Talk:Santa Monica '72
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Fantailfan in topic Merging articles
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Different tour edit
"This live album features a quite different setlist to the one found on Ziggy Stardust - The Motion Picture"
That would probably be because Santa Monica '72 documents the Ziggy Stardust tour whereas Ziggy Stardust - The Motion Picture, despite its name, documents the Aladdin Sane tour. BTLizard 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point, kind of depends on whether Aladdin is viewed as a subset of Ziggy or a character in his own right. Then again, the set list will naturally evolve over time, and there was a whole 'nother album between the Santa Monica and Motion Picture dates... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Santa Monica '72 documents the US leg of the tour, just after the album was released, while Motion Picture documents the last Ziggy show, which while on the Aladdin tour was not typical of it, I believe. Fantailfan (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Merging articles edit
I am in favor of merging forward, because the earlier release was a MainMan release, unsanctioned by Bowie and spottily released, whereas the EMI/Virgin release is a catalogue release in the Bowie at the Beeb-Young Americans Collector's Edition vein. Fantailfan (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changed my mind... merge back. Will do so on 20 July if no other opinions expressed. Fantailfan (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changed my mind... again. With this release all of the (acceptable) Mainman/Golden Years/Griffin semi-legal releases are now official releases. Keep both but create an alternate chronology which includes those items. Fantailfan (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merging the official into the bootleg seems absurd on the face of it. Bootlegs are generally not notable and, as a result, finding the official album would be expected and the bootleg would generally be the exception. If any merge were to occur, I would favor merging the bootleg into the official. However, this is one of the rare instances of a bootleg being clearly notable, so the article on the bootleg can remain. Additionally, the wide separation in releases, to me, gives solid reason to keep both articles. Despite its iconic status, though, the bootleg should not be in the chronology box. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Golden Years release was not a bootleg, only semi-legal. There were bootlegs prior to the 1994 release, however. Fantailfan (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Merging the official into the bootleg seems absurd on the face of it. Bootlegs are generally not notable and, as a result, finding the official album would be expected and the bootleg would generally be the exception. If any merge were to occur, I would favor merging the bootleg into the official. However, this is one of the rare instances of a bootleg being clearly notable, so the article on the bootleg can remain. Additionally, the wide separation in releases, to me, gives solid reason to keep both articles. Despite its iconic status, though, the bootleg should not be in the chronology box. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)