Talk:Earthling (album)

message: :Image:Earthling (album).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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Earthling (album).jpg

message: The compact disc boxart says "Eart hl i ng" everywhere. That appears to be the name of the album. I'm a little surprised that isn't anywhere in the article or the talkpage. It's clearly visible in the image at the top of the page. Arguably the page should even be moved to Eart hl i ng.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting discussion (having just seen the one for "Heroes") - but I think that using the stylized name as the article would be detrimental to people finding it (no one is going to search for "EART HL  I NG"). I do agree, however, that we could point out the deliberate stylization in the article itself. Maybe a little rewording in the lede will do. 87Fan (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was frankly surprised to not find the article under EART HL I NG. Or more surprised I suppose that when I searched for that absolutely nothing comes up. If you've bother to make an account, I hope you will setup some redirects for EART HL I NG. Titling a work of art is not trivial business, and this is not even mentioned in the article. Although I do not believe there needs to be any discussion of the title, unless it is sourced and quoting the artist, but even that should not be in the top section. I was surprised to not find the title in the top section, I assumed there would have been a long discussion on the talk page arguing that the press dubbed it Earthling and so on Wikipedia the policy is to use what the press does over what the artist does. But none of that. I feel strongly that it would be unethical to lead with anything other than EART HL I NG. That would be philistine. The only argument for not changing the title is the question of how to capitalize. It's not an acronym so it's doubtful policy would be to use the caps version. Eart Hl I Ng seems like the proper title if there was one, but anyway, I've just requested that the templates be changed to EART HL I NG since Heroes and Hours use the literal text. Many websites with pages devoted to the album use the literal text. It just seems like the right thing to do doesn't it? My guess is that copyright and listings use the same text (unless there has been a re-release that changed the title?)--184.63.132.236 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

text: PS: If the title was changed (there should be redirects for sure) the word Earthling will not go to the album. It would always require either (album) or (David Bowie album) therefore there will always be uncertainty and a level of redirection. But just typing in "Eart hl in g" should take you straight there. If you don't know the title then odds are you will find the album indirectly through Bowie's template. Whether that will hurt listings on popular search engines or not should not be a consideration.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

text: PPS: It is crazy funny that it's 2014 and just now these issues around these titles are being hashed out. Especially on "Heroes" no less. Seeing you've been in that discussion (only this month even) can we be sure that the history of these arguments hasn't been erased and forgotten? Maybe someone wiped the talk pages of past arguments? Anyway, I was just listening to Earthling yesterday and wanted to see what kind of trivia was on Wikipedia. Typed in its title and came up empty handed.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

text: It is a standart practice for articles with these sort of names (MBV', Channel Orange or With Teeth for example). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand but spaces change the meaning of things, kind of like quotes do with "Heroes", or ... does with 'Hours...' (which just has the quotes to avoid injecting ... into a sentence about it) and while I don't think the ... etc. should be included mid sentence, or even in non-template links (see the pages for these albums/songs where they are) I do think that should be the name of the article/opening title in bold. Hours... suggests impatience (for lack of a better word) and EART HL I  NG suggests a non-Earthling POV. Even the caps (which can be stylization) reinforce that. It's deliberate, not just a matter of typeface--184.63.132.236 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting insight but unless you can find a source that mentions it, it's original research and doing anything else in the article (including changing the title) gives it undue weight. IMHO. 87Fan (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretation of art is a private matter, not "OR". But if an article changes the art, that is defacement and inconsiderate of the artist, and of the audience--184.63.132.236 (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If it’s a private matter, wouldn’t that be left up to the reader? Anyway, it’s not our job to report the name as the creator prefers, but to report the name as used in reliable sources. And most reliable sources use “Earthling.” WP:Verifiability, not truth. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just see a double standard. It should be EART HL I NG in the article lead/templates or Heroes and Hours should not be "Heroes" and 'Hours...'. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Is the aversion because Heroes and Hours are pronounceable as written? In which case maybe the intent for Earthling is to be unpronounceable? My own feeling is 'Hours...' should not be written out except on templates and the lead of the article and EART HL I NG should be treated exactly like 'Hours...'. And 'Hours...' should be the canonical name of that article, and EART HL I NG should be the canonical name of this article. Sources that take the album seriously use the actual title in the head of the articles and listings--184.63.132.236 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for taking so long to respond; I wasn’t watching this page. As I said, most reliable sources do not use “EART HL I NG,” and WIkipedia uses the names that reliable sources use (see WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TM, for instance). If you think this article should be an exception to that rule, feel free to request a page move and make a case for it. If you think other articles’ titles violate our rules, feel free to start or join a discussion on their Talk pages, or to request they be moved. But, for the record, it’s not a great idea to justify the page move by citing other titles; see WP:Other stuff exists. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eart hl i ng 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Earthling (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.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/bowie_david/earthling.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103181930/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/David%20Bowie/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524051155/http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=1997&cat=a to http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=1997&cat=a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109020835/http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1999/199907.pdf to http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1999/199907.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Earthling (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  tag to http://www.algonet.se/~bassman/articles/96/tm.html
*Added  tag to http://www.algonet.se/~bassman/articles/96/mvs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103181930/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/David%20Bowie/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109020835/http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1999/199907.pdf to http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1999/199907.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am removing the line " It was the first album Bowie self-produced since his 1974 album Diamond Dogs." from the end of the introductory paragraph. 2 reasons: 1) The citation that purports to substantiate this 'fact' is dead, 2) It's flagrantly not true. Robbmonster (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-produced 

message: Although I know the weblinks aren't dated in themselves, I'm pretty sure the NME and p4k reviews marked 2000 in the retrospective reviews box are actually original 1997 reviews. Can anyone confirm this?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How I'm seeing it both the weblinks give the year 2000 as a date. NME has "copyright 2000" and Pitchfork says "13 October 2000". – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that's just because both links are archived from those dates, so they display the then up-to-date date (P4k) or copyright notice for the site overall (NME).--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NME and Pitchfork