Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)

Should we include Nirvana's perfomance?
YOu guys got THREE days to do so, or I will -The Bird - unsigned comment by 66.154.192.129 on 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did it, but threats are not a way to contribute to an encyclopedia, so I'm deleting it. Fantailfan 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. Fantail, notice you put a cover version section in then removed it - correct in my opinion. Albums shouldn't have sections for cover versions of their songs when there are entries for the songs themselves - and "The Man Who Sold the World (song)" gives prominence to Nirvana's version. A brief mention and the song link, as we already had, is all it needs here. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirection
When you type "The Man who Sold the World", it automatically gives the song. I know the song is "better known" but I think the album is more significant and should be the automatic destination for typing "the man who sold the world". I don't know how to do this, but it's just a thought. 160.39.145.130 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and could organise that but let's see if anyone else has an opinion first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

+ Fantailfan (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree, having just found this more than two years later! It seems logical to me that the album should take precedence: though it seems clear that the song is more widely known, the album was its origin. After all this time, it looks like a consensus to me...? Should probably be cross-posted to the talk page for the song before any ch-ch-ch-changes are made, though. Nortonius (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the song is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and shouldn't be disambiguated, whereas the album should. --JD554 (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis is the song the primary topic, would you say? While it seems that no pages link to the album article, two link to the song article; on the other hand, viewing figures for the album article for last month (June 2010) were 9,246, while those for the song article were 8,267. Not much to choose between them, but it would suggest to me that it's the album people look for on WP, rather than the song, and that seems to be the thrust of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. I'd rule Google searches out, because of the multitude of song lyric sites - Google any album with the same name as one of its tracks, and you'll get zillions more pages on lyrics to the song, rather than about the album. Nortonius (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd check that those viewing figures for June were representative - from the beginning of July 09 to the end of June 10, the album article got 172,680 hits, while the song article got 153,915, and the album got a higher hit rate in every month. Actually I think that this is highly significant, given the original point of the discussion, that a simple search for "the man who sold the world" takes you to the song: clearly people are choosing to look at the album more than at the song, despite the re-direct, without which the viewing figures would probably be even further apart. Nortonius (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've now posted a note regarding this discussion on the talk page for the song. Nortonius (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You make a good argument with respect to the page visits of the album article and, due to that, I've changed my mind and agree that the undabbed page should be the album article and the dabbed page should be the song article. Incidentally, you can exclude the majority of lyrics servers for google searches if your add "-lyrics" to your search string. --JD554 (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok great, thanks for coming back with that, and for the tip re search strings - to be honest, I'd forgotten about adding +s and -s to search strings! I wonder, should we go ahead and do something about changing the dab? Don't mind waiting a while for more input, as it's only a couple of days since I posted something about this on the song's talk page. People don't seem to be finding this the most gripping issue for their attention though, given that so far you and I are the only people to have spoken up in over two years - understandable really! p.s. Hmm! Looks like I completely failed to understand how "What links here" works, too! Something felt wrong about the results I reported earlier so I looked again - of course, both articles are linked from more places than I could be bothered to count, even hiding transclusions and redirects! Oh well - I'm pretty confident of those viewing figures, anyway, anyone can check them! Nortonius (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it's been 10 days since I posted a note on the song article's talk page, and JD554 and I remain the only editors to comment on this in recent times, either there or here, so I think it's time the dab was changed per the above discussion - only, I'd rather not do it myself as I have no experience of moving pages etc. and don't want to mess up! If it's not done in a few hours, I'll ask around for someone who might do it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Credit goes to editors Sonia and Anthony.bradbury for picking up the pieces of the mess I made when trying to do it myself, and making it work! Nortonius (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Name
Is there any connection to, or inspiration from, Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon? DS (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Man Who Sold the World → The Man Who Sold the World (album) – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC) how can the album be more significant when all links refer to the song?. Makes no sense to meE-Kartoffel (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the previous discussion on this talk page, above, headed "Redirection"? This has been discussed before, though things may have changed since then for all I know. On the other hand, to what links are you referring exactly? Nortonius (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I refer to the internal wikipedia links to the album article, they are almost entirely produced by the Bowie template, whilst other articles mostly refer to the song. "The Man Who Sold the World" is commonly referred to as song, not as an album entity. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Well,-- if the wikipedia-*user interest* is so high, I even understand it, so we can leave it this way, as it is. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Support: No primary topic. Put a disambiguation page at The Man Who Sold the World. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose dab page. I don't like dab pages with only two entries. Even if there isn't a clear primary topic, I still think it's better just pick one as primary and put a hatnote to the other in that one. That way at least some people saves a click. With a dab page everybody has to click an extra time to get to their intended destination. I am neutral on which one should be placed as primary topic, hadn't it been for the Nirvana cover it probably would have been the album, but with their cover it's probably pretty split. The view statistics say that the article about the album gets about twice the views of the one about the song, although this might be because the album is currently placed as primary topic.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hard rock/heavy metal?
I understand that this album has some hard rock and heavy metal tones, but it also explores progressive and psychedelic and blues. Rock just seems easier. --24.107.207.98 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * According to whom? (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Dan56 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I just feel that the album has other genres other than hard rock and heavy metal. (The title track isn't even hard rock at all.) If my IP is different, it means I am not at my regular computer right now.--108.218.70.130 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP. 'Rock' is a good general term for the album, without going into a long list of all the genres it does explore. While we're at it, Dan, I see you'd made the main infobox image the early US 'cowboy' cover. I don't think this is appropriate as the iconic cover, the one used for original release in the album's country of origin, is the 'dress' cover. If there's a general rule about using the very first release as the infobox image then I think we're adhering slavishly to it here, not logically, by using the cowboy cover. The community seemed to agree with this for a very long time, as the article has pretty well always used the dress cover as lead image, and you've already had at least one editor revert you on the change, so I'm hoping to convince you here that we should switch back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, other than us editors, what third-party source shares this opinion? That other genres describe the album that way? And I don't think one inexperienced IP in the last week is a worry. I don't know how it's iconic, but if it has replaced the original and is widely distributed, then that would fit the criteria for an alternate cover. If the artist's country of origin should take precedent, then why wouldn't that apply to the release date as well? Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my point, you say 'rock' and you don't even need a citation. Undoubtedly there's a strong hard rock and heavy metal tinge to it, that's in the main body, with citations, but that's not all there is to it (as the main body also intimates, again with citations) and the source in the infobox about "moving into" hard rock and heavy metal doesn't necessarily support the idea that the whole album can be characterised that way. Don't get me wrong, I wrote much of this article and personally prefer to describe it as heavy metal, but you'll always have arguments over that, even with citations, which are easy to cherry-pick. As to the album cover, it's not so much that someone you describe as an inexperienced IP has reverted your change of cover, but that what you've changed has had the tacit support of the community for a long time, even with the slightly earlier cartoon cover and its date listed among the alternatives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This would, as would this. There should never be cherry-picking, tho: The sides/genres that the sources have taken should be explained and included in proportion to the viewpoints. You might find one source that says it "explores progressive and psychedelic" for instance, but if it's in the minority of viewpoints that largely call it "hard rock" or "heavy metal", then placing it in the infobox (even with a cited source) would be undue weight. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cover Art, or sleeve???
The editor of the Michael J Weller page has stated that the artist did the sleeve art not the cover art, as stated in this article. Which is correct??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Weller User:JCHeverly 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?
Recently, the original 1970 American cover was removed from the "Cover" field of the infobox (having been there since June 2013) in favor of the 1971 British cover, with no rationale offered (13 January 2016). After reverting this edit, it was restored again with no clear rationale (23 February 2016). I've opened this RfC, asking for those editors should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While editors have argued here the image "most closely associated with the album" should be show first, and have questioned the meaning/context of the word "original", the template guideline says to use "the official version of the original cover". According to what is cited in this article from biographer Nicholas Pegg's book, Weller's cartoon design was the original, in the sense it was the first made, the first accepted by Bowie, and the first released, on the first release of this album, the American release. Furthermore, there's no coverage by third-party sources that the British cover is "most closely associated with the album", at least not in this article, not that it should matter either way. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
According to this article, The Man Who Sold the World was originally released in 1970 in the United States, with the cover featuring an illustration of a man in a cowboy hat. It was released in the United Kingdom the following year with the cover featuring David Bowie in a dress. A few editors have insisted on placing the British cover ahead of the American, with one claiming it is a "British album" (I didn't know albums had nationalities, or that this was relevant or mentioned in any guideline regarding album covers). The current guideline says to include "an image of the official front cover of the original version of the album." (Template:Infobox_album) Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Since "original" means first or earliest, that would be the American release from 1970. As for the British cover, which it has been used for CD reissues of this album and has been argued has replaced the original in the eyes of most people who follow Bowie's work, it should still be in the "alternate cover" field, since the guidelines would deem it as such: "An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" (emphasis added) (Template:Infobox album)... That would be the 1971 British cover. Pretty clear cut IMO. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A pretty clear case then of ignore all rules and use common sense. The suggestion that "a few editors have insisted on placing the British cover ahead of the American" is somewhat ingenuous, as the UK cover was given primacy in the article from 2005 until 2013, when Dan changed it without prior discussion. So too the idea that nationality has nothing to do with it -- we choose the variety of English based on ties to the national origin of the work or artist. To get down to cases, using the original UK 'dress' cover is simply reflecting the most commonly employed cover outside WP -- see for instance Allmusic's review, Buckley's  David Bowie: The Music and The Changes, Carr & Murray's Bowie: An Illustrated Record, plus any number of advertisements for the album on Amazon, etc. I really think WP is out of touch in slavishly adhering to this particular guideline and using the absolutely original cover, rather than the best known original cover (the first to appear in the album's country of origin). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, only the "man dress" cover is in Carr & Murray (1981). Marc Spitz's biography, pp. 145–6, has:

"Upon submitting the ['man dress'] cover art to Mercury, the Bowies claimed to be shocked when the executives balked at releasing it as it was. Before the cover was restored on subsequent reissues, the American version depicted a George Underwood [sic] cartoon ... 'Bloody philistines!' Bowie reportedly shouted when he first heard of news of the label's reaction to his original cover choice. More likely, however, both Bowie and Angie knew that word of a banned or controversial sleeve would get them lots of ink."
 * Attributing the cartoon to George Underwood makes Spitz look shaky, but overall the "man dress" cover seems to have been the original design; Spitz makes no mention of the other designs. And I've added a ref for the UK release date. Nortonius (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It's a misconception that the "dress" cover was the originally planned design. In this passage in the Pegg book, he wrote:
 * "It is commonly believed that the original sleeve was the famous photo of Bowie in a dress, but this is not the case. David originally asked Mike Weller ... to design a cover reflecting the album's ominous atmosphere. Weller proposed a painting of Cain Hill Hospital, where a friend of his was a patient - apparently he was unaware that it was also where Terry Burns [Bowie's half-brother] lived - and Bowie received the idea enthusiastically.... Weller tells the Gillmans that David was 'very pleased' with the finished Metrobolist [The original album title] design, but it appears that not long afterwards Bowie changed his mind and persuaded Phillips's art department to commission Keith MacMillan to photograph him instead in the 'domestic environment' of the Haddon Hall living-room.... In America, Mercury quickly rejected the 'dress' photograph.... Instead the label gave the go-ahead for ... the 'cartoon' artwork.... David, whose initial enthusiasm for the cartoon cover had evaporated, was reportedly furious, and he successfully persuaded Mercury to use the 'dress' photograph on the UK release."
 * Pegg goes on to say Bowie claimed in 1972 that the cartoon cover was "horrible" and in 1999 that he "actually thought the cartoon cover was really cool". Dan56 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what editors have argued here, the guideline for infobox images doesn't say to choose which image is "most closely associated with the album", but to show first "the official version of the original cover". According to what is cited in the article from Pegg's book, Weller's cartoon design was the original, in the sense it was the first made, the first accepted by Bowie, and the first released, on the first release of this album, the American release. Dan56 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Oppose as nominator, per the above. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support changing to original UK 'dress' cover per my comment above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Ian's suggestion as an extension of WP:ENGVAR - a UK google search brings back the "dress" cover predominantly. It is an album by a British artist made in Britain. The claim to have been released in April 1971 in the UK is also unsourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. It might shed some helpful light for this discussion if the article gave some explanation of why the US release pre-dated the UK release - which seems unusual for a UK artist - as well as why different cover art was chosen for the different releases.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The different US cover is easy - the dress cover was banned! . (That the source doesn't bother to mention what the cover was changed to seems significant). As I suggested above, a reliable source (something more than just the vague "1970" / "1971") that confirms original release dates is required to answer the first question properly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the original release dates were uncited in the article -- taken care of that now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The source given by says that the "dress" cover "would be banned" when the album was issued in the US.  That implies that the "dress" cover was the original intended cover - even if it was not issued with that cover until later (in the UK).  I think that is a significant point. (Just read ' comment above, which confirms that chronology.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per Ian Rose & my comment above. Nortonius (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Dan56's stance is in line with the guidelines for music releases, and also the guidelines created by WikiProject Video Games at WP:VGBOX for video game releases, which says that we stick with the original English release cover, but include the alternate cover elsewhere as long as it received a lot of coverage from reliable third party sources. I'd stick with the approach multiple WikiProjects have adopted. Sergecross73   msg me  13:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that really seems to fit the ethos of WP:HITANDRUN, proposing vague patterns that don't model the real world when common sense and good judgement is what's required. I note that all the "support" voters have directly talked about Bowie's career and cited reputable biographies; your argument would stand more weight if you did likewise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My referencing two separate guidelines from separate WikiProjects about this exact type of scenario (handling alternate cover art) isn't going to hold weight in this discussion? Really? Citing the essay HITANDRUN is equally baffling (I'm not proposing a "wanton change", I'm proposing we keep the old approach in place for years). Look, if you want to IAR, that's up to you, but please don't make such a half-assed attempt to summarize your opposers. Sergecross73   msg me  14:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My problem with that is I don't understand it ... Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, this talk of citing Bowie's career and biography smacks somewhat of fancruft; it's not like the "dress" cover is being excluded altogether. If you or other "support voters" don't like the guideline as it's currently written, propose changing it rather than making this the exception, because this wouldn't be the only article where you could make your argument (see Beggars Banquet). It's just that the argument has to have some logic that's not just relative or specific to Bowie's career. This is Wikipedia, not Bowiepedia lol! Dan56 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well to me the whole point behind WP:IAR is you say "well we've got this guideline over here which is usually the way to do things, although common sense says to do something different every now and then, and that's fine". I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not get bogged down in the minutae behind policies and guidelines which frankly sends me to sleep. The argument we're making here is that we should pick the cover that reliable sources document as being the most significant. Maybe you're an enlightened 21st century guy and transsexuals are just things people happen to be, but in the Nixon-era US, the conservative record industry would have had an complete and utter fit about putting out an album by an obscure one-hit wonder (which is what Bowie was in 1970) that (OMG) had him in a dress! And it was the springboard for Bowie publicly declaring himself as if not actually bisexual, at least ambiguous to make a nice conversation piece out of it, as described by the Daily Telegraph as "the first signal of the sexual ambiguity that would become his stock-in-trade". And I'm not that big a Bowie fan, everything with Mick Ronson on it is brilliant, the Anthony Newley period is, let's face it, shit, everything else is not really my cup of tea but I can see why people love the Berlin stuff and Let's Dance, no problem with that.  is the big Bowie fan around here, I think? Ritchie333 (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the only one I hope, . I think is a fan too. Ha, I'd never seen that weird cowboy cartoon cover before. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have great respect for his music and career,, but have no opinion about this little matter. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. This seems to be much ado about nothing. Both covers are included in the box so the matter of which comes first is really not that big a deal. I suspect that if you scratch the surface of the reasons offered by most people who really care about this question you will find "but I like this cover better" or nationalistic reasons behind the opinions. My copy of the album I bought (in Canada) in the 1980s has the 1972 RCA cover. A few years later I saw the 1970 US cover album in a used record store and bought that, just for the cover. A year after that the CD was released with the man-in-dress cover and I bought that. (It also has the other three covers inside the "booklet" which folds out). I once won a radio trivia contest by stumping the DJ with my question "Which is the only Bowie album to not have a picture of him on the cover in its original release?" where this album was the answer. So yeah ... where was I? Oh yeah ... I really could not care less which one is first and cannot see any good reason why anyone should care. "I like this one" and nationalism are not good reasons. Either one first is fine with me, just so long as they all are included in the box. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I got curious and looked up information on the album covers. I found this passage in the Pegg book, cited in the article many times. Pegg wrote this:
 * "It is commonly believed that the original sleeve was the famous photo of Bowie in a dress, but this is not the case. David originally asked Mike Weller ... to design a cover reflecting the album's ominous atmosphere. Weller proposed a painting of Cain Hill Hospital, where a friend of his was a patient - apparently he was unaware that it was also where Terry Burns [Bowie's half-brother] lived - and Bowie received the idea enthusiastically.... Weller tells the Gillmans that David was 'very pleased' with the finished Metrobolist [The original album title] design, but it appears that not long afterwards Bowie changed his mind and persuaded Phillips's art department to commission Keith MacMillan to photograph him instead in the 'domestic environment' of the Haddon Hall living-room.... In America, Mercury quickly rejected the 'dress' photograph.... Instead the label gave the go-ahead for ... the 'cartoon' artwork.... David, whose initial enthusiasm for the cartoon cover had evaporated, was reportedly furious, and he successfully persuaded Mercury to use the 'dress' photograph on the UK release."
 * Pegg goes on to say Bowie claimed in 1972 that the cartoon cover was "horrible" and in 1999 that he "actually thought the cartoon cover was really cool". No word there on why the albums were released at different times, but it should be remembered that only a few years earlier it was not unusual for UK and US versions of albums to have different titles and different track lists too (see discography pages for the Beatles and Stones), so it could just be that Mercury saw no good reason to release them at the same time and had other marketing reasons for the different dates. But what reading the Pegg passages does tell me is more important than which picture comes first on the page is the fact that the page does not anywhere discuss the fact that Bowie hated the album title, wanted to call the album Metrobolist, and even between the US and UK releases tried to get Mercury to re-title the album Holy Holy for the UK release. It's all in the Pegg book. 142 and 99 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So the cartoon design was the original plan according to the Pegg book?, ? Dan56 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fancruft", anyone? Yeah I can imagine a lot of flip-flopping going on, either way, it looks like Bowie wanted the dress on the cover, so go define "original". Nortonius (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an English-language adjective meaning "first" or "from the beginning", . And you obviously didn't read clearly what quoted from Pegg's book, which says Bowie originally wanted the cartoon design. Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read it, what part didn't you understand? Before going to press, Bowie wanted the dress on the cover. Now you really are clutching at straws, if you're defining "original" as a cover that wasn't even wanted – we could all make one of them. I'm rapidly losing interest though, I'll just be interested to see how this one fizzles out. As 142 and 99 says, the flip-flopping over the album title is more interesting. Nortonius (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "very pleased with the finished Metrobolist design" do you not understand ?? Dan56 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, you're just hounding now – one minute you're dissing other people's views as "fancruft", the next you're diving in head first. I'm signing out of this now. Nortonius (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not hounding, . You're not answering my question or addressing my point, so I pretty much feel the need to squeeze a response out of you or at least trying to smh. It's like, "how is he not getting this", I'm thinking. Like, do I need to cite the template guideline again, or the definition of the word "original"/"official", or Pegg's book, which I've cited in the article at this point, proving Weller's design was the official version of the original cover (the first made, the first accepted by Bowie, first released, first issued, etc.) It's frustrating to not get this across, because for some reason its not registering with you and the others. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Last comment, then I'm going to hush up What picture do you all get on the top right hand information screen when you type "david bowie the man who sold the world" (without quotes) into Google? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's kinda irrelevant since WP:WEIGHT doesn't apply at all to infobox images in any WikiProject. "Original" means just that, and that's what the guideline is, regardless of whether it agree with its logic, in principle, or philosophically or whatever.Dan56 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dress please. It seems to me that what should matter besides our guidelines is which image is most closely associated with the album; I have no doubt that the dressy one is, as verified by various citations offered above--from picture books, websites, internet searches. "Original" is an easy term to define, but not easily applied in the real world. Maybe Bowie wanted a cartoon cover "originally", but that doesn't mean he wanted this cover "originally"--after all, there's a big gap between mental image and draft drawing. Wut, that's hypothetical? theoretical? Well, there's nothing simple about this. As far as I can tell, if the album cover hadn't been problematic for the US record company, the album would have been released all dressed up, and certainly in that sense we can consider the cartoon cover an alternate--for which there is a space in the infobox. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no "maybe" or "a cartoon cover". The source clearly says he wanted Weller's design: What part of "very pleased with the finished Metrobolist design" do you not understand ?? It's not even about his original intent being Weller's design or that he initially accepted the finished cartoon design, it's the fact that whether you like it or not, the American release was first released, WITH THAT COVER! Like, come on! How stubborn do you have to be not to accept that. Dan56 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to sound more nicer, Dan. I gave arguments. Very pleased, maybe--but no so pleased that every other version of the album had it on its cover. I was very pleased with my first child, and yet I went on and made another one. Don't play this stupid "nah nah you're just saying that CUZYOUNOLIKEIT"; it's very unbecoming. Like, you know. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an awful analogy, and what you do in your personal life is your business lol. And the guideline is clear. It doesn't say to choose which image is "most closely associated with the album", but "the official version of the original cover". Weller's was original, in the sense it was the first made and the first released, on the first release of this album. If you don't like the guideline, then go to the template talk page or WP:ALBUMS and propose a change, but questioning the meaning of basic words in the English language to support arguments based in personal preference or ideas on what's more important to show is nothing more than making up your own rules. You're playing this stupid "well, what does 'original' really mean?" Like come on. There's enough evidence. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stupid about it. Only simple people think that "original" means something simple. Anyway, I gave some arguments, you yelled at me some like you yelled at most other people here; I hope you feel better. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan, just as a heads up, you might also want to head over to the Out of Our Heads page. There the infobox says the album was released in September 1965, but the prose says that was the UK release date and the US release date was July 1965, 2 months earlier. Also, that page has a separate section for the American release that comes after the track listing for the UK album, meaning the main infobox has the UK album cover even though it was released 2 months after the American one with a different cover. Seems like the editors there need a lecture about what "original" means ... or else maybe its possible for there to be more than one "original" release. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You also: "original" isn't simple. I don't want to lecture, since school is out, but hey, it's never too late to read Frantzen's Desire for Origins--not because you may be interested in the history of Anglo-Saxon's scholarship, but because you seem to be under the misapprehension that "original" is something that can reliably and objectively be established. Or maybe a hefty dose of Terry Eagleton will help? Drmies (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You said earlier it's "an easy term to define", but now it's not "simple"? Pleeaase. Dan56 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. I'll just get reverted by rockist guardians of the article or something lol. It is another canonical rock act. Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: personally, I feel the presentation as I type this (chronological order) is correct, given that all are presented within the IB. 🖖 ATinySliver / ATalkPage 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I started a similar discussion a while ago at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 51. The meaning of "original" was discussed and many criteria for the placing of the covers were proposed, ranging from chronology, to country of origin of the artist, popularity, sales, artist's intention, etc. The discussion reached no consensus for a definitive criterion and we remained stuck to the somewhat ambiguous "the official version of the original cover" in the guideline. I would have applied exclusively the chronological criterion, placing the first published cover on top of the infobox, but others argued strongly against that position. It appears that this discussion went the same way... Lewismaster (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To some degree . The others who are strongly against the "chronological" criterion in this discussion seem to be in denial of the fact that Bowie originally intended to use the cartoon design, before changing his mind of course. Perhaps popularity and sales isn't being taken into account either, since according to what's cited in this article, The Man Who Sold the World was more successful in the US than in the UK. Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

USA release date
I have just looked up this album in Billboard's "New Album Releases" and it appears in the 2 January 1971 issue. The following appears above the list of releases: "This monthly product list includes LP's which were issued during the past several weeks and are considered as part of the manufacturers' January release." This does not support a November 1970 release. As Billboard is a reliable source, especially on the subject of album release dates, should the article be amended? I ask due to the existence of citations of apparently reliable sources supporting the date given in the article.

I note also that the booklet accompanying the American 1999 remastered album credits the original US cartoon artwork to Michael J. Weller © 1971. Would this not have to be © 1970 if the album was released in 1970? — Labalius (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm always in favor of having dates supported by references rather than dates that come out of nowhere. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Billboard report is basically just saying they missed mentioning it in previous issues, and are mentioning it 'now' - I bought the album a couple of weeks before Xmas in '70 - so, it was definitely out. 50.111.60.168 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

When did Ronson and Woodmansey depart?
The current version of the article says:


 * In August 1970, Visconti parted ways with Bowie owing to his dislike of Defries and his frustration with Bowie's lack of enthusiasm during the making of The Man Who Sold the World; it was the last time he would see the artist for three or four years. Ronson and Woodmansey also departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie.

This makes it sound as if Ronson and Woodmansey left in August 1970. They didn't: both played on several subsequent Bowie albums.

I added the phase "somewhat later", but it was reverted as "unnecessary". Seems to me that we either need to clarify when Ronson and Woodmansey left, or simply remove references to their departure from this section - since both continued to work with Bowie for at least three albums, their departure is probably not part of the "aftermath and legacy" of this album. And my understanding is that Bowie broke up the Spiders from Mars in a surprise announcement live on-stage in 1973, making the phrase "departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie" technically true but misleading. i.e. Bowie fired the band, they didn't choose to leave on their own. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You actually don't have the full story. This section is a somewhat abridged version of the background section on Hunky Dory (which I expanded first). Bowie was preoccupied with lots of things when making TMWStW, so it was Visconti, Ronson, and Woodmansey who made most of the music on the album. Visconti became frustrated with this and left Bowie to work with T. Rex for the next four years in 1970. Ronson and Woodmansey DID in fact part ways with Bowie around the same time as Visconti, because the two felt they weren't compensated properly for their Man contributions. The two went and formed a new band called Ronno, which wasn't that successful.
 * Meanwhile, Bowie found a new manager, Tony Defries, released the original version of "The Prettiest Star" "Holy Holy", and formed a new band called Arnold Corns, which recorded "Moonage Daydream" and "Hang On to Yourself". That project was again a failure, and when it came time to record Hunky Dory, Bowie went back to Ronson to apologize for his prior behavior and asked him to return. Ronson, who by this point was ecstatic to come back to his entourage, gracefully accepted. Woodmansey came back as well, and Ronson found a new bassist, Trevor Bolder, to replace Visconti. This solidified the future Spiders from Mars line-up. Ronson and Bolder stayed with Bowie until Pin Ups in 1973, while Woodmansey's final record with Bowie was Aladdin Sane. Hope this clears things up. – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply filling in details of which I was unaware. I still think the current version is a bit confusing to someone (like me) who knows that Ronson and Woodmansey played on several subsequent Bowie albums but didn't know about the breakup and reconciliation. I'd suggest the following language:


 * In August 1970, Visconti parted ways with Bowie owing to his dislike of Defries and his frustration with Bowie's lack of enthusiasm during the making of The Man Who Sold the World; it was the last time he would see the artist for three or four years. Ronson and Woodmansey also departed due to other personal conflicts with Bowie to form a new band called Ronno (which was not successful), however both returned to record Hunky Dory.


 * Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually think it's fine the way it is, because after that sentence, it goes on about what Bowie did afterwards then later on says "Bowie also convened with Ronson and Woodmansey, who returned to play on both records." (Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust). I believe I originally had the Ronno info in this section but trimmed it down so that the info was solely relevant to Bowie and TMWStW. Plus, the information should be present in the Hunky Dory article (if I remember correctly) However, if you would like me to specify I can. Also, Bowie recorded "Holy Holy" after they departed, not "The Prettiest Star" (that was before Man and after Space Oddity). – zmbro (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, having read if four or five times, I agree that it appears to be factually correct. As a casual reader the first time though it seemed at odds with what I knew about the disbanding of the Spiders from Mars, which happened several years after Visconti and Bowie parted ways. I think it would be worth re-editing to eliminate this potential confusion,  but I don't have a concrete suggestion at this time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

US release date (again)
While sources routinely give 4 November 1970 as the US release date, might some sort of mention - in the body or a footnote or something - of the idea that it actually came out later be worth considering? Not to overwrite 4 Nov as the date but at least to suggest there's some debate there. The official Bowie blog have talked a few times like here and also here about it supposedly being released the other side of New Year (the latter also suggests the UK release was a few days earlier, too). --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Might not hurt. If there's one thing I've disliked about writing Bowie is the website insistence of changing established release dates for everything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)