Talk:David Bowie

david bowie name change

little is known about davy jones name change it was in september of 65 that davy jones decided to change his name to bowie after watching the alAMO ON TV IT WAS AN INSPIRED MOMENT so david jones decided to change his name to bowie which tnere werent many people called bowie so david being david decided bowie was the name he would choose on 16 of september 1965 he changed to david bowie and the rest is history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.79.89 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes... and the name change is already mentioned in the Early Years section at the appropriate point - there's no need to go into it in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Toy

I added TOY and Tin Machine 1 and 2. This article is about David Bowie and his music. As a music scholar I would like to stress the importance of including these two albums as they are key to learning about Bowie's music and his career. We can argue on their release or if they are David Bowie and another group but the fact is they were made and are key and in the end wikipedia is about ease of information. Many will argue that these pieces are not as well known and therefore should not be included in the main article. I say that purely for that reason they should be. The previous TOY arguments are about semantics and I think it is childish to argue about them. They were albums by Bowie, they are important. --JBScout21 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your perceived "importance of...these two albums" is completely irrelevant. The discography section in a (solo) artist's article should only include the solo studio albums released by the artist. Toy hasn't been released and the Tin machine albums are meant for the Tin Machine article. indopug (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't understand how excluding key information is any way to properly produce an article. I will wait another few days to see what others may have to say about it but the fact is that a disography is a list of albums or works. Tin Machine is a not a band in its own right and shouldn't be considered such. Toy has existed in the article for some time and it surprises me that people want to exclude it. Even going as far as deleating the article on Toy. Tell me, if the album is nott relevent for inclusion here then how come every musician on the album includes information on it on their websites? To e honest I think Indopug's opinion gets in the way of what wikipedia is all about. This should be a collection of information and the inclusion of two or three albums is not going cause the end of the world. It should be included and I think this matter is juvenile, should be put to bed, and in fact exposes some of the issues of user created encyclopedias. Primarily the fact that people get caught up in the formating of everything when in the end we are talking about bringing together the combined knowledge of humanity--JBScout21 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even have an opinion on the matter. If the record doesn't even have an article of its own what's to be gained by including it? The album was deleted because "Unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources", so that kinda goes against your theory about how everybody thinks its really important. Maybe if you had reliable sources per our verifiability policy, we could consider including it in the prose of the article, or even give it an article of its own. indopug (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ho-hum... I can only repeat what I said last time: 1) I see no reason not to mention his work on Toy in the body of the article, and in fact it's there already; 2) As you might imagine, I agree with Indopug's initial comment about what belongs in this article's discography and what doesn't; 3) I don't actually have a problem with a suitably referenced article on Toy existing, but even then I'd still say the album doesn't belong in this discography until or unless it gets released. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Birth Name"

Obviously the article is going to be titles David Bowie, but isn't his real, legal name still David Jones? If so (and I'm sure I remember hearing him in an interview saying his credit cards still say David Jones on them) shouldn't it be addressed that it is still his current name, not just his birth name, which implies he at some point legally changed it David Bowie? To my knowledge he never has, and therefore should be mentioned that this is his stage name maybe?