Talk:Earthling (album)

Looking Glass Studio

I'm fairly sure this should be something different than the video game company with the same name. Does anyone know anything about them? KamuiShirou 05:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a Looking Glass Studio in New York as it's said on Teenage Wildlife Avel791 16:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Earthling (album).jpg

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)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eart hl i ng

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Follow-up: for the record I disagree with the latest edit[1] however I don't care enough to do more than this post. It's a slight improvement since searching for "Eart hl i ng" finds the article without relying on the text of a reference, but I still believe that this is not "stylization" and that it would be better for the article to not live on a parenthetical title if possible / would be better to be able to go directly to the page without knowing its parenthetical (The most superficial reading of the title I think is this is an alien pronouncing the word Earthling, and in that way Bowie identifies the perspective of the album, even though he himself describes it as his most down-to-earth to date.) --184.63.132.236 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If I missed it in the above discussions I apologize in advance...DavidBowie.com lists it as Earthling (https://www.davidbowie.com/earthling) for what that's worth. I find it funny that the same controversy exists for Outside (or 1. Outside) as well. Peace out. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

• 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.algonet.se/~bassman/articles/96/tm.html
• Added {{dead link}} 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

self-produced

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)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Overview

Hi zmbro, I'll take this on for review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/January_2022 Mujinga (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for an enjoyable read! Bowie was such a freak (in the best possible way). Earwig gives no copyvio concerns, referencing is topnotch, article is stable, neutral broad and focused. Some queries on prose below. Mujinga (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pix appropriate, relevant and correctly licensed so back to @Zmbro: for responses Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool nearly there now, just one query still open on prose and a few clarifications on prose2 Mujinga (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Mujinga Should be all taken care of. Thanks again for reviewing! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

nice one congrats on another excellent article. (and now i'm listening to bowie again!) Mujinga (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose

• i made a few copyedits as i went, please check them
• Alan Yentob can be linked

• Done

• Also recorded around May was an untitled piece containing the lyric "dead men don't talk" that, like "Telling Lies", pre-dated the Earthling material - what's the significance of this? did it then become the track "Dead Man Walking""

• No, it's different. I added it because I think it relates to the Earthling material, like "Telling Lies". – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• ok thanks for clarification Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Looking Glass Studios can be linked

• That's a game developer and not the same thing as this. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• whoops that's sloppy of me, i meant to delete that after reading the talkpage discussion Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Plati co-wrote several tracks and, along with Gabrels, were credited as co-producers, while Bowie himself mostly self-produced; it was his first self-produced record since Diamond Dogs (1974).[11] - this reads a bit garbled, can you rephrase?

• That better? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• so now we have - Plati co-wrote several tracks and, along with Gabrels, were credited as co-producers. Bowie himself mostly self-produced, making it his first self-produced record since Diamond Dogs (1974).[11] He explained: "I knew exactly what I wanted. We didn't have any time to pull in a co-producer ... so I just sort of went for it."[5]
• i'd suggest - Plati co-wrote several tracks and, along with Gabrels, was credited as co-producer. Bowie himself mostly self-produced, making it his first self-produced record since Diamond Dogs (1974).[11] He explained: "I knew exactly what I wanted. We didn't have any time to pull in a co-producer ... so I just sort of went for it."[5] - also "making it his first self-produced record since Diamond Dog" just seems weird to me when you've just said there were other producers ... "giving him his first self-production credit since Diamond Dog" maybe? although i have no idea here how often he self-produces, i would imagine a lot. do you need the diamond dog clause? Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Still open Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Bowie himself mostly self-produced, making it his first self-produced record since Diamond Dogs (1974).[11] He explained: "I knew exactly what I wanted. We didn't have any time to pull in a co-producer ... so I just sort of went for it."[5] Nevertheless, Plati and Gabrels were both credited as co-producers, while the former co-wrote several tracks.[11]" How's that? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Mujinga (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• using an improved version of the cut-up program used for Outside - program makes me think of computers, would method work better?

• It actually was a computer program used – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• ah thanks for clarification, maybe add "computer" then Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Done

• "Once we developed a kind of mattress, then I would go into the studio and just free-associate against that." - mattress? i mean, anything is possible with bowie but it seems a weird word choice

• I agree but I mean, it is the word he used. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• just wanted to check that since it seemed to random, thanks Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• He and Bowie used a technique they previously used for Outside - two times "used"

• Changed second one to 'utilised'

• 120 beats per minute which were then sped up to 160 bpm - suggest 120 beats per minute (bpm) which were then sped up to 160 bpm

• Oops. Fixed

• Outtakes from the sessions included remakes of the Tin Machine tracks "Baby Universal", which was played on stage earlier in the year, and "I Can't Read", which was replaced by "The Last Thing You Should Do". The latter appeared on the soundtrack for the 1997 film The Ice Storm,[3][5] while both later appeared on the Is It Any Wonder? EP in 2020. = "both later appeared" is a bit confusing, do you mean "Baby Universal" and "I Can't Read", or "I Can't Read" and "The Last Thing You Should Do" ?

• Ope I must have misread that initially. Clarified.

• was a last minute addition, being added at Bowie's insistence - two "add"s

• "was added in the last minute at Bowie's insistence" that better? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• great! Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bowie's uncertainty about his own British identity,[27] as he had not lived in Britain for two decades - suggest Bowie's uncertainty about his own British identity,[27] as he had not lived in the UK for two decades

• Done

• which he interpreted after hearing the piece himself on CD - suggest which he interpreted after hearing it played on a CD

• Done

• stopping here for now Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • continuing Mujinga (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Prose2

• The photograph was taken by Frank Ockenfels in New York, which was sent to computer designer Dave De Angelis in England, who created the final cover. - suggest The photograph was taken by Frank Ockenfels in New York, then was sent to computer designer Dave De Angelis in England, who created the final cover.

• Done

• "rightest" - again can i check the quote here? rightist seems more logical

• Yep it's definitely that. Done. Sometimes I think Safari's autocorrect does these things xP – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• there was widespread media attention surrounding the date, both before and after. - suggest cut "both before and after"

• Done

• "the Union Jack embroiled itself into fashion" reads weird, do you mean it became fashionable?

• Yep, changed

• "he conducted a concert in" - i prefer another word for conducted which makes me think he was the conductor - curated maybe?

• Yeah that's better, also works since I used 'conducted' in the prior sentence

• "number five in Belgium Wallonia and Sweden" suggest number five in Belgian Wallonia and Sweden - since Wallonia is in Belgium

• Done

• " positively compared Earthling to Prodigy and the Chemical Brothers' concurrent releases The Fat of the Land and Dig Your Own Hole, respectively" - it's the Prodigy and not sure if you need "respectively"

• D'oh, fixed. And we can keep respectively since that's grammatically appropriate. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Other reviewers expressed more mixed assessments. Kemp felt the music lacked innovation,[11] while Deluca felt that Bowie was "jumping on the electronica bandwagon".[58] - this feels a bit strange since you've just quoted kemp and deluca saying favourable things and now in a new paragraph they are being more measured, maybe better to combine their quotes together

• Do you mean in this para or give all their thoughts at once and not separately? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• yeah i think all at once is better, otherwise it seems like they are being quoted twice with different opinions Mujinga (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• How's that look? I also separated the tables since there is enough there to do so (match OK Computer). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• looks great now! Mujinga (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• "although the latter reversed their opinion by July" suggest although the latter reversed its opinion by July

• Done

• Bowie maintained a relatively large media profile throughout 1997. That year, he garnered attention when he earned substantial wealth through the use of "Bowie Bonds", a type of celebrity bond that were issued against Bowie's future royalties from his back catalogue over the next ten years.[78] Upon purchase of the sale, which earned him $55 million, Bowie became the first rock musician to engage in such a deal, predating future endeavors by artists such as Elton John. - this reads a bit weird to me ... relatively large compared to what?, through the use / through the sale?, for "a type of celebrity bond that were" suggest "a celebrity bond that was", "Upon purchase of the sale, which earned him $55 million, Bowie became the first rock musician to engage in such a deal" suggest "Bowie was the first rock musician to do such a thing and it earned him $55 million"

• Changed to "Throughout 1997, Bowie garnered attention when he earned substantial wealth through the sale of "Bowie Bonds", a celebrity bond that was issued against Bowie's future royalties from his back catalogue over the next ten years.[74] Bowie was the first rock musician to engage in such a deal, predating future endeavors by artists such as Elton John, and it earned him $55 million." per your requests and sources. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• if we now have retrospective reviews, should the reviews above from 2000 be here as well?

• Your thoughts on the "Other reviewers expressed more mixed assessments" point should be able to help resolve this. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• replied above Mujinga (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Resolved. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• 107 "British album certifications – David Bowie – Earthling". British Phonographic Industry.Select albums in the Format field. Select Silver in the Certification field. Type Earthling in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter. - so i do this but no stat comes up, so im wondering where 60,000 comes from.. the note on that says "Shipments figures based on certification alone." but where is that sourced to? hope that makes sense!

• It shows for me when i type 'earthling' into 'Search BPI Awards' – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• do you see the 60,000 figure though? i don't. i also can't verify the 100,000 figure on the japanese site Mujinga (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• No but I believe those are the figures the templates themselves generate, as when looking at the coding there isn't a figure listed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• oh i finally understand, silver = above 60,000 sales per https://www.bpi.co.uk/brit-certified/award-levels/. that could perhaps be made clearer bit it's not a pass/fail issue Mujinga (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• "primarily criticises its emphasis on" suggest "criticised its emphasis on"

• Done

• "Pegg and Spitz argue that, despite being recorded in America and with American players" suggest "Pegg and Spitz argue that, despite being recorded in America and with American musicians"

• Done

NME and Pitchfork

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)

TangoTizerWolfstone 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)

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)