Jump to content

Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Royalty

One fair morning, amongst a very mild people, a superb man and woman shouted on the public square: "My friends, I would that she were queen!" "I would be queen!" She laughed and shook. He spoke to friends of revelation, of hardship ended. They swooned upon each other.

Indeed, they were kings all morning long, whilst carmine hangings went up on the houses, and all afternoon, whilst they moved forward from the palm gardens.

Rimbaud c. 1874

The Ubik 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rakes -- Strasbourg

The Rakes' song Strasbourg is clearly inspired by the (German version of) Heroes. Should this be incorporated in the article?

213.196.192.236 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You could put it in, but you would need to cite a reliable source noting the similarity/inspiration, otherwise it counts as original research no matter how obvious it may seem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Most Covered Song

The main page says that "Heroes" is Bowie's "second-most covered song, after 'Rebel, Rebel'. Yet a check of the "Cover Versions" for both songs clearly shows more have covered the song "Heroes". Can we correct this?

The list of cover versions that appear in WP song articles is never exhaustive, and some editors believe that listing lots of them trivialises the article anyway. Generally only 'notable' artists' covers are mentioned, so if more notable artists covered "Heroes" than covered "Rebel Rebel", the "Heroes" list will be bigger. The important thing is that a reliable source is cited for the assertion about how much each song has been covered, not how long the actual list of covers is in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Title

The song is literally entitled "Heroes", not Heroes.

Fred-Chess 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right, it's "Heroes". Just as with the album's the song's title includes the inverted commas. It's even stated in the article. I propose that this page be moved to "Heroes" (David Bowie song). Objections?

I thought it was awfully strange this song was played at the Olympics. Didn't they know the title is ironic? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article name

Article name is not correct with "Heroes" (song) quotes see WP:AT, so idea to move to Heroes (song). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see anything there against the current article title. The song title actually includes the quotes, quite unusually. Can you be more precise?--Gorpik (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The song is called "Heroes". It should be moved back. The article for the album named after this song includes the quotation marks; this article ought to include them also.Mnealon (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That means that we would refer to the song like this: ""Heroes"" because song titles are enclosed "like this". –AnemoneProjectors– 18:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Then maybe the wikipedia style needs an update for cases where two quotation marks must appear together. In normal writing, we would alternate the use of simple (') and double (") quotation marks, for example.--Gorpik (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Or you could put it in italics. Regardless if how this is dealt with, the article should be moved back. Can we have a poll or something? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

X Factor

Should we not add the cover version in, put it the single cover up etc, as it did reach number one? --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it's definitely the most notable cover version, so I don't see why not. Number-one in two countries in fact. Probably more notable than Bowie's original. AnemoneProjectors 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you trolling Wikipedia?78.86.61.94 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Who me? No I was just saying that the cover by The X Factor finalists reached number 1 in two (actually three) countries, but the original was less successful. I'm an administrator, not a troll. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Heroes (David Bowie song) → "Heroes" (David Bowie song) or simply "Heroes" (song) – per WP:TITLEFORMAT and in line with "Heroes" (the album title). It seems to be well documented that the title itself contains quotation marks. If moved, mentions of the title in the article should be changed to "'Heroes'" (single quotes within double quotes) or similar, as is customary when quoting text that itself has quotation marks. Frungi (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support The removal of the quotes in the title was based on a wrong interpretation of the wikipedia norm. Since they are integral to the song title, they should appear in the article title too.--Gorpik (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -- while I'm not that fussed either way as far as article titles go, the quotes are indeed a deliberate affectation, and if the album article title includes quotes, it makes sense to be consistent and use them in the song article title. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose MOS:TM [ yellow tail ] superfluous characters, also not generally used when referring to the song. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    Policies (WP:TITLEFORMAT) trump guidelines (the MOS): ‘An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the movie "Crocodile" Dundee or the album "Heroes").’ —Frungi (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if examples will be replaced in policies; otherwise, move to "Heroes" (David Bowie song). --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    I don’t understand your condition. Examples in policies already support this in WP:TITLEFORMAT. —Frungi (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support There seems to be policy & precedent for keeping the quotes in the article's title, and there appears to be no major cost for doing so. I say move it. 87Fan (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, we should avoid touching work titles, as this could easily get out of hand. The artist probably has an intention with these quotes. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Single/double quotes

As I said in my move request, the song title should be referred to as "'Heroes'" in text. This is because by convention, quotation marks are put around song names, and by convention, quotation marks within a quote are changed from double to single (or vice-versa). Since quotation marks are part of this title, they should be quoted as part of the title. So I did it. I think I caught all mentions of the title in this article.

For some reason, song titles on this page were in italics rather than quotation marks; I’ve fixed this as well. I’ve also removed two self-referential “see [an article section] below” lines, because unless I’m mistaken, Wikipedia doesn’t do that. —Frungi (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fripp's contribution

I heard on the radio (classic 21, Belgium) that Fripp did three takes of the song's guitar part. T. Visconti thought each had very good parts, but also imperfections. Given the difficulty to control the process used to record it, he mixeed all 3 hoping the imperfections would be erased, which turned out to be the case. Anybody with source material to confirm this? Harol2 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Heroes" (David Bowie song) → "Heroes" (song) – Already redirects here. Also only song with this name that has commas in title. Unreal7 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The dab listing is just a matter of punctuation for song titles. It appears that the quotation marks are a stylistic choice on this song—so in prose, it's most properly referred to as "'Heroes'". Still, not all readers will know that we don't regularly punctuate song titles, and your point about the artwork is especially telling. Now I'm confused. Are we sure the quotation marks really are a stylistic choice here, or are we assuming that this is the title track of "Heroes"? The only web source regarding the punctuation is a dead link. It seems entirely possible that "Heroes" has a track called "Heroes" (i.e. without the punctuation, which I've just added because that's how we refer to songs) and we're just assuming the same style applies to the song that was applied to the album. Ugh, my head hurts. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the song is listed with quotation marks in the original LP, unlike the rest of the songs in it. I guess the artist has less control on the single covers, so the marks may have been omitted by someone else. Anyway, I Oppose the change for the reasons given by previous posters.--Gorpik (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

X Factor sections Tidy up

These sections may have seemed like a good idea to someone at the time, but I think their relevance is questionable at this stage. 203.38.100.131 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I took it out ages ago but it's since crept back in. It deserves a one-line mention at best, along with the other cover versions, and the detail belongs in the X-Factor article. Halmyre (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Excluding the original, it's the most notable version of the song, and charted a lot more successfully than the original. I think it's worthy of more than a single line. It doesn't include any information that any other song with a notable cover version doesn't. Just because it's Bowie doesn't make it special. Just because it's The X Factor doesn't make it irrelevant. Notability does not decline over time. –AnemoneProjectors– 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly you are a bigger fan of X-Factor than you are of David Bowie. Your profile supports this too. 203.38.100.131 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Quotes in article

Previous discussion

User:Edokter is quite right in his edit summary here that MOS:TITLE (specifically MOS:TITLEQUOTES) does not cover cases where quotation marks are part of a title. However, MOS:QUOTEMARKS does:

Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks (Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"). This is by far the dominant convention in current practice.

The title of this David Bowie song (and album) contains quotation marks. Enclosing that title in quotation marks, as we conventionally do in article text, means enclosing its quotation marks in quotation marks. If this is to be changed, then both this article and the album’s article should be moved to quote-free titles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Except the title is not a quotation, but a typographical stylization of the title; that is why MOS:QUOTEMARKS does not apply here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
If it’s merely a stylization, then shouldn’t we exclude them in the article title as well? And shouldn’t we refer to "Heroes" as Heroes? You’re acting against the RM consensus by removing them in the article body, and being inconsistent by leaving them in the article title and the name of the album. That consensus was that quotation marks are part of the title, so they should be included in the quote-enclosed title. If consensus has changed, we probably need new RMs to remove the quotes from both titles.
I’m reverting to the version that reflects that consensus; please leave the quoted quotes in per WP:STATUSQUO until we resolve this. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
And maybe that guidance could stand another example, like: Bob said, "I like the song 'Time After Time'." (Not: Bob said, "I like the song Time After Time." —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, you seem to keep confusing quote marks with quotations. Since the title is not a quotation but a stylization, double quoting does not apply. Also stop edit warring and let others chime in. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No one else is chiming in. Please stop editing against consensus until and unless it can be determined that consensus has changed and the articles renamed. Stylization or not, the title that Wikipedia uses contains quotation marks and should be treated as such, and you are changing something that has stood for over a year. You can’t have a stylization in the title and completely ignore it throughout the article. If this is an incorrect use of quotation marks and the consensus to add them to the article title was mistaken, then we should have an RM to rename it back, and probably also to rename "Heroes" similarly and then remove that example from WP:AT. Or if there is a consensus to simply ignore consistency in this case, that first needs to be determined as well. Either way, please stop altering something that has stood for over a year while it’s being debated. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
My edit has stood for over two weeks; therefor you are not reverting. I will report you for edit warring if you continue. The title is not under scrutiny, only the use of quotes inside the article. It is common to include such stylization only once and omit subsequent uses. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought dispute resolution would be a more civil and less hostile way of dealing with this disagreement. Hopefully, we can get it sorted there without threatening each other. Direct link: WP:DRN#"Heroes" (David Bowie song) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
As for “therefor you are not reverting”: You made changes to the article. I undid those changes. So yes, I reverted the changes that you made a couple weeks ago, and then the edit warring commenced. In all honesty, I really don’t understand why you’re so against treating those quotation marks as quotation marks while wanting to keep them in our title, or why you think your two-week-old version should have precedence over the year-old version and the rules of written English, so I was going to report you for edit warring after your next revert—but then I realized DR might hopefully be more productive and help us better understand each other’s viewpoints. So, here’s hoping. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edokter: In your dispute summary, you say I need to understand “that his desired change needs consensus, and that edit warring to his preferred version is not the proper procedure, and that he should discuss first.” Doesn’t that apply to you more than me? You changed something that had been stable for over a year based only on your own judgment, and when I reverted your changes, I opened discussion. Instead of making changes without consensus and then edit warring to your preferred version, shouldn’t you have discussed first? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, since the only reasonable objection given was based in the idea that the quotation marks in the name were “stylistic” while the article text clearly states that they were irony quotes, and the change was made without discussion or consensus, I’m going to go ahead and revert their removal from the title as given throughout the article. And I’m going to ask again that this reversion be respected per WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO, etc. while seeking consensus for a change from the way it’s been since the last RM, whether that’s a change to consistency between the article and its title or to the title itself. If consensus has changed regarding whether the quotes belong in the title at all, so be it. If consensus is that we ought to ignore the rules of grammar and/or not accurately reflect our chosen title in running text, so be it. But let’s determine that before disregarding grammatical correctness on the basis that one person thinks it looks ugly—and, please, let’s not insist on doing that without consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We could go on and on... Wait for 3rd opinion before doing anything again. I have explained myself suficiently; undoing an edit that has stood for over two weeks is not a revert, so the burden of consensus lies with you. Period. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Edokter: I reverted to the version that had stood for over a year. How is that “not a revert”? Once again from H:REV: “Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion.” No mention of a time limit anywhere in policy that I can find. Please self-revert while we discuss your desired changes or I will take this to WP:AN3. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There may not be a hard time limit, but two weeks is long enough to establish a new status quo. You are really stretching your interpretation of policy. If consensus was on your side, someone else would have reverted me long ago. I have also made my case. You can either try and build a new consensus (by starting an RFC for example), or simply accept the new situation. Opening a 3RR report is not going to help you, because it will only make you look obsessed with procedure instead of concerned with content, and content is the issue here. You made an edit and I reverted to that last stable version. That is the situation. If you don't want to discuss content, or wait for mediation on WP:DRN, then please just step back, but do not try to force the issue by edit warring; nothing good has ever come from this. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about 3RR? You’re forcing your changes on the article by refusing to let them be reverted (even trying to change the definition of “revert”). That is edit warring. Yes, I will wait for DRN mediation on the question of weighing grammatical correctness against aesthetic tastes, but you don’t get to unilaterally make that decision just because it wasn’t immediately reverted. But I will also call you out for the way you’re handling that question. WP:AN3 report (edit: declined) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
And regarding your assertion that I “used the wrong primary quotes”: MOS:QUOTEMARKS states that Wikipedia should consistently use double quotes as primary. It also states that quoted quotation marks should be single quotes, and offers nothing to indicate that irony quotes in a title would be an exception. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Quoting "Heroes"

It's a little surprising that editors had to go to RfC over this matter, but it was an interesting RfC to close and in the course of preparing the close, I've learned some intricate features of Wikimarkup that I didn't previously know about.

The song title is "Heroes" including the quotes, and at issue here is how to quote the title. It is proposed that this should be styled "'Heroes'". Predictably, our Manual of Style has a rule about this, which is at MOS:QUOTE. The manual of style unambiguously supports this proposed change.

As Edokter points out, wise editors won't follow our manual of style off a cliff. Per WP:IAR, editors could establish a local consensus here to disregard the manual of style in the case of this article, if for example they decided that "'Heroes'" is a hideous typographical abomination that should never see the light of day (which to my eyes it certainly is). But in the absence of such a local consensus, the default position has to be that we follow our standard rules at MOSQUOTE.

I can see no consensus in the discussion below, so I have rather reluctantly come to the conclusion that we really do have to use this disgusting "'Heroes'" styling.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, let’s start over, see if we can get anywhere…

This title contains quotation marks. When we quote the title, should we exclude the quotation marks?

The title of the album is the word Heroes in quotation marks (specifically irony quotes), or “Heroes”. This is well established, as is the fact that this song is identically titled. Wikipedia practice is to keep things consistent between an article and its title, and to denote song titles with quotation marks. In this case, that means “Heroes”, the word Heroes in irony quotes, should be quoted. Now, according to standard English punctuation rules[1][2][3] and our own manual of style, quoting something that includes double quotation marks involves converting them to single quotation marks, and then enclosing the whole thing in double quotation marks. So the name “Heroes” becomes ‘Heroes’ (the double irony quotes become single quotes) and is quoted as “‘Heroes’” (the word Heroes in irony quotes, quoted). Until recently, this article reflected the above. Assuming that no page move is impending, is there a compelling reason to make an exception to standard practice here? Also, is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a sufficient reason if it just looks ugly? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Straus, Jane. The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (10, unabridged ed.). p. 61. ISBN 9781118039434. Use single quotation marks for quotes within quotes.
  2. ^ "Purdue OWL: Quotation Marks". Use single quotation marks to enclose quotes within another quotation.
  3. ^ Fogarty, Mignon. "Single Quotation Marks Versus Double Quotation Marks". Quick and Dirty Tips. The rules differ in British English, but in American English, you enclose the primary speaker's comments in double quotation marks, and then you enclose the thing they are quoting in single quotation marks. You nest them, with the double quotation marks on the outside and the single quotation marks on the inside.
  • You are effectively changing the title; that is one reason to revert you. We are not at liberty to change anything; the double quotes are in fact part of the title. If you change those, the title is no longer correct. So, if it is necessary to re-quote the title as a whole, you must retain the original quotation marks'. However, since the title uses the quote marks stylistically, and not for an actual quotation, your "standard English punctuation rules" do not apply. These stylizations are generally not repeated in the article body, espeially as it results in 'quote soup'. In this case, our MOS-mandated quotes can double as stylistic quotes for the title in the article body. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    I am not “changing” the title; I’m treating the quotation marks in the title as if they are in fact quotation marks, which is what the consensus of the RM discussions said they are. It’s customary (in written English at least) to convert them from double to single. That goes for any form of quotation, including scare quotes/irony quotes; MOS:QUOTEMARKS is quite explicitly inclusive. Is there any support for your “double” use of a single set of quotes, or for otherwise ignoring punctuation that has been deliberately included in an article title? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My opinion: I do not think that the quotes around the word Heroes should be changed. The title is not a quote (nobody said "Heroes"), they're designed to convey the fact that they're not really heroes. Changing the quotes around the word is deliberately and, unfortunately, incorrectly changing the meaning of the title. 87Fan (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You keep ignoring the fact that the title is not a quote; that is the defining criterium in WP:QUOTEMARKS, not whether there are quote marks. They are an integral part of the title. Also, refrain from editing while this is under discussion, as I have been doing. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • 87Fan did say it was not a quote. Or if that was meant in reply to me, no, it's not a literal quote, but for grammatical purposes, it is. It's scare-quoted. That is a legitimate use of quotation marks. And I'm not sure what you're asking me to refrain from; my recent edits were noncontroversial corrections of mistakes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @174.141.182.82, I came close to blocking you after your latest edits to the article. After the report at AN3, the idea was that nothing would happen in the article until there was a clear consensus on the quote issue. I'm glad that an RfC was begun, but your edit is disruptive. I strongly urge you to self-revert, and I don't want to argue with you about it, either. My role in this is administrative and I don't favor one version over the other (frankly I don't much care), but I am enforcing conduct here so the article doesn't become a battleground.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I thought we were talking about my most recent edits, fixing grammar and removing quotes from the X Factor cover and such. But all right. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
          • All right, what? I don't see a self-revert on your part. If you force me to revert your changes, I'll have to block you, and I'd really prefer that you continue participating in this discussion. Whatever changes you want to make that you think are non-controversial, you can always run them by here before you make them, or perhaps they can just wait. Nothing is urgent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I meant “All right, I’ll self-revert when I get the chance to go through and do a search-and-replace on something that is not a mobile device.” Which I did. I still think we’re preserving the wrong version here, given the article’s title. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Edokter, the IP did not self-revert. He only reverted part of it. And it seems to me - maybe I'm wrong - not the most important part. I'm still trying to avoid a block. What's your position?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
                • I’m sorry, I’m confused… I thought you meant the quoted quotation marks that I restored last night. That’s what triggered all this, and that’s what I reverted. I think I was actually more thorough with that than Edokter was. But what are you referring to? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
My main concern were these two edits: [1] and [2], after you last posted on the 3RR noticeboard. But you have removed them alltogether since just now. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Those diffs don't work for me when I click on them. I can also see that the article is not back to the way it was before the IP started editing. However, if you're okay with it as is, it doesn't matter to me. Please let's not have to go through this again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed those diffs. Those were just consistency edits so the article would uniformly use one form. With my last edit, it’s now uniformly using the other form, which I still say is inconsistent with the page title. I’m hoping that’ll be remedied soon. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here’s where we are right now as I see it: Our title still deliberately includes the quotes, and the editor in favor of ignoring them has no interest in changing that. Grammatical rules and our own MOS both say that we should nest the quotes when quoting it. We could omit the nested quotes if we decide that they aren’t irony quotes or are otherwise somehow not real quotation marks, or if we use a single set of quotation marks and imagine them quoting themselves, but there is no support whatsoever for any of this beyond one editor’s opinion. We have included the quotes per our guidelines and the rules of our language for over a year after adding them to the title, and there has been no consensus for that to change. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restating your opinion. Two other editors (including me) have said the primary (inner) quotes should not be changed as they are a stylistic part of the title—and we don't change titles, we only omit stylizations in running text—and that despite the quote marks, whether irony quote marks or not, the title does not constitute a quote in the grammatical sense of the word. You also mis-apply WP:OR, as there is no original research involved. OR is about making up facts; we are interpreting guidlines here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
If you mean User:87Fan, he said changing the quotes (as you have by removing them) changes the meaning of the title (which quotes the word for reasons other than indicating that someone said it). 87Fan, please correct me if I misread.
I referenced WP:OR in regards to Wikipedia editors deciding what the quotes do or do not represent rather than relying on sources. And a slight correction: Primary quotes are the outer quotes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I regard the primary quote marks as those associated with the quoted phrase. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop using your own definitions for things; all it does is introduce confusion and unnecessary arguments. MOS:QUOTEMARKS says to use “double rather than single quotation marks as primary.” It also says to use double quotation marks for the outer quote. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that the title is not a quoted phrase (eg one along the line of "John said 'I believe that...'."), and the quotes are added stylistically, in the same manner that the band Fun wants their name to be "fun." or the video game Skate (video game) as "skate.". We can indicate the stylistic choice in the first sentence of the article, but because the style choice interferes with punctuating the article properly, the stylistic quotes should be dropped. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: How do the extra quotes interfere with proper punctuation in this version? I ask because I’m not sure I can see your point in comparing them to sentence-terminating punctuation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the quotation marks. Use standard rules. If it is established that the punctuation is part of the title, keep the quotation marks. Convert them to single whenever the title is part of a larger quotation: She said, "I like the song 'Heroes.'" Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    But when the quote mark are an artistic part of the title, you would effectively change that title, and we're not allowed to do that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Edokter: Once again, it’s not “changing” the title, it’s representing it in textual form to the best of our ability with the limitations of the medium. But if you insist on calling it a change: We are and we do if the title contains quotation marks. This is an accepted standard practice of written language. If the title were We Can Be “Heroes” (with “Heroes” again in irony quotes), the article would discuss “We Can Be ‘Heroes’”, not “We Can Be “Heroes””. And I feel I need to stress this: The quotation marks in this title are semantic, not merely stylistic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    They are both. I don't know what "limitations" you are referring to, but Wikipedia is perfectly capable of displaying double quotes. You are changing the characters of the title, which is not allowed. If you have to nest the quotes, then the double quotes should stay where they are and be surrounded by single quotes. Also, for someone so adherent to the MOS, you sure like to use curly quotes, which are discouraged entirely alltogether. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    The limitations of the rules of written language, which call for changing double quotes to single when they are quoted. And yes, I like to use curly quotes since I can on Talk pages, and I personally consider curly quotes to be more clear than straight quotes. And by your logic, using straight quotes instead of curly quotes changes the title (let alone omitting the quotes entirely). Again, we can and do make stylistic changes when necessary to suit our own style (and that style includes surrounding song titles in double quotes). Nesting straight single quotes serves that purpose while preserving the semantic meaning of the title; dropping the quotes does not. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the album title; the song listing uses common double quotes. We allow for stylistic changes, provided the title itself is not changed... and you keep changing the title. We don't change letters from a to b, so we don't change associated punctuation either. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Changing one type of quotation mark to another is a stylistic change that does not alter the title. It’s less of a change even than changing a to A or vice-versa, which there’s plenty of precedent for. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    This is where I completely and utterly disagree. Double- and single quotes are different characters, as in different letters. Utility is not a factor here. This is not lower vs. upper case. And the stylistic element is just as part of the title; we cannot change that, only omit where inapropriate (like in running text). The title is "Heroes" with double quotes; that is what David Bowie has decided, not 'Heroes', not “Heroes” and not «Heroes» or any other quote marks. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    No. The title is “Heroes” with quotes. None of the sources say anything about the characters used for the quotation marks, curly, straight, double, single, nothing. They say that Bowie wanted the word in quotes for ironic effect. Your fringe belief, while welcome in discussion, absolutely should not decide the content of the article against consensus as it has. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    Let's get one thing straight! If you are going to play against the man, you will find yourself loosing all credibility very quick! I have absolutely no problem ignoring you completely and go with any consensus that does not reflect you input in any way. I have zero tolerance for people who attack my ideas as "fringe" in an attempt to shut me up; it will not work and only ensures you being shut out of this discussion alltogether. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    It was not meant as an attack. You have been the only one espousing a belief that the quotation marks in the title should be preserved as intentionally and deliberately double, thus it’s a belief that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. I meant no offense in describing it as it is. As for “an attempt to shut you up,” I explicitly said it was welcome in discussion. It was an attempt to discourage you from edit-warring your preferred version in the future, as you did when I first reverted it as ungrammatical. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    User174 is right. Converting double quotes to single in accordance with standard English rules does not change the title or its meaning. Do you change the meaning when you change the font or font size? How about when you use italics or underlining as in The song "Heroes" was performed at 8:00 p.m.? Any reader who does not understand that this is just part of the process has not finished learning how to read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Single quotes go inside double. Follow standardized punctuation rules. The opener of the RfC, 174.141.182.82, is correct. If the formal title of the work is in irony or "scare" quotes, they must be retained, but their form is dependent upon the language, the language variant, and the context. For the title of a film or TV series or novel, we would give it as "Heroes" (even if British covers used single quotes because of the general preference for them over double quotes in many British publications); WP uses double quotes as the "top level" of quotation marks. Edokter's view above about what David Bowie intended is patent original research; we have no way of knowing his intent at all without a resliably sourced statement on it, e.g. in an interview. The odds of him caring what the quotation marks were is very low, vs. caring that the "irony quote" convention be used, in a way understood by the target audience. I'd bet good money that releases can be found using different quotation style. Anyway, in the case of a song title, which is what we have here, in running text we put it in quotation marks as a matter of convention. Those quotation marks are the top level, and the scare/irony quotes are the embedded one, so the format is necessarily "'Heroes'". Wikimarkup this as {{"'}}Heroes{{'"}} for some readability kerning. Now, if we do end up with a Bowie statement that he absolutely expects double quotation marks, that those glyphs (and probably curly, not straight ones) are a formal part of his intended song title, then we theoretically could compensate by using single quotes as the "this is a song title" markup, and using the Bowie-demanded glyphs inside them. But even that would only happen if we arrived at a consensus to defy WP:OFFICIALNAME, MOS:TM and WP:MOS generally on not honoring typographic shenanigans just because they're "official" or trademarks or preferred by the subject. I have to note that we generally do not override these policies and guidelines on such matters, and that localized attempts at pages like this to do so are WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy violations.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: I didn’t know about those templates. Very nice. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I was coincidentally the who created them, I think, (inspired by some other CSS-based kerning template). I think MOS actually uses them somewhere to illustrate their use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • MOS:TM also says to avoid typographic enhancements in running text; which means we should drop the primary quotes alltogether. Thoughts? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe you mean the secondary quotes. The primary quotes would be the ones we put around the title. And I’m pretty sure that doesn’t apply to quotation marks. Can you cite a project page? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, I actually do mean the primary quotes, ie. the ones that came withused to indicate the title. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Copied from earlier in this discussion: Please stop using your own definitions for things; all it does is introduce confusion and unnecessary arguments. MOS:QUOTEMARKS says to use “double rather than single quotation marks as primary.” It also says to use double quotation marks for the outer quote. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Ignoring primary/secondary, and going with "original" and "title-marking": An argument can indeed and already has been made that the original quotation marks in the title should be dropped, but that argument has been defeated above in previous discussions. This means we're stuck with retaining them. Again, the proper way to do this is "'Heroes'", when we have a title of a song or other short work, that we put in title-marking quotation marks, but which already arrives with its own original ones. This isn't even difficult; just do what MOS says and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I still maintain that the double quote marks are an integral part of the title. How solid is the rule that the title-marking (primary/outer) quote marks must be double? What would be the problem with '"Heroes"'? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Okay… why are double quote marks (rather than simply "quote marks") integral to this title? And if they are, then why does no source mention this? But to your question: It would be inconsistent with the entirety of Wikipedia where we quote song titles with double quotes. This title would be the one occurrence in the whole encyclopedia where a song title is enclosed in title-marking single quotes. And either no explanation for this anomaly of convention would be given to the reader, or we'd have to insert an explanation in every article where the song is mentioned. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
                • 1. Because it is printed on the back of the album sleeve with double straight quotes. 2. Because most sources are basically stupid and don't care (like we do). 3. To my knowledge, this is the only song title that has quote marks. And why are you now making the distinction between single and double quote marks; I thouhgt you said there was no difference between the two. Anyway, it only needs to be explained once; in this article as it is explained now. No need to duplicate information. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Because you’re rather stubbornly insisting there is a difference, and that the specific typographical characters to be used for the quotation marks in this title were named at some point. Even if they were, that’s vanity styling, and we should prefer standard-English styling. And no, if we break with our established typographic convention (of enclosing minor work titles in double quotes) for this title, we should do the same in every article where this title is mentioned and explain it there as well. I’m not even sure how many that would be, since WhatLinksHere includes transcluded links.
                    Anyway, we have multiple people agreeing that we should follow standard practice regarding quotes here with "'Heroes'", and no consensus for an exception. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
But there is a difference, at least typographically, otherwise we wouldn't have different quote marks. How that plays out gramatically is a different story. Explaining stylizations is done solely in the artilce proper, so your "we have to do it in every article" has no bearing. I took a sample of all pages in What Links Here, and found in 9 out of 10 cases the title is presented with double quotes only. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I (and others) have already explained all of these points. It’s all moot as things presently stand, so I won’t waste more space here about them (I’ve already done enough of that ); but if you wish, we could take this to your Talk page to discuss some intricacies of punctuation, typography, and user-friendliness in typographic conventions. Just let me know. Cheers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, after ten days of discussion, it seems clear that the consensus is to nest the quotation marks as single quotes. So I’ve done so, using the {{"'}}/{{'"}} templates to make them more clear. If further discussion reveals a consensus to omit the nested quotes or to reverse the nesting or anything else, my changes can of course be undone. But right now, the consensus is for nested single quotes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot close an RFC in which you are a participant! Please wait for an uninvolved editor to determine the outcome and close the RFC, then make the changes. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Setting aside the fact that that isn’t true, I haven’t closed it; did you read my comment? Why are you so dead-set against accepting the consensus and following standard formatting here? But if you insist, I’ll post at ANRFC. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, no, ANRFC explicitly advises against posting about discussions “if the consensus is clear.” The editors supporting the quotes have given policy-based and grammar-based reasons; you have made proposals that go against WP policy and grammar. There is a clear consensus here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't followed this lengthy discussion, but it seems clear to me that there is no such consensus. The main contributors to the discussion are Edokter and 174.171.182.28, and it is pretty clear that they have not reached an agreement. As for the rest of the contributors, I have skimmed the thread and I see different opinions. So we would need an uninvolved editor, as per WP:RFC, to close this.--Gorpik (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming this. 174.141.182.82, I have just about lost my patience with you. So for the final time: you may not close this RFC. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual, as you might have been able to tell by my reaction. I apologize for that, by the way; I was just feeling fed up and wanting this groundless warring to end, because it should never have even started. @Gorpik: Masem was the only other editor who was for omitting the quotes. The others were in favor of respecting the RM discussion’s existing consensus throughout the article and including the nested single quotes per our style guidelines and standard English grammar; and as I said above, Edokter’s objections were in large part based in none of those. I’m not sure how that’s not a consensus for following grammatical rules, but I’ll post a request. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Above close

@S Marshall: I thought RFCs usually went for longer than 10 days, is there guidance on the time closing somewhere? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Good point. Traditionally RfCs last 30 days. I closed because it got listed at WP:ANRFC. If anyone feels that we need another 20 days of discussion of this issue, they're welcome to revert my close on the basis of this procedural irregularity.—S Marshall T/C 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I felt there was a consensus for two sets of quotes with only Masem suggesting otherwise, and with Edokter (so I perceived) stubbornly refusing to accept the consensus with no policy or language rules backing his position. WP:RFC#Ending RfCs says they can be ended early given a clear consensus, and Edokter claimed that that’s what I was trying to do and that I wasn’t authorized, so at his insistence I asked for a formal close. I’m still open to further discussion and to consensus changing, and I still don’t think the quotes should be removed without a consensus to do so.
While I don’t agree with the closer’s opinion on the double use of quotes, I can definitely see where he and Edokter are coming from; that’s why I asked in the RFC if ugliness should factor into it. If consensus ultimately turns out to be against those quotes, I intend to go all the way with Masem’s position and start a move request to drop them unambiguously per MOS:TM; I figure if we’re going to ignore them, why have them? (I wanted to do that from the start, but Edokter was opposed to requesting a move.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@S Marshall: no need, just asking, thanks. FWIW as long as (David Bowie) is indicated in title, I don't care greatly either way on the issue of decorative punctuation. This isn't an egregiously reader-unfriendly article title like Bingo!. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Aside from SMcCandlish who suggested using {{"'}} for extra spacing, I don’t think we ever got any opinions on which looks better (or less hideous, as the case may be): "'Heroes'" or "'Heroes'". Thoughts? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Side point: The claim that it's the only quotation-mark-bearing title someone made isn't correct. I can immediately think of "Are 'Friends' Electric?" by Gary Numan. I'd be taht the UK copies of taht single said Are 'Friends' Electric? and the US ones said Are "Friends" Electric? because of the frequency of the use of the different glyphs. I'd like to see proof that this isn't the case with this Bowie song, too. How does it look on UK vs. US releases? How is it titled in the media in different countries?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that WP convention per MOS:QUOTEMARKS is to nigh-universally use double quotes regardless of MOS:ENGVAR, I don’t think it matters. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Above matter / now what about Earthling? Or that is EART HL I NG

FYI: Yesterday I just happened to raise the same question on 'Earthing' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthling_%28album%29#Eart_hl_i_ng) and for the record, I feel like using the {"'} style looks worse than triple quotes or quadruple quotes, and will be difficult to apply consistently on other pages that link to this song/album's page. On the other hand if it helps people understand that they are part of the title / not overlook them, maybe there is a tiniest amount of value there. On the other hand, I think once they arrive on the "Heroes" pages, they'll get the idea almost immediately. Honestly ""Heroes"" looks just fine to me. Side-by-side there is no ambiguity.--184.63.132.236 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Though I disagree about the look of doubled double quotes, I do understand that different sets of people find different things to be different levels of acceptable. But that’s just not the style we use here. We can choose “color” or “colour” depending on regional context, but punctuation style is pretty consistent. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Vocal Micing

Article says "Each microphone is muted as the next one is triggered." I was just watching the BBC video of Visconti's breakdown of the multitrack and, IIRC, while he detailed the gating that triggered the more distant mics, he said nothing about muting. Not saying it didn't happen but perhaps further examination is warranted Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Accolades

I call for the inclusion of an 'accolades' table for "Heroes (David Bowie song) as seen with similarly critically acclaimed songs - see Stairway to heaven.

The following 'accolades' table should be used unless there is any objection:

Publication Country Accolade Year Rank
TIME United States "All-Time 100 Songs"[1] 2011 *
Rolling Stone United States "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time"[2] 2003 46
NME United Kingdom "500 Greatest Songs Of All Time"[3] 2014 15
NME United Kingdom "100 Greatest Songs Of NME's Lifetime...So Far"[4] 2012 3
NME United Kingdom "NME Readers Best Tracks Of The Last 60 Years"[5] 2012 16
NME United Kingdom "Best tracks of the 1970s"[6] 2014 4
Mojo Magazine United Kingdom "The 100 Greatest Singles Of All Time"[7] 1997 34
Q United Kingdom "Q Readers Top 100 Singles Of All Time"[8] 1999 36
Q United Kingdom "100 Greatest Guitar Tracks Ever"[9] 2005 56
Q United Kingdom "100 Greatest Songs of All Time"[10] 2006 68
Pitchfork Media United States "The Pitchfork 500: Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present"[11] 2008 *
Uncut United Kingdom "30 greatest Bowie songs"[12] 2008 1

(*) designates unordered lists.

References

  1. ^ "All-TIME 100 Songs". TIME. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time – November 2003". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ . NME http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/nme_500_greatest_songs_2014.htm. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ . NME http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/nme_60years.htm#greatest100. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ . NME http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/nme_60years.htm#greatest100. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ . NME http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/nme_60years.htm. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ . Mojo http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/mojo_p2.htm. Retrieved 15 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ "Q Readers Top 100 Singles Of All Time". Q. Retrieved 15 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ "100 Greatest Guitar Tracks Ever". Q. Retrieved 15 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ greatest songs "100 Greatest Songs of All Time". Q. Retrieved 15 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  11. ^ "The Pitchfork 500: Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present". Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 15 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ "David Bowie's 30 best songs". Uncut. Retrieved 15 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Fine for me.--Gorpik (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

'Greatest songs of all time'

I call for the inclusion of the phrase 'one of the greatest songs of all time' when describing Heroes (David Bowie song), unless there is any objection. The context for the use of the phrase would be:

Despite not being hugely commercially successful upon release, listeners and critics have since praised the song as one of the greatest of all time. It was named as NME's 15th greatest song of all time,[1] was named among Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time,[2] and among TIME Magazine's 'All-Time 100 Songs'.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomewhereInLondon (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.stereogum.com/1660091/nmes-500-greatest-songs-of-all-time/news/
  2. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-500-greatest-songs-of-all-time-20110407/david-bowie-heroes-20110525
  3. ^ http://entertainment.time.com/2011/10/24/the-all-time-100-songs/slide/heroes-david-bowie/
In the interest of avoiding WP:PUFFERY, WP:PEACOCK and WP:UNDUE. I would have no problem with using the Rollin Stone's references provided it's phrased something like, was named <position number> on Rolling Stone's list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. There is nothing wrong with adding that it has been included in all this lists and letting the reader weigh their value, rather than assuming it.--Gorpik (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I call for the creation of a 'Popular culture' section in order to separate the song's inclusion in film and TV from its 'Release and aftermath'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomewhereInLondon (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture is a usual section in many articles dealing with a cultural work, so I agree with your proposal.--Gorpik (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is any objection within 48 hours, a 'Popular culture' section will be created. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC) SomewhereInLondon (talk

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on "Heroes" (David Bowie song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

X Factor cover

Yes, the X-Factor cover version made it to no. 1 in the UK chart, but it's still just one of many cover versions. Per WP:UNDUE, one cover version should not dominate over 12% of the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is enough to mention the X-Factor version, and the fact that it got to number one. Any further information should be added to the X-Factor article. Halmyre (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Free images

Why reverting the images, Mr. Rose (or Ian)? Sure, images from 1977 are not in Commons. However, the alternatives are better than nothing. --George Ho (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Rose's reversions. The images are not noteworthy in this context. They have no direct relationship to the article, which is the "Heroes" album. If it was a picture of Bowie and Eno together working on the album that would be a different matter. Halmyre (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
May I add back the Bowie photo then, Halmyre? George Ho (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't need my permission, or anyone else's, to make changes to Wikipedia, George. But if you put back an image that isn't relevant to the article don't be surprised if it gets reverted. It's as if I was to add a picture of Steve McQueen from 'The Magnificent Seven' to the Wikipedia article on 'Bullit'. Halmyre (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
What about helping general readers, Halmyre? They don't care when the photos were taken, do they? George Ho (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If general readers are interested in David Bowie or Brian Eno they can follow the links and look them up on their own articles. That's the whole point of Wikipedia, it prevents articles filling up with repeated or irrelevant detail. There are photographs of Bowie and Eno from the "Heroes" sessions, so if you can find one that's free to use, put that in by all means. Halmyre (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Would statistics prove anything? The numbers spiked in January 2016 when he died. The last 90 days can be clearer. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Statistics can prove many things, but not that photographs unrelated to this specific song are needed.--Gorpik (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that the German sleeve is deleted, Gorpik, I want to add back the free pictures. Which free ones shall be added back? George Ho (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:David Bowie - Heroes.ogg

File:David Bowie - Heroes.ogg 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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%22Heroes%22_(David_Bowie_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1164793689"