Talk:Hours (David Bowie album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowie Hours.jpg

Image:Bowie Hours.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 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Hours... with no prejudice against future discussion to omit the ellipsis in favor of a disambiguation. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

'hours...' → ? — This seems like a blatant disregard of WP:MOSTM, and the title obviously needs to be changed to something else. However, media sources use many different names when referring to the album, including Hours, Hours..., 'Hours...', and hours....

Personally, I don't think it should be rendered it lowercase since that seems to be purely stylistic (since David Bowie is also in lowercase on the cover art). Media sources tend to include the ellipsis at the end and not include the quotes most of the time (but not all of the time), so I guess I'm leaning towards Hours.... Xnux the Echidna 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Hours (David Bowie album) (normal capitalization, no punctuation, disambiguation against Hours (album) by Funeral for a Friend. Rolling Stone calls it this, and their opinion was (apparently) decisive on the rather more controversial Kohuept. Tevildo (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that Rolling Stone calls the album Hours in the title of the review, but they refer to it as Hours... within the review itself. Which is more authoritative? Xnux the Echidna 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  They call it Hours in Bowie's discography, as well. I can't seem to find it on the EMI or Capitol websites. Amazon call it "Hours" and "Hours..." indiscriminately. [1]. I wouldn't have any objection to "Hours...", if that's what the main consensus is - it would also remove the disambiguation problem. Tevildo (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Album title

Whilst the name of the article should comply with MOS guidelines and be capitalised the correct name of the album is 'hours...' which can be seen on Bowie's official website here in the current poll. --JD554 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you cared to look up, we just had a discussion about the album's name...

For the record, we are following MoS guidelines by not using the name on Bowie's homepage. WP:MOSTM states not to use uncommonly-used special formatting, even if the author considers that spelling to be "official". We determined through that discussion that Hours... is the most common and WP:MOSTM-neutral name. Xnux the Echidna 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for having a life and being on holiday when the discussion took place, if you look at my editing history you'll see a large gap. If you cared to read what I had written you would see that I agree with the article as it is now named. However, when referring to the name of the album in the article we should use the "official" name (it's not a trademark by the way so WP:MOSTM doesn't apply). The first character is ' and that can't be capitalized. --JD554 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to start again and talk to me like a human being and not talk down to me as in your opening statement above, I'll gladly do the same. --JD554 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, don't to get so worked up about that. I was merely informing you about the previous discussion; sorry if my slightly aggravated tone offended you. Let's bury that hatchet now before an edit war happens.

Anyway, 'hours...' is a trademark. A trademark is any phrase used by organizations (in this case, David Bowie's website) to identify their product (the Hours... album). We do not copy the unusual formatting for this album for two reasons. The first reason is that albums with unusual formatting (such as being in lowercase and with quotation marks) are strongly discouraged as per WP:MOSTM. This is done to avoid drawing undue attention to certain trademarks. WP:MOSTM should be followed unless a significant majority of the media uses this unusual formatting. That's the second reason we don't spell the name as 'hours...': practically no external media sources copy this formatting (the only one who does is The Music Box, while Allmusic, Pitchfork Media, and Robert Christgau do not). Xnux the Echidna 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"A trademark is any phrase used by organizations " No, no, no. You're conflating two definitions of the word. The applicable definition of "trademark", in this situation, is the one relating to copyright. When you avoid drawing attention to trademarks, there are *legal* reasons to do that in the more limited definition of "trademark". It would be nonsensical to universally apply the rule as you are suggesting. There is nothing anywhere to indicate that the Bowie album's title is trademarked, so MOSTM does not apply at all to this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not a trademark, it's a stylism and we normally don't do stylisms. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that on davidbowie.com the album title is called Hours..., so with a capital and, more importantly, without the quotes. Perhaps we should rename this article. Jalwikip (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Adult contemporary" as genre

As much as I've always found that talk-page discussions on musical genre(s) bring little joy, I've been invited along here … It does seem unusual (wrong?) to have "adult contemporary" appearing in the infobox. Okay, its inclusion is supported by a ref, but while AC is a style of sorts, it's hardly a musical genre. (It's a style only in the context of marketing, radio, etc. No artist would make an "adult contemporary album"; they'd make a rock or soul or blues or country album, say, which might well end up fitting into the very wide description "adult contemporary".)

Put it this way, if we are accepting AC as a musical style and a genre, then can someone tell me why "Motown" (for Motown Sound) shouldn't be included at All Things Must Pass? It's cited by the same source as "gospel", "hard rock", "country", in that article; and "Motown" is certainly a musical style, a sound – way more so than "adult contemporary", I'd say. JG66 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discospinster, got any thoughts on this? (The IP user mentioned you when they left a message on my talk page …) Regards, JG66 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2016

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: Moved to Hours (David Bowie album). There is not a lot of support for the status quo, with alternative titles Hours (David Bowie album) and the original requested Hours... both garnering some support. There is clearly some strong disagreement about whether "Hours..." is sufficiently recognizable to identify this, and whether it's simply styling, or a clear case of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Having read the discussion, I feel that although it's hard to strike a definite consensus one way or the other, the balance of the argument is in favour of those arguing that that "Hours..." does not meet Recognizability, and therefore "Hours (David Bowie album)" is the title that garners the consensus of those contributing. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

---

'Hours...' → Hours... – Restore previous move consensus from 12 September 2008. While single quotation marks are used for the album title on some artwork, they are not regarded as part of the album title name by the majority of the external references currently used (second most commonly used name was simply Hours, without any punctuation). Also, this article name should be similar to the related The Hours... Tour article. +mt 06:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support alternate title - move to Hours (David Bowie album) - as per IIO. Previously I supposed the proposed name change based on prior consensus in prior RM. That RM move was reverted by another editor without discussion. However IIO's proposal is even better and more correct. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC) -- Revised/edited 17:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - neither of these titles follows MOS or WP:NCM move to Hours (David Bowie album). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to alt title of Hours (David Bowie album), per the above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hours (David Bowie album) per my arguments from 2008. Tevildo (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Hours..., per WP:COMMONAME. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles has more than just common name, it has 5 WP:CRITERIA. Is there anyone to whom "..." says David Bowie album better than "(David Bowie album)"? The average reader is not going to recognize "..." as meaning an album by David Bowie. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Over 57,000 people searched this album recently.[2][3], on the other hand, literally, no one looked for Hours (David Bowie album), and it is not because it is in red, because red links can still receive visits, and too few people looked "Hours" recently, so people do recognize the ellipsis. You need to re-read CRITERIA, not the parts that are convenient for your proposal: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". The 5 points are used if "There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." Under this line, see this:

• Uses of "Hours": [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
• Uses of "Hours...": [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]
• Uses of both: [35] (Just the title and first use, the rest are "Hours...")
• Uses of "...Hours": [36]

I searched in the first 15 Google.com pages, 15 books.com pages (I can't access all links), and 15 schoolar.com pages. The rest of the links are mirror sites, retail sites, and articles saying "X hours after/before his death", or "hours" as sustantive (hours later, etc.). As you can see, most sources call it "hours..." (lowercase), and per CRITERIA, that should be its name. Even if moved to a "(David Bowie album)" title, the removal of the ellipsis (...) is unjustificable.

• Based on my evidence above, I support to move to Hours..., to add a {{lowercase}} and add a hatnote {{For}} for those who could be looking other topics, per WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONAME and WP:SMALLDETAILS. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the type of WP:SMALLDETAILS that most people would be looking for or considering (ie the ...). Tiggerjay (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:DIFFCAPS is a subordinated section; in other words, if you look all the examples listed there, you can see these "small details" do distinguish them from other similarly titled topics, "e.g. Red meat vs. Red Meat". The ellipses here are really commonly used, and help to distinguish the album from Hours (disambiguation) topics. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the application of DIFFCAPS, but not sure the ellipse is a significant enough detail for SMALLDETAILS. Casing is more significant than punctuation. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I had to search "significance" in the dictionary because to be honest I didn't know if I was missing something. If you use it as synonym of "importance", the sources above denote it significance, as most sources use them, and we name articles after sources. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as in "the quality of being important". A quick review over the sources shows at least 30% of the reliable sources used for inline citation title their articles without the ellipse included, favoring simply "Hours". Since google and most search engines don't respect punctuation either[37], combined with the commonality of the word "hours" it may be difficult to establish how common the inclusion or exclusion of the ellipse are. Certainly reliable sources like Rolling Stones would include the ellipse if significant, and they don't - at least not in title[38]. Furthermore some places that list it add spaces between, making it hours . . .. However, I'm not particularly fussed over excluding it either because of the inconsistency[39]. However I still maintain that dropping the quotes, and adding some variation of (album) would be preferred and would clarify the search results. (Please no need to provide further support/argument of "..." for my sake, as I have no interest in discussing that element further and would be fine either way for that specific element of the discussion.) Tiggerjay (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Break (I remember there was a line-like template).

I simply can't understand your arguments, metaphorically. First, the Rolling Stone one, even noted 8 years ago, name the album "Hours..." throughout their review but the title, and that's not enough to make someone believe it should be titled Hours. Moving from this:

Your support says "However IIO's proposal is even better and more correct." Above I have demostrated it is not, based solely on the policy WP:AT. In fact, IIO has an enormous history of non-consensual moves to places he prefers solely to create ambiguity, in this case "Hours (David Bowie album)" ((a related example)), or to misunderstand policies, or to take guidelines and essays as policies. Here for example, tried to counterargument "Hours..." is not a title because of CRITERIA. If you read that section completely it also says "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily." So yes, the 5 CRITERIAs are not rules, so why to cite them here?

In itself, it is more recognizible to add Davud Bowie, which is undeniable. But just because "Paris, France" makes the city more recognizible, doesn't mean it is to be moved there, right? Also, if the pages that are related to the name of this album ("Hours"): Hour, Hours and Hours (album), didn't increase their page views significantly[40][41](album) after Bowie's death, but 'Hours...' and Hours... did--compare with "Invincible" or "Dangerous" the day Michael Jackson died[42][43][44]-- it is clear the title(s) are not nothing wrong for readers, as they can discriminate them.

Finally, considering you still supporting his proposal ("support per IIO"), neither MOS nor NCM ("neither of these titles follows MOS or WP:NCM") state ellipses are not allowed; MOS in general is a guideline, and no single MOS page would be above a policy like AT; NCM, another guideline, most relevant line's states that only when it is necessary pages have to be disambiguated, and disambiguation itself is created for technical reasons (eg, two articles conflicting for a title). The alternative proposal still out-of-scope in my view. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

How about you stick with discussing why you think is relevant, versus attacking other editors for their positions? To attempt to discredit IIO or my analysis of our position isn't the right approach here. You would be better off if you stuck with your supporting statements, instead of suggesting that someone is wrong in their beliefs/understandings/etc, let your facts/research speak for themselves. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If giving you an user background sourced tendencies is an "attack", I recommend you to read WP:WIAPA. For this RM in general, I recommend you to read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to make this clear because I can't log in daily solely to discuss this. But you have to understand that if an user gives an idea, and two other users support it simply "per above", that is not consensus, that's polling. I just simply demostrated why neither MOS nor NCM are a valid reason to perform a move. So I did not "suggest" he "is wrong in their beliefs/understandings", I did demostrate why these are wrong in this RM. It's like if I said here "Oppose, per "WP:NCTV" or "WP:GENREWARRING", would someone be wrong pointing me out why my "beliefs/understandings" are wrong? At all. The only real proposal to move the album would be yours or Tevildo's, but neither fall into policy; Tevildo's is contradictory (see 2008), and NCM states, as I said above, "that only when it is necessary pages have to be disambiguated, and disambiguation itself is created for technical reasons". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Tbhotch Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As noted above this is not the right time for this discussion and I would be happy to see the nominator withdraw the nomination for the present time without prejudice to a new nomination in a few months time. Whereas minor "artwork" differences maybe sufficient for binary coding to differentiate articles, for mere humans it is rarely enough - in fact I would claim it is only recognisable to the reader when the reader knows more about the subject than WP. I am also reminded of the discussion at Bookends and would wish this article namespace to follow this precedent and move to Hours (David Bowie album). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hours... per the research of Tbhotch. The ellipsis is used in more sources than not; at any rate it's commonly enough used to serve as natural disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment only. Of the articles in the references I checked (I omitted the chart references) all but one had the words "David Bowie" in the article title, some said "hours" in lower case with and without the ellipsis, ditto "Hours" We can't do "hours..." as per artwork, so any argument now is purely about what WP should do, rather than a reasonable argument as to how the title should be rendered as the searchable title in WP. I leave you all with a thought - if the music press uses the words "David Bowie" to distinquish this album, why shouldn't an encyclopedia which covers all things under the sun? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Because WP has its own policies and guidelines. If you look for sources for No Pads, No Helmets...Just Balls, I Am... Sasha Fierce, ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead (album) you will still find sources that include their authors despite their lack of ambiguity. Music press don't include authors for disambiguation purposes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You use 3 distinctive examples to support a non-distinctive titling! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was demostrating "Music press don't include authors for disambiguation purposes" as you suggested above ("if the music press uses the words "David Bowie" to distinquish this album"). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I used the word "distinguish" not disambiguate, and there is a reason publications that do not have to "distinquish" will do so, yet there is an almighty argument at WP in instances like this. Go figure. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Hours (David Bowie album). The single quotation mark is not present in the first source, it is required to preserve readability with the ellipsis, and the ellipsis is just styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

first complete album by a major artist available to download over the Internet Claim

The claim in question leads to an article reference here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/22/business/the-flux-in-pop-music-has-a-distinctly-download-beat-to-it.html

That article only seems to say that Bowie released Hours two weeks earlier as a digital album, not that he was the first artist to release an album digitally. On the second page of that article it mentions that They Might Be Giants had previously released an album, Long Tall Weekend online. This album's wikipedia entry also holds the same distinction that it is the first digital album released by a major artist: Long Tall Weekend

Hours was released digitally in September of 1999 Long Tall Weekend was released digitally in July of 1999

Looking at this, TMBG beat David to the punch, but it seems that Massive Attack's Mezzanine was released digitally in early 1998, making it the first complete album by a major artist released digitally. All three were released legally and in the MP3 format. There could be an argument that Massive Attack could be yet to be considered a major artist at this time.

There are a few differences between Long Tall Weekend and Hours still. TMBG was not on a label when they released Long Tall Weekend and David was still on EMI when he released Hours. I know that this is a lot of splitting hairs, but I can find no actual reference that Hours was the first digital album released by a major artist, at best it could be said that Hours is "the first complete album by a major artist available to download over the Internet while on a major label." That seems like much, but it is closer to the truth.

Radjose (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hours (David Bowie album). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicbox-online.com/db-hours.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103181930/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/David%20Bowie/

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) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hours (David Bowie album). 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/20120828064820/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=300 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=300

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) 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hours (David Bowie album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Inspired by the Pietà – not sure, but the "the" somehow implies that a particular Pieta is meant here? If so, which?

• I just used what my sources and the wiki page itself used, which is mostly "the" Pieta – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Aside from mixing a potential live album from the Earthling Tour, later released in 1999 as LiveAndWell.com, the only studio recording Bowie released in 1998 was – "Aside from" does not seem to fit here because that live album was apparently not released 1998?

• Reworded. That better?

• was examined by Bowie as "probably the most tragic song on the album",[2] "Survive" – that is confusing; better place a "." instead of a ","?

• Yep, fixed

• as an "angel of promise" is an angel who "heralds a covenant with God" – You use many quotes, but not always state which person is attributed to them, and in this example, I'm not sure from which source the quote is from..

• Properly attributed

• the track uses the Japanese koto[2] Perone believes it does – dot missing?

• Yep, my bad.

• it links the two tracks its sequenced between – "it is"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yep, fixed

• set the whole thing alight...Lee Stewart did the

Does the ellipse need spaces?

• Fixed

• Survive" was released as the third single – quotation marks or not?

• Oops. Fixed

Jens Lallensack Done. Thanks for quickly reviewing! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome. I wasn't done yet, though; but just two more points above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack Haha my bad, I tend to work fast. All done! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Very solid work, promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that David Bowie's Hours (1999) was the first major album by a major artist available to download over the Internet? Source: Pegg, Nicholas (2016). The Complete David Bowie (Revised and Updated). London: Titan Books. pp. 433–437. ISBN 978-1-78565-365-0.

• • ALT1:... that David Bowie's Hours (1999) was the first album by a major artist available to download over the Internet? Source: Pegg, Nicholas (2016). The Complete David Bowie (Revised and Updated). London: Titan Books. pp. 433–437. ISBN 978-1-78565-365-0.

Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 15:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

• Review by LunaEatsTuna: article is problem-free (well cited, neutral, long enough prose, earwig says plagiarism free, etc.) and the hook is factual and interesting. Can confirm the source as I have access to the book, and for those without access the fact is subject to a 1999 news article by Rolling Stone. This is just personal taste, but perhaps the hook could be changed to say "was the first album by a major artist" instead of repeating "major" twice? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah that works for me. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Pass. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Promoter's comment: ground control to major album by a major artist... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P7

Use of music reviews as useful content

Hours is just the latest in a stream of David Bowie album pages I've read recently.

I have to say I'm completely at a loss to understand how the inclusion of contemporary (or later) reviews of Bowie albums (or anyone's albums) - snippets thereof - can be viewed as being of any material use or benefit to readers. Indeed, they arguably act to mislead and misinform readers, thus constituting a real negative "benefit" to Wiki users.

The chief problem is this: I am constantly reading extremely poor pieces of judgement from music reviewers. "Poor judgement" is in some cases my being kind. Knowing Bowie's oeuvre well and being a listener and (amateur) musician and writer of many decades, I find most of the evaluations either tone deaf, incomprehensible, thoughtless, uniformed or asinine. How does a patently stupid comment - where "stupid" means there being no viable reason for the comment holding water - or one of nothing but individual taste or bias - make an argument for itself as acceptable?

Even if the comments showed some understanding of music history, theory or practice (singing, playing, songwriting, arranging, engineering, production, etc.), how is a single person's evaluation/judgement worthy of anyone's attention? The alleged prestige of the source is no supporting argument. Neither is an individual having a lengthy career in music journalism any justification for the inclusion of such elements.

Given the blanket use of these review snippets as pieces of content, I hold out little to no hope of this note achieving anything positive (I would have every single one removed), but I do hope it will stimulate thought and debate here. I would be interested to know how many - in this case, I suppose, Bowie/music fans - agree with my argument.

Best wishes to all,

Craig DrCWT (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you questioning why album pages have critical reception sections in general? These sections provide context on how the album in question was viewed at the time of its release, and in other cases decades down the line. You don't have to agree or disagree with everything critical reviews have to say, as all music is subjective. But including the thoughts of music critics and other reviewers of reliable sources is integral for article completeness. It's the same for all forms of media: music, film, radio, etc. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, review sections can possibly help readers in understanding why a certain piece of media was received the way it was, and possibly invoke further insight into that. They could even help you realize there's a flaw into an album you love, or in some instances, find something you love about an album you hate or that's widely derided (cough cough Never Let Me Down cough cough). Hope this helps. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you completely about these reviews being integral. All opinions are subjective, obviously, both yours and mine. The impact of an album May be fraught with interest. But the impact of, say, Low, is not revealed by a journalist saying they thought the work good/bad, etc.

Most of the comments in Wikipedia album pages do absolutely nothing at all To contextualise an album.

Many of the comments could be immediately transferable to anybody’s help in any time in history. But in history, of course, the period, shall we say, since pop music began.

It would help, I think, if some of the worst examples of valueless evaluations were weeded out of many of the album pages. I’ll be happy to give you some examples from specific albums if you like upon request.

Further to your point about critical reception, let’s have context, not critical reception 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:A439:D8C1:9B84:6DD2 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. If you're more or less questioning the use of reception sections across the encyclopedia please make a post about that elsewhere, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, as this page is about improving Hours specifically. It seems you have more of a problem with all articles like this. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious, surely: consciousness raising; change; improving Wikipedia.

I'm directly questioning the use of "reception sections" across Wiki.

So let's improve Hours specifically. Let those interested in doing so remove all comments from critics that are of no use to users. Let me quickly re-read them:

I'd remove the entire final paragraph in the section. I can see no value in presenting people saying, "I don't like the album, it's garbage."

One described it as "embarrassing." To be kind (again), I find many of the negative comments embarrassing. And indulgent. And wholly un-objective.

The positive reactions are little better. But how does it advance knowledge of Bowie's music & career, and popular music more generally, to tell users that a couple of critics hailed Hours as a "masterpiece"? Nothing. It's tittle-tattle; bar-talk. In my opinion, such material does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Thanks so much for the tip about making my opinions known in a deeper place within Wikipedia.

Kind regards,

Craig DrCWT (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Please get others input on your thoughts over at WPAlbums that I mentioned first. I personally think the current format of things is fine as is and doesn't warrant changing, but WP is obviously a collaborative effort. For the time being Hours will remain the same—consistent with every other album article—just know that hundreds of thousands of articles across the site are set up this way so you will probably find struggle encouraging changes, but I'm sure you could generate discussion at a page that's more watched that this one. I hope you find success elsewhere. Kind regards. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again.

why not, just for the fun of it, try to justify the status quo. Please don’t feel you have to reply to me.

And bear this in mind: I’ve bothered to post about this issue to try to raise consciousness because the standard of the comments on Bose music is absolutely, utterly abysmal. 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:3078:E60A:E518:685C (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Another problem I think lies in this article, and a few other Bowie ones, is the section doesn't necessarily adhere to WP:RECEPTION, which outlines how a plain list of "this person said this" and "that person said that" feels clunky and unorganized. Imo lots of reception sections have this problem (and I admit I struggle with it too). I've gone back through lots of these since initial writing them and tidied them up a bit, and with others' help I got articles like The Next Day where it's at today (FA status). If a more simpler note you're asking for the section to adhere to WP:RECEPTION than I totally understand what you mean, especially for this article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting reply, thanks.

Further to our above conversation I have literally just come across this from the Wiki article on Hunky Dory whilst listening to the album.

"Biographer Christopher Sandford states that "the songs [are] characterised by the lush ambience established by Bowie's vocal and the piano" and, along with Elton John and Phil Collins, helped create music on the "easy-listening continuum"."

This 100% supports every critical comment I made above.

Let me be kind (though I feel a real anger about this): "lush ambience"? Not remotely. The last point is such that I cannot find the appropriate words with which to negate the assertion, aside from, "what on earth is this doing in a Wikipedia article about Hunky Dory! (cue stream of expletives). DrCWT (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP is all about using reliable sources to try to convey a point. Since music is subjective, some people are not going to agree on others' thoughts on matters (ex. IPs over the years trying to call "Space Oddity" space rock even though it's not). Or a user who years ago tried to say "The Man Who Sold the World" was a "psychedelic ballad", which it's not. In regards to Hunky, if I could rewrite certain sections I would. The summary section for music and lyrics is basically just a bunch of opinions thrown together because at the time I struggled to find specific genres or failed attempts at writing it like Revolver. But it was my first time actually writing an album article so it is what it is. (P.S. don't take everything Sandford says truthfully, he's full of opinionated takes. Nicholas Pegg even trashes his book in his own book). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand totally: I think I already said in one of my notes to you that everything is subjective.

But there has to be some quality control. Those of us who understand and have knowledge of Bowie, and of music and music history must be the gatekeepers (there have to be gatekeepers in an encyclopedia. The example I pointed out to you is utterly ridiculous and should be edited out for reasons of the need to achieve a minimum level of quality.

Don't you agree, Z? DrCWT (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My problem with ditching it is that it reinforces David Buckley's later statement about Hunky's easy-listening nature, which is rightfully truthful. If you could find another reliable source that that we could substitute it for be my guest. We unfortunately can't remove cited content just because one person disagrees with it (especially one from an author who has written an array of rock biographies). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

With respect, opinions are never true. And the notion that Hunky Dory has even any connection at all with easy listening music is IMHO so completely wrong it’s ridiculous. I’m sorry that my disagreement with you on this is so vehement W cause I have no intention of being rude.

Not a single moment of Hunky Dory can be regarded as “easy listening.” I wonder how familiar you are with the term?

Andy Williams is “easy listening“ music, Perry Como and Dean Martin too. The music of John Denver may resemble easy listening but it still has its roots in folk music. Bread may be regarded as easy listening. Peters and Lee: easy listening. Need I go on?

Now consider the album, Hunky Dory. What similarity does it have with the easy listening artists I’ve mentioned above? I would argue, none whatsoever.

I do not wish to put you on the spot, I just offer you some views on music w/ particular reference to Bowie & Bowie in Wikipedia. But without even considering having further contact with me on this, try justifying the “Hunky Dory” is easy listening thesis.

Kind regards,

Craig

ps, Have you access to Rolling Stone’s review of HD? (Bowie May not have been on their radar in ‘71); the NME Encyclopaedia of Rock (pub. I think in 1976)? 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:D5D:C993:1E94:9D32 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

PPS, have just accessed and read RS’s HD review. 2A00:23C8:2810:9F01:D5D:C993:1E94:9D32 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)