(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Bon Iver (album) - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Bon Iver (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver)

Bon Iver (album)

[edit]

The actual name of the Album is "Bon Iver, Bon Iver".

The 4ad ref from the website reads "self-titled release. They confirmed this to me today. But you could be right, they could be wrong (they just got a press release via email), but please hold on redirecting and reverting again. This will be referenced soon, I promise. THANK YOU. Snoop God (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source: http://www.jagjaguwar.com/onesheet.php?cat=JAG135 is pretty clear about the titel of the album: it's Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Also Vernon's tweet (mentioned above) leaves no doubt. I'll edit the page (again!) to correct the error. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 4ad ref reads "self-titled". They confirmed this to me, but I think they are using the Jag press release. As i said before the press release was probably written too hastily, but we just need to get a 3rd party ref or the label to make it 100% clear. Just chill for a bit. Btw, i have a feeling the album will suck! Snoop God (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the press release was probably written too hastily. Any proof/source for that remark? For the moment this site (The source: http://www.jagjaguwar.com/onesheet.php?cat=JAG135) still stands. You have yet to give me (and the rest of Wikipedia, for that matter) a proof/source for what you say. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not shouting, Vitashaomi. Even expert editors like Snoop God are obliged to provide sources. I'll give Snoop God 24 hrs, that should give him enough time. If by that time he won't be able to show me (and everyone else) a reliable source, his edit will have to be removed. There really is no other way. I provided a source, Snoop God didn't. "Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi" does not apply. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US iTunes store has the album on a pre-order with the eponymous 'Bon Iver' title, but they could be wrong?!...and 4AD (who are releasing the album worldwide, out with the US) also list the forthcoming album as "self-titled" [SEE REF] but they could be wrong also! Snoop God (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the artist himself says the title is "Bon Iver, Bon Iver", how is that not proof enough? Hilarious. Seerunning (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He just adds , ...guess he wanted to be different so the kids would like it. Shame they don't inderstand it! Vitashaomi (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that 4AD also announces it as "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" (http://www.4ad.com/boniver/news/~announces-releas/ read the first paragraph... even if the title says "self titled") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.171.214 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artist himself has said that the album title is "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" ...how is this even still under discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.46.115 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's sum things up. "Bon Iver": there is Snoop God who finally gives his sources: iTunes and a press release seen by no one. On the other side ("Bon Iver, Bon Iver") we have the sites of 4AD and Jagjaguwar (they're the ones releasing the CD, remember?). On top of things we have a tweet by Justin Vernon himself. Final score: "Bon Iver" - 2 and "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" - 3. Keep in mind that the artist himself is on the '3 side'. Conclusion: for the moment everything points to "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". I'll edit the page in accordance with the score mentioned above: 3-2. Over & out. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sh**. Somebody beat me to it. I'll leave the page as it is. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. I've been warned not to participate in Wikipedia and I should have followed the advice. This Snoop God ("nomen est omen") thinks he knows better than the artist Justin Vernon himself. And there's no one who dares to correct this "valued editor". A couple more of these guys and Wikipedia is doomed... Maybe for the better. So long. --BonBonIverIver (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC) The releases is now avaailable to pre from 4AD, all Amazon websites, iTunes (US) and various other retailers. They are all displaying the album as Bon Iver (self-titled).[reply]

  • This cite was added by Snoop God and is as clear as day. If you think the artist is on twitter, then go and spend time twittering with him and STOP making these stupid edits here. Thanks so much. Vitashaomi (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You both are being rather silly about this whole thing. If you had actually read the press release you'd see they refer to the album as Bon Iver, Bon Iver in the text despite calling it self-titled or Bon Iver in the title. Vernon himself confirmed this on his Twitter page, which is easily as valid as using iTunes as a source. The only source I might add. Pomtidom (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most stupid edit wars in Wikipedia history. The album is DEFINITELY called "Bon Iver, Bon Iver", as confirmed by Justin himself. 187.37.70.177 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cover of the album clearly indicates that the name of the album is indeed Bon Iver, Bon Iver whether Snoop God thinks this is a silly name is not relevant. Justin Vernon's twitter, both labels websites and Bon Iver's website also support this.

http://blogtower.posterous.com/whoops

Spaceyo (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, consider the stuff you read online is copied from the initial press release. These things are ofter done in super fast time and not considered. So, 4AD did not compose what is written on the 4ad site, Justin did not write text on Boniver.com, it is all copy, paste edit. I will add the iTunes ref also. Or do you think the two bigest online retailers would get it wrong? Thanks again. Snoop God (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see why not. They have both been wrong before. Have you actually seen the picture of the album cover featuring the album title: "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". The same text in the same font is featured on both labels websites and Bon Iver's website. I am suspecting that you are trolling everyone. Spaceyo (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps editing back to the wrong name. In this video Justin mentions the album name i.e. "Bon Iver, Bon Iver": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4cQ2abG5-c Spaceyo (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the "angle" he talks about is for pr - a slant (i think i get it now) Was it really worth it? Vitashaomi (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you admit you're wrong then? Why hasn't the page been changed to the correct title? Eica (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC
      • It's also on the LP cover he posted that's linked here, some people are just slow.

http://blogtower.posterous.com/whoops Spaceyo (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The album is entitled 'Bon Iver' by the artist Bon Iver= a self titled album!

The interesting? angle is that they use Bon Iver, Bon Iver as an image, which confuses all the kids. Vitashaomi (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --142.166.52.44 (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I don't think the edit history needs merging. If it does, leave a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Iver (album) → Bon Iver, Bon Iver – Multiple sources name Bon Iver, Bon Iver as the correct title, including Bon Iver's website, Vernon's Twitter, and even the two references listed on this very page. Tamajared (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Self-titled is still true even for Bon Iver, Bon Iver and every single primary source lists the title of this album as Bon Iver, Bon Iver in their descriptions except for iTunes. iTunes leaked the album a month ahead of release, so how reliable are they? Pomtidom (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is referenced, and i could add at least 10 more. So, sorry, no - the page WILL NOT be merged. Please go to the guy on Twitter and post stuff on that site. THANK YOU. Snoop God (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on, SnoopGod? The 4AD article clearly says Bon Iver, Bon Iver is the title of the album. Did you even read that article? It's in the first sentence under the album art. Are you also going to argue with Bon Iver's OWN WEBSITE and VERIFIED TWITTER? If iTunes and Amazon say otherwise, those are still only 2 sources. There are 3+ sources (Bon Iver website, Twitter, 4AD article) that have the album titled Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Why are you so dedicated to such a weak argument? 65.3.67.227 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, 4AD copied the Jagjaguwar press release, so the initial info is copied over to Boniver.com and copied/edited to the 4AD site. Bon Iver does not write the words on his own website. Have no idea about his Twitter account, but it is probably the same deal. Hope that clears it up for you finaly. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to provide your reference? I see only two references on the main page, and they both say it's Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Thanks in advance. Pomtidom (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bon-Iver/dp/B004ZAXYOU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305712506&sr=1-1-spell Snoop God (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you TALKING about?! So what if Vernon doesn't write the words on his own website? You think he just has random strangers who don't know what they're talking about manage it? Anyone who designs the Bon Iver website isn't going to just make word ARTWORK (not a typo, actual art) of the wrong album title! ABSOLUTELY move to Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Tamajared (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop God, I understand where you are coming from, but I ask that you please consider these sources:
1.http://twitter.com/#!/blobtower/status/60814182500671488 - Justin Vernon's personal twitter, written directly by him, where he confirms the title "Bon Iver, Bon Iver"
2.http://jagjaguwar.com/blog/2011/05/bon-iver-bon-iver-the-lyrics/ - A post on Bon Iver's record label containing the album's lyrics, posted only two days ago, where the title "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" is used twice
3.http://blogtower.posterous.com/whoops - A picture of the physical album itself, posted by Justin Vernon, where "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" can clearly be seen along the top
4.http://www.scdistribution.com/boniver/
5.http://boniver.org/
6.http://jagjaguwar.com/ - three different sites that use the same image, not text, of the album title, "Bon Iver, Bon Iver", which would have had to have been passed by the band before it was used, especially since it's on the physical packaging of the album. Also note that the title of the webpages in links 4 and 5 are "Bon Iver, Bon Iver".
It just makes much more sense to trust all these sources, which are very close to the band, than two retailers who have nothing to do with the band besides selling their album. This wouldn't even be the first time a retailer has gotten the name of something wrong. Jioviero (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop God, you are wrong. Please admit it. Jioviero has a good list of sources, INCLUDING Justin's own confirmation through Twitter. 187.37.70.177 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Snoop God allowed to lock the article? It is quite obvious that the album is entitled Bon Iver, Bon Iver; there are several sources that confirm this. Instead the Wikipedia page references to the album as Bon Iver because Snoop God thinks Bon Iver, Bon Iver is a silly name.Spaceyo (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the article in view of all the evidence provided by Jioviero. Pomtidom (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Album title

[edit]

The references all point to a self titled album - they just did something weird with the title, I guess to be different, they use the (,) to seperate the artist and the album title. I just checked the initial reveiws and they all go with 'Bon Iver' by Bon Iver or Bon Iver - Bon Iver. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album is called "Bon Iver, Bon Iver", by Bon Iver. Please stop this, Snoop God. It's embarrassing. 187.37.70.177 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that calling an album Bon Iver, Bon Iver by Bon Iver would be embarrassing. Cheers. Snoop God (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the intro, infobox and track listing to match the title. NY Times uses the double name. I acknowledge that Rolling Stone, Amazon and iTunes use the single name, but the sources cited above e.g. Twitter are conclusive on the official name. Retailers get titles wrong; here's a case where Amazon doesn't match an album title to the title track name. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the early talk you will sse where the problem lies. The for Bon Iver, Bon Iver title cite 4 copy/paste versions from the early press release. You can find at least 20 references online from Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut, Ascap, Amazon, iTunes, Times, to name but a few. Note: all the early reviews cite Bon Iver by Bon Iver. They simply insert a [,] between the names on the album cover, as a slant. I hope this clears it up. Vitashaomi (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your explanation is plausible, it is incorrect. Vernon has tweeted that the album name IS "Bon Iver, Bon Iver," NOT merely "Bon Iver" followed by the band's name. Tamajared (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)T[reply]
This is clearly a case where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should apply. If the artist has explicitly announced what the title of the album is, then obviously that announcement carries more weight than any other source on the matter, regardless of whether or not it was on Twitter. (Also citing twitter is acceptable under certain circumstances and I think this qualifies as one of them)
Right now this talk page reads like a parody of Wikipedia. Let common sense prevail over policy here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just been reading this and had to say something. Can I suggest that we wait until the physical release? Surely the spine of the album cover, the front cover itself or the disc will bring an end to this once and for all? Until then we can just have the article titled, say... '2011 Bon Iver album'? Or something which avoids using 'Bon Iver (album)' or 'Bon Iver, Bon Iver'. I'm of the belief the article should be 'Bon Iver, Bon Iver', but in all honesty I think we should try to avoid dispute here and bring this to a peaceful end after all this chaos over an album title... Cross Pollination (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spine reads 'Bon Iver, Bon Iver' Snoop God (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interview on Pitchfork with Vernon reads "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" in the body with an explanation of the confusion. When you rip the physical copy of the album into iTunes it's listed as just "Bon Iver". Surely this is proof enough? 86.159.85.64 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physical copies of the album are released from the record label (Jagjaguwar) with a covering sticker entitled "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". 58.172.212.41 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album is simply called Bon Iver. Not Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Contact the label if you're really unsure, because the wiki page comes off as foolish and out of touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.111.84 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editrequest

[edit]

Per RM, the article must be Bon Iver, Bon Iver not Bon Iver (album), an IP made a copy-paste move yesterday. Please revert all of this, the copyrights are at Bon Iver, Bon Iver: Save this and save this, and if it possible make a history merge. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the references (look on the page) from iTunes, Rolling Stone, and Amazon the album is entitled 'Bon Iver'. They use Bon Iver, Bon Iver as an image; a slant - but the album is self-titled. This is confirmed by all initial reviews and every other store (both download and product) pre-ordering now. I could add 50+ references... I also made a point of calling the 4AD press office(this was pointed out in talk, way back) and they confirmed the album is simply Bon Iver by Bon Iver, but they were just doing something different as a selling point, illustrating Bon iver, Bon iver on the cover. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but am not comfortable overriding a decision of one of my colleagues so I have left a note at AN3. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Martin, but the note you left at AN3 would suggest you disagree? Snoop God (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my indentation was incorrect. I was agreeing with Tbhotch! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album is clearly called "Bon Iver, Bon Iver." 200.20.164.4 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still yet to read a third party article, review or interview that reads Bon Iver, Bon Iver - Bon Iver. All the major magazines, press and retailers go with Bon Iver - Bon Iver. Snoop God (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arrow Reverted. The article will be here in line with the decision of the previous requested move. If you want to move the article, please open a new request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, at least copy over the template, please. I think we've lost the will to keep going over the same ground. Snoop God (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally good sense prevailed. It can be tough when a contributor's ego and his unwillingness to admit that he's wrong gets in the way of facts. At least this happened to a silly topic such as the new Bon Iver album; it's sobering to think of this sort of behavior in a context where it's more potentially harmful . 200.20.164.4 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are in the references (I added them), check them out on the page. But I agree the topic is very silly. Snoop God (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not aware of which template you are referring to. Could you point me to the earlier discussion, or else start a new section? Once there is consensus for a change, please use {{editprotected}} and I will make the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the album and all it says is "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" on both the album and the spine. If an artists' CD has their name in the title, they don't need to write their name as well. You don't see that in any other "self-titled" album... Mariah Carey's first CD doesn't say "Mariah Carey" twice on it because that's unnecessary. Because the words are separated by a comma, on ONE line, you know that the album is titled "Bon Iver, Bon Iver." Plain and simple. Oh, also, Justin confirms the title several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.132.249 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Album Title Request

[edit]

One thing: the album infobox should read Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Also, the first sentence should read: "Bon Iver, Bon Iver is the forthcoming self-titled album from Wisconsin band Bon Iver." Technically it's still self-titled, so we can leave that, but the name is still Bon Iver, Bon Iver, and not just Bon Iver. 71.126.246.157 (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The album name has been pretty clearly demonstrated as Bon Iver, Bon Iver in statements by the artist himself and label and distributor sites. Blankfaze (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Sunday Times, Gaurdian, Uncut, Q... all got it wrong?! So you think the album is entitled Bon Iver, Bon Iver by Bon Iver? You just don't get the concept. Vitashaomi (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vitashaomi: I don't frequent the discussion pages of Wikipedia. This article was one of my first, and I would just like to let you know that your and Snoop God's behavior is the exact reason why some people take issue with fully trusting Wikipedia. I can't believe how childish and douchey you two have acted, and I just came here to say the following: Scoreboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.35.42 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS THIS STILL A QUESTION????? Justin CONFIRMED the title is Bon Iver, Bon Iver in MULTIPLE interviews (Pitchfork, Jimmy Fallon) and on his Twitter. This is ridiculous. You can't change an album title because you don't like it. Grow up and leave the page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heardafeeling (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is Bon Iver - Bon Iver, NOT Bon Iver, Bon Iver - Bon Iver Snoop God (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're wrong. I don't like the title either, but it has been confirmed BY THE ARTIST that that is the title. I'm sorry you don't like it, but Wikipedia is not a place for subjectivity. So let's go back and forth at this until the page is blocked for edits again. See you in the Edits section!71.251.132.249 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CD is called Bon Iver by Bon Iver. This is confirmed by all the publications and also ASCAP who publish the titles - and if they got it wrong, the writer would not get any royalties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.201.43 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references on the very article state Bon Iver - Bon Iver. Look at the 30+ reviews on Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/music/bon-iver/critic-reviews Justlaugh (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And these places call it Bon Iver, Bon Iver: Justin's Twitter account (http://twitter.com/blobtower/status/60814182500671488), Justin on Jimmy Falon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4cQ2abG5-c), the 4AD website (http://www.4ad.com/releases/21274), the Jagjaguwar website (http://www.jagjaguwar.com/onesheet.php?cat=JAG135), Last.fm (http://www.last.fm/music/Bon+Iver/Bon+Iver%2C+Bon+Iver), Pitchfork writer AND JUSTIN VERNON in an interview (http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/7989-bon-iver/), Sputnikmusic (http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/43589/Bon-Iver-Bon-Iver%2C-Bon-Iver/), and Target (http://www.target.com/Bon-Iver/dp/B0050QIQVO/), just to name a few. Bottom line: JUSTIN and the LABEL repeatedly refer to the album as Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Yes, I do question "all the publications" (i.e. SOME of them) when the ARTIST confirms the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.132.249 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like what they did with that but technically the album should be called Bon Iver - Bon Iver. [See they just use , instead of -] Justlaugh (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Technically" is not defined as "Justlaugh's opinion." Sorry, but you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.132.249 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me and all the leading musc publications? And can sign your comments by typing four tides at the end....thanks. Justlaugh (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you and many of the leading musc [sic] publications. When the artist and label confirm the title, I'm fairly certain that has more credibility than Spin and Rolling Stone.71.251.132.249 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could see why you (and others obviously) are misled - but you fail to see that its just a spin. If the album was called Bon Iver, Bon Iver it would have 3 Bon Ivers on the cover. I just looked at my my CD's and only one (in around

3k) does not have the name of the artist on it. The CD is Sigur Ros, which has no text on it. Do you get it now? Do you get the spin? Justlaugh (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely wrong. Do you think that your personal opinion of how CD art should look is enough to warrant editing the article? There are PLENTY of albums that have ONLY the album title on the CD, NOT the artist name as well, so I don't see why you think it's some rule that both need to appear on the CD. I can give dozens of examples! If the name of the artist (Bon Iver) is in the album title (Bon Iver, Bon Iver), it does not need to appear on the CD! Common sense, kid.71.251.132.249 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO YOU GET THE SPIN? DO YOU SEE IT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT? Justlaugh (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.235.35.30, 21 June 2011

[edit]

Would it be possible to add the length of the album (39:25) to the information box?

98.235.35.30 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the History section

[edit]

The main Bon Iver article has a lot of information about this album that isn't on this article (where it belongs). I tried to incorporate it here a few days ago, but some tosser reversed it. Why? It's more than relevant here. --The monkeyhate (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

http://www.metacritic.com/music/bon-iver/critic-reviews (32 Critics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.183.130 (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Iver - Bon Iver

[edit]

The album is eponymous, self titled. The coma is inserted but that does not justify calling the article Bon Iver, Bon Iver. If you do a quick search on Google you will find all of the professional journals refer to the album as Bon Iver - Bon Iver. This is technically correct and the wikipedia article should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.201.43 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please change the name of the page to Bon Iver (album)! This is really embarrassing and I can see now why Pitchfork stopped linking to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is most definitely not to be taken seriously. Justlaugh (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with Pitchfork, Vernon explains that despite the album being called Bon Iver in publications, its correct name IS Bon Iver, Bon Iver. http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/7989-bon-iver/ --Tamajared (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask him (via Twitter maybe) if he calls the album Bon Iver, Bon Iver - Bon Iver! Vitashaomi (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed...why. The page should be moved to Bon Iver (album) a shame that some of the more experienced editors f*****

up with this one...or gave up. Justlaugh (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. 65.3.96.192 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps much at all, but since people are giving weight to "professional journals" and it often seems very ambiguous Time Magazine calls the album "Bon Iver, Bon Iver by Bon Iver" http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2070763_2072056_2072254,00.html Keller.davis (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still discussing this? Justin Vernon himself has confirmed both in a video on Pitchfork AND on his personal Twitter that the album title is indeed "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". How on earth could you argue that critics know what it's called and not the guy who wrote the damn thing? It's time to let this go. However silly, this record is "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" BY Bon Iver. I didn't make the call - the words were uttered by Vernon himself, which should be enough to put this to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.61.212 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real title is Bon Iver. No one with a brain would call it Bon Iver, Bon Iver - Bon Iver. They just insert the comma, to be cool... like "the kids will love it", problem is the kids dont get it! Justlaugh (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they never got it. Vitashaomi (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title Confirmed by Press Team

[edit]

I emailed someone at Jagjaguwar to see if they had any input on the CD title drama and they surprisingly got back to me! I'm sure this will do nothing for all the people refusing to listen to the other confirmations by the label and Justin Vernon himself, but for those of you who know the correct title, here's more confirmation for us. I actually like the title now that I got this explanation!
"The title is meant to appear Bon Iver, Bon Iver like a place. (But people are going to call it what they want to call it. No use fussing over it.)"
There you go. I'm sure the pressed people out there will say the email is fake or something else crazy (here's a screencap, if that helps: http://tinypic.com/r/i70cue/7), but it's nice to have EVEN MORE confirmation!71.251.132.249 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new then. The title of the album is simply Bon Iver , by Bon Iver. Snoop God (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to that screencap, the ---TITLE--- is Bon Iver, Bon Iver. The email did NOT say the title followed by the artist is Bon Iver and then Bon Iver. She said the TITLE is Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Snoop God, please admit you are wrong. --Tamajared (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The leading music journalists are trained to write (about music), so much so that we pay money to read it. They would know how to format the title. ALL of the reviews call it Bon Iver. Sorry to disappoint. Also, if you want to make personal accusations, please use my discussion page. Generally we do not discriminate against individuals and DO NOT use Wikipedia as a forum for individual preferences. Snoop God (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The musicians are the ones who name their own albums, so much so that we (often) pay money to buy them! They would know how to format the title. Both the band leader and the band's label calls it Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Sorry to disappoint. Alternatively, let's find some music journalists who mistakenly called The Beatles "The Beetles" so we can change their article name accordingly. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He named the album Bon Iver. He just had an idea to place a comma between the band name and the title. Is it so hard to get? Justlaugh (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Justlaugh, this is what one would THINK he did. But he was asked to clarify and said that this is NOT the case; the album is indeed titled Bon Iver, Bon Iver regardless of what any publications say. 74.161.50.97 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when i play the cd on my laptop the title, from gracenote, comes up "Bon Iver" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.154.113 (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PAGE TO BON IVER (ALBUM)

[edit]

Lately I've seen a few pub bands and some MUSICIANS I know of, who play at weddings (when they are not working in a call centre) and now have a page on Wikipedia. There is deffinately a shift here. Wikipedia is actually a bit of a joke, and well, does this article prove it. People who are not very clever get to write and make up these pages but what happened to citations? This is an encyclopedia after all, but definitely not to be taken too seriously. Justlaugh (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very immature. The album is indeed "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" by Bon Iver. It may sound silly to you, but that doesn't change the fact that IT IS THE TITLE. So just stop. 68.159.226.19 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The album is not titled "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" you foolish people. It is Bon Iver's self-titled release so just calling it "Bon Iver" is the accurate name. Just because stylistically it has been referred to as "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" on a small number of occasions doesn't mean that it's the name we should call the article. Music publications, music chart sources, reviewers, other musicians have all referred to it solely as "Bon Iver", as it is right to do. It is a joke that this article has been allowed to remain called "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" for so long. To those who are able- change it. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard charts and UK and International charts

[edit]

I don't know if this helps... Billbard 200 chart where the album was #1 and is #2 now says Bon Iver for the album title. http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/billboard-200?tag=chscr1 ... and the Billboard Bon Iver page: http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/bon-iver/941330 Then you have another very official and very reliable authority on British album sales. It also has it as Bon Iver: http://www.theofficialcharts.com/albums-chart/ The album is #1 in Norway. The title of the album is credited as "Bon Iver": http://lista.vg.no/liste/topp-40-album/2 It is also #1 in Denmark. It is credited as "Bon Iver" http://www.hitlisten.nu/ The Billboard chart has great credibilty as it is "the" source for album sales... And frankly, when an artist is so incompetent he can't change a Billboard quotation widely considered as "the" reference for American albums, or the British Charts, "the" authority of albums sales in Britain, or at least have the courtesy to call them at Billboard and at TheOfficialCharts (UK) and request an amendment to it, then I don't care what he says in this or that quotation of his or in an e-mail to one individual. The title is and remains Bon Iver. Incidentally, Amazon may be less reliable, but it still has it as Bon Iver: http://www.amazon.com/Bon-Iver/dp/B004XE0P5E I also read in comments above (see section "Title Confirmed by Press Team" section on this page) that when you buy the CD and listen to it, the credit is Bon Iver as well. So his record company while pressing the CD also gives authenticity to the Bon Iver claim to the detriment of Bon Iver, Bon Iver. I don't also like the tone of many of the comments particularly when they are from individuals who want to remain anonymous yet claim they know it better. If you were very serious about a claim, you would come with a user name and then argue, always remaining respectful of contributors with hundreds of edits. werldwayd (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at pretty much all the references on the page, almost all of them go with 'Bon Iver'. Page should be Bon Iver (album). 92.40.51.65 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 references in support of Bon Iver, Bon Iver. However when you look at reference #2, it tells another story altogether saying it is just Bon Iver. See the reference #2 http://www.spin.com/reviews/bon-iver-bon-iver-jagjaguwar/ It just says Bon Iver. Yet it is being used as if PROOF that Bon Iver, Bon Iver is correct. It is clear that this particular reference needs to be removed from their as it is proving exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to be claiming. werldwayd (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely correct, it should removed. It should also be noted that the three other "correct"? references are all copied (copy/paste) from the initial (hastily written) press release, as noted several times on the rather haphazard discussion page. Pretty much all of the external links use the 'Bon Iver' title. Snoop God (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

[edit]

Confusion continues. Now the title of the Wikipedia article say Bon Iver, Bon Iver, yet the opening sentence is: "Bon Iver is the self-titled second full-length album from American indie-folk band Bon Iver"... and then Wikipedia continues: "Bon Iver's second album was rumored to be "Letters for Marvin" but was later confirmed to be "Bon Iver".... This is not in line with the title at all... Then the infobox of the album says just: Bon Iver... So which is which. I don't want to be part of this controversy though. But all I know is that we should be consistent. If the title will remain Bon Iver, Bon Iver then these statements and infobox I have indicated should be amended accordingly. werldwayd (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have taken the initiative to add a clarifying note. So after amendments, it reads: "Bon Iver, Bon Iver, also commonly known as Bon Iver is the second full-length album from American indie-folk band Bon Iver. I have also added the note: The official Billboard 200 and the UK Albums Chart as well as other international charts (most notably Danish Tracklisten and Norwegian VG-lista album charts where the album reached #1) also use the title Bon Iver rather than Bon Iver, Bon Iver. This will give both sides of the argument rather than one version werldwayd (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is more confusing and less correct. Page name should be changed, and then maybe add a section about the title, which should be more like "Bon Iver, also known as Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALBUM NAME IS BON IVER

[edit]

Wikipedia is an absolute f****** joke. Seriously, why do you have citations? Someone in admin (they get paid) should be seriously bollocked for this. Justlaugh (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album title is, as confirmed by Justin Vernon himself as well as the record company, Bon Iver, Bon Iver. You can argue until your face turns blue, but that doesn't change the facts (no matter what any critic or journalist says). 80.203.61.212 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've still not seen one article that calls it Bon Iver, Bon Iver - Bon Iver. Wikipedia, the music world is just laughing at this. But i guess we are not proffesionals, so this is what happens when people get to write articles about stuff. Well, Justlaugh (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of the external links use the 'Bon Iver' title. I was actually discussing the title issue months before the album came out and I strongly argued against Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Snoop God (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the title has been confirmed by Justin Vernon. The fact that other articles can't get it right does not mean that Wikipedia should mimic these critics and repeat their mistake. The ultimate say lies with the artist themselves and the record company, and in this case, we have confirmation from both parties. Also, what you argued or didn't argue against months prior to the album's release is utterly irrelevant, Snoop. 80.203.61.212 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4AD call it Bon Iver (although they used the Jag press release which could have been more clear) through their official channels and the BMI catalogue number and ASCAP licencing also use the Bon Iver title. Justin calls it Bon Iver, Bon Iver but not everyone gets the spin. See, he doesn't call it Bon Iver, Bon Iver - Bon Iver. Massivelyoverrated (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to how to call this article

[edit]

Due Snoop God (talk · contribs) and Justlaugh (talk · contribs) do not understand the phrases "Search for consensus", "Reliable source" and "According to the record label it is Bon Iver, Bon Iver" I am creating this RFC of how the article should go.

Note that I do not care about it, but after those disruptive editors started to create copyright infringements I decided to stay. Now the continue their disruptive editing here. Guys, the article is called Bon Iver? NO. Why contradict it then? WP:The truth is not a reliable source.

There alternatives are:

Bon Iver, Bon Iver[1] (commonly referred as Bon Iver) is the second full-length album from American indie-folk band of the same name, Bon Iver.

Bon Iver (officially titled Bon Iver, Bon Iver)[1] is the homonym second full-length album from American indie-folk band Bon Iver.

References
  1. ^ a b Record label

Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a poll. As nominator I comment in a neutral way that I do not care how it should go, but I do not want to be blocked because two editors do not understand the word "consensus". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who support ALT1

[edit]
Both US & UK labels officialy call it Bon Iver, however the initial press release could have been more clear re the concept of the title Vitashaomi (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This way would make more sense, as it is saying the actual title first and what it is commonly called (whether correctly or incorrectly) next. This lead is not saying that "Bon Iver" is at all the correct title, and it isn't. Tamajared (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best way would be to name the article Bon Iver (album) but have a dedicated part about the title. Vitashaomi (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't understand how we're taking secondary sources over primary ones; Vernon himself should be the most trustworthy source, no? He did write most of the album, after all. Pomtidom (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is some people do not understand the idea; the angle or whatever he calls it. Note: the lables officialy call it Bon Iver. Vitashaomi (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 should be the correct title. However, the album has been credited on all music charts as Bon Iver, but, before the album was released, Billboard.com had an article here describing the album, and refer to it as Bon Iver, Bon Iver at least two times. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "angle" that Vitashaomi is discussing is that the album TITLE is meant to appear like a location (like many of the song titles, such as "Minnesota, WI" and "Hinnom, TX"). I got this response directly from someone at the label. But beside from the fact that I do GET the angle, the most important fact is that JUSTIN confirmed the title on his verified Twitter account and in interviews refers to the album as Bon Iver, Bon Iver (Jimmy Fallon, Pitchfork). Why would you ignore Justin's verification and instead listen to other sources, be it Rolling Stone, Target, or Vitashaomi? Heardafeeling (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely needs to be "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". The artist has confirmed that name, it really is that simple. Some people are either trolling or have the reading comprehension of an infant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.51.207 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". Vernon himself is the ultimate authority on this. And it makes sense, considering the album's concept. Stupidest edit war in Wikipedia history. --187.38.69.177 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who support ALT2

[edit]
  • Definitely should be Bon Iver (album) - but without "Bon Iver (officially titled Bon Iver, Bon Iver)[1] is the homonymus second full-length album from American indie-folk band Bon Iver" PS what is homonymus? Justlaugh (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, explain why it should be called as ALT1 and why "(officially titled Bon Iver, Bon Iver)[1]" should be removed. The record label and the producer perfectly know how the album is called due they produce it and distribute it. bank Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the only correct way to call the article is Bon Iver (album), but I agree that having a section discussing the anomalies is a good idea. Justlaugh (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band don't call the album Bon Iver, Bon Iver, they just draw a comma in between the title and band name - which is actually really cool. Technically though the album is entitled Bon Iver - this is bore out by online services, stores, press and official channels. Cheers, Seventhirtyam (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"press materials and retail outlets refer to the album as Bon Iver, but Vernon has indicated that the title is Bon Iver, Bon Iver"--Michig (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aghast that we are still discussing this. This has been explained numerous times now. The only correct title is "Bon Iver". The band name is Bon Iver, the album is called Bon Iver, and there is a comma separating them, thats it! But that doesn't constitute a Bon Iver, Bon Iver title. The following is some key things that back up the Bon Iver title... :*Buy the CD and play it on your pc and it automatically calls it Bon Iver... (done via Gracenote)
  • Look on the official charts and they call it Bon Iver...
  • Look at the reviews and they call it Bon Iver...
  • Buy it from iTunes and Amazon and they call it Bon Iver...
  • Look on the official 4ad and Bon Iver YouTube channels and they call it Bon Iver...
  • Check licencing (bmi) and publishing (ascap) and they use - Bon Iver (album)...

Twas pointed out months ago that the initial press release was copied over from the US label to the Bon Iver offical site and the UK label, but note that the 4AD website call it Bon Iver (although they still show the initial press release, which is a bit unclear and should have been done better). No getting away from the fact that all media and major outlets go with the Bon Iver title. Vitashaomi (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really much I can add to this argument but the points above are all the crucial ones and I believe it only sensible to call the article "Bon Iver (album)". Officially Mr X (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be called Bon Iver (album) with a special section outlining the controversy and confusion about the title per all objective reliable sources such as record label, news reports, Billboard listings etc. which would take precedent over a quote from Bon Iver on his Twitter account and a Jimmy Fallon interview.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People with another alternatives

[edit]

I would be up for starting a section about ambiguity over the album title. Putting it in the first line could be confusing. Vitashaomi (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. The section should mention that Justin Vernon refers to the album as "Bon Iver, Bon Iver", though other news publications and music distribution services list the album as self-titled. All with proper citations, of course. oobugtalk/contrib 01:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirded. Amen to that!!!! But based on my experience about this specific case, we do need actually just that... prayers I mean...! LOL Needless to say I am with Alternative 2 -- Call the article Bon Iver (album), and change the lead as: Bon Iver (ALSO --replacing the word OFFICIALLY-- titled Bon Iver, Bon Iver) is the homonym second full-length album from American indie-folk band Bon Iver.werldwayd (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

[edit]

The lead needs a total rewrite besides this album name issue and so I am adding a tag. If you read WP:LEAD you will notice that the lead is supposed to summarize the article and should not include quotes and info about other albums etc. Some of the info there may be OK for the body of the article in a description section etc but is grossly inappropriate in the lead in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction content

[edit]

I think some information in the introduction should be moved to "History" section. (Potato76828606 (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A section about the title

[edit]

Why is there no section about the album's title? Since there's so much argument about it, that Bon Iver himself said something about it but people still reject it, etc. This could help. Is it relevant?(70.51.200.94 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A new perspective on the title issue.

[edit]

It seems as if many have failed to realize a crucial piece of the title debate: When Justin says the album's title is Bon Iver, Bon Iver, this is simply a stylized version of the album's actual title: Bon Iver - Bon Iver (as in Bon Iver by Bon Iver). In an encyclopedic article, the title should written in its official, non-stylized form. The title of this article should read Bon Iver (album). Bon Iver, Bon Iver is just the stylized form of the album title that is printed on the packaging. -Ldud (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is printed on the album or CD is the name, for the purpose of a WP article, IMHO. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there's no evidence that it is simply a stylized version of the album's actual title. Did the tweet, press releases, and record label listings claim this was the the title and artist or merely the title? It's the later. This blog post might put this issue into perspective more. The record label, in the same post, can be seen referring to the album casually as "Bon Iver", but officially as "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". Clearly the later is appropriate for Wikipedia. -SeiADP (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2017

[edit]
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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Iver, Bon Iver → Bon Iver (album) – Majority of the article's sources refer to the album as simply "Bon Iver" (most of the repetition comes from listing the band's name before the album's). Album is listed on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, band's official website, and others as simply "Bon Iver". Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" can be listed in the lead as an alternate title. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bon_Iver_(album)&oldid=1244941166"