Talk:Hours (David Bowie album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowie Hours.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[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: 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)

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:
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.
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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)