Talk:Time Out of Mind (Bob Dylan album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeTime Out of Mind (Bob Dylan album) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Date and capitalization[edit]

The 1997 thing needs to be fixed - BobJoHankins

Someone went through and removed the capitalizations of the word "out" in Time Out of Mind. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. Check every PROFESSIONAL review and article of this album on the web and in print, they capitalize "out" so that it reads Time Out of Mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.105.110.246 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 28 August 2006.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states "In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and)." Extraordinary Machine 16:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, it's all fine and dandy to go according to conventions but I think making sure everything is factually correct is more important than following some made up conventions. Also, note the words, "in general".--Lairor 03:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What's more "out" is neither an article, preposition or conjunction, it's an adverb. I'm going to change things back.--Lairor 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Depending on the context, the word "out" can be several things; in this context, it's a preposition.
  2. With regard to choices of typography, in most cases there's no such thing as "factually correct". It's likely that Dylan's record label's manual of style suggests capitalisation of prepositions in titles, in which case that's "correct" for them; ours doesn't, which is thus "correct" for us. The one thing we know for certain is what standard Wikipedia style (and what is stipulated in most major manuals of style) is, which is why it's best and safest to use it. Extraordinary Machine
Actually if Dylan's record label stipulates that "out" should be capitalized then that's the official name and we shouldn't put forward wrong information just in the effort of standardization. But I'm not going to change it because I know you'll just change it back whatever the rationale because I've seen you're really passionate about upholding this particular naming convention regardless of whether the rest of the world actually recognizes it.--Lairor 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Title?[edit]

I always thought the title came from Warren Zevon's song "Accidentally Like a Martyr". Isn't Dylan a big fan of Zevon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcmillancaleb (talkcontribs) 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I thought that as well. I saw Dylan at the Pepsi Center in 2003 (when Zevon was terminally ill) and he played "Accidentally Like a Martyr," which lends credence to that theory, but I don't know thatit can be proved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.44.213 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Title again[edit]

I've found a few different albums by the name of Time Out of Mind on allmusic.com. The phrase is common enough to have the title listed with (Dylan album) appended.

The second issue is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia people go to look for information. I understand the naming convention for albums per Wikipedia policy. However, shouldn't you go by what the album is actually entitled, and not enforce some artificial policy by Wikipedia about some absurd notions of "prepositions" and other parts of speech?

The album title is not Time out of Mind. All professional reviews, all promotional material from Columbia Records, and Bob Dylan's website has the album title as Time Out of Mind. Given that fact, and since the goal of Wikipedia is to be a reliable encyclopedia, shouldn't the naming convention be revised accordingly? After all, it's not Wikipedia who determines the album name, it's the artist and the record company. They're pretty clear cut on what the real name is, despite Wikipedia's naming convention! --berenlazarus

We should not disambiguate when not needed per WP:ALBUM#Naming, so until those other albums with this title are actually added to Wikipedia, this article should not be disambiguated as "(Dylan album)", and when they are it should be "(Bob Dylan album)". As for the capitalization, the guideline is to normalize capitalization, just like how we normalize for example trampin' to Trampin'. We don't normalize the spelling of titles, just their capitalization. If someone enters the title with the alternate capitalization, a redirect should take them to the article they were looking for. Feel free to argue that those conventions should be changed, preferably at WT:NC and WT:ALBUM respectively. In the mean time we should follow our conventions, so I'm moving the article back. --PEJL 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Time out of Mind just looks wrong to me. "Out" is surely an important word in the title? --kingboyk 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks wrong to me to, but noone has questioned the claim (above) that "out" is a preposition in this case. --PEJL 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

Where in that world does that interesting extended quotation about "Mississippi" in The Outtakes section come from?

75.68.165.253 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)sean

Recording[edit]

The info box says the album was recorded in January and February of 1997. Can somebody provide a source that says there were sessions in February?--Dawson1066 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ore4444 (talkcontribs) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Capital "O"![edit]

Time O'ut of Mind.' Or is it Time Out Of Mind? But the "O" in Out is definitely capitalised. Sort it out!! Adufig2000 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the Dylan fan types who can't get enough of Love and Theft, Modern Times, and so on and bitch about Lanois and the sound on Time Out of Mind have skewed this article. Probably every single critique of the production is mentioned. Do you clowns listen to anything other than Adult Contemporary masquerading as "roots" Rock? "Dirt Road Blues" sounds great, but you found the one dolt who didn't like its great low-fi sound. They purposely recorded it that way, idiots! Go listen to Kenny G and leave Rock alone!

Do you not remember how universally acclaimed this album was? Where's those citations? How about the issue of Mojo in late 97 with Dylan on the cover with fellow artists' testimonials?


Comments[edit]

Hello there Sayantan m - here are some thoughts on the article, as requested.

  • Lead:
  • I would beef up the three paragraphs; maybe add some chart or sales info.
  • I don't think a link is needed to comeback. A short wikipedia article exists if you must link.
  • I went ahead and changed this: Despite being generally complimentary to Lanois, especially his work on the 1989 album Oh Mercy, Dylan has voiced dissatisfaction with the sound on Time Out of Mind. --> Although Dylan has spoken positively of Lanois' production style (especially for his 1989 album Oh Mercy), he expressed dissatisfaction with the sound of Time Out of Mind. Dylan has self-produced his subsequent albums. It tightens the sentence and flows better.
  • Background and writing
  • Try to combine the choppy paragraphs and standalone sentences into two or three paragraphs.
  • Recording sessions
  • Again, try combining smaller paragraphs into larger ones.
  • Add more sources. The only source for paragraph 2, for example, is for the quote.
  • Looking at the aforementioned quote, it is sourced to a forum, where the user who posted it "can't remember where [he] got it from". This is a bad source, and should be removed.
  • The blockquote from the end of the section ("Those records...") is a little long. Consider shortening it by a few sentences. I would also cite the physical Guitar World article (no url required) and not a website with a copy of it.
  • The songs
  • I think the song summaries require fleshing out to justify individual paragraphs. If this isn't possible, I would combine them into paragraphs discussing themes, lyrics, musical styles, etc.
  • Outtakes
  • Does it say anywhere in the sources that "Mississippi" was the first song not to make it onto the album, and "Dreamin' of You" second?
  • Remove the bold from the song names
  • Reception
  • Fill "Commercial reception" out with some chart information and sales numbers.
  • General comments
  • I don't think the photos are really required. The first one, for example, shows Dylan performing "Cold Irons Bound" in Masked and Anonymous. There is no mention of this performance in the main text, so the photo has very little relevance. There should be as little fair use material in an article as possible; only what is very essential (such as the album cover) should be used.
  • The other photo isn't very useful either, I hate to say. It doesn't show the famous "Soy Bomb" incident, just Dylan's face. There might be something of a case for including a photo of Dylan and "Soy Bomb", as this would illustrate the neighboring section.
  • The sound samples are O.K. - four is a little much (three would be better), and it would be good to add more info to the captions.
  • I notice that online copies and reprints of newspaper and print articles are often cited throughout the article - as some of the websites that reprint these often do not ask for permission, it would be wise simply to cite the physical articles themselves, as I mentioned in the "Recording sessions" section.
  • Overall, very good job. I can see all the work you've put into it, and I wish you luck at GAC and maybe even FAC later on down the road. Don't forget to file a peer review at WP:PR; these can be very helpful. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


Some quick comments from me as well, as requested:

  • As a Dylan fan, I found it an interesting read, but as an encyclopedia article, I found it a little too "loose". I would try to tighten it to make it more concise for the general user who is not necessarily a Dylan fan. One thing I thought was that are too many quotes. Try to ask yourself which of these are really essential, and maybe cut or paraphrase the less essential ones. For example, in the Recording section, a lot of these quotes could be rephrased ant the whole section could be shorter.
  • You need to make the reference formatting more consistent, beginning with the author, etc. Your ref #37 by Weber, Bruce, looks good. Ref #26 and several others should have the name out in front, not in the link.Try to make the rest all like that. Your ref #42 is not a proper link to anywhere, and you have used it (austriancharts.com) as a ref for a whole bunch of countries' charts—if they really all appear at that site, why is it called austriancharts.com? Is ref 38 (new-pony.com) definitely a reliable source that has gotten permission to reprint the Dylan interview?
  • I agree with I.M.S. that all the photos may not be required or really add anything to the article. I'd consider cutting them.
  • Some parts of the article lack references, for example some of what you say in "The songs" section. I also agree with I.M.S. that the some of the songs need to be fleshed out to justify individual paragraphs.


I hope this helps! Good luck. Moisejp (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Samples[edit]

Isn't it excessive to put four song samples in the same article. At most, in one article, I have seen two to three, and never consolidated (yes, I know there are exceptions). They were spread throughout the article, instead of grouped all together under one section. And all of them had detailed descriptions explaining why they should be included in the first place. I say, can "Make You Feel My Love", maybe "Cold Irons Bound" as well, and spread the others around the article, with good descriptions underneath. BootleggerWill (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Time Out of Mind. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Time Out of Mind. 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:

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)