Jump to content

Talk:David Bowie discography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:David Bowie discography

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:35, 31 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1

Illustrated db Discography

Added the link to the Illustrated db Discography. This should do the trick - very obsessed people will find what they're looking for, I'm 100% sure. XAVeRY 22:38, 25 Sep 2005 (CEST)

I guess this page should probably not be a completely "complete" discography, as it would take up too much space, but maybe we could link to one, online...


Just a few queries...

Can someone please add "Dollar Days"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.223.9 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is "Love You Till Tuesday" really a studio album? It wasn't issued until 1984, and is more a compilation/soundtrack album, just with some unreleased material...

I've got a similar reservation about listing Labyrinth there as well... half of the album is by Trevor Jones for a start... Considering the amount of soundtracks Bowie's completed unique material for (When the Wind Blows, Absolute Beginners etc) wouldn't it make more sense to have a seperate soundtracks section?

Just a thought :)

Tom Prankerd 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom
I know this is rather a late answer to you (3 years hence and counting!), but it bears recording my knowledge of the matter for reference. Although I am unable to provide verification on this without going into the loft and unpacking all my turntable LPs, there was indeed a vinyl album release, called "Love You till Tuesday" (lower case 'till'!), put out around 1972-73, when Bowie exploded onto the scene in full 'Ziggy' persona, and everyone (including myself) couldn't get enough of his work, never mind how simplistic his early stuff was (a la "She's Got Medals", "Silly Boy Blue", et al, and those two were indeed on the hastily-issued album). I am pretty sure it will be up there, triple-bagged and boxed, as it is unheard of for me to ever throw out anything Bowie. Suffice it to say, you may have a conflict of understanding regarding exactly which "Love You till Tuesday" album we are talking about. The one I (hopefully still) have is definitely a studio album and not a live recording. This might be worth some further research by someone, but it's not something I wish to try myself. You should take my word for it, though, as a starting point. Good luck. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Video

it seem the video section was very underdeveloped so I added some info i found here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_d/102-2723601-7514516?url=search-alias%3Dvhs&field-keywords=David+Bowie&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go --AlexOvShaolin 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Man Who Sold the World live album?

What exactly is The Man Who Sold the World live album? I have never of a live album sharing the title The Man Who Sold the World, in 1983 Mercury records did not own the rights to any of Bowie's material anymore, and neither the Illustrated DB Discography nor Bassman's David Bowie page mention a live album with this name, so this sounds dubious at best. -- Kjet 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seemed to be a mix-up with the Ziggy Stardust - The Motion Picture album (release date & chart performance matched with ZS-TMP), so I replaced TMWSTW with ZS-TMP on the list. -- Kjet 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

  • http://tsort.info/music/vb4agf.htm and http://tsort.info/music/g7fv30.htm - Songs and Albums by David Bowie in music charts around the world.

I believe that this is a directly relevant link to a unique resource. The target pages have content that complements the current elements of this page and cannot easily be inserted into the existing article.

However as I am the maintainer of the external website I understand that my opinion may be biased and hence I am (rightly) prevented from making the change myself by Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest rules. I ask that you consider adding this link and comment here.

Steve.hawtin (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If I remember correctly, this website was inserted once before into the article David Bowie (8 December 2007), and reverted. External links are of secondary importance to an article ("Wikipedia is not a repository of links"), the primary reason for using URLs of sites outside Wikipedia is to reference or source the information contained within the article. Whilst your website may well be useful as a resource, it is not the purpose or duty of an encyclopedic article to supply links to such tools. If your website were to be used to reference or source information in the article, in the form of inline citations, then that would be a whole new issue. But as far as your request above, and in the related main article, goes, I am not in favour. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Refsworldlee that adding the link is inappropriate, and I cleared the edit request above. But thanks to User:Steve.hawtin for going through the right channels to ask about this! EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No US Certification

Can someone add the US Certifications for the studio albums? Right now there are only UK and Canada Certifications up, unless one is actually the US.Cosprings (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Missing single

He did a single with Placebo called Without you i'm nothing released in 1999 but i dont know how to edit the page to include this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.40.214 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The updates that were recently done to this page are excellent. I suggest that who ever did them should have this page placed as a featured list candidate. Jimknut (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree ;) That was my intention when I started updating the list in my userspace. Unfortunately between starting it and completing it, the BPI references for the UK certification levels have gone as they've updated their website and the certification database hasn't yet been put back online. Without reliable sources to confirm the certification levels any FLC nomination is bound to fail as not being fully verifiable. We'll have to wait until the BPI's database is put back online or I can find another reliable source for the certification levels. --JD554 (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, good luck. If you can get the page into featured list status I think it will be the first one for an artist who's career started back in the 60s, and also one of only a handful who's been recording for more than 20 years. Jimknut (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
JD554, please justify your decision to remove lots of properly sourced (IMHO) national charts information for DB singles... E.g. why did you delete all the information about Italian DB singles chart positions?? Mlindroo (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The main purpose of a discography is to show an artist or group's releases. The chart positions are really a secondary consideration. Keeping inline with Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources (what makes Hit Parade Italia a reliable source?), neutral point of view and charts, I balanced his relative success on various charts with Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines and provided the current set (which are definitely all reliable). Also, we can't list all charts due to the amount of information we can easily present, so a choice has to be made, again based on relative chart positions and what reliable sources are available, up to a suggested maximum of 10 charts WP:DISCOG. --JD554 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian singles charts

The current consensus is that there should be ten charts listed. If we were to include the Australian singles charts positions, we would have to exclude them from the 1990s singles table and that wouldn't make any kind of sense. This was an issue brought up at the recent FLC. Please respect the consensus. --JD554 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have honestly thought to look at anything like that. Maybe I should have, looking back, but don't you think that since David Bowie has probably sold more albums and singles in Australia than some of the other countries listed, (such as Ireland, Norway and Sweden) it should be listed in favour of them? Isn't that kind of a deciding factor on other artists' discographies; bigger markets over smaller ones? Just asking/suggesting. Ss112 09:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really, it's just to give an indication of how well he's done generally. The number of charting releases usually influences my decision on which charts to include/exclude and as I only have access to Australian-charts.com (which doesn't list the earlier charts), I decided to remove it as there weren't that many releases which charted (according to Australian-charts.com). If I had access to the Kent's book, I would probably have excluded Norway instead. I wouldn't object if you want to remove the Norwegian singles charts and add the Australian ones. --JD554 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no expertise in editing Wikipedia - particularly when it comes to tables - so I don't want to attempt to amend the table, but http://top100singles.blogspot.com.au/ appears to list peak positions from the Kent charts as well as ARIA. I can't vouch for the veracity of the source myself, but if the information is correct, then it may be worth adding. The information (my collation, from the linked site - dates listed are the first week the track entered the charts):

Starman --- #37 --- 14th Aug 1972;;; Space Oddity --- #9 --- 26th Feb 1973;;; The Jean Genie --- #42 --- 9th Apr 1973;;; Sorrow --- #1 --- 24th Dec 1973;;; The Laughing Gnome --- #57 --- 14th Jan 1974;;; Rebel Rebel --- #28 --- 25th Mar 1974;;; Diamond Dogs --- #66 --- 29th July 1974;;; Knock On Wood --- #49 --- 2nd Dec 1974;;; Young Americans --- #27 --- 5th May 1975;;; Golden Years --- #34 --- 12th Jan 1976;;; Sound And Vision --- #74 --- 25th Apr 1977;;; Heroes --- #11 --- 5th Dec 1977;;; Boys Keep Swinging --- #85 --- 18th June 1979;;; Ashes To Ashes --- #3 --- 8th Sept 1980;;; Fashion --- #27 --- 22nd Dec 1980;;; Under Pressure --- #6 --- 9th Nov 1981;;; Cat People (Putting Out Fire) --- #15 --- 24th May 1982;;; Let's Dance --- #2 --- 28th Mar 1983;;; China Girl --- #15 --- 20th June 1983;;; Modern Love --- #6 --- 26th Sept 1983;;; Blue Jean --- #12 --- 24th Sept 1984;;; Tonight --- #70 --- 17th Dec 1984;;; This Is Not America --- #33 --- 18th Mar 1985;;; Loving The Alien --- #65 --- 8th July 1985;;; Dancing In The Street --- #1 --- 16th Sept 1985;;; Absolute Beginners --- #5 --- 17th Mar 1986;;; Underground --- #21 --- 21st July 1986;;; Day-In Day-Out --- #33 --- 13th Apr 1987;;; Never Let Me Down --- #63 --- 21st Sept 1987;;; Fame '90 --- #85 --- 3rd June 1990;;; Jump They Say --- #53 --- 4th Apr 1993;;; Black Tie White Noise --- #74 --- 20th June 1993;;; Hallo Spaceboy --- #36 --- 5th May 1996;;; Little Wonder --- #94 --- 2nd Mar 1997;;; Without You I'm Nothing --- #52 --- 23rd Aug 1999;;; Life On Mars? --- #67 --- 16th Feb 2009;;; Where Are We Now? --- #78 --- 21st Jan 2013;;;

Missing song....

Dollar Days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.223.9 (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This song does not seem to be included in the David Bowie discography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(David_Bowie_song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.55.206 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the B-side of the single Day-In Day-Out (which is in the discog). B-sides are not included in discographies here on Wikipedia. I really wonder why it has its own article, I don't see any indication of notabiity. – IbLeo (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Producer Credits?

Perhaps compiling all of the albums he has produced seperately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.155.1 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Non-album singles"?

Hi

I'm a little confused as to why "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide" is listed as a "Non-album single", when any Bowie fanatic will tell you that it was clearly lifted from "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars" for its 1974 release (the fact that it was such an important track, the final denouement, in such an important concept album gives some indication of why it only made Number 22 in the UK charts). Or am I missing some salient point here? I was tempted to wade in and make the change, but I am willing to wait for some alternative reason not to. Hope someone has the time to put an explanation in here to clarify. Thanks. A lifelong fan (happy 65th birthday to him!). 86.112.67.18 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't released in to promote the album (which had been released 2 years earlier). It was released by RCA in an attempt to make more money out of Ziggy, who Bowie had retired the previous year. --194.176.105.142 (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Va va voom

I had a Bowie live album named "Va Va Voom" I don't know much about it, but it is not known by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.207.126 (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bootleg. We don't worry about those here.—indopug (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Singles

Should we have 2000s and 2010s as one section, as there are relatively few ? Or separate them ? -- Beardo (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to keep them together for the time being and split if there are any further singles. --194.176.105.6 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the sub-heading to "2000s and 2010s singles" in the meantime. --194.176.105.6 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Buddha of Suburbia

In my opionion The Buddha of Suburbia should not be listed as soundtrack but rather as full studio album as this is what it really is. Only one track was actually written for the tv serial the rest is completely unrelated. Tel33 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, that is what it was released as. Look at the wording on the original cover. --194.176.105.6 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
alright, lets have a look at the wording of the original inlay sleeve: "This collection of music bears little resemblance to the small instrumentation of the BBC play of “Buddha”. That project was manoeuvred and focused primarily by Roger Mitchell the Director, who guided me around the usual pitfalls of over arranging against small ensemble theatre. However, left to my own devices these same pieces just took on a life of their own in the studio, the narrative and 70′s memories providing a textural backdrop in my imagination that manifested as a truly exciting work situation." David Bowie. I think it's clear that Buddha of Suburbia is as much as studio album as is Heroes, Let's Dance or Reality. It's kind of misleading to omit it from the discography. --Tel33 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't been omitted from the discography; it's right there in the soundtracks section. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing albums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(David_Bowie_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B580:55A:310C:BAB6:F5E3:8C1C (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not missing at all -- David Bowie discography#Soundtracks -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Studio Contributions" section should list Lulu's 1976 LP Heaven and Earth and the Stars on which Bowie co-produced Watch That Man and The Man Who Sold The World. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_and_the_Stars Dick Mac - Brooklyn, NY (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)dickmac999

Yes, jointly produced by Bowie and Mick Ronson, and "The Man Who Sold The World" very notable as it was a No.3 UK hit for Lulu. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Germany

Is it really true that no Bowie album (apart from the 67 one) before the 1980 one charted in Germany? A P Monblat (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably more true that a reliable source for them doesn't exist. Incidentally, the chart position of the '67 album has been removed as it wasn't in the cited source. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

3 or three

Can someone explain to me the rule about using the number character (3) or the word (three) to say a number? Both are used in this article at different points. Mechanic1c (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Late response but should be three per MOS:NUMS. – zmbro (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Australian singles chart peaks - to add to table or not?

I started a new section for this, rather than replying to JD554's section from 2009, as that user's profile states that they have retired from wikipedia.

David Bowie had 30 singles chart (including two #1's) and 25 albums chart (including two #1's) top 100 entries on the Australian Kent Music Report between 1972 (I don't have pre-1970 data if there is any) and to 1988 (when it ceased to be Australia's official chart). On the Australian ARIA top 100, David Bowie has charted 7 singles and 11 albums between mid 1988 and December 2010. As Australia is a larger market than several other counties included in the 10 (if it is to be limited to that) in the discography tables, Australia should probably be included. I can add this data to the tables if there is agreement that it should be added or to replace another country/chart in the table. Personally, I feel the US Billboard Mainstream Rock Tracks chart is less important and less valid than the others, as this is not a chart based on sales (I know the Hot 100 is not solely based on sales either, but at least it has a sales component). I would remove the Mainstream Rock Tracks chart from the table so that Australia could be added, if the table is to be limited to 10.Nqr9 (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming album

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Totals

I'm seeing a few discrepancies in the totals - not sure if it's because of recent edits? I've fixed one so far. NameloCmaS (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Singles Table is confusing

It shows space oddity as being released in 1969 and reaching no. 1 then having no success on the next 7 until Starman. Only after looking carefully do you see that the chart position of Space Oddity is for the 1973 re-release. It gives no details of what the song did in 1969, because the 73 and 75 chart position are in their place.

That is correct - I've now amended it to (hopefully) clarify the position. As an alternative, the 1970s reissues should be included in the 1970s table and taken out of the 1960s table. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A chronological order might be much better. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The heading of each table says "Peak chart position". Where a peak is for a re-release or a later date there is a note clearly saying this. If an earlier chart position is required, perhaps it should go in the note text below the table? -- Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Where a single has two or more clear chart peaks, several years apart, it seems to me that it is inadequate simply to show the highest peak in the table itself. All the peaks should be shown in the table. The question is whether it is best to show all the positions in one place - and the best place for that, I think, should be for the earliest release - or whether they should be listed separately in each year in which they charted. This applies both to the early 70s reissues of 60s tracks, and, now, to the current download charts. If an old track now makes the current charts to a higher position than that which it originally reached, it would be a nonsense only to show the highest (current) position, wouldn't it? What is done elsewhere in similar circumstances? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Not when it clearly states peak chart position. The meaning of peak is pretty unambiguous. The linked noted at the bottom of the table is also obvious. To put all potential peaks over a variety of years would make the tables unmanageable in my opinion. No FL discography shows multiple peaks in the tables. --Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why it would make it unmanageable. Historically, it's quite rare for a record to have peaked in a chart one year, and then have a later peak in another year. (It's obviously more common now, as downloads have made the charts, in some senses, more volatile.) I'm not sure whether circumstances have arisen for other artists who have featured lists or not, but it certainly has for some artists. In the case of the Beatles, for instance, the (reliable) chart book I'm looking at has "Love Me Do" peaking in the UK at #17 in 1962, #4 in 1982, and #53 in 1992. Your suggestion would mean that the 1962 chart entry would be relegated to a footnote, despite it being their first chart entry anywhere - which seems to me to be perverse, unhelpful and unnecessary. For Bowie, "Space Oddity" was a #5 hit in 1969, but #1 in 1975. Do you not think that the 1969 peak should be included in the list, rather than as a footnote? Has this issue been discussed previously, to your knowledge? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No,I don't think the'69 peak should be in the table for the reasons I've given. I'll ask members of WP:DISCOGS for input. Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Multiple chart peaks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Space Oddity" b/w "Wild Eyed Boy From Freecloud" (Philips BF 1801) was released in 1969 and peaked at number five in the UK. "Space Oddity" b/w "Changes"/"Velvet Goldmine" (RCA Victor 2593) was released in 1975 and peaked at number one in the UK. Two different records, should be be two different entries in the discography. A discography is a list of all records released by the artist, not just a list of songs. The same goes for the two records containing "Space Oddity" released in the US in 1969 and 1973. Piriczki (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

How about if the same release re-enters at a later date and a higher position? Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My view - in line with chart books I've seen - is that if a record drops out of the chart and then re-enters, it should be listed twice. But not if it simply falls down the chart to a lower position, and then rises again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If the same record re-enters a chart at a later date and establishes a higher peak position, a note can be added to the original entry to explain the new peak position. For an example, see the single "Drive" in the Cars discography#Singles. Piriczki (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree, more than one number in the cell would be more confusing. Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that having more than one number in the cell can be confusing, and in the example cited by Piriczki I can see the logic - the single was (I assume) re-promoted rather than reissued, and there was only one year between the two chart peaks - but, for an alternative (which I would prefer in Bowie's case), see Jackie Wilson discography. He had a UK hit in 1957 with "Reet Petite", and then a number 1 hit with the same song when it was reissued in 1986 - 29 years later! That may be an extreme case, but there seems to me to be no logic at all in relegating all mention of the 1957 peak to a footnote. That approach works fine in that article, and I think the same approach should be adopted in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. If there were two different records, as with "Space Oddity" or "Reet Petite", they should be listed separately with each record's accompanying peak position. If it was only one record, as with "Drive", list it once with a note explaining how the same record had two different peak positions. Piriczki (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So.. are we agreed that reissues (as opposed to simple re-entries) should have separate entries in the list? That seems to me to be the best way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That is how I would do it. Also, the note for "Changes" is inaccurate. It was not re-released in 1975. The same record from 1972 (RCA 74-0605) was re-serviced in March 1974 and bubbled under the Cash Box and Record World charts that month before re-entering all three main singles charts in November-December 1974. Piriczki (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening section

The third paragraph starts - "Bowie released three more albums – David Bowie (1969) that closed the trilogy, ..." - to what trilogy is that referring ? -- Beardo (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Gouster

Apparently an 'unreleased' album that included earlier versions of the tracks that appear on Young Americans. It is part of the box set to be released in September. From the reports there is no indication that it will be released on its own. Before adding it to the discography as a studio album, I think it would be useful to have a discussion about its status. In my mind it is more of a compilation album of alternative versions as all the songs have been released elsewhere. Karst (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article introducing us to the box set calls The Gouster an "unreleased album", then immediately points out that it "morphed and eventually became Young Americans." In other words, the box set will restore what would have been had Bowie decided to not put it through its final ch-ch-ch-ch-changes. (Sorry—I had to do it.) But he did, and Young Americans is the album that resulted. A restoration of an early, discarded concept is not an "album" by any accepted definition of the word (that I've ever seen, at least). (Full disclosure: my opinion was requested. I had not offered an opinion heretofore, and the requester most likely did not know how I would respond.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect Day 1997?

Should Perfect Day (Children in Need) be included as a single? The single features Bowie, and went to number one in the UK. Smurrayinchester 08:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is a guest appearance and should be listed as such? Karst (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Bowie discography. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Bowie discography. 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).

  • 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) 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Bowie discography. 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).

  • 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) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Bowie discography. 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).

  • 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) 19:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bowie_discography/Archive_1&oldid=1136651561"