Hours (David Bowie album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
Hours (David Bowie album) is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 29, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
David Bowie's 1999 album
Hours was the first by a major artist available for download from the Internet? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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)
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)
*'''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.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)
"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)
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)
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)
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. +
m
t
06:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 February 2016. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
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)
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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
11:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
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)
Hours (David Bowie album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
Hours (David Bowie album) is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 29, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
David Bowie's 1999 album
Hours was the first by a major artist available for download from the Internet? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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)
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)
*'''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.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)
"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)
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)
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)
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. +
m
t
06:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 February 2016. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
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)
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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
11:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
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)