Talk:Ellie Goulding

Both?

Would it be significant to mention she's the first one to get both the Critic's Choice, and the Sound of.. poll? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for notifying. Jonny (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't true. What about Adele in 2008? 109.255.61.29 (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts

I have removed the "Associated acts" infobox field as none of the artists listed went under the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

Source: Template:Infobox musical artist.

Thanks, Jonny (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Background section

I think the statement about her Sixth Form education needs a further source - the cited article mentions only Lady Hawkins school, which has its own Sixth Form very different from the Hereford Sixth Form College --95.144.238.248 (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

So she originated in London, eh? 109.255.10.92 (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The article should state when she moved to London. Jim Michael (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dating Greg James?

Ok, we have established that she is dating Greg James from an article in the sun, as national newspapers are subject to some degree or editorial control I'm inclined to say this source meets Wikipedia policies on verifiability. However such info is potentially unnecessary per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Discuss... Pol430 talk to me 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - such info is possibly uncalled for per WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Although it can be verified, is it relevant to the article? Pol430 talk to me 19:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is relevent. On articles about living people there is usually a section called personal life or a section in the infobox which relates to marriages. i don't see how this is any different. The relationship has been going on for over a year now so it's obviously a bit serious. If anyone disagrees they can take it out, but I believe that it should be in there - just as it is other articles of musicians, actors etc. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's of no relevance. When people are married, a mention of their spouse may be due, as it may be when they are in the functional equivalent of a marriage (Alan Rickman, for example). But Wikipedia is not a gossip column, and following the dating lives of subjects seems like recentism. I realize that this creates a line drawing problem, but wherever the line lies, it lies closer to Rickman's forty years than to Goulding-James' twelve months. Is it "a bit serious"? Let me try to put the point in the vernacular of the kids these days (if "Glee" is anything to go by): "If he wanted it in Wikipedia, he shoulda put a ring on it." If Mr. James will drop to one knee, I shall drop my objection, for betrothal certainly merits inclusion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible antisemitism/vandalism

I couldn't help but notice that there seems to have been persistent vandalism on this article claiming that Ellie Goulding is Jewish - something I could find no reference for - and implying this in racist terms: ("Ellie Goulding is a full time jew", 2 January 2011 revision and others.)

The offending user(s) have posted under several IP addresses including 80.4.39.34 (NTL/Virgin POP serving the Lambeth/South London area.)

Something to keep an eye on, perhaps Agent Ogres (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite for encyclopedic style

This article read as if it had been written by an obsessed teenage fan and Polydor's PR department. I've rewritten it in a more encylopedic style, eliminated the dubious sourcing (Twitter as a source? Really?), chopped out the Crystal Ball gazing, and trimmed it down to a size appropriate to a singer with (in reality) an EP, one album, and a clutch of singles.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Twitter not considered a source to you? Considering that Goulding's Twitter has been verified as her, so everything written on her Twitter page come straight from the star's mouth unless otherwise specified...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) — 97.90.124.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. See WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:BLP.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have distaste for her or her music then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article. And as far as your removal of a "Personal Life" section, she's a public figure, she's famous and coming along with fame is the fact that people are going to be interested in a star's personal life especially considering she's dating another "famous" or well known person.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) — 97.90.124.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I have no opinion on her or her music; that I am neither a fan nor a critic is a strike in favor of my edits—see WP:NPOV. As to the "personal life" section, it is not typically notable that someone has friends and a significant other. This isn't a fanzine, it's an encyclopedia.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed. You've managed to make her page sound much more encyclopedic. Congratulations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) — 97.90.124.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Thankyou. Creating an encyclopedia is what we're trying to do here. If you have other goals—enhancing a subject as an artist and burnishing their accomplishments, for example—you might find other projects a better fit for your energies. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

She's a famous artist and public figure, her accomplishments should be recognized no matter what.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) — 97.90.124.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Which accomplishments that were recognized before are no longer recognized by the new version of the text? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The ENTIRE bit about Ellie Runs. I consider that an accomplishment, or at least worthy of inclusion. I'm not 100% sure why you, or whoever else, felt differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked which accomplishments I removed that were recognized in the text before I edited it. Whether or not "Ellie Runs" is an accomplishment, and whether or not it ought to be included, I didn't remove it because it was not recognized in the text before I edited it. See [1] You obviously can't criticize my original rewrite edit for removing something that was not added to the article until a week after my rewrite. What else do you have?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Singles

WP:NSONGS is pretty clear that while singles "that have been ranked on national …music charts … are probably notable," "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." I really doubt that this standard is met when every single released by Goulding is given an article, and I suggest that Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song), Guns and Horses, The Writer (song), Under the Sheets, and Lights (Ellie Goulding song), should be merged and redirected to either this article or their parent album.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the above person leads a very sad life if all they worry about is if wikipedia articles warrant there own page! Just leave it as it is and move away from your Computer, go outside maybe? You might like it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim 21 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Each of Goulding's single has displayed a different facet of her genre and a different take on her voice, writing and production style. Furthermore her single Starry Eyed peaked at number 4 on the UK Charts as well as having the distinction of being the 39th highest charting single of 2010 and The Writer cracking the top 20. Plus each article seems to have enough verifiable background critical information to warrant an article. We won't be merging her single articles. Her songs managed to make a significant impact on music on 2009 and 2010 and deserve their own pages. Plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) — 97.90.124.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Starry Eyed at least has coverage and charted well, so I don't see why that would be merged. Simon Dodd, you don't seem to have thought this through very much - please go back and properly assess notability before proposing a merge like this, and also pick a target - merging to this article or the album is not the same thing at all. Fences&Windows 20:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My choice to leave to consensus the question of which article should be the target was not an oversight; it was considered and is in line with the relevant policy. Here's why. I conclude that having separate articles for the singles violates WP:NSONGS. But remedy is a separate issue: merely concluding that NSONGS is violated doesn't answer the question of what to do about it. NSONGS offers two options: articles failing it "should be merged to articles about an artist or album" (emphasis added), and since I have no strong opinion as to which of these two remedies we adopt, I felt it made more sense to leave that question to others, as consensus may allow.

As to Starry Eyed having charted, you seem to have forgotten that notability is a necessary but insufficient basis for a standalone article about a song. NSONGS is clear that while singles "that have been ranked on national or significant music charts … are probably notable," "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. … Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." Here that threshold is clearly not met. The purpose of the policy is clear: to prevent the proliferation of articles about every single released by every artist by setting standards more restrictive than mere notability for inclusion. You seem to be interpreting that in a way that violates both the latter and the purpose of the policy: It cannot be the case that any single for which an online review can be quoted merits its own article, because that is true of virtually every single and would therefore make a nullity of NSONGS. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Put another way, NSONGS allows a standalone article only when it is warranted. If our article on Starry Eyed crosses that threshold, it is hard to imagine a single that does not; to see why, simply consider what is in the Starry Eyed article. Every single crossing the notability threshold will have a video, at least one review, and an artist willing to offer a talking point about it. That result eviscerates NSONGS, leaving nothing but its notability requirement, and for that reason, is an unsound interpretation of the policy.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've made any effort to look for sources. Don't just look at the current state of the articles. As I said, go and do your research properly before starting to try to get articles merged. Fences&Windows 03:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since your reply does nothing but reiterate what you already said, please consider my points above reiterated in turn. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As to your comment elsewhere that a reasonable reading of NSONGS allows the singles articles: that argument fails for the reasons I have already given above. You cannot label "reasonable" a reading of NSONGS that allows precisely what it tries to curtail, which is the upshot of your position. In order to maintain that a reasonable reading of NSONGS allows these singles, you must identify something peculiar to these singles that warrants an article; if that "something" actually exists for practically every notable single, a reasonable reading of NSONGS requires a merge.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is totally absurd. To merge the singles of a current and very notable artist is silly. All of the pages have sufficent content on them to warrent their own page and are all notable in their own right. Under the Sheets was the single that got Ellie on to the BBC Sound of Poll and was her first single; Starry Eyed was a big hit and reached the UK top 5 and various European charts; The Writer was a top 20 single and a ballad compared to her other singles at the time; Lights will be her debut single in the USA; Guns and Horses also charted in the UK. I have no idea as to why you have chosen Ellie Goulding's songs in particular. Whilst I think singles should ALL have their own articles, why not look at songs by artists which haven't even made the chart, have very little content, or are very unnotable - My Same by Adele; Later On by Kate Nash; Eet by Regina Spektor and so on. I think you're taking the guidelines on WP:NSONGS to far. All of the songs you listed for merger are, under the guidelines notable in their own right because they "have been ranked on national or significant music charts". The UK chart is considered notable. Plus none of the articles are stubs. They all warrant a seperate page - and if merged would cause a lack of info on the subject. If you can direct me to one page where what you are proposing has been done (on a notable artist) then i may consider this merger. But otherwise it is totally unnescesary. Pafcool2 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus, what you are proposing would lead to probably more than 2/3 of the single articles on Wikipedia being deleted. Therefore I think this issue should be brought up with the WikiProject on songs - WP:SONG. But it would be inappropriate for this action to be reserved for one artist while others are not affected. Looking on your user page (Simon Dodd), I recognise that you are from the US where Ellie's individual songs probably wouldn't be (at the present time) notable - but for UK users these songs are notable and DO warrant their own article. Pafcool2 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand you to be making two points, both of which may be quickly dispatched. First, you argue that the singles cross the notability threshold because they charted. As I have already pointed out, however, that argument fails because NSONGS contains two requirements: notability and an independent basis warranting an article. And as I have also pointed out above, none of these singles have anything that distinguishes them from any other single that meets the notability threshold. Second, you argue that if we merge these articles, the same logic counsels merging other articles. If that is true, then the answer is "so what?" I have no problem with that result; if it wasn't policy (which it is) it ought to be. A single like Do They Know It's Christmas? warrants an article; most singles do not. Your position simply can't be squared by NSONGS, and in the end, you reveal your hand: it's not that you think NSONGS allows these articles, you think NSONGS itself is wrong. You don't say that in as many words, but it is ineluctably your position: you admit to thinking that all singles should have articles, and that flatly contradicts NSONGS. Since only one or the other view can prevail, I suggest that the policy should be followed.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We've also forgotten to mention that Lights, the song, in addition to being Ellie's first single in the US has also managed to chart in the UK months before it's release based on strong single sales alone. I consider that a very significant accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.124.232 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — 97.90.124.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merging several singles per wp:nsongs

We could use some less self-selecting input on a proposed merger.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We could do with some less self-selecting input - but the irony is that, that's what you're arguing for by selecting only singles by this artist and not the wider community of articles on singles! The wording of the guidelines are confusing and leave a lot of room for different views on what is notable and what isn't (as we can see from the above argument). What I believe you should be requesting is a review of the NSONGS policy and it's implementation. If how you are interpreting the guidelines are correct, than why are there thousands of articles on single's such as The Writer and Lights? I would be content (~not happy, but content~) if all articles on single's where to be deleted when they don't cross the threshold you are implying, but it is unfair just to delete thoswe of Ellie Goulding if the same action isn't taking place over similar articles of songs by ALL other artists. So once again I believe you should take this point up with the relevent WikiProject rather than unfairly deleting articles of one artist while leaving other's untouched. Plus you still haven't guided me to one artcle where what you are proposing has been done to a notable artist. Just because I'm not an editor doesn't mean I don't have a point/say. Pafcool2 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a species of OTHERSTUFF: "Other singles articles exist, so your failure to also nominate them for merges shows that you're being unfair to these articles." But that's crazy! Think about what you're saying. Do you really want to argue that as a prerequisite to proposing any merge, a user must comb wikipedia and simultaneously manage merge proposals for every comparable article? Come off it. That position is so ridiculous that it can only be poorly thought out or offered in bad faith.

We can only edit so much at one time, as time allows. I'm not saying that Goulding's singles must be deleted while others should stay; I have no axe to grind. I'd never heard of her until I ran across this article and started trying to fix it up, which is what I usually do here: run across articles and try to fix them. And although your observation "why are there thousands of articles on single's such as The Writer and Lights" is literally an OTHERSTUFF argument, I happen to agree with it: Why are those articles here? They shouldn't be. I fully agree with you that a lot of them can and should be merged; any idiot can just add things to wikipedia; the hard work of editing is in sifting and deleting. Nevertheless, it is absurd to say that these articles must be dealt with en bloc or not at all! That just isn't how we work here.

Your fundamental error, I think, is in assuming that I'm singling out Goulding. I'm not. She isn't special; she's just next. That's all.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would favor merging around 90% of the articles we have about singles on Wikipedia, and these are no exception. The issue hinges on whether an infobox, video description, and a chart table is a stub or not. I tend to think that it is a stub, because I could come very close to generating it by a bot for every single released in the last 10 years. We would be much better off discussing the singles as a group in the article about the relevant albums.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with the merger proposal. There are very few songs that are truly notable. Silent Night, White Christmas, The White Cliffs of Dover (song), Blue Suede Shoes — yes! But not this one. Come on, get real, everybody! I know you love this lady, and she probably loves you back, but she packaged all these songs into albums! They are not singles, and they are certainly not Notable. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  
  One more thing: Making individual articles from these songs is a good example of WP:Recentism. In ten years, or ten months, who will care? If they last — specifically if they are covered by other artists or seem to have a life of their own — yes, then they might deserve separate articles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think you need to look up the definition of a "single". Your misty-eyed, crystal-balling tone disparaging modern songs, comparing them with older ones gives your game away. Maybe an online forum for appreciation of old classics is more your ball game.Feudonym (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You Me at Six covered Starry Eyed and their version charted in the UK. Pafcool2 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: they are singles. "Starry Eyed", specifically, was a breakthrough track for her and propelled her into the public eye, and is therefore notable. It was also during this single's release that she topped the highly influential BBC Critics' Sound of 2010 list. Feudonym (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• No need for a merge. The songs charted and the articles are more than stubs. There are sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG so a separate article is justified. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That argument directly contradicts WP:NSONGS, which expressly requires more than mere notability to warrant an article for an individual song. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree with the merger proposal. I'm a music student and find that articles on singles are very helpful. Most, not all, but most single articles contain very helpful information on producer's and musician's involved in the process of making a song. Info on release dates are also very helpful. If these artcles were merged - wouldn't most of this information be lost? 90.218.110.168 (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• There would be no reason to lose such information in a merge. A well formatted album article could easily contain all such information on the singles.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Then surely the album article would be very long and messy?, with five or six images, sets of track listings, chart information, music video, production, critical reception etc, on top of all that info for the actual album. I mean, why the bother just to mess things up and make a very long messy album article? (Don't get me started on the decision to merge all this into the artist page.) Also, if this is the case, then prepare to start discussions, argue, and merge a hell of a lot of articles... You and Simon Dodd can start the ball rolling. Feudonym (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Opponents of the merge seem fixated on the idea that they will prevail if they can only spell out yet more clearly that if these singles ought to be merged, others ought to be merged too. But that's silly, because the conclusion that other singles ought to be merged too isn't an absurd result; it's actually very sensible and correct. But we aren't required to fix every example of a problem on Wikipedia before fixing any example of it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not so. I'm not fixated on the idea that I will prevail if I make it clear that others need to be merged too; as you yourself state, it seems obvious that if it is necessary for one case then it is necessary for the others too. I'm just ensuring you follow up on this crusade to merge singles with album and/or artist pages so it doesn't seem like you're only specifically targeting Ellie Goulding for some bizarre reason. We wouldn't want that now, would we? I know is irrelevant but just out of interest, who's next on your list? I assume you will start on one of the many thousands of others next as it is such a "sensible and correct" idea? Maybe you already have? I'm guessing you must have a lot of spare time on your hands if this is the case. Feudonym (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disaree with the merger proposal. Simon Dodd my argument is not just based on OTHERSTUFF. Your argument revolves around the idea that these articles aren't notable enough. WP:N gives five general notability guidelines. Which one(s) do you believe Starry Eyed, The Writer, Under The Sheets, Guns and Horses and Lights (keep in mind that Lights is yet to be released and more info will be added once it is) don't meet? I also hate to bring this up and know that in general it's not seen as a legitimate argument - but the pageviews show that these articles do have a certain notability to them: Under the Sheets; Starry Eyed; The Writer; Guns and Horses; Lights and of course the pageviews were much higher around the date they were released. The person above also brings up a good point on how it would be merged. What information on the respective pages would be lost? All of it apart from chart positions maybe? Info on the music videos? the standard infobox? What seems the only possible answer - without littering the pages of either the artist or the album - is that these articles will simply be deleted and the information lost. I'm not some kind of crazed fan, but I do believe there is a place for these articles in a online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not/should not be America centric. These articles, I believe, are notable in the UK and useful in other nations and therefore should not be deleted. Pafcool2 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You misrepresent my position in saying that my "argument revolves around the idea that these articles aren't notable enough," even though I have repeatedly said above that notability isn't the issue. This isn't about notability. WP:NSONGS requires more than mere notability, it requires that a separate article about a presumably notable single must be warranted. And your position in this debate would leave that policy utterly toothless: for NSONGS to have any bite, it must exclude articles about singles that are not outstanding in some way. How can you claim that Lights, for example, is so outstanding as to warrant a separate article simply because it has a video, has been performed live, and was commented on by both the media and the artist? That is true for every single that crosses the notability threshold! Do you not understand that? If you can't explain what it is that makes Lights different from every notable single, then you are not arguing against my merger proposal, but arguing for stripping NSONGS' additional requirements. And as User:Kww pointed out, that person didn't make a good point: No one is talking about deleting content. A merge doesn't require the removal of any substantive information at all, and so invocations of "what if we lose content" are desultory and off-point.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd really like to know your criteria for a song to be "outstanding" - apparently it's the only way a song merits its own page (in which case I can't think of more than maybe a hundred or so songs which would fall into that category.) In fact, I would wager that most of us here would, so we can all ascertain which songs we can start to merge on the basis that Simon Dodd doesn't think they're outstanding. Feudonym (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really having trouble understanding your point. You believe that these articles are notable enough but that they don't warrant their own article? These are the guidelines that apply to songs warranting their own article according to NSONGS. It says that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, [or] that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." - I assume that we both agree that these songs cross this threshold then? "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9. So is your argument that there is not enough verifiable material? This would imply that these articles are stubs. If you look on the discussion pages of these articles WikiProject Songs classes "Under the Sheets" as C-class; "Starry Eyed" as Start-class and "Guns and Horses" as C-class (the other two have yet to be assesed). Therefore none of them are classed as stubs. I don't see any other guidelines on song articles on the NSONGS page. So under this these songs are all notable and warrant an article of their own - unless of course you disagree with the Wikiproject's ratings. Pafcool2 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is exactly what I have said. NSONGS is clear: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article…." While "[s]ongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts… are probably notable," "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." The presumption is that individual songs will be treated in an article about the artist or album unless there is something about the song that warrants treatment in an independent article. Do They Know It's Christmas?, for example, was important enough that an article can be written which says far more than the articles under consideration can: That a single was released in a particular year, people said things about it, and it had a video. What is lacking here, by contrast, is precisely what NSONGS demands: any warrant for a separate article. To see why your position is wrong, you have only to think through the implications. If your position is right, and these singles—indistinct as they are from any other charting single—merit an independent article, then virtually all singles do merit an independent article. Because that result can't be squared with NSONGS (indeed, it directly contradicts NSONGS), your position cannot be correct.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all singles warrant their own article but ones which have charted on a prominent chart (i.e. UK) and have sufficent material do - according to NSONGS! You also failed to note the end of that sentence in the guidelines which state that articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. These articles are not stubs. NSONGS specifically says that if they are stubs merge them - FINE. But these articles aren't - they included verifiable material and are notable as we have agreed. Therefore you're argument is going beyond the guidelines and becoming your own interpretation of what the guidelines would mean in a broader sence. Pafcool2 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You are reading NSONGS far too narrowly if you are seriously claiming that it simultaneously (a) makes a broad statement of policy applicable to every song and single and (b) exempts from that policy every article that has any potential to be anything but a stub (which is every article). It would be crazy to think that what policy gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. That interpretation serves neither the letter nor spirit of the policy; indeed, it defeats both, and so, again, fails.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong - not every article has the ability to grow out of a stub. This could be due to a failure to chart and therefore a lack of information on the song given; a lack of any critical reception which would question the song's notability and verifiable sources or a lack of any background or additional information regarding the song other than track listing and the fact that it was released. All of the song's proposed for merger fullfill this and while you claim that i'm reading the policy to narrowly, that is all it says. It's not an interpretation, it's surely the only one you can get from reading the sentences. "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" - there is enough verifiable info on these songs in question. If you want I'm sure I would be able to find even more - but in their current state they comply with this rule. Pafcool2 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - These should really be discussed individually, and not as a group.

"Starry Eyed" should not be merged. It's by far the most notable and best charting song, with plenty of reliable secondary source coverage.

"Under the Sheets" looks like it has enough coverage to keep separate; it also charted in multiple countries.

"Your Song" is a non-issue, as it's already part of the original Elton John song's article.

"Guns and Horses" and "The Writer" are borderline; most of their coverage comes from articles about the Light album.

"Lights", as the least notable, lowest-charting, and least-covered song, should be merged with its album article, since basically all of its secondary source coverage is only trivial mentions in coverage of the album itself.

I'd like to see people discuss these on a case by case basis. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with the merge proposal, especially "Starry Eyed" due to the reasons I've mentioned above. It was her first breakthrough single and she is a very famous critically acclaimed singer in the UK, so this single deserves its own article. If this does not reach consensus, I like Torchiest's idea of commenting on each article individually, and also agree with the comments on each. Just as an aside, was wondering whether Simon Dodd chose Ellie Goulding for any specific reason, or was it a wild stab in the dark? Seeing as there are hundreds if not thousands of song articles which fall into your same category of merging (not saying this is a reason why I disagree with you but just wondering whether if this a first or something you do on a regular basis in your spare time). Feudonym (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re your aside "chose" may be too strong a verb. Like most of the work I've done on Wikipedia, I simply ran across an article that needed some work and started fixing it up. I don't remember the specifics of this case. It's not the first time (and will not be the last time) that I merge a number of individual songs back into their parent articles.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Simon Dodd can you please show me an article where you have done this before. I'm not questioning if you have done it before - but I just want to see it in the flesh. I just don't see it working (especially if merged into the singer's article) when the artist in question is current and will be releasing more singles in the coming years. Your claim that no info will have to be lost is hard to believe when you propose to merge 4 pages worth of material into one already quite long page. So for the pratical side of this argument I don't see it working. Splitting pages is common practice on Wikipedia - just look at the London Borough of Croydon page I've worked on a lot. It's already split into a few different articles (at least 8 additional articles branching from the main page) but is still very long. That's the practical argument in addition to the other reasons this shouldn't happen. Pafcool2 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd like to see some examples too, specifically released single/album merges as opposed to song/parent article merges, if only to see how it worked, how lengthy or messy the article was, if it included four or more singles, how much info it omitted, etc. Who knows, you may even gain a convert to your crusade. It's just that going by your edits to this page and opposition to these edits, to an uninformed outsider like myself, it seems as if this idea to merge was instigated as a result of facing opposition from the defenders of this article/artist. Feudonym (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is close. Needed more work, but resistance from the Disneyites made it impossible to continue.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. Something more recent than September 2008 would also help. Feudonym (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but those articles appeared to be stubs in the first place and the album it was merged into appears to be small on content as well. How can we expect six singles to be merged into an already 'longish' article without losing information as previously claimed? If that's the only example, it's not exactly the best - seeing as it has already been scrapped, showing that the way some people are interpreting WPSONGS just doesn't work in practice. Pafcool2 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that people seem to consider having an independent article to be a status symbol, and that creating a merged album article somehow insults the artist in question. A correctly built album article would be a superior way to present the information: a reader could easily see the set of released singles, what order they were released in, what the relative popularity of each song was, etc. A huge amount of the typical single article actually repeats the context: a description of the album, an indication of what single preceded it, what single followed it, a description of the artist, etc. Folding them all together makes things enough more concise that there would be room to keep most, if not all, of the information.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to Kww's observation, I would note that I don't say that all the material in the singles articles should be merged. Actually, I think the articles need a trim. What I do say, agreeing with Kww, is that it is not a valid objection to the proposed merger (consensus seems to have rapidly formed that if the merge happens it will be to the album article rather than this one, by the way) to say that content may be lost, because nothing in these articles has to be lost. Should be? Yes; padding articles with descriptions of the video is plainly makeweight. Has to? No. If I do the merge, I will simply dump the content into the relevant parent article(s) along the lines of the example Kww adduced and change the independent articles to redirects. The fate of that material after the merge is up to the editors of those articles, which is where I suggest you might more profitably stand your ground, Pafcool, rather than here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the article would look messy (the Venessa Hudgens example didn't exactly ease this feeling) and be unnescessary when there is perfectly enough relevent information in the respective articles already. Sections on music videos etc are standard to single articles including those with FA status and chosen as 'model' articles by WP:SONGS. While you personally may think that it's just padding, information on directors of videos and technical production devices are important. Pafcool2 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem dead set on "doing this merge", yet you are outnumbered in the consensus stakes. Your opinion is worth twice as many votes perhaps? Feudonym (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to suppose that it would, and that is something you can take care of after the merge, no? As to the example you cite, it would be hard to overstate how ridiculous I find that article---an atrocious, distended mess that ought to be cut to one third of its length. I will certainly agree with you that that article is a beacon for singles articles, but it is a lighthouse, warning us away. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It really is pretty sad, isn't it? That's one of the articles that was held up to me as an example of why The Climb (song) couldn't be trimmed and edited into something readable.—Kww(talk) 03:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that line of thinking: let me make the article messy, "and that is something you can take care of after the merge, no?". Why, thanks! Feudonym (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No less reasonable a position to take—some might think more so—than "the article can't be merged because of all the mess in it," which is implicitly the hill you're defending.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

By the by, more than one editor has accused me of hostility to Goulding and/or her work. I had never heard a note of it, but curiosity got the better of me and I pulled up the song "lights" on youtube. It's actually pretty good. So what? My points above stand. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with regards to the merge. There's no harm in the articles being there, there's worse ones out there that should be focused on. Ellie Goulding is a rising star so these articles would do well to remain here. mÆniac ^Ask! 15:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Council housing

What is the significance of this? Is the reader supposed to infer certain things about Goulding based on residence as a rough proxy for economic status? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion is warranted. What the reader infers from any given fact is his or her problem to deal with. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion is warranted only if it makes a relevant point and complies with Wikipedia policy. I grew up thirty miles from Hereford, so I'm well aware of what the edit is insinuating, but using a source that says A to make point B is tantamount to WP:OR or WP:SYN, and creates a sourcing problem. Saying that someone grew up in a condo doesn't merit being mentioned in an article; saying that they grew up in particular economic circumstances might merit inclusion, to the extent it's relevant, but while the editor who added this text is trying to make the latter point, they are insinuating it rather than saying it outright (presumably because they don't have a source that supports a direct statement). Whichever way you slice it, the sentence has to go. If the point is to note the kind of house she grew up in, then it's unencyclopedic and irrelevant, regardless of sourcing. If the point is to note her family's economic status, then that point should be made, and that point ought to be sourced. You can't skirt Wikipedia's content guidelines with smoke, mirrors, and insinuation.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One's quarrel should really be with the Daily Telegraph reporter who wrote the story and thought the fact was significant enough to include in the piece. Oh, and with editor who subbed it as well as the arts editor who presumably did its final vetting. The actual quote from the Telegraph story is

It all seems a long way from the council house in Herefordshire where she grew up with her mother and three siblings – two sisters and a brother. She doesn’t see much of them at the moment: 'I think they’re probably a little bit bewildered by my life,’ she says. 'But I’m sure they are very proud.’

Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph isn't Wikipedia. It has different standards, criteria, and goals.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

George, please don't revert the removal of this line unless you have at least a colorable argument to present for why it isn't a problem for the reasons I've mentioned. I have explained why it has to go and why the mere fact that there is a reliable source for the fact itself can't save it; either respond on the merits, explaining why I'm wrong, or leave the text deleted.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Simon here. The Telegraph's reference is a throwaway comment, that's part of what journalists do. The economic circumstances of her upbringing are really only relevant here if they are going to lead to something encyclopedic in the article about the trials and tribulations that she had to endure to get from there to where she is today. Without that context, which is absent at the moment, it is in my view irrelevant. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: I don't have the answer to this, but would like to make a couple of observations: First, it may take a Third Opinion Wikipedian from the UK to give an opinion on it. From here in the colonies US, a reference to a celebrity's humble origins would by implication be neutral-to-positive, "poor girl makes good," but I'm concerned that class-consciousness in the UK may make it negative-to-neutral instead, "celebrity girl is putting on airs." There may be some 3O'ers here in the US who are sufficiently attune to that issue that they can comment on it here, but I suspect that the vast majority are, like me, aware of the issue but clueless as to the right thing to do. Second, I'd just like to remind both editors that the three revert rule doesn't have to be violated for an edit war to exist: The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst

Pafcool2 added a line of text: "She started songwriting at the age of fifteen and whilst in college she won a singing competition." At first blush, whilst struck me wrong. Brians concedes that it's a traditional and perfectly sound synonym for "while" (Common Errors in English Usage, at 220; accord M.W. 1994 Usage, at 957; Fowler (Crystal 2009 ed.), at 782) and while he bewails it for having a somewhat pretensious and archaic flavor in American usage, I think that criticism has no bite here. Even assuming dubitem that we are bound to American usage, Brians' criticism is precisely the kind of nonsense that has left perfectly good (and, more importantly, highly useful) words like whence, thence, etc., clinging to their place in the language by their fingernails. Accordingly, I support this edit. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with Simon Dodd here so far as usage goes. Frankly, I would leave it up to the Brits to make the decision on while vs. whilst. Somebody has changed it again, and I would just as soon let it go. When this lady is popular in the U.S., more Yanks will want to check out this page, and the whilst will be pretty jarring. Not something I want to fight about though. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that British spelling should be used for a British artist, I think you may be misinterpreting the use of whilst (even in the UK, while is a much more common term.) This isn't a case of, say, colour versus color. Whilst is absolutely a valid word, and there's nothing grammatically wrong with using it. It's usage, however, is usually more confined to more literary uses and, however objectionable it may be, in both nations is considered to be more of a "highbrow" term. In the case of a popular young pop musician, it is quite frankly not the most appropriate usage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)