http://www.nndb.com/people/252/000109922/ Lostinsidemyworld 13:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of balls. Does that mean that, until you kiss/have sex with a woman you can't be classified as straight? He's bi if he says he's by and NNDB won't persuade me otherwise. Chapwithwings 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant biphobia in removing that, people.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really biphobia, there just isnt a source to proof he's bi!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.111.223 (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious how people keep adding him as "Bisexual". Add "People of Jamaican descent" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.100.99 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interview source. It keeps being removed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am re-adding the tag until somebody can find a good enough reason as to why it SHOULDN'T be there. Peoples' sexual orientation is not determined by what kind of experiences they've had but by what gender(s) they're sexually attracted to alone - hence the word "orientation". Also, he doesn't state clearly what he means by "homosexual experience". He could mean sex, kiss, intimacy - whatever but the fact is he's stated that he's bisexual, attracted to men and nothing that he's said would suggest otherwise. If anyone can persuade me otherwise and has a source (apart from nndb which is highly unreliable) that claims he's straight, based on something he said - go for it.--Jkaharper (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny; when we tried to cover Suede songs, we would refer to him as "Brett Andersrum", "andersrum" meaning "the other way around" or "gay" in German. I sometimes wonder if he and Morrissey are just using the gay scene to sell their stuff and are both simply straight after all. Sam Golden (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just a publicity thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.10.18 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brettandersonalbum.JPG

Image:Brettandersonalbum.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 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BrettandersonLiveinLondon.JPG

Image:BrettandersonLiveinLondon.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 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BrettAndersonLoveIsDeadSingle.jpg

Image:BrettAndersonLoveIsDeadSingle.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 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BrettAndersonBackToYouSingle.jpg

Image:BrettAndersonBackToYouSingle.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 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Brett Anderson. 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/20110316083136/http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2010/11/the_best_thing_ive_heard_all_y_1.html to http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2010/11/the_best_thing_ive_heard_all_y_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 00:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yugoslawian descent

his father is of croatian descent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:7D3E:B404:E0C3:21B6 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Brett Anderson

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brett Anderson's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Independent2":

From Suede (band): Duerden, Nick (18 October 2003). "Brett Anderson: 'I was a very strange human being indeed'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 April 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
From Suede (album): Thompson, Ben (28 March 1993). "ROCK / Still in the vanguard: Suede". The Independent. Retrieved 2 June 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Dog Man Star: Barber, Nicholas (9 October 1994). "ARTS / Records – Suede: Dog Man Star". The Independent. Retrieved 25 May 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Head Music: Duerden, Nick (18 October 2003). "I was a very strange human being indeed". The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 April 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: retain the current titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– I don't see any reason that the English musician should be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for all notable people named "Brett Anderson". I think it's just an artifact of this article being created before the other Brett Andersons. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be, he got 73% of the pageviews in 2018, and 82.8% of the pageviews in the past 90 days. The only real challenger is the baseball player, who struggles to get more than 30 hits a day with the exception of random spikes (which implies to me that, when he hangs it up, he's not very likely to challenge the Suede guy much). Nohomersryan (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can perhaps see how it's not obvious if you were to look at this as a baseball enthusiast, but I think by most standards the Suede frontman is a clear primary topic, i.e. usage, long term notability, etc. PC78 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PC78, how is that, exactly? What standards suggest evidence that he is the clear primary topic? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are usage and long-term significance. The former is demonstrated by the fact he gets a significant majority of the page views, the latter as he has been active for longer than any of the other candidates and also in terms of his influence and success. But as I said, I do appreciate that this comparison between the singer and the baseball player depends largely on your interests, or for that matter which side of the Atlantic you're on. PC78 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, what exactly is your argument for there being no primary topic? Your rationale above is rather vague. PC78 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support when you add in the female Brett Anderson's band The Donnas the male musician is only getting 30% of pageviews, of course and in the male musicians band and they all go down, but all the same there's eminent potential for confusion so a DAB would be best. No one here has any real long term encyclopaedic significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second link shows Brett Anderson + Suede get about 75% of the total views. How is it fair, exactly, to count another Brett Anderson's band against him, while not including his own? (And by my count it's near 15% higher than just 30.) Nohomersryan (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what comparing pageviews for Brett Anderson and The Donnas is meant to prove?? That's not a valid comparison. And comparing the English musician and his band with his American counterparts only demonstrates far greater interest in the former. I feel the Englishman has more enduring notability than you give him credit for. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Comparing pageviews won't help in this case. When I went looking for the page of the baseball player, I forgot that his page has a disambiguation, and so I found this page. That artificially inflated his page view count, and I'm sure that that happens when people are searching for a different Brett Anderson's. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. If more people were arriving at Brett Anderson expecting to find someone else (as you seem to suggest) then you would expect to see that reflected in the page views, the results would be far less one-sided than what they actually are - you'd get far more views for the dab page, for example, which gets an average of just 104 views per month. PC78 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Due to WP:NOTABILITY. This wiki does not do the singer justice in terms of coverage. The article for Suede (band) and its albums and singles are well referenced by sources from both sides of the Atlantic. Suede are far more notable than the Donnas. Looking at both band's discographies, they both had two songs chart on US Alternative Songs. While the Donnas have one top 40 UK hit, Suede have had 19 UK top 40 singles along with three UK number one albums. For a singer of a UK indie band, who did not make it big in America compared to Elastica and Radiohead, Suede's Brett Anderson has considerable media coverage from newspapers.com link. Suede and Brett Anderson are also a massive band in Scandinavia, having two number one singles in Finland and Denmark. His popularity has grown in recent years due to the 2010 reformation of Suede, three subsequent well-received albums; one critically acclaimed biography. Search on Google, Coal Black Mornings, there's plenty of coverage. He has a second biography due out later this year and of course has a solo discography to his name. It would also be counterproductive to change his name because of the amount of articles which link to Brett Anderson link.Noelrock (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and in ictu oculi. There are three other men listed at the disambiguation page where the musician's notability does not reach such overwhelming proportions that his primacy can be proclaimed as unquestioned and indisputable. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Due to interest. He has the most interest, so he doesn't need a job title. --Quiz shows 21:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per usage[1]. Surprising, but this musician from a group I never heard of is clearly the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 18:11, 20 February 2019 (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.

Requested move 15 August 2020

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: no consensus. – bradv🍁 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Anderson → Brett Anderson (English musician) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Joeykai (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. With the exception of random spikes for the baseball player, the musician is almost always the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, the other singer and baseball player are significant in their own right, and this musician isn't clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by page views or historical significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nohomersryan -- looking outside of the page view bump in the past month, the musician seems to be the primary. No prejudice against reconsidering my view though if the current numbers stay sustained.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even from the sample that you posted, the English musician only has 65% of the total views, which shouldn't be enough to be considered a primary topic. Joeykai (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The baseball player is trending upward recently, but with 60%+ of pageviews the musician is still "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought by readers, at least for now. Fewer than 1% of readers are clicking through to the dab page, indicating few readers are getting lost. Station1 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and Ortizesp. No indication that subject has such prominence that the female vocalist as well as the three team sports players (one of whom uses a single "t") are overwhelmed by his renown to the extent of their own notability fading into insignificance by comparison. Would likewise support Brett Anderson (disambiguation) → Brett Anderson. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the "much more likely than any other" doesn't appear to be satisfied here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2020 (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.