Talk:Toy (David Bowie album)

Toy (David Bowie album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Toy (David Bowie album) is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 26, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
August 8, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.uncut.co.uk/features/uncuts-50-best-bootlegs-68155/2/

Info reference from 2000

http://www.teenagewildlife.com/Albums/toy/

StevePrutz (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication this is a reliable source. I have removed it as a source and replaced the apparently incorrect information it was cited for with corrected info cited to reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover

This is not the real album cover. I've uploaded the real cover to http://hem.passagen.se/xer0x/Toy-Ltd.Ed.-front.jpg but doesn't know how to get it in here... CompuTerror (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to indicate either one is "real" (that is to say, official). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the album is unreleased, there is no official cover, but the one I provided is the scan from the limited album as sold on eBay. CompuTerror (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the album is unreleased, I'm guessing by "limited" album you mean "bootleg". Again, not meaningfully tied to the album any more than any other cover someone may attach to the album, such as the other supposed cover. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToyDavidBowie.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ToyDavidBowie.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Version" column expanded in use

In the album tracklisting, the column of Original Version on info has expanded to include other information such as what official releases the song has seen. Should we convert this into a general Notes column, or add a second column for Notes and split the details apart? I prefer the latter and may do so when free time permits, but I'm not sure if there's an established Wikipedia standard in play here. -Dayv (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now, comments follow soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides – link?

Added

link (and/or explain) "box set"?

Explaining something like that would be very inappropriate for an article like this. A link is fine. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years later, Warner Music Group announced on 29 September 2021 that Toy would get an official release as part of the box set – maybe worth noting in the lead that this is not identical to the album that was originally planned, as it misses at least two tracks?

I see what you're getting at but I feel that would be OR because something like this isn't stated in prose. Also the two "missing" tracks are on Toy:Box disc two so they aren't really "missing".

Sure, understood. The missing tracks I was referring to are "Afraid" and "Uncle Floyd", they do not seem to be on disc two either. I believe this is because they already appeared on Bowies subsequent studio album. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the track listing of the version of the album leaked in 2011, which is different from the officially released version – Are these the tracks that have been scheduled for original release in 2001? Is there anything known about set of tracks, and their order, planned for that release that did not happen?

Nope and nope, the bios don't have that info

Nicholas Pegg is linked twice.

Fixed

The "Chart performance for Toy" – are these weekly charts, year-end charts, or something else?

Weeklies. It only charted when it was issued separately so they can't be year-end if it came out earlier this month. I find it superfluous to add "weekly" if it's the only option for the time being – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its your call. But if you think that there could be more ignorant readers like me that lack any knowledge on charts, then including the word "weekly" here might be worth a consideration to increase accessibility. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most recent Bowie album, is it?

What do you mean/are getting at here? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply wondering if its worth putting a "it was Bowie's final album release". I can see, however, that this might be misleading, so it is probably not a good idea. I still wanted to leave this suggestion here, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I was able to nitpick, very solid work overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack Queries above. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

zmbro – see my replies above; nothing that would stand in the way for GA. I am therefore promoting now, congrats. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice's Restaurant

In the Brilliant Adventure book (1992-2001), it is specified that one of the places where the album was mixed, in addition to those that had already been mentioned in the article, was indeed a place called Alice's Restaurant. I understand that the crazy title of the place led to its removal by an editor, but I ask for its restoration because the information provided is indicated in the book itself. Also, the album "BBC Radio Theatre, London, June 27, 2000" (which at the time was a "Bowie at the Beeb" bonus disc) was also mixed there. 90.167.219.36 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The credits for Toy specify Sear and Looking Glass, so definitely don't remove Looking Glass as you have done.

Regarding the Alice's Restaurant studio information found in the Brilliant Adventure box set, the notes say "Recorded at Sear Sound, The Looking Glass & Alice's Restaurant in New York City, Summer 2000. Mixed at The Looking Glass except 'Karma Man' & 'Can't Help Thinking About Me' mixed at Alice's Restaurant." Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an online version of this book or do you own a physical? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own a physical copy of Toy or the Brilliant Adventure box set. I was looking at online scans of the booklet,[1] backed by supporting statements from engineer Mark Plati who owns and operates Alice's Restaurant in NYC.[2] Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 05:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet I never removed Looking Glass so I don't understand the reason for that statement. All I did was replace the "and" with a comma. 90.167.219.36 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the labelling of this release

I'm just curious as to why Toy isn't considered Bowie's 27th and final studio album. I don't think it's wrong at all to classify Blackstar as his final album, because that is truly his final album in my eyes. But, I have seen other posthumous studio albums be counted as if the artist were alive. Take Legends Never Die for example. Why is this considered WRLD'S third but Toy isn't considered Bowie's 27th? Why is Pac's Life considered 2Pac's tenth and final when he wasn't around when it was released? I just want some insight on what makes Bowie's case different. Locust member (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locust member Sorry I'm a little late here I somehow missed this. There are a few ways to look at it. The first and foremost way is that when it was announced it was finally releasing, Bowie's website/estate nor any other online source described Toy as Bowie's final album. The way I was interpreting things was that this was simply a shelved studio album that is just now seeing the light of day, hence why it is simply described as a posthumous studio album. When Bowie died, Blackstar became his final album and was described as such everywhere (obviously Toy wasn't one anyone's minds back then but still).

In my personal opinion Blackstar could not be more of a final album than you can get. He recorded it when he had cancer (from January to May 2015). Now, he didn't know it was terminal until around December 2015, and according to Tony Visconti, he still had a lot more he wanted to say. However, the imagery all throughout Blackstar and its accompanying music videos clearly show a man grasping his own mortality and somewhat hint at a man who somehow knew this was the last one. Blackstar was the final album Bowie himself recorded and it should be treated as such.

Toy is simply an album recorded 20 years before it saw the light of day. I view it as a kind of "epilogue" record: A collection of remakes of songs Bowie wrote before he became famous. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

zmbro Thank you so much for the insight, and no worries on the timing of the response! That makes complete sense and made me look at the record in a different light. I do agree that Blackstar is as final of album as you can get, which I love, and I'd much rather that get the "final album" treatment than Toy. It being seen as an epilogue makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate you for opening my mind to that conclusion. Thanks again for the well-written response! Locust member (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add, Toy was originally released packaged with the Brilliant Adventure box set. Then its standalone release was an expanded edition called Toy:Box. So if we want to get technical, it isn't counted as his 27th because it was packaged with another collection, similar to how Never Let Me Down 2018 was only included with Loving the Alien. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locust member You're welcome! And thanks for the quick reply :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured the box set played a factor as well.

No problem! Happy to see I got a reply for this! Locust member (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]