Talk:Candle in the Wind

Untitled

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)

"The Young Man In The 22 Row"

Did Elton John actually see Marilyn Monroe perform live?--Splashen (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• No idea, but I always imagined it referred to a very large movie theater. Sir Rhosis (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Page move discussion

(from Wikipedia:Requested moves)

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)

• • Elton John's website lists the track with British English title case. It seems clear that the artist has chosen capital letters. We use artists' capitalisations elsewhere in the wikipedia (for instance Confide In Me), why not here?
• 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)

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)

Merged articles

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

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)

Merging discussion

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

Super minor edit

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

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)

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)

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)

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)]]

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)

• Ouch, irony. Anyways I'll fix that now. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Candle in the Wind and Di

Goodbye rose England. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.22.92 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I always thought this song was a good choice for a memorial for Diana - a song about another demi-mondaine.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Worst song"

The line On the other hand, composer Gruff Rhys called it the worst song he had ever heard does not belong in this article. I removed it, but was accused by an IP of removing it because I just don't like it. Really, I removed it because it doesn't follow WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter that a random, unrelated composer said in an interview it was his least favorite song ever. It is not relevant or encyclopedic. It looks like the line was added in January 2017 by a now globally blocked IP editor.

I'm leaving the line in for now to avoid an edit war, but hoping for consensus here, even though it seems to me to be a pretty cut and dry case.– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oy. Here once again, though this is quite ridiculous. If there's any justification to keeping the line mentioned above, please discuss here. Otherwise, I will delete again in 1 week. Gruff Rhys has no relation to this song, artist, or subject, and including his opinion on the song is completely irrelevant. See WP:INAPPROPRIATE, WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, WP:NOT, etc. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you won't. You'll build WP: CONSENSUS instead of trying to WP:OWN the article and bend wikipolicies to eliminate criticism of a song you just adore. 2A02:C7F:8E93:DF00:4DD6:FA23:289B:D9A6 (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think this should remain? And I mean why this line is at all relevant to the article, not some phony notion that it belongs because it's been there for 2 years already. You've thrown plenty of accusations at me, but my only goal is to help make a better encyclopedia. That some unrelated person doesn't like the song is not encyclopedic. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes commentary on musical recordings, which typically comes in the form of some John/Jane Doe from a music rag saying they like or dislike a piece. A noted musician declaring "Candle" the worst song ever, in a high-end publication, is absolutely a worthwhile addition. I doubt we'd be having this discussion, had our "unrelated person" called the song the best ever. 2A02:C7F:8E93:DF00:4DD6:FA23:289B:D9A6 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he called it the best or worst song ever; it still wouldn't belong. Criticism and general reception, yes, are welcome, but these tend to come by way of notable critics, awards, charts, etc. Rhys' opinion came as an off-handed comment, likely in jest, during a quick interview that The Independent called "teasers". You seem to think that my objection to this line comes from my love of the song, but really, I'm not a fan of it at all. But my opinion and your opinion and Rhys' opinion are not relevant to an encyclopedia. General reviews, positive or negative, are welcome, but this interview hardly comes close to that. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Criticism does not tend to come from "notable critics". It typically comes from some guy, in a rag deemed notable. Here we have a famous musician, telling a very reputable newspaper that "Candle" is the worst song he's heard. I'm dumbfounded as to how anyone who doesn't just love the song, can say this isn't a worthwhile addition. Your claim that Rhys' comment was "in jest", is obvious opinion. Please, stop scrambling to eliminate criticism; you can take comfort in the fact that Rolling Stone said it was great. 2A02:C7F:8E93:DF00:4DD6:FA23:289B:D9A6 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Don't include. There is no indication why Rhys's opinion is worth including. As such, it is WP:UNDUE. This couldn't be simpler. Calidum 12:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Include pertinent opinion published in notable source. Consensus for removal is what's required, since this content goes back over 2.5 years. Micky Moats (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

What makes it pertinent? Calidum 16:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable figure within the same industry, in a notable paper, calling it the worst song he has ever heard. Seems significant. Micky Moats (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note the above user has been blocked as a sock [3] as has the IP user [4]. Calidum 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)