Talk:Candle in the Wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Moved back from Candle In the Wind, which surely cannot be the correct title. There seems to be some dispute whether the title is "Candle in the Wind" or "Candle In The Wind". Anyone know for sure? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The British English usage is the correct usage: See [1] and [2]. I have moved it back. Bush Me Up 17:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • In the interest of correct grammar, I'd like to say "Candle in the Wind," but the single itself plainly says "Candle In The Wind." TheDavesr 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page move discussion

(from Wikipedia:Requested moves)

[edit] Candle in the Wind → Candle In The Wind

The Official UK Charts Company and Elton's single cover both use capitalised I and T. Bush Me Up 17:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose I can find at least as many images and text showing the opposite. Preserver proper title case. -- Netoholic @ 08:26, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Pointless move, leave it where it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Concur with Tony Sidaway. Peter O. (Talk) 00:41, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It Is Silly To Upper Case Every Word, Even If An Album Cover Does It. Jonathunder 00:48, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lowercase 'in' and 'the' is correct English (in England, at least). Amazon supports this view here and here. --Auximines 12:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There are two entries for this song

I assume from the above discussion that this article name is the most appropriate, however looking at the articles, it seems that Candle in the Wind 1997 is much more comprehensive, so I think it's wise to move all the info from that article in this one. Please discuss. KittenKlub 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Although the two songs share the same music, the lyrics are different, and the 1997 version has a unique history. — Dale Arnett 07:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Still think it should be merged, since both pages are mainly about the last song. However you were the only one to arrive after two weeks, so it has no use to discuss it. KittenKlub 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge - I've re-opened the merging discussion. The two articles are nearly identical; it's just silly to have both. -- eo 03:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Two versions of the same song can share an article. Pointless to have two different articles. GassyGuy 04:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Standard practice, one article per song, including covers and new versions. Personally, I think this makes for a richer article as well. –Unint 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - And move the disambiguation up top where it belongs. –Unint 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They are different songs with different release information and different lyrics. Keep them separate. TheDavesr 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The songs have different lyrics, different purposes, and they are two seperate songs for most people. 03swalker 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They are two completely different songs, with completely different lyrics, and have two completely different meanings. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - the fact that there are two versions is part of what makes the song notable; one article should cover the entire history of the song. Jgm 20:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely Merge The argument for two articles would hold if this one was already extremely long warranting a split. This article barely breaks being labelled a stub. If there is no strong argument as to why they should remain separate I will merge myself. - Glen 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged articles

I have merged per discussion above. Below is the '97's talk page. - Glen 05:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Some of this material is inappropriate, stylistically speaking, and may violate NPOV rules. Sections like:

Not surprisingly, John soon sank into a deep depression, and found himself wondering if he had enough inner strength to attend the funeral. Thankfully for John, he was able to pull himself up with the support of other personal friends. Now that he had recovered enough, but still reeling from the pain of her death, John decided he wanted to pay a tribute to Princess Diana.

have no place in an encyclopaedia. It needs a fair bit of rewriting. JDH Owens talk | Esperanza 09:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging discussion

See: Talk:Candle in the Wind. KittenKlub 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super minor edit

I added a parentheses where one had obviously been forgotten. Avsn 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about "Something About The Way You Look Tonight" ?

What Elton John did with "Candle In The Wind" may be respectable, but why did he include "Something About The Way You Look Tonight" in the CD? This could be seen as taking advantage of the fact that "Candle in the Wind" was going to be a major sell. Even if the word does not seem to exist, we could talk about Necrobusiness —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.54.47.124 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

As I recall, "Something About The Way You Look Tonight" was already scheduled for release. "Candle In The Wind 97" was added to the planned release to make it available. That is why SATWYLT in the first track on the CD. Keithmall 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-separated

In Wikipedia:Requested moves I found a request for a move " Candle In The Wind 1997 → Candle in the Wind — Capitalization - correct caps for a redirect Candle in the Wind 1997 is occupied and points to Candle in the Wind —SkierRMH 00:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)". I found that Candle In The Wind 1997 was a nearly exact duplicate of Candle in the Wind#1997 version, so I merged Candle in the Wind#1997 version into Candle In The Wind 1997 and replaced Candle in the Wind#1997 version by a stub-and-link. I then moved Candle In The Wind 1997 to Candle in the Wind 1997 for case-of-letters compatibility. I also pointed from Candle in the Wind to Candle in the Wind 1997 in a hatlink. I tidied some incoming redirect links. Anthony Appleyard 09:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Track Listing

Can someone explain the relevence of the Track Listing at 1.1. What is it the track listing of, and why is it here? Keithmall 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any explanation I have removed the Track Listing. It seems to be the listing of a random compilation that just happens to have Candle in the Wind as the first track. If someone can come up with a logical explanation of why it was here then sorry for the deletion.Keithmall 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond

the artcle on RIAA certification says that an albumn goes "diamond" when it reaches 10,000,000 sales - here it says 11 times platinum - wouldn't that make it diamond - should this be mentioned? [[Guest9999 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Contradiction with "Candle in the wind 1997"

The following statement in this article

As of 2007, it is the world's best-selling CD single in history.

contradicts with the introduction of Candle in the Wind 1997.

In March 2007, Media Traffic ranked "Candle in the Wind 1997" as the most successful song in music history. However, despite the popular and artistic success of this recording, The Guinness Book of Records 2008 recognizes that Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" is the world's best-selling single in history.

I added the {{Contradict-other}} template to both articles. –W2bh (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)