Talk:In the Air Tonight

Dairy Milk Advert

Should there be a section for the dairy milk advert? It has gained cult popularity very quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayboy-ds (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, i believe we should seeing as it has helped boost this song back into the UK Top-100 singles UkNegative 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also surprised there's no reference to the famous Cadburys advert here given that the advert itself has its own page which is bigger than this one! Lol. Gorilla (advertisement) Fig (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on In the Air Tonight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317065230/http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html to http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160229095134/http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Phil+Collins to http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Phil+Collins
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317065230/http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html to http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

question about video reaction

I tried to add a sentence to the page for In The Air Tonight that states:

The song received renewed attention in 2020, when twins Tim and Fred Williams published a video on YouTube that shows their initial reaction to the song.

I do not know these twins. I am simply a professor who is interested in music and reads the news.

Keckel removed the edit without any feedback, and then 78.26 reinstated the edit because it had been removed without justification.

Then these two users removed the edit and restored it, several more times, over the course of just one day.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Even though I am mid-career and have a Ph.D., I admit that I am naive about Wikipedia.

I created this addition to the page because: 1. It demonstrates that this song is getting a lot of attention in August 2020 on social media. 2. It explains why there is new attention, namely, that there is a popular "reaction video" about the song. 3. Documenting such actions is a new concept, and the New York Times wrote an article about reaction videos, which heavily emphasizes this song. The twins in the video have a LOT of comments about the song In The Air Tonight itself. 4. Other news media covered this same story too. I almost added other links to the media, about this specific song and the reaction to the song.

I do not want to fight. I simply emphasize that there is a lot of news media about this song getting renewed interest, and also about the 6 million views of the reaction to this song, which all occurred within (roughly) a 2 week period.

I would love some guidance, please, about this edit. Thank you very much.

MDW333 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO this is borderline for inclusion and I'd lean slightly against it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

North8000 thank you for the comment. I hope that you can help me to understand why. I am learning a lot from the discussion related to this posting. (Certainly there are many topics of interest that get included in Wikipedia.) How do you justify whether it is important enough to be included? I want to learn. For instance, I figured that since many news outlets had similar stories to the New York Times story, that it is important to document when a song gets a lot of renewed attention from (say) a reaction video, especially when the song is 40 years old, like this one. I am simply curious what evidence that you use to make such a decision. I'm trying not to rely on feelings here, but rather, on comparisons with other Wikipedia contributions, and on evidence about things documented in the media. Does it help (for comparison) if I list news articles from CNN, LA Times, people.com, today.com, NBC News, Good Morning America, from media outlets in the UK, etc.? This specific song and this specific reaction video is the reason for all of these news articles. (It is not just the Associated Press copying the same article.) In other words, does it help the case for including an article if we list (say) 6 news articles or 10 news articles about the event? I welcome your advice. If you Google, for instance, this phrase:

      "in the air tonight" twin reaction

then you will see many of the same news results among the first pages of results from Google. Seems very clear to me that this is something important to document. MDW333 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, second question: Suppose that we document this (instead) on the Wikipedia page for Reaction video? That would seem to be appropriate, and I can certainly do that.... BUT here is my follow-up question! How would a person who is reading the page for In the Air Tonight know that a reaction video was created, and was very popular? Would we make (in that case) some kind of link from the page for In the Air Tonight to the page for Reaction video, and if so, then how should this work?

Thanks again (in advance) for your constructive advice and help. I am learning here. (I also reiterate that I am really just learning from the discussion!) Many thanks! MDW333 (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello @MDW333:. Well, to start with, there are no policies or guidelines that weigh in significantly on either side of the question. So then you just sort of have norms plus opinions of editors. I'm sort of hurried at the moment so I'll just put down some things and be direct (apologies if it sounds short or rude.....not intended) and would be happy to discuss more later. One factor is degree of relevance. While the linked item is just an essay (not a policy or guideline) it does spell out a common consideration. Somebody's reaction to the song is not about the song, it's about somebody's reaction to it so there's one mark in the minus column. Next, editors are pretty skeptical about people or their fans trying to ride the coattails of a prominent subject like like this by getting mentions in the article by e.g. having made a cover of the song, and in an article like this they will let in only an extremely prominent e.g. cover. In conjunction with that it appears that the duo that you mention does not have a Wikipedia article and this is often an indicator that they are not wp:notable. WP:Coatrack covers the general skepticism for additions for purposes other than article quality. It's just an essay (not a policy or guideline) but a prominent essay.

BTW significant coverage in significant sources matters a lot in Wikipedia. I think that this has the latter which is one in the plus column. Hit count on Youtube generally carries near-zero weight in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia creates articles on wp:notable topics, and then it's a question of building that article. The argument for "this should be in Wikipedia somewhere" is not considered an argument in that framework.

Hopefully that wasn't too abrupt. I'd be happy to help you further on your quest to figure out the alternate universe (Wikipedia editing) that you jumped into. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, North8000, for your helpful guidance. I learned a LOT from your posting. Thank you!

This makes perfect sense. It reminds me of when I was first learning how to review journal articles as a referee, or learning how to review grant proposals. I'm learning a lot here. Thank you again for your guidance and helpful insights! I appreciate you very much! Warmest regards! MDW333 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm rather slammed right now, but I do intend to weigh in on this. I agree with North8000 that YouTube viewership numbers are not at all an indication that something is encyclopedically important. However, the fact that so many highly reliable news sources have commented on the resurgence of popularity of the song in 2020 is worthy of mention, I believe. It has become part of the song's legacy, in the long run, not just the immediate now. Not a huge section, maybe not even an in-depth paragraph (unless the song re-enters high in Billboard's charts), but a descriptive sentence seems apt, taking into consideration due weight. The sources on this are too exceptional to ignore, though. It should be restored. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you, 78.26. I am slammed right now too, because I'm a professor and our classes start on Monday! Thank you for the continued guidance. Maybe I will consider gathering the many news sources and will try to re-post again later, perhaps lower on the page, in its own section. MDW333 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Before you do that, let's gain consensus here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and I am not in a hurry! We will figure this out. Perhaps some more users might chime in too. Thank you! MDW333 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, OK, Fuzheado created a page about those twins who made the reaction video. Then Fuzheado reinstated my edit, with a link to the new Wikipedia page about the TwinsthenewTrend. It is so interesting to see how this process evolves in a natural way! MDW333 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MDW333: - Thanks for the ping, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a notable phenomenon that merits inclusion on this page. As you mentioned above and helped edit on the TwinsthenewTrend page, the Youtube reaction video caused the Phil Collins song to reach "#2 on the iTunes top songs sales for August 18 and 19, almost 40 years after its release." That's highly significant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Very nice to meet you, Fuzheado, and thank you for creating that page about TwinsthenewTrend. I agree with you that it is significant for In the Air Tonight to reach number 2 in iTunes. Many thanks! MDW333 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Release and chart performance

Collins's description of the chart rise of the song being interrupted by John Lennon's murder (presumably because everyone then bought Lennon's records) makes no sense: "In the Air Tonight" was not released until January 1981, and Lennon was shot on December 8, 1980.

He must be misremembering. Spanghew2fs (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)