Jump to content

Talk:Bridge over Troubled Water/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Running times of documentaries.

Am I the only one who finds "running time approx 52min 37sec" grating?

That's pretty exact, not approximate.

Bungle86 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GA? Needs lots of work!

This article seems to have been written in part by someone with poor language skills. Multiple typos, grammer errors and nonsensical phrasing. Needs cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.178 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Say what you don't understand. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comment shows that you are really a AGF editor with constructive comments. Kindly comment here on content and not NPALihaas (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Some really unreadable writing here

Sorry to be critical, but the first section has some really unreadable non-sequiters.

I'm not sure if the writer is completely new to the English language, or these are snippets of articles badly put together.

I'm going to take a stab at clean-up, but sometimes I can't even follow what the intent of the content is.

Lets pitch in and fix this up. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you changed this sentence: "Simon & Garfunkel became the first musicians to usee a 16-tracks recording technology, but as only two 8-tracks recorders were available, both buttons had to be pushed to produce a clear sound. " Your sentences is unclear. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
"Knechtel played so long until the duo was satisfied. " you removed this important statement. I will revert your edits, sorry. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted those reversals, simply because they are written in clumsy awkward English, and the article deserves better. And you can't use the singular "a" to refer to the plural "16 tracks". This entire article needs a very serious copy- editing session, as it does read like a poor translation from another language. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
""a" to refer to the plural "16 tracks"" - it referred to the word "technology". Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So answer, what is wrong with "Simon & Garfunkel became the first musicians to use a 16-tracks recording technology". It was actually correct. They did not "make" anything, but "used". Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two options for that sentence. You could say, "... to use 16-track technology" or, "... to use 16-track recording technology". "A" and "technology" don't work together any more than the singular A and the plural Tracks do. Technology itself is a word describing a plural. As for the rest of that sentence, what does the phrase "both buttons" refer to? At best, the concept presented is incomplete, at worst, it is inaccurate. Are both buttons on one machine? Two machines? How does that difference affect what the sentence says? These sorts of questions and answers can be applied to much of this article. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Understood. If there are more such mistakes, please feel free to add them here. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Catch-22

Have added a [citation needed] tag to statement that Simon did not get role because a screenwriter thought there "were enough actors". Screenwriters don't normally make casting decisions, and it sounds like a flawed reason the begin with. If someone can come up with a source for this, by all means, add the citation. Otherwise: this source seems to indicate that the part for Simon was cut because it was a relatively minor character to begin with, and naturally smaller parts were the ones to cut if you were trying to determine what to keep what to cut. If a citation for the current statement can not be found, I suggest replacing with this one. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I stated that the character was complicated, leading Simon to not being included. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Does your source, which I do not have access to, really say that Buck Henry, as the screenwriter, was responsible for the decision to not include Simon in the film? That's what your statement, "the screenwriter Buck Henry refused to hire Simon" says. Screenwriters don't hire and fire people, producers do. Please note that if you cite a source that is offline it really has to be accurate.
Also, you are again confusing the word "screening" with "filming" or "production". A screening is what you call it when a finished film is being shown. "Filming" is what you call it when you are actively creating the movie and recording it on film. Saying the character was removed "before screening" suggests that the character was in the movie and then edited out before they screened it, which would contradict the statement "refused to hire". Echoedmyron (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Also - that passage gives Henry's alleged refusal as being due to the character of Dunbar being removed from the film; but gives no mention as to what that character had to do with Simon. Without access to the source, I'm still not convinced that this hiring decision was a screenwriter's to make; and I think it would be worth noting that what, if anything, Simon felt about such a decision, whoever made it, as it may say something about how he felt towards Garfunkel during this time, beyond resentment that Garfunkel was absent. The source I mention further up this page seemed to indicate jealousy, but that source has thus far not been used; and it also makes no mention of Buck Henry, for what it's worth. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten that passage somewhat. The Eliot source is not accessible in Googlebooks, but the Ebel one is; albeit in German. But the passage in Ebel's work actually says that Henry wrote out the character Simon was to play, not out of a "refusal to hire" - that notion is not discussed at all - but rather because Henry felt there were too many characters and was thinning out the ranks. Passage has been adjusted to reflect this, as has the citation. It would seem a good idea to greatly expand on what the disruption of Garfunkel being away really did here - certainly, Only Living Boy In New York has many overtones to explore - and how this affected the album's recording and mood. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags and Citations and more

It seems that much of the sourced material is referring to offline sources, including one in particular which is, notably, a book written in German. (this may explain some of the unusual grammar and word choices, perhaps from a faulty translation...) At any rate, while offline sources are obviously acceptable, it is obviously difficult to verify a source when it a) is offline and b) in a foreign language. I would suggest that for some possibly contentious information (such as the claim the Simon did not get a role in Catch-22 because a screenwriter said so) a freely accessible, verifiable source is required. I have similarly tagged the article where it could use backup to verify facts, and have thrown in a couple of {clarification required} and {please explain} tags for good measure, where I can't be sure I understand the writers' original intent. Where possible, I corrected links, spelling, phrasing and grammar, and also tightened prose for readability. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bridge Over Troubled Water/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this. I know I've got The Madcap Laughs on my review pile as I write this, but that's about four more actions away from a pass, so my time on that will be limited. I have an original vinyl copy (though they were hardly scarce so it's not worth anything). Basic initial problems I can see is a few bits of punctuation, quite a few cns, and I'm not sure about the overall structure. Plus I'm slightly concerned about that quote from Art in the first paragraph being a bit too long and a borderline copyvio. More later.

While I am not reviewing, I am trying to work on the quality and integrity of this article. Much of the sourcing stems from offline publications, including one that is originally in German. There are numerous "facts" that seem dubious, including the suggestion that 800,000 people were present for the Ames, Iowa concert that Bye Bye Love came from. Such an oddball claim makes me find some of the other facts attributed to this and other offline sources dubious, to say the least. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to 80,000, as I confused it with a similar concert, my mistake. I hope to find alternative references, but this is not so easy. Also, it is not offline; perhaps you need to change the domain to .de. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
My mistake on that one - I just saw it was a book, and neglected to actually try the link. It is, however, in a foreign language, which makes testing the accuracy of claims sourced to that work difficult. Presumably there is an English source that could be used for this article? Echoedmyron (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick update - yes, one of the things I was going to mention was the 800,000 at Ames - that's about double the estimated crowd of the Woodstock Festival! I see some work has been going on, so I'll give a definitive list by tomorrow evening. It's looking like an "on hold" for the minute, though if we're still discussing what sources to use, as opposed to the right bits with them, that makes me worry a bit. I don't have any direct sources myself other than a basic familiarity with the album, so I'll be using that to judge whether the article conveys enough facts for people interested in reading about it, as well as the usual MOS / referencing issues. I'd really like to know a bit more about that Ames gig and tour, and that final post album gig, as I always thought they split before the album was released. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I used the German book as it has many useful information which I could not find anywhere. Of course there are high-quality books in English, but they can not be viewed via Gbooks.--Kürbis (✔) 08:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Review Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Okay, I've gone through the article and what references I could get hold of, and here's the review.

Lead
Do we need to know that three tracks were not featured in the album here? I'm not sure it's a major point of interest. Much more important to mention is that neither of them could agree on the album's twelfth track (which is mentioned in the main Simon and Garfunkel article).
"the duo's most acclaimed songs" is vague - "critically and/or commercially successful" is a better term to use here, as it can be cited to something specific. That term is used in the next sentence, so maybe some shuffling around on sentences could sort that out.
Worth mentioning it won many things at the 1971 Grammy Awards?
Background
Is it worth just giving a very brief one sentence recap of where the duo were in their career by this point? Something like, "By 1969, Simon and Garfunkel had been making records together for over ten years, with particular commercial and critical success after The Sound of Silence (single) in 1965."
The quote from the interview with Art is a bit too long and might be considered a copyvio. By all means, keep the interview as a reference, but it's better written in our own words.
Recording
"Simon had not completed a song yet" should probably read "Simon had not completed any new songs at this point".
Chart Positions
I crossed check the chart positions and awards with other good and featured articles, and it appears to be consistent.
I generally assume book references are correct, as long as they are not the sole source used for large parts of the article. However, as has been already discussed, concern has been raised over the reliability of Ebel as a source, due to it being in German and translated back, and lengthy sections of the article are cited only to this. There are a number of other non-English references later on, but they're only to assert the chart positions of the album, which are numeric and hence cross language. Three other sources are given in the bibliography, and I suspect they'd be more suitable. Some of the online sources already cited (such as BBC News or the Independent) also contain more information than the brief fact they specifically cite. Also, I'm sure the CD reissue liner notes will contain information that can be cited. More specific comments follow :
Recording
The reference cited for the first sentence doesn't cite the filming of Catch-22 starting in January 1969. It states 1969, and an 8 month duration, but no specific month. You can probably infer it based on what else was happening, but I think that's straying into original research.
"Critics saw similarities between this song and The Beatles' "Let it Be"" - What critics exactly? These need to be cited.
Many facts in this section are unsourced (including one {{cn}}) or sourced from Ebel. Some things, such as the percussion in Cecilia can be cited by the BBC Arts Desk reference earlier, or the Independent reference later, so this is fairly straightforward to fix in the long term.
Release
About "Cuba Si, Nixon No" - is the AllMusic source, reviewing a bootleg, reliable?
Aftermath
There's a "Why" tag here. I agree with it - why is this here?
Everything here is cited by Ebel, including some stuff I didn't know about. Can you get an alternative source for some of it?
Personnel
Using this as a source, the only musicians credited are Paul Simon, Fred Carter Jr, Hal Blaine, Joe Osborn, Larry Knetchel (credited as "keyboard", not "piano"), Jimmy Haskell and Ernie Freeman. The rest are uncredited, in which case they need a citation.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think my biggest concern here is the duplication of the "Recording" and "Composition" sections. This is more of a gut feeling but it just doesn't seem to flow quite right.
There are some facts about the record not here that I think should be. Where did the car noise on Baby Driver come from? Whose idea was it to do the brass on Keep The Customer Satisfied? Who played flute on So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright? Granted, we can't write about what we can't cite, but for a good article, I feel we need to have this sort of comprehensive coverage.
When exactly was the live recording of "Bye Bye love" in Ames recorded?
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This is mostly okay. Just a couple of comments :
The similarity of "The Only Living Boy in New York" and "Elton John" is a questionable opinion, attributed only to Allmusic. I don't think this is a well known opinion and probably violates WP:DUE by being there. The comment about how they did the backing vocals is attributed to a biography, so that's probably okay.
The reference to PopMatters, describing the album as the duo's "worst" is a bit misleading. Might be worth leaving out that bit, and just focusing on specific criticisms. If the reviewer didn't like it, why did they give the 40th anniversary reissue 8/10?
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    This revert, just a few days ago, gives me cause for concern.
  • It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There are no images other than the fair-use album art. I think there are creative way around this. For instance, you could have a picture of Ames (do we know the venue they played at?) with a caption like "On [date - see above for a problem with this], the duo played Bye Bye Love in this venue, which was recorded for the album".
  • Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I have to be honest and say there looks like more than the standard 7 days' worth of work here for an "on hold" GA to pass, so I'm going to have to fail it at this point. Don't give up on it though, and hopefully it will be back at GA soon with a better chance of passing. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this decision. Ebel wrote in the introduction that she spend years to search for archives. This is surely a proof for reliability? Why do I need to search for English sources? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not really anything to do with it being in German, but rather because large parts of the article were cited to it, and it only, and we've questioned whether we've transcribed parts of it correctly (eg: that 800,000 audience figure as seen above). I realise that if it's the only source you've got, there's not much to go on, but I did find other online sources, as commented above, that could have possibly been followed just to back facts up. It's only one part of the review as well - the recent reverts, and the fact that people are discussing changes on the talk page right now means I can't pass it as "stable".
Please don't feel disheartened about this. I know you've done a lot of work for this article, in fact several of you have, particularly in recent days, and of course it can feel upsetting to be told the review's failed. All it really means is the article isn't quite ready for GA status yet. I've left a detailed set of notes in the review that are things to work on, and a number of people are actively working on this, so hopefully we'll have a good article soon. Hope that helps. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bell Telephone Hour

As I noted when I originally removed that section, while the passage about the Bell Telephone Hour is interesting, it really has nothing to do with the album Bridge Over Troubled Water. The fact that the program was later included on a re-release of the album notwithstanding, if anywhere, information about the production should be included there, not under Recording. But that section needs to be seriously trimmed. The level of detail provided here is too much, and if anywhere, belongs in the Simon & Garfunkel article. Leaving it for now, pending input from other editors. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

El Condor Pasa

The article states: ""El Condor Pasa (If I Could)" is a cover version of a Peruvian traditional song. Simon first heard Jorge Milchberg's version in 1965 in Paris, backed by the group Los Incas. He later asked the band to cover this song and suggested they back him, which they agreed to do." There are several mistakes here, which are not on the song's page (El Cóndor Pasa (song), it would be good to check there for the righ information and sources). First, it is not a traditional song, it is a song written by a Peruvian, based on a traditional Andean rhythm. Second, Milchberg was the leader of Los Incas (later Urubamba), so this song was not "his" version, backed up by Los Incas. Third, Simon just used the track Los Incas recorded in 1965, they didn't perform specially for the album. --Nazroon (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

" it is a song written by a Peruvian, based on a traditional Andean rhythm." then it is still a traditional song, whether you like it or not.
"Milchberg was the leader of Los Incas (later Urubamba), so this song was not "his" version, backed up by Los Incas." not sure what you mean. Simon heard Milchberg's cover version in Paris.
" Simon just used the track Los Incas recorded in 1965, they didn't perform specially for the album." Simon actually replaced the Spanish lyrics with his own, so yes he reocorded this specificially for this album. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't take it the wrong way, but I don't think you are quite familiar with the English language. You don't need to rebuke anything I said, just do the changes, because the facts (as they are now on the page) are wrong. I will extend here so you can understand it better: First, it is NOT a traditional song, the music is copyrighted and written around 1913. It is, though, written in a traditional "type" of Andean folk music. It is not a question if I like it or not. See the Wikipedia page on the song to better understand it if you like. Second: it reads as if Milchberg was the soloist and Los Incas his backup group, when in fact he was just the leader of the band. Third: what you answer here on the Talk page is right, but it is not what I am questioning. On the page it says (at least that's what I understand) that Los Incas went to the studio to cover the song AGAIN. But actually Simon used the original recording (on the Wikipedia's song page it says that he didn't even ask for permission to use the song). So, don't take it personally. If you are maintaining this page, just do the changes, it's just for the greater good. --Nazroon (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you do it yourself instead of making personal attacks on me? I stated in simple English that your points are wrong. Furthermore you can not use Wikipedia articles as a source. El Condor Pasa uses questionable sources in Spanish, while this high-quality sources. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter how many will cover it., it will be forever traditional music.
"Second: it reads as if Milchberg was the soloist and Los Incas his backup group, when in fact he was just the leader of the band. " - really? Then you have not enough English comprehension. If you still believe otherwise, feel free to edit the article yourself.
" that Los Incas went to the studio to cover the song AGAIN. But actually Simon used the original recording" - you need a source for this claim. Several souces disagree with your statement. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As a comment on all this, this has come up before. First of all, the Ebel source, while online, is in German, so it is entirely possible the translation here is faulty. Secondly, there is no need to make an accusation of "personal attacks" when no such thing has happened. The editor has suggested that English is likely not your first language, with which I tend to agree, and that could explain why you took their comments in a negative light. While it would be simple enough for one of us to go in and change the phrasing of the segment about this song to be more clear, it is harder for us to do so without changing the meaning, especially since the source is in another language with which we are not as familiar, and we can't do so without fully understanding the source, nor can it be verified. There IS a distinction to be made between whether or not the singer led his own band or was backed by a band - "backed by" indicates that he is not a member, whereas "led" indicates he is. (You wouldn't say that John Lennon was "backed by" the Beatles when singing "All You Need Is Love", for example.) So that needs to be made more clear. And there is also a distinction to be made between whether or not a song is Traditional or in a traditional style. The way the line is currently phrased, it suggests it is Traditional, as in, an old melody that has been passed down with no copyright. The fact that the song itself IS copyrighted indicates it is in a traditional style. I would also like to check sources to see what it says regarding whether or not Simon simply sang over an existing recording, or if instead the group re-recorded it in studio specifically for this album, as that also requires a distinction. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I think the two first issues should be changed without any more searching (it is a known an verifiable fact that there was even a lawsuit against Simon, filed by the author's son, which he won; and also that Los Incas was a band, later renamed Urubamba, both with the lead of Milchberg). Regarding the third, a little search over the Internet gave the results of these two pages which acknowledge the issue of the recording of the song. One is pretty reliable (Rolling Stone magazine), which includes a quote by Simon. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/song-stories/el-condor-pasa-simon-garfunkel

See also: http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/be/carlos-miguel-benn-1.html Nazroon (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Bridge Over Troubled Water → Bridge over Troubled Water – To match how the song is stylised. Unreal7 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVE by overwhelming consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Bridge over Troubled Water → Bridge Over Troubled Water – The official title, as indicated hundreds of times, is Bridge Over Troubled Water. I am curious why we should use self-invented guidelines, and ignoring how the majority of reliable sources correctly call this album? We even have the five pillars, the last of which clearly implies that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Do you see the clear contradiction? Regards.Tomcat (7) 11:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If that's the house MOS, then yes, we should follow it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
What are "extreme circumstances" in this case? Please name a few examples, so that I can follow you. And why do you want to follow the "rules"?--Tomcat (7) 12:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do you think we should break "the rules"? I can't think of any extenuating circumstances why we should in this instance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And stop changing the case in the text unless you get consensus to move per this discussion. Until then the MOS must be followed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I already answered to you. Now answer me.--Tomcat (7) 12:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I answered you - there are no extenuating circumstances. The MOS should be followed. If you read WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and MOS:CT it gives a good explanation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And I can edit this article. This discussion is about the title, not the text. Thanks.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The same rules apply per MOS:CT. If you don't like them, why not discuss at the MOS pages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have actually. Also you are incorrectly using the rollback function, see WP:ROLLBACK.--Tomcat (7) 12:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
What about WP:COMMONNAME? I assume you are sticking to your favourite guideline and ignoring other ones?--Tomcat (7) 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
On the same guideline that advises about WP:COMMONNAME, you will also see a guideline called WP:TITLEFORMAT, which directs you to WP:NCCAPS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The second word is part of the proper noun.--Tomcat (7) 13:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
That part relates to proper nouns such as Milton Bradley Company. Titles of works are dealt with specifically. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, actually one sentence begins with "In general", but nevermind. However, the article should at least state that is mainly known as Bridge Over Troubled Water. Although I don't like this idea, as I feel that WP:IAR perfectly applies in this case.--Tomcat (7) 13:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:IAR isn't for implementation just because you don't like the rule. There are plenty of other examples where we ignore the original styling in favour of Wikipedia's house style and this one is no different. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
just because you don't like the rule. -- I believe TC and myself regard that rule as nonsensical when it applies to published works whose titles are exclusively represented with those words capitalized. Please don't address our valid rationale as a strawman. --87.79.208.25 (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
If there is opposition to the clear guideline, why do you not seek change to the guideline rather at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters? There is no case for exception here. This should not be treated any differently than any of the countless similar cases on Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why should a reasoning that may hold for this article but not for another be discussed at the guideline page? But your comment is even more beside the point than that: You alleged that TC just "doesn't like" the rule, when it is quite clear that he (like myself) does have a reasoning. You may not agree with our reasoning, but please do not pretend that it isn't there. Also, I do seek to change the guideline, which is why I'm tactically opposing this request. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
If TC wants to invoke IAR, they need to explain explicitly why in this case doing so is justified in order to improve Wikipedia, and what sets this specific article apart from all the other similar articles where we do follow Wikipedia's house style. The only justification given so far is that rules are not set in stone. This is not a reason to ignore it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The official title, as indicated hundreds of times, is Bridge Over Troubled Water. -- Sounds like a reasoning to me. Again, you may disagree with it. But it's there. That was my point. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
That the album is printed with this styling isn't in dispute. The point here is that Wikipedia has a house style with how to deal with these kind of titles, and that is not to follow the original orthography. The house style is applied and is to be applied consistently. Why should we deviate from this specifically for this article? What sets this apart from other similar situations? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, you may or may not agree with TC's reasoning. So you don't, which is a huge step up from pretending that TC didn't provide any reasoning. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No - there is still no reasoning as to why this presents a special case for ignoring the specific guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. TC argues (and I agree) that since this particular title is always represented as "Bridge Over Troubled Water", both officially as well as in independent sources, it warrants invoking IAR with regard to MOS:CT. That's a perfectly stringent line of reasoning. One to which you may not agree, but one which exists, and please stop claiming that it doesn't. This is getting tiresome. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
With risk of going round in circles, the guidelines deal with the fact that no matter how the title is represented, we should follow house style. Therefore just because it is usually represented with a capital "O" is not a justification in itself to ignore the house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, we differ on that point. It isn't a good enough reason in your opinion. I believe it is. Anyway, at least you're now considering and responding to TC's reasoning. That's all I wanted. --87.79.231.17 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need stick to a page on a free encyclopedia written by random people. According to common sense, we should use the official, actual title, not some stylized. This is a clear ignorance of WP:RS.--Tomcat (7) 15:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the point of WP:MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, even on that page it states that Wikipedia does not have firm rules and sometimes applying common sense is wiser :P. Also note it is a guideline and not a policy, thus can be ignored. Isn't it ironical that you call the correct format a "styled" version, but actually you want a styled version :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No irony, or any ignorance. This is a stylistic choice. And as a publication, Wikipedia has every right to make its own in-house stylistic choices. Wikipedia has its style, other things have theirs. We're on Wikipedia, so it is common sense to follow Wikipedia's style. Simple. And although guidelines can be ignored (like everything on Wikipedia), it does not follow that they should be ignored. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The intro to WP:MOS says: "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." Where's your god now? --87.79.231.17 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting the intention there, and you are seemingly trying to bait me with comments like "Where's your god now?". Please refrain from this. However, what is being referred to there is more the style within the actual articles, i.e. date formats, etc. Consistency among article titles is paramount really. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that there are specific guidelines for this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The central MOS page specifically states that stylistic choices do not necessarily have to be consistent throughout Wikipedia. If you don't agree with that, you should have participated in the recent WT:MOS discussion where that line was added. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Read my above comment. You're just repeating yourself. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You are the one going in circles. As per this RfC, the Manual of Style explicitly states that Wikipedia-wide consistency is not necessary. Therefore, if a consensus emerges anywhere on Wikipedia to simply ignore e.g. MOS:CT in favor of capitalizing a title the same way it is being capitalized everywhere outside of Wikipedia, that's it. There's no recourse for you other than to challenge the outcome of that RfC. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about consistency between/within articles, but the necessity for article titles to be consistent. This is an important style issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That's laughable. How exactly is this not an issue of consistency between articles? --87.79.133.209 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We just went over this. We refer to reliable sources for facts. For style, we use reliable style guides to make an editorial decision on how to style our encyclopedia, but we do not go to sources to determine the exact style used on every particular item. Powers T 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The current title is barking mad. Either you treat the whole title as a proper noun, in which case full capitalisation should be used, or you don't, in which case you follow normal sentence structure and only capitalise the first word. "Troubled Water" isn't the name of Paul Simon's holiday home in the hurricane belt of the Carribean, it is a simple descriptive term. Adjective plus common noun, no capitalisation needed unless part of a greater proper noun. The album's title, and the song, is almost always represented as a full proper noun, in which case all words are capitalised. The MOS may have diktat laid down, but it certainly doesn't over ride rules of English syntax. Pyrope 05:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    But English syntax, as laid down by various style guides (including the one that this encyclopedia is based on), requires you not to capitalise prepositions less than 5 letters long in titles of works. "Over" is one such preposition. I don't see where you're coming from. You seem to be making up your own rules. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    treat the whole title as a proper noun -- That is an excellent point! A future challenge to MOS:CT should imho include this as its core argument. Titles should be treated as proper nouns. --87.79.133.209 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Please, Pyrope, find me any reliable source that says every word of a title must be capitalized. Go ahead, I'll wait. Powers T 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
For the case in hand I'd point you toward the album cover. You don't get much more reliable a source than the subject itself. One of the biggest problems with the MOS junkies of Wikipedia is that they subjugate their own judgement to the perceived regulation of the MOS. MOS is only a guide. If the artist, publisher and music label state that the title is fully capitalised then the title is fully capitalised. As for the general instance that prepositions of length X are not capitalised, I'm afraid that there is no accepted length that meets every eventuality. The US government puts the limit at three, others two, and some capitalise everything. Then you have hybrid systems, such as British legal documents that only capitalise the first word and nouns (common and proper). In addition, even where a house style exists it is often adjusted for emphasis in certain cases. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, and the verifiable title of this album follows full capitalisation. Inventing your own title to suit some personal stylistic preference or misapplied guideline isn't on. Pyrope 20:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I largely agree, except that imho the problem with "MOS zealots" is not located in their application of the MOS, but in the fact that many areas of the MOS don't account and allow for specific exceptions to the rule. Such changes are of course always possible, but usually face a good measure of editorial inertia. The MOS does and should apply to this and all articles. It just shouldn't nonsensically insist that titles, proper names, which are represented exclusively in one form of capitalization by the producer and every independent source should be represented in a different way on Wikipedia. (For that reason, I'd add the conflict with the Principle of least astonishment to the good reasons for amending WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CT.) --213.168.117.64 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Now you're contradicting yourself. You said before that in order to treat something as a proper noun, we would have to capitalize every word. The point remains that we follow a house style; every reasonable publication develops its own internal style in order to maintain a consistent schema for punctuation and capitalization. Why are so many people insistent that we do not, and rather turn to sources to determine every capital letter and hyphen and dash? Powers T 14:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are some of us for using sources rather than making stuff up? Is that your question? --195.14.223.59 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No, and if you think it is, I think that demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the entire argument. Powers T 04:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you have no argument and I have correctly identified that fact. --195.14.220.226 (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you the same person who was rehashing this on my talk page? Powers T 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; we should use the actual name instead of tweaking it to fit internal norms. If other people in the outside world call it "Bridge Over Troubled Water" then so should we. bobrayner (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Those are the two standards that we follow - the official name and the most commonly used name; or "actual name" and what "other people in the outside world call it". Apteva (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We shouldn't go about changing the titles of creative works; we are not be authors and the arrogance of "we know better" is childish and tiresome. This own a case like "Seven/Se7en" where the stylizing is inconsistent, the title, as written on the album and single is consistently spelled with a capital O. We don't have the right to change it. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We style titles according to our MOS, and so does every other publisher. The first edition of A Christmas Carol has the title words in all caps on the title page; that doesn't mean that everyone has to refer to the book as A CHRISTMAS CAROL. Deor (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • However even that we can only do if everyone else does that. We ditch all caps because it is hard to read and on the Internet sounds like shouting. One of the rules in capitalizing title words is to capitalize important words, and if the author thought that Over was an important word, they would capitalize it. There is a difference between saying I went over the river and I went Over the river, as if it was harder in the latter case than in the former. I am not suggesting that we try to convey meaning that is not there, but I would hope that we accurately report the actual title of the song. Apteva (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
      • We have no evidence that "Over" was capitalized for emphasis; more likely it was capitalized because style guides vary on whether it should be capitalized within titles or not. We've chosen to capitalize prepositions longer than three letters. Powers T 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – MOS:CT and MOS:TM are very clear on this. There's no shortage of sources that use a similar style, like this book and this one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS Tiggerjay (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ironic that this particular name should cause so much angst! But no compelling reason to depart from the MOS. And this is exactly what was previously decided for the article on the title track, and also here, so if this RM is not accepted, let's now give this a rest for a while. Andrewa (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can think of plenty of things to get worked up about rather than a capital "O", and am a bit astonished at the ferocity of this argument (you can't really call it a discussion). However, we have a Manual of Style, and we should keep to it. Whether the Manual of Style is correct or not is a different matter. Coming from the United Kingdon, where it is customary to capitalise each initial letter in a title (Bridge Over Troubled Water), I personally find the Manual of Style odd. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bridge over Troubled Water/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Starting review. Off the bat I see some serious issues. Details forthcoming. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I will remove the tags that were inserted shortly before the nomination. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge that the tags are very recent additions and that you are in the process of addressing them, so my review will not weight heavily on them. Upon first glance the tags were my primary concern, so the sooner you sort them out, the better. I hope to have it ready in an hour or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
regarding tags: the discussion above makes it sound as though the tags are a nuisance to be removed without examination, like litter. For this article, they're simply the most effective way to identify issues that need improvement, and simply removing them because an editor feels they're unnecessary doesn't cut it. Two examples:
  • there is a description of the album in comparison to another rooted in colors. I added a [clarification needed] tag, since there is no explanation as to how a music album, based in sound, could be described with colors. Perhaps the cited source does this; if so, it ought to get included here.
I suppose that does make sense upon reflection. But there's no explanation as to how the critic feels the albums compared are so similar, when the only quote talks about the difference between black and white versus color. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • there is also a passing mention that The Boxer was alleged to have been about Bob Dylan. Even if this is covered in the sources, this is a major allegation that needs to be further explained in detail in the body of the article, not just the reflst.
You don't need a detailed story, but if you're going to raise a subject you should at least elaborate on it. You describe it as though the allegation was well-known. It's not, at least not to me. So either expand on it a little or drop it I would say. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The history of this article shows that there are many issues, in terms of content, foreign-language (non-English) sources being used, flat out factual inaccuracies, etc, that when raised, get dismissed by this editor, often without being addressed, as though the concerns are a nuisance. I may not have contributed the bulk of the content here, but am just as interested in seeing this article improved, and look forward to seeing the reviewer's take on things. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no inaccuracies, and German-language sources are acceptable.--Tomcat (7) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't saying German is unacceptable, however the interpretations of what a source means in English are sometimes dubious, and non-German speakers can't verify their accuracy. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
By no means do I consider the tags a nuisance instead of important cleanup notices. What I meant to convey was that they were issues flagged after the article was nominated (and pretty recently, too), and given that the primary contributor acknowledged them and was getting around to addressing them as soon as possible, I was going to focus on other issues first. There's no doubt that they all need to be taken care of before I can pass this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Review
  • Well-written - Prose could use some polish. The lead in particular introduces items without sufficient context (Where do Art and Paul from from? What's their professsion? What exactly is The Graduate?). I wouldn't call Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time a "must have" list. Why does the mention of the duo's breakup come after mentioning retrospective acclaim? Several numbers under 10 are written out as numerals instead of words. That quote from Song Talk is awful long; please summarize its contents. "After the breaking for Christmas" is an odd phrase. Numbers that start off sentences need to be written out as words. "Both musicians became rather independent" is fairly colloquial for an encyclopedia article.
  • I don't think that belongs to the lead. Removed must-have. Done, though the previous version was better. Shortened quote. Done. Done. Not sure about that.--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Verifiable with no original research - ChartStats is not considered a reliable source. Official Charts Company is not the one stating that the album has sold over 25 million copies. What makes TheSecondDisc a reliable source? It appears to be nothing more than a WordPress blog. I also wonder about InfoDisc.fr. The sentence about "Feuilles-Oh/Do Space Men Pass Dead Souls on Their Way to the Moon?" is uncited. Find other sources than reviews for factual information about reissues--album reviews are opinion pieces, not reportage or historical overviews. There are a few unformatted references present. Ref 2 is missing info; what publication is it from? One of the Allmusic refs lists the publisher before the website name, while all the others do the opposite. Review your references and standarize them. Review WP:NOENG in regards to the German-language book being cited.
  • Replaced Chart Stats. Fixed, though not sure how it happened. Added Browne. Per WP:GOODCHARTS, infodisc is a reliable source. Done . Most of the sources in that section are simply additional. I am having troubles finding more sources. Formatting of references is not required per the criterions. --Tomcat (7) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Broad in its coverage - The Content section is too bloated and does not adequately utilize Wikipedia:Summary style. Most of these songs have their own pages--there's no reason why the title track needs three paragraphs dedicated to it here. The goal is not to detail every song one by one; we're not writing books here. Provide an overview of the album's sound as a whole, providing specifics when necessary. See Loveless (album)#Music for an example of how to summarize an album's content. There are no gaps in coverage.
  • However, there are GA and FA albums that describe every song comprehensively. I think Loveless is not a good example, as Bridge features a more individual sound, while the songs in Loveless are similar.--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen recent album GAs and FAs that go into extensive detail about their tracklists, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should. In fact, judged against the summary style criterion for GAN, they are required to avoid going into such detail, and that certainly applies here. As I stated before, it's especially relevant since most of these songs have their own pages; much of the detail listed currently in this page should be shunted off over there. Keep only what is necessary for an unfamiliar reader to understand the album as a greater whole. Is This It is another example you can look at: it describes each song one by one, but in a very lean, crisp manner. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That is also a featured article. I am not sure what should be removed, I think it summarizes very well. Another example would be The Way I See It, which is much more comprehensive than Bridge. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said, saying other stuff exists doesn't justify excess details. Let's analyze the three paragraphs dedicated to "The Boxer" to ascertain what is relevant and what can go into the song article. Everything about the meaning of the song can be moved, unless there are elements of it analyzed by secondary source as part of an overview of the album's overall themes. The basics of the recording (significance of the length and duration) can stay, but you probably can move the listing of everyone who played on it. The fact about Dylan covering it is not relevant here, so move it to the song article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, done. --Tomcat (7) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Fairly neutral
  • Stable - Echoedmyron has mentioned disagreements over content. I see a talk page debate about "El Condor Pasa" from September and two recent move discussions.
  • Illustrations - Image checks out

I'm putting this on hold for the standard seven days so the issues raised can be addressed. The article needs some work, but it's not so deficient that a week of concerted effort couldn't fix everything. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"After the breaking for Christmas" was an error on my part; the original phrase was "After the Christmas break", which suggests a defined timeframe that everyone knows about, which isn't of course the case. In changing it I neglected to remove the "the". Have corrected now. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a little over a week, and though much progress has been made, issues remain. Chartstats (ref 55) and the Wordpress blog are still present, an unaddressed [when/] tag lingers, and the content section still requires trimming (the example of what needs to be cut in "The Boxer" was just that: an example). Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this for now. But don't be discouraged: the article has indeed been improved since the review started, and with a bit more work it will be ready for yet another GA nom. I wish you the best of luck. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I had added two more sources from books to back the claims, and I already cut many information. I am not sure what type of article you exactly need.--Tomcat (7) 16:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And no, I want trim anything. The article is very comprehensive, and nothing in the WP:GA? indicates that something should be cut for the nominator's satisfaction.--Tomcat (7) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the Good Article criteria, part of the broadness criteria is "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)", which it currently fails. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is broad and briefly summarizes the content. I don't know why the song's meanings should be removed. It passes WP:GA?. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This GAN was closed a day ago. You may renominate the article, but I strongly suggest having another editor look through the article first to help you sort out any remaining issues, especially since the sourcing and broadness issues remain. I wish you good luck on bringing this article up to GA status. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sleeve artwork

Whilst nothing particularly special as album covers go, most wiki album articles at least mention who created or how it was created

80.218.211.54 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What's up with 'over' not being capitalized on this page?

I mean, I know it's a preposition and all, but, ha, look over at the title as printed on the album... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.232.221 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Charts singles: "The Boxer"

I am wondering why "The Boxer" is not included as the first entry in the "Singles" section regarding chart positions. Per the Infobox and the article on the song itself, "The Boxer" was released prior to the album but was from the first intended to be included on it. I haven't mastered the fine points of adding to a pre-existing wikitable and cannot do so, it seems, without disrupting the balance of the table. The article on the song includes a virtually identical and sourced wikitable of chart positions for the single.Sensei48 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on "The Boxer" lists the release date as 21 March 1969. The release date can't be in April 1969 because, among things, the record debuted at #38 on the WLS 890 Hit Parade on 31 March 1969.[1] So the release date in this article should also be 21 March 1969.107.185.97.165 (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "WLS 890 Hit Parade". WLS. 1969-03-31. Retrieved 2017-04-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bridge_over_Troubled_Water/Archive_2&oldid=1040034495"