Talk:Running Up That Hill

Lead third paragraph

I'm opening this discussion to ask @Popcornfud to justify their changes to the third paragraph of the lead, which I believe have made it more difficult for the average reader to follow the single's chart, critical, and commercial reception. The previous version of the lead was primarily assembled by myself last November.

The edit summary reverting the paragraph to Popcornfud's version claims that the previous contains 'Abundant overwriting and redundancy', so a further explanation of this would be welcome. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, I can see that we've previously discussed the lead in a now-archived discussion last November. It's not the end of the world, but given you knew that paragraph had been the subject of a dispute it would have been polite to open a discussion before heavily editing it. I hope that that can take place now – I'm open to working something out. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The proposed change 1) adds verbosity with no additional information and 2) adds uncited information that isn't in the article body. Popcornfud (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain both points in more detail, please? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure.

1) Just as we don't need to write "Mike Lynch was a successful man, with an estimated worth of £852 million" when we can write "Mike Lynch had an estimated worth of £852 million", we don't need to write wordy explanations of how this song was "successful" or "critically acclaimed" when we also say it reached number 3 in the chart and list its high-profile accolades.

Not only does that approach weigh down the prose with fluff, it also imposes our own inappropriate assessments of what "success" is. I mean, what the hell does two further periods of success really mean? Does it mean the song is currently in a period of non-success?

Cut the mealy-mouthed abstraction and and let the facts do the talking. Readers will not see that a song got to number 1 on the chart and wonder if that means it was successful. This is completely clear.

2) The article doesn't say anything about the remix having rerecorded vocals. Popcornfud (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

1) The two versions of the third paragraph are nearly the same length - 131 words and 747 characters for the previous version and 123 words and 704 characters for the current version. Length isn't an issue with either.

The song has had three main periods of success, in 1985, 2012, and 2023. This should be mentioned in the lead, as it is notable given most songs have one (if at all).

It's possible, albeit rare, for a song to reach number one and have a limited impact. There's no harm in pointing out that "Running Up That Hill" was particularly successful and is Bush's most successful song in commercial terms.

2) That information could easily be added, in fact I didn't realise it wasn't in the article

A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Song title

I think it would be good to get this information in there, but the current implementation isn't the answer. Discogs can't be used per WP:DISCOGS; Audiofidelity isn't a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia; Amazon is a retailer, not a publisher, and can't be used for Wikipedia; Spotify is a streaming service and shouldn't be used as a source; etc.

I see two alternative routes working instead:

1) We find some mention of the alternative name in a reliable secondary source. (This song has had a huge amount of coverage, so it may well be covered somewhere — I'll take a look.)

2) Failing that, we change the claim to something less far-reaching, such as "On Hounds of Love, the song was titled blah blah", and then we can cite the Hounds of Love liner notes as a primary source. A primary source is not ideal, but it doesn't stuff the article with garbage sources. Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Good news, I've already found a couple of reliable secondary sources to use for #1, so I'll go ahead and update the article with that. Popcornfud (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad you've found that source, and eventually came here to discuss per WP:BRD (yes, having this information in the article was stable before your recent rewriting). Once again, please keep WP:OWN and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM in mind. Blanket reverting was not appropriate in this case. U-Mos (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. Popcornfud (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)