Talk:Running Up That Hill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Musician list and Faith & The Muse Version

I wonder whether or not the musicians who played on the track should be listed.

Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the original text for this page, and I considered that when I was writing it. I think it would be a good idea. Cloudbusting101 21:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Throw them in there! Contribute! :-) Erath 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In That case, we should also include the Faith & The Muse Version from Vera Causa. --81.185.101.97 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation?

As of July 2007, this articel said "Instead it deals with the trials and tribulations of a floundering relationship, telling her lover in the song that "...if I only could I'd make a deal with God and get him to swap our places". She has described the song as being about the power of love, in that it can create such intense emotion that all rational thought is overpowered.

My impression is that its a genderswapping fantasy. A woman's reassurance to her (male)lover that minor pain from intercourse is OK, and a desire to exchange subjective knowledge of male and female experience of sex. Maybe a little too risque for Wikipedia? I don't see anything about a foundering relationship in the lyrics.Cuvtixo 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Added quote from Radio 1 Classic Albums: Hounds of Love interview with Richard Skinner aired January 26, 1992. Cuvtixo 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

David Gilmour playing the song

I saw a video of this song with David Gilmour and Kate Bush playing live. Was he involved in the writing of the song, or in the recording, or was it just some one-shot event? David.Monniaux 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be just an event.

Fair use rationale for Image:Running up that hill.jpg

Image:Running up that hill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Versions

"Other versions" and "Placebo version" shouldn't be cut appart by "Charts" as it's the same topic. May "Placebo version" be merged with "Other versions" as a sub-chapter. There is also a "dancy" version by Re-Touch in the Faithless compilation Renaissance 3D. Lacrymocéphale 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The version by Icon and The Black Roses is distinctly different in style to the other versions but reference to it has recently been removed for reason of it being not sufficiently notable (the band appears to be little known and has no entry at Wikipedia). I hope inclusion of this version might be reconsidered in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.132.252 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved all cover versions under one master heading. I've attempted to clear up the confusion of header sizes which had crept into that section of the article as well. 75.34.230.119 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundant Pop Culture paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the Pop Culture section:

The Placebo cover of the song was featured at the end of the episode "Judas on a Pole" from the US TV series Bones. It was also featured in the fourth season episode "The Avengers" from the US TV series The O.C., the eighth-season episode of C.S.I. titled "A La Cart" and in the theatrical trailer for the 2010 feature film Daybreakers. The Placebo version was also featured in the pilot episode of The Vampire Diaries (TV series) shown at San Diego Comic Con 2009, as well as a video package on WWE programming detailing the Shawn Michaels/Undertaker feud.

Most if not all this info is already covered in the Placebo version section, and does not need to be duplicated in the section relating to the original version. (I've copied it here in case there is anything left to be merged.) -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitter as a reliable source

Since one can Tweet anything one wants to, I don't see how it can be a reliable source for anything. Until there's a second reference that can be read, or in the case of YouTube, viewed for oneself, it's essentially gossip. "Today I heard Band X perform Running Up That Hill on TV show X." What if they have mis-identified the song, or the band? When and if this band's version of RUTH shows up on iTunes, then it can be added to this list. There's also the issue of this section getting wildly out of control--are we going to list every single example of anyone performing or recording the song, no matter how obscure the band?--TEHodson 08:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IRS Twitter is not considered a reliable source. When using Twitter as a starting point, it is recommended that one go to the original source of the Tweet to verify it primarily, and use that as the reference. To speak to the point made about YouTube by Brandon, I don't believe it is a terribly reliable source, either, since anyone can put up a video of any song and call themselves a band, but I haven't the strength to fight that battle. If anyone else wants to try to, I'll join with pleasure. I think a proper discography should be the minimum criterion for a band whose cover of any song is being listed.--TEHodson 08:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See? Now someone else is claiming that the version of the song sourced to Twitter was not by the band they claimed, but by Placebo. Twitter is clearly not reliable.--TEHodson 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Warehouse 13

Two different (anonymous) editors have claimed two different bands were the artists whose recording of Running was used in the finale of this show. Please cite a source for whichever band you are claiming it was, but do not list it again until there is a reliable reference. Thank you.--TEHodson 01:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't be daft, this tweet was from Eddie McClintock and this tweet was by Allison Scagliotti, both stars of the show. The iTunes track page clearly shows a Warehouse 13 album cover. Gerald Eaton and Brian West, the two members of the production duo "Track and Field" are both independently notable. Furthermore the music production site scoreAscore blogged about the cover here. Brandon (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not call me or any other editor on Wikipedia names. Thank you. Twitter has been discredited as a reliable source on Wikipedia. That is policy, and if you don't like it, take it up with WP, but in the meantime you cannot use it as your source. Another editor believes it was Placebo's version that was used on the show. Until one of you can cite a reliable source, per WP:IRS, the edit will not stand. If indeed there are other sources for your contention, please cite at least one of them. Anyone can Tweet anything under any name. I could call myself #KateBush and claim it was my version on the show. Deal with this properly, and in the meantime, please behave decently. Thank you.--TEHodson 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the tweets on SyFy's official site, which also shows that SyFy considers those accounts to be the official accounts of the two stars of the show. I have provided now five different sources, all which point to the cover used in the show being created by Track and Field, two twitters accounts, SyFy's official website, iTunes and a blog. I have even established that Track and Field has notability. At this point I have at least provided clear and convincing evidence that the production duo Track and Field was commissioned by SyFy to produce a cover of "Running up That Hill", and that it was featured in the season finale of the show Warehouse 13. Not a single source, reliable or otherwise has been provided for the song appearing in the show being done by any other group. At this point I must ask two questions, have you reviewed the sources I have provided and do you reasonability believe that the facts I have provided are incorrect? Wikipedia policy is not there to encumber editors, you can not reasonability expect any editors to be able produce a scientific article or NYTimes article on a subject such as this, even if those types of sources are absolutely required in a science article. Brandon (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand this at all. I believe that all these people have Tweeted accurately, but it doesn't matter if Jehovah himself has Tweeted the name of the band, Twitter is not a valid source, end of story. I have left a message on your Talk page. I am reporting you for WP:Edit warring since you will not accept that your source is invalid and refuse to provide another. No one needs to "prove" that someone else's version was the one on the show. None of that matters. Your source is what matters. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page, and different rules apply. And you have been rude, which is also against WP policy. Find an acceptable source and no one will bother your edit again. But until then, it will not stand.--TEHodson 04:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So I can remove every YouTube cited sentence in this article? Those citations also fail WP:RS. Brandon (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think that is appropriate and can justify it by citing WP standards properly, I won't argue. The whole cover section is out of control and has been for ages. But if you are doing it to punish others because you can't find a better source for your edit, then an administrator will see that, too. --TEHodson 04:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a perfect illustration of why we need a reliable source for such information: http://www.tvfanatic.com/2011/10/warehouse-13-review-stand/ . This site states that the song at the end of the show is Placebo's version. You say this is incorrect, and yet some people would argue that TV Fanatic is more reliable. I understand your frustation. The best source would be from the Warehouse 13 site itself (and not the forum or comments). Showtime and HBO give song information on their sites. Can you look for something there?--TEHodson 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From Nick McHatton, the author of the article, in the comment section of the link provided: "Thank you for pointing that out! I just assumed that they recorded an acoustic version. Doing a quick search on iTunes the band is listed as Track and Field and their version is available for purchase." We're up to how many harmonious sources? Brandon (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. But in any case, if you're right and I'm wrong, an administrator will say so and you'll get your sentence restored with one reliable reference (it won't need four). Be patient.--TEHodson 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit has been restored. Congratulations.--TEHodson 06:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. There is a link from the iTunes Music Store pointing to Track and Field as the cover artist. Should be a reliable enough source, don't ya think? Regards, 88.183.32.69 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Twitter

I just removed a sourced item to twitter. Twitter fails as a reliable source. Feel free to find a reliable source so that you can add this information back in ! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you not notice the above drama?! I agree, and read the RS as saying so quite clearly, but got overruled. We'll see what happens next; I'm not touching this one again.--TEHodson 22:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I'd be a bit more understanding if this wasn't discussed at length above, if there was no edit war over this content, if I didn't direct you to a detailed explanation for its inclusion in my edit summary, and if it didn't include a non-Twitter reference, but unfortunately, I'm not seeing how this removal was constructive. Swarm 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I just want to make sure you know that what I've been trying to grasp here is whether Twitter is or is not a reliable source, per WP, as this is bound to come up in the future. It sort of already did on another Kate Bush page, when the emminent actor Stephen Fry tweeted that he was happy to finally be able to announce that he'd been working with her on her new album and would appear as a guest. But before we put that into the album article, we checked to be sure that Kate Bush News & Information had checked to be sure it was true, and we cited them, not the original Tweet. In this case, the Tweet was by an actress with nothing like the sort of fame and reputation of Fry (I'd never heard of her, nor of the show), and I wasn't even informed of who she was and thought she was a member of the band...anyway, I don't care if the edit stands or not. What I care about is whether I should be respecting what I read, which was that WP does not consider Twitter a reliable source. What is your advice re future decisions (other than "don't revert more than three times!")?--TEHodson 07:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're gonna have to explain how BLP even vaguely applies here, I'm really not sure what you're getting at. You also are overlooking WP:SOCIALMEDIA, which clearly makes exception for people talking about themselves. It's not unreasonable at all to extend that to talking about simple facts related to a show they star in. The tweets were also syndicated on the official SyFy site for the show, as well as SyFy posting the cover to the iTunes Music Store clearly identified as being related to the show. Brandon (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Brandon, Twitter is not a reliable source per [| this ], [this ] , [| this ] and [| this ]. Your gonna need a reliable source to put that information in, further because it concerns a living person (notice the name on the account) it fails BLP. I realize I said that earlier, so I'll elaborate a bit more. Per the guideline you cited:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

(just to let you know I read this and saw this).

First, the entry you placed in is entirely based on one twitter feed, nothing else, second, anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet, we don't actually know that this is the artist, therefore , it automatically fails #4, thirdly, it's used to reference a cover used on a television show, therefore it fails #2.

To be sure, the information's not slanderous or damaging, but because it fails #2 and #4 and is the only source for the information, it can't be used. (and yes, because it's purportely from the singer herself, BLP applies).

I'm going to remove it again. The solution is simple, find a reliable source. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

... Not trying to be a jerk or anything, only going by what I see in policy @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The tweets were syndicated on the official site for the show. The actress has 37,000 followers and she's tweeting about the show with a fellow actor whose account is verified. It's obvious that both accounts are authentic. Secondly, they're not making claims about a third party. As Brandon said above, they're just stating simple facts related to a show they star in. Thirdly, Twitter is not the only source given. There's a link to the song at the iTunes store. Not only does this source confirm that there been a "released cover", but that album cover shown confirms that the song is part of the Warehouse 13 soundtrack. Lastly, and with nothing but respect, did you even look at the sources? There's nothing there that's "purportely from the singer herself". Swarm 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read anything I've wrote on this talk page. Both Twitter sources are from stars of the television show. There is no self promoting artist. The song in question isn't even performed by a female! BLP does not apply. As for WP:SOCIALMEDIA, it doesn't fail #2 because both Twitter accounts are discussing a show in which they star in a promotional capacity. It also doesn't fail #4 because the Tweets were syndicated by the official SyFy website, which clearly proves their authenticity. Brandon (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, cool out a bit, I'm not questioning you, The link for the twitter information is from twitter itself.

On twitter (as well as anywhere else on the internet )anyone can claim to be anyone, there's no way to verify it. Without that, it fails #4. You also cite itunes and tumblr, both of which are not reliable. Anyone can set up an account on tumblr and claim they're anyone, Itunes is not outright unreliable, depending on what information. As the twitter accounts purport to be the two stars of the show but we can't verify that it fails #2 and strays into BLP. Once again, please find a reliable source (not twitter, not tumblr, not facebook, etc...) @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 18:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please click this, I've posted it over and over. The accounts are clearly and indisputably official. Brandon (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the following solution (as I just noted to Brandon on my Talk page): Leave the edit in, but take out all references except the iTunes listing. Using Twitter here or anywhere else where there is a second, more reliable source available, is a dangerous precedent as most people are not anywhere near as exacting as Brandon is being in exploring the Tweeters and discovering whether they're officially sanctioned, as well as finding other sources. The fact that Brandon has had to go to such lengths to prove the reliability of the Tweeters is a perfect illustration of why Twitter should be avoided as a source--people should be able to trust, without more than a glance at the reference, that what they're reading is true. There really aren't any great sources for this edit, but it's just a song, not world history, so let's leave it in but take out the offending reference. What I want to avoid is someone coming back and again claiming it was Placebo doing the song, as that's what the best source claims (wrongly, as it turns out, but still, that reference would have a better chance of standing per WP policy). This is a lot of energy for one sentence, and I admit to having wasted a great deal of my own on it already, but what I'd like to see is this rather obscure band get the credit they deserve while not contributing to the messy area of Twitter reliability. How's that? If no one objects, I'll come back later today and remove the Twitter refs (unless Brandon does it first). We're all "right" in this case, so let's compromise so we can go back to fighting over more important things.--TEHodson 19:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC

TEHodson, sounds like a plan to me. (I'll wait for Brandon before I touch anything :) ).

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As no one objected, I have removed all references except for the iTunes one. I hope this will put the whole thing to bed (which is where I belong now). Good-night!--TEHodson 05:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Brandon (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

More Warehouse 13 problems

Now there's an on-going dispute between several parties about which episode of the show the Track and Field cover was played on. This is becoming ridiculous. No one has provided a reliable source for that, either, the latest being a montage of clips on YouTube while the song plays (with no band name listed--sounds like Placebo to me); the montage was made by a fan of the show. People passionate enough about this version of the song being mentioned in this article should be passionate enough to find a reliable, indisputable source about 1) who performed the song and 2) over which episode it played. I question the importance of something so obscure that no one can find a good source to cite; it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me, but to those of you who disagree, do your homework, please, otherwise, expect it to be taken out again. Thanks.--TEHodson 23:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I did what I said I'd do in the above section, and then someone else came along and disputed the episode listed, changed the whole sentence, took out the iTunes reference, and we were back at square one, with a new argument going on (I wish those people would start on this page, not in the article itself, so that things can get discussed and resolved as per WP policy).--TEHodson 23:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a minefield there! I didn't know this two-month-old argument was still going on.

The music was definitely used in the "Emily Lake"/"Stand" dual-episode (see TV.com). I saw both episodes in a row, so I can't certify whether it was "Emily Lake" or "Stand".

As anyone else, I'm not sure about the band either: some say it's "Stars of Track and Field", others say it's "Track and Field", but it's nearly impossible to find any reliable information on line beyond that provided by iTunes. About the only thing I know is that it's NOT Placebo, simply because the voices are utterly different.

Does it matter? Well, I'm glad there was a nice cover of this song on TV, and I think it was beautifully used, so I see it as a nice tribute to the divine Kate, which may lead some youngsters to discover and love her. If I never know who performed it, I don't really care.

ConradMayhew (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but we're an encyclopedia, not a fan page dedicated to turning people onto Kate or any other artist. The reasons your edit can't stand are these: 1) by putting in no artist name yourself, you open the door to others putting in (and arguing over) the name of the artist they think performed the song; 2) per SyFy here, http://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/episodes, neither "Emily" nor "Lake" was the season 3 finale, which they list as "The Greatest Gift," so your sentence is incorrect; 3) you can't use the word "emotional" as it's point of view, or WP:OR, which isn't allowed. There really doesn't seem to be a solution to this, and I think an awful lot of time is being wasted on something very obscure. --TEHodson 02:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't argue, as I just can't believe that the argument is still going on!

Just regarding the episode thing (in case this goes on), my sentence was indeed technically incorrect. As a time reference, the iTunes charts are here. The cover entered the charts at rank #30 on October 8: that's just after the airing of the "Emily Lake"/"Stand" dual-episode ([1]), and long before the airing of "the Greatest Gift" in December ([2]).

I guess it's far from over, so best of luck with this never ending story. ConradMayhew (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused--if what you say above is true, why do people keep claiming that it was the season finale in which the song was played?--TEHodson 10:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that! The problem is that Syfi often adds one more episode to their series: the Christmas-special episode, which comes long after the rest of the season is over. Thus, there actually are 2 episodes that could be called "finale", depending on what you mean there:

• "Emily Lake" and "Stand" were aired as a 2-episodes merger (no credits in-between) in October. They provided closure for all the Season 3's narrative arcs: for lots of viewers (including myself), it is thus the narrative finale for Season 3.
• "The Greatest Gift", that was aired in December, is this year's Christmas special. It is completely unrelated to season 3 narrative arcs, but is indeed the last episode related to Season 3's budget, contracts, shooting... So it is the true finale from a technical standpoint.

The cover was featured in the "Emily Lake"/"Stand" combo in October. When I wrote "a cover was featured in the Season 3 finale", I actually referred to this episode combo and not to the Christmas-special. I still agree that my sentence was technically incorrect, or at the very least ambiguous.

'Hope this helps, ConradMayhew (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Name Capitalization

This article was previously titled "Running Up That Hill" but was moved last year to "Running Up that Hill". From my understanding of Wikipedia:ALBUMCAPS#Capitalization and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles I believe the correct capitalisation should be "Running up That Hill" ("Running Up" not being a phrasal verb so "up" as a preposition should not be capitalized, while "That" is not an article so should be capitalized).

Maybe someone with a fuller understanding of capitalization could chip in? memphisto 09:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of correct capitalisation is that there is no such thing, but the current title looks weird to me. This Google Scholar search finds the following papers or books - also useful for other encyclopedic purposes:

• (one instance of "Running up That Hill") Vroomen, Laura (2004). "13 Kate Bush: Teen Pop and Older Female Fans". In Andy Bennett and Richard A. Peterson (ed.). Music Scenes: Local, Translocal, and Virtual Cultural studies. Musicology. Vanderbilt University Press. p. 239. ISBN 9780826514516. The Man with the Child in His Eyes ... Running up That Hill ... Never for Ever ... Hounds of Love
• (consistently "Running up that Hill") Moy, Ron (2007). Kate Bush and Hounds of Love Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 4, 36, 38, 41, 43, 46, 47, 67, 68, 79, 99, 100, 105. ISBN 9780754657989. Running up that Hill ... Running up that Hill (A Deal With God)
• (behind paywall, snippet shows "Hounds of Love" and "Running up That Hill") Knee, Anthony B. (February 1995). "Evaluation of Digital Systems and Digital Recordings Using Real-Time Audio Data". AES Convention:98 (February 1995) Paper Number:4003 {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• (all "Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)" except once on page 213: "‘Running Up that Hill (A Deal with God)’") Berköz, Levent Donat (June 2012). "A gendered musicological study of the work of four leading female singer-songwriters: Laura Nyro, Joni Mitchell, Kate Bush, and Tori Amos": 4, 6, 21, 37, 142, 144, 155, 162, 163, 164, 166, 174, 176, 177, 184, 186, 188, 189, 193, 213. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London ... 'Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)' ... 'Running Up that Hill (A Deal with God)' (page 213) {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

However, and I do hope a proper move discussion is held, I would go for "Running Up That Hill" because that's the capitalisation used by the BBC, newspapers ([3], [4], [5]), the unpublished PhD thesis, and my uncommon sense. The history shows the page was moved here, followed by this correction and this weirdness. A case of MOStyle over sense and tradition? -84user (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(The following is what I pasted earlier today on the Kate Bush page in response to someone deliberately changing "That" to "that" in the body.)

IMO "That" should be capitalised. Reasons:

There are two usages of the word "that". One is a conjunction like "which", connecting a subordinate clause to a main clause to form a compound sentence. "I saw that you edited the page." The other is a demonstrative pronoun which specifies a particular instance of a noun by pointing to it (either literally or metaphorically). "I saw that page (which) you edited."

In song titles there is a convention that defines which words are capitalised and which ones are not. I am not familiar with the details, but the assumption is that non-capitalised words would be afforded less verbal emphasis when vocalising that title. In cases of "that", this would translate to: if "that" is used as a conjunction, then leave it uncapitalised. If "that" is being used as a demonstrative pronoun, then capitalise it.

In this particular case, vocalising this song title as "Running Up that Hill" seems wrong - it is almost as though it means "being a runner-up, in the manner of (e.g. Damon) Hill".

In short, I believe that this song ought consistently to be rendered as "Running Up That Hill".

As a parallel case, I offer you I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) - nobody would suggest, in this case, "That" is a word needing to be uncapitalised. So we have a precedent for the demonstrative pronoun use of "that" being capitalised. I suggest a similar resolution here.

Now, I've seen the sort of nuclear armageddon that such an argument over whether an upper- or lowercase letter should be used to start a word can lead to, having been a recent participant in the War of T(t)he Beatles, so I'm looking forward to seeing some serious bloodshed here. Don't let any of you disappoint me. --Matt Westwood 12:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Having inspected the initial change from "That" to "that", the justification was that "that" is a preposition. It is not a preposition, it's a demonstrative pronoun. IMO such edits, i.e. based on mistaken premises, should be reverted as a matter of course. --Matt Westwood 12:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no linguist, but after reading Demonstrative, I conclude that the word "that" in this title is a determiner, not a pronoun. As a pronoun, it's capitalised in "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)" (and because it's the last word in the title). There certainly is inconsistent practice in the capitalisation of 'that' in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere, and I'm not sure this is a productive discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So if it's a "determiner" then it's not a preposition, nor a conjunction, nor an article. Therefore it needs to be capitalised. This is a productive discussion if it leads to the re-capitalisation of "that". --Matt Westwood 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the title should be Running up That Hill. Prepositions and conjunctions are usually not capitalised. Up is a preposition and That is an adjective. Epbr123 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 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) 17:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Running Up that Hill → Running Up That Hill – Per an understanding of title case (even in light of the discussion in the immediately above section) and so that it's consistent with how other things are capitalized. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I expected to find more clear guidance in MOS:CT, but it does have "Get Off of My Cloud", in which "My" is capitalized, and says "His" should be capitalized. Those play the same role as "that" in this context, by identifying which cloud or which hill is being referred to. I am no linguist, but although this word is a "determiner", that is not one of the eight ordinarily-recognized parts of speech, and the determiner article says determiners are "traditionally classed along with adjectives". I think it's basically adjective here (and MOS:CT says to capitalize adjectives). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I have given my reasons at length above. --Matt Westwood 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose suggested move, but support a move to Running up That Hill, which is the form that follows the MOS. (Up is a preposition here, as in Crawling up a Hill, not an adverb, as in Strike Up the Band or "running up a bar bill".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deor (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 June 2013‎ (UTC)
  • Hmm. I think you're right about that (and I see that Epbr123 made the same suggestion above in October). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • An interesting view; but, you'd have thought that "Up" is a preposition used adverbially and, for the sake of consistency, "Up" and "Down" would be capitalized anyway. For the record, I don't think "Crawling up a Hill" is appropriately capitalized. While "Up" can be, or is, a preposition, it may also be, or is, an adverb and thus its initial letter would be capitalized.
    • For what it's worth, the title of the song in several media sources is "Running Up That Hill", for the various versions of the song, and this website suggests that "Running Up That Hill" might be the appropriate capitalization. Food for thought, I guess. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • With regard to Epbr123's "that is an adjective", per Wiktionary, that is not, and never is, an adjective. Here, it is determiner or a pronoun and would therefore be capitalized. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
        • To beat a dead horse, "Crawling up a Hill", or "Crawling Up a Hill", or its title as it is on Wikipedia, isn't very authoritative, given it has so few edits (see its history; I'm not making this up) and its virtually without content. If another source or article that uses "up" in a similar, consistent sense is found, that'd be better evidence in support of using a lowercase "u". --Qwerty Binary (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• SupportOppose. My interpretation is the nomination that it is correct, as is, per MOS:CT. That means that "Up" should be capitalized, but not as should "That." I have found plenty of articles to support this,and, tellingly, the example given, "Get Off of My Cloud" supports it too. Arguments about how other sites/newspapers etc are capitalizing, while interesting, are irrelevant (unless you wish to add a note accordingly into the article -which is fine)... We are building "Wikipedia" here and titles should follow a standard format (FWIW, my opinion is that all article name spaces should be rendered automatically in uppercase only, so we can get on with editing rather than worrying about, what is ultimately, not a very important issue). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was incorrect, I have amended. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what? Or, perhaps, why?

"That", either as a determiner or a pronoun, does not fall under the criteria for not having its initial letter in uppercase; in fact, it very much falls under the criteria for its initial letter in uppercase. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• SUPPORT It either needs to be "Running up that Hill" (which would be the correct British English way of doing the title) or "Running Up That Hill". Anything else looks wrong and is just going to provoke people trying to correct it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the second sentence, I agree. It might even be worth move-locking but that's obviously at an administrator's discretion. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2013 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Running Up That Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090608182840/http://www.within-temptation.com:80/en/index.php?c=discography&sc=show_specific_release&id=12&subid=0 to http://www.within-temptation.com/en/index.php?c=discography&sc=show_specific_release&id=12&subid=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2016

The following is a closed 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 moved. No consensus supporting the proposition. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Running Up That Hill → Running Up That Hill (A Deal with God) – This is the more prevalent title since "(A Deal with God)" is the title on the album and all subsequent releases. Also, as the song was released over 30 years ago, "(A Deal with God)" is probably in the original title. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:0:0:0:6561 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – No reason to lengthen title absent any ambiguity. The alternate release title is mentioned in the text. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 3 June 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Running Up That Hill. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6BsGw4ATh?url=http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp to http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/within_temptation/running_up_that_hill_f1/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allthememories.org/displayimage.php?album=92&pos=17

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) 10:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Running Up That Hill → Running Up That Hill (A Deal with God) – I want to bring this back up, as the initial vote was turned down with one opposing reason. Based on everything I have seen, "Running Up That Hill (A Deal with God)" is the full title of the song, even as a single since 1985. JE98 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the comment by JFG in the 2016 RM discussion of the same proposal. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simply too lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobbyelf62 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. AlbanGeller (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Can you please add to 2022 weekly chart performance for "Running Up That Hill" - US Billboard Digital Song Sales - 1 Jim003jam (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie Macdonald

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I got the information from Billboard website for their charts. Please see link https://www.billboard.com/charts/digital-song-sales/ Jim003jam (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Commas

Hello Doc Strange, you recently reverted a minor edit I made to this page, with a justification that is grammatically incorrect. The commas I introduced set of a nonrestrictive clause, in this case, the album's title. Bush only released one album in 1985, and therefore, a comma is required before the album title, as it is not crucial to the coherence of the sentence otherwise (unlike what you pointed out). Please look up nonrestrictive clauses if you disagree, and additionally, if you choose to comment on someone's grammar usage, please make sure you don't make spelling errors ("here me out on this"). Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you got me with the spelling error lol. If you think it works with the sentence, I'm fine with that. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A squillion covers of this song

At some point we might want to consider not adding any new covers of this song, instead opting to state its popularity with bands, or only listing covers by well-known bands. Maybe remove an old one when adding a new one? I would also suggest calling a halt to listing every single TV show or ad or whatever that uses the Placebo cover--maybe decide if its really notably used or just a fleeting glimpse, or eliminating old ones in favor of new ones. This section is pretty long. I've tightened it up considerably. Other suggestions welcome, of course.--TEHodson 11:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We're now getting into very obscure bands that have performed or recorded the songs, with the only sources listed being YouTube videos. Does anyone else feel this section is getting out of control?--TEHodson 09:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How about only mentioning covers that have been used in movies and TV shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a good measure, to be honest. TV and movies shouldn't be the gatekeepers of a musicians notability. I think chart performance of the cover or the band's general notability would be a better measure. Ashmoo (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

We should only document covers that are notable. See WP:SONGCOVER. Popcornfud (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Kate Bush at Secret Policeman’s Ball

In addition to having David Gilmour accompanying guitar, Simon LeBon from Duran Duran provided backup vocals and played bass. There are several video clips of this on YouTube, and although it is a little blurry it is clear it is him. I am not 100% sure if Simon plays bass or guitar on it however. Since Gilmour is on guitar, it would make more sense. Scritty (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Billboard links

The song is projected to re-enter the Billboard charts this week at a new peak, which because of how Billboard's site works, will wipe the citation for the old peak. Links will need to be swapped to an archive if this happens. Hot 100 Mainstream Rock. Dance Club chart is still suspended so that one we don't have to worry about. Dance Singles Sales needs a proper citation, I'm having trouble getting the direct link to it on Billboard but that chart is discontinued so it won't be hitting any new peak there. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we have a separate line for "Billboard Global Excl. US"? Billboard counts it separately, or is it too niche a chart to include? --Stev0 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

I've created this section to give @Popcornfud a space to discuss the lead, in line with Wikipedia:BRD. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some of the problems with the current lead:

• The single was a critical and commercial success in 1985. It peaked at number three on the UK Singles Chart... It is redundant to say a song was a success, then say it reached number three on the singles chart. We only need to say it reached number three on the singles chart — let the facts speak for themselves, skip the editorial commentary.
• The claim that it was a "critical success" is vague and is not supported by the article body.
• The song has had two further periods of success: More fluff. Just cut to the chase and list the sales / chart positions. Again, let the facts speak for themselves.
• The claim that the cover artwork features Bush drawing an arrow, which references a gesture in the music video is WP:OR that isn't supported by the article body.
• Sloppy writing. For example, it reached number six in the UK chart — what is "the UK chart"? This presumably means the UK Singles Chart.

Popcornfud (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• A song can be a critical success without being a commercial success, and vice-versa. Since the lead does not paraphrase the body's content on the critical response (which does need re-writing, but is present in "Legacy") it should be stated explicitly, and it's typical to describe both the commercial and critical response at the same time.
• It's personal opinion whether that sentence is fluff. I think it's context for the reader and introduces the following sentences well.
• The second clause of the single artwork sentence should be removed if no source can be found (have you looked?), but describing the cover is helpful from an accessibility perspective.
• The UK Singles Chart is only called the 'UK chart' after being introduced by its full name and linked in the previous sentence. This is acceptable abbreviation, not sloppy.

A.D.Hope (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Legacy section is a WP:PROSELINE mess with no clear narrative. There's nothing about the critical reception that can be summarised in the lead until that section is fixed, and until then it should be left out. The lead should follow the body per WP:LEAD
• The sentence adds no information or clarity. It is functionally useless. Instead of using a vague term like a "period of success" (defined how?) we should just say the success it had. Be literal and direct.
• I've removed the cover art info.
• There is no advantage whatsoever in referring to the same thing using different names, and this only harms clarity. See WP:ELEVAR. I've fixed this.

Popcornfud (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at, but think you're over-applying PROSELINE; the essay is aimed at articles formatted as timelines when they should be prose, which isn't the case here. It's appropriate to highlight 1985, 2012, and 2022 in the lead, as they're significant dates for the single. Similarly, the purpose of ELEVAR is to avoid variation for the sake of it, particularly when it introduces confusion, but abbreviating 'UK Singles Chart' to 'UK chart' does not do so. It's no different to abbreviating 'Kate Bush' to 'Bush'.

I've reinstated the first clause of the cover art sentence, as it's not original research. The clause introducing the 2012 and 2022 revivals is useful it justifies the inclusion of those years in the lead– neither is the only year in which the song has been used in popular media (e.g. 2019) or reappeared on a chart (e.g. the UK chart in 2014). A.D.Hope (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"The single's original cover art shows Bush drawing an arrow" is original research unless you have a source saying that's what the cover art shows. It's also not mentioned in the article body and so shouldn't be in the lead. Why is it important? Popcornfud (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The cover art clearly shows Bush drawing an arrow, it's not original research to state that. It's important to mention in the lead as it improves accessibility for readers who have trouble seeing the image or using the alternative caption. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how clear something is — with some caveats (and I don't think describing images is one of them), it's original research if it isn't backed by a source.

The alternative caption is the standard solution for accessibility issues with images. Do you have any Wikipedia policies that say otherwise? Popcornfud (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that simply describing an image is original research. Alterative text is the standard accessibility solution for images, but it does no harm to describe them in the body either. The existence of alternative text isn't a justification for removing body text which refers to images, at any rate. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)