This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's documentation of Record Production articles. Questions or comments related to record production and related articles are welcome at the project's talk page. Anyone interested may join the project: add your name to the list of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, when it received 19,039,110 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
I have a very serious doubt, why in Bowie's article says that it received nine platinums in the United Kingdom? It has many more, I don't understand why someone has done such poor research with an artist of Bowie's caliber, and on top of that it cannot be edited, on the official BPI website there are up to 31 platinums, 47 golds and 57 silvers , and these certifications began after his best moment, that is, after Aladdin Sane. There is really a lack of information in all fields, this article is terrible, it makes me sad that an artist of Bowie's level has such a poor article and so full of misinformation
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.251.23.136 (talk) 08:43, December 1, 2023 (UTC)
In general, Bowie's career is terribly poorly documented on Wikipedia, it saddens me, it is not that difficult to search through forums dedicated to Bowie, where there is a lot of information. 85.251.23.136 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, could you give a link to some sources that support the changes you wish to see made? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has been blocked twice now for edit warring and being distruptive. 90% of their Bowie-related edits are them adding chart-related content that are always unsourced or sourced unreliably. Now, they've decided to shit on all Bowie-related content across the encyclopedia because it doesn't agree with their claim. Frankly, I'm offended, given I've devoted countless hours of writing, reading, and researching expanding Bowie's articles over the past 2&1/2 years. If the IP wanted to be constructive, they'd provide reliable sources supporting their claims instead of disregarding everything due to one possible error. But here we are. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Internet forums and scuttlebutt are not acceptable sources of information. Remsense留 20:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Who’s bad? From Michael Jackson to David Bowie, why are some stars uncancellable?" [1]. Presumably we should add something to legacy and influence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another Bowie related article from the Guardian, this one an interview[2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding something like this would give it WP:UNDUE weight, without a lot more context. I think what may be appropriate, is to include this info in a fair, balanced and complete article about bands and artists in the 60s and 70s, groupie culture, and changing societal norms. I'm not sure if that exists, but you're welcome to write it. But, you'll notice that not every new article published about anything is included in the Bowie wikipedia entry just because his name is on it. 87Fan (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding something like which part? There are two articles here which cover different topics. Our current article doesn't appear to mention cancel culture and its impacts (or lack thereof) on Bowie's legacy, in order to be NPOV we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That interview with hairdresser Suzy Ronson is quite interesting. Schwarzkopf Red Hot! Who knew! You know what they say.... "if you can remember the perm lotion, you weren't in the salon..." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. almost certainly also belongs at Mick Ronson, where she's not even mentioned?[reply]
Mentioned but only in the personal life section "Ronson was married in Bearsville, New York State, in March 1977, to Suzanne (Suzi) Fussey, a hairdresser, who worked for David Bowie at the same time that Ronson did." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@87Fan: now that you have had time to think about it what would be your preferred addition to the article? In terms of thoughts on the general contextualizing of Bowie's legacy this book review might help[3]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add my insight to this thread once I return from my vacation in a few days. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: this edit summary "you made these edits without any discussion. Wait until actual discussion has occurred or I'm reporting you."[4] confuses me because this talk page discussion was already open and in general its the removal of the challenged content that waits for the end of the discussion... Which I will add you didn't open or join, despite apparently being strongly opposed (to the point of threatening reporting) to making edits without waiting until actual discussion has occurred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be treated in prose as is being discussed. It's an ugly non-sequitur as formulated, and it frankly seems a WP:POINTy inclusion—what context does it serve the reader? None. Remsense诉 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section isn't non-sequitur... It serves the same purpose see also always serves: to point the reader to places where more information about topic of the page is discussed. What purpose is served by excluding valid see also links? If you don't want it in the see also put it in the article as prose! The place to put stuff waiting to be put into prose? Yes... You guessed it, a see also section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems that the topic of the discussed See also articles is quite different from the Bowie bio. If related and often discussed in sources about him, these links should be in the text. If not, then it looks strange to add a link to MeToo without any explanation. Artem.G (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What discussion are you talking about? Before yesterday there was only one discussion about a random Guardian article you had with 87Fanearly last month where there was absolutely no consensus reached on anything (only an extension of the convos from last year you refuse to close). Then you added the see also edits unprovoked. So there was no "open discussion". You're entirely in the wrong here and edit warring until you get your way once again. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 18:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I didn't say anything last month because I felt I already said everything I needed to say last year yet since you're making controversial edits without reason so now I feel obligated to join in. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 18:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have given reasons, these should not be controversial edits (note that so far nobody has actually made a policy or guideline based argument against inclusion, nobody actually seems to object on actual grounds other than that they don't like it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says that most well written articles do NOT include a see also section because the links have been worked into the article. In this case, I would not include the links in a see also section. This seems to be a well written article, why would we want to degrade it? --Malerooster (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion, it was opened before your revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}