Talk:Hello (Adele song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First live performance[edit]

Adele is recording an hour long special for the BBC with Graham Norton on November 2. It's highly likely this will be broadcast before the SNL special, although a broadcast date hasn't been set yet. Can the 'Live perfomances' section be rewritten as it therefore isn't certain that the SNL performance will be the first one - maybe to something like 'Adele will perform the song live on the 21 November SNL show and also on the hour-long BBC special.' with no mention of which is first to reflect the ambiguity? Once we know which was first, we can change the text, but at the moment it's all speculation. Info about the BBC special here [1]. 109.154.101.127 (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the BBC information in. Regardless of when it's broadcast, it will be her first live performance: the BBC article specifically says she will be performing in front of a live audience. It's likely it will be broadcast soon after it's recorded, I should think as the BBC wouldn't want to sit on a hot property like that! I would bet good money it will go out before SNL. Stronach (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it say "Adele is recording"? Didn't that already happen? FatimaRazzaq (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release history[edit]

I don't understand the Italy row. Does this mean that it was only released for radio play in Italy on 23rd (ie. not download which seems unlikely) or that it wasn't released worldwide for radio play on 23rd (which rather beggars the question of where it was, as it was played on UK radio and where's the date for worldwide radio play)? Btljs (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Region Date Format Label
Worldwide 23 October 2015 Digital download XL
Italy[1] Mainstream radio
United States[2][3] 26 October 2015 Hot/Modern/AC Columbia
27 October 2015 Mainstream radio

References

  1. ^ "Adele - Hello Radiodate". radioairplay.fm. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Hot/Modern/AC > Future Releases". allaccess.com. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  3. ^ "Top 40 Mainstream > Future Releases". allaccess.com. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
I had the same "question" on "Photograph" by Ed Sheeran. I think it's a matter of available sources. Should we put a note that it's incomplete? --Efe (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing. As I was reading the charts I saw that it says fro Italy that they can have it on the radio but above it it was saying as a digital download but i wasn't sure if that was for worldwide or for Italy. Also when I tried to click on the link for digital download the link wasn't working. I am not sure if it was just from my computer or not. Awolf6 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures: combined vs traditional[edit]

Don't just keep editing backwards and forwards in the certification table. I have started a WP:RfC at Template_talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales_figures: combined vs traditional. Please contribute to that. Btljs (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jose.rms and Danielfuinogl as you have an opinion on what kind of sales to show in certifications, you might want to comment in the above discussion. Thanks. Btljs (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015[edit]

New peak of #1 in South Africa http://sa-ema.com/airplay-chart 196.22.243.123 (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical acclaim?[edit]

We need to have a serious discussion here folks. Yes, the song was warmly received, but many credible journalists (and people with ears to be quite frank) have pretty much lightly insinuated plagiarism and/or copy-right infringement regarding the song of the same name by Lionel Richie. Yes, I know it's mentioned there briefly in the article, but I think we need to have a more third-party perspective folks. Please, the more input from editors the better. Cheers.--2602:306:C400:1A60:50D2:FCC8:5C72:E536 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References? I heard Richie was happy with it; in a way it shows how well his song is remembered. If you can find sources stating they think it's plagiarism then please cite them; 'lightly insinuated' is not adequate. The song contains the phrase "million miles" which is another track from the same Bob Dylan album which gave Adele her earlier hit "Make You Feel My Love" and "a thousand times" is obviously a quote from Romeo and Juliet. Modern song writers influenced by previous generations - shock. (Sorry my sarcasm filter's on the blink again) Btljs (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise, IP/Unknown users coming in here to slam content without providing any backing to the claim as usual. Sometimes I do think we should make WP only a registered user page. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism because she says "Hello"? What a joke.  — Calvin999 10:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine if they hadn't edited out the scene in the video where Wilds makes a clay model of Adele's head;) Btljs (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barf, that was actually true? Or you playin with me? :O —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, complete BS thankfully. Sorry. Btljs (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Btljs: @IndianBio: @Calvin999: Before any of you 'experienced' Wikipedia editors hawk on my post, here are some facts not to be ignored: Newster, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Billboard, Latin Post, Canoe all indicate similarities, all in differing levels of scrutiny. In fact, there seems to be another song they were "inspired" by that is also suspect.--2602:306:C400:1A60:80A0:B9E4:E827:AC5B (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the sarcasm - it wasn't meant to be disrespectful, but even as one of the sources you cite states: "As with seemingly any popular song released in the 21st century, Adele's "Hello" is now the target of online allegations that it rips off an older song." I was poking fun at this trend rather than your point. Reading all those sources, it seems that it is "Martha" by Tom Waits which is the alleged victim of plagiarism rather than Richie's "Hello". You are probably right that there are enough sources for this to be worth a mention - who knows, it could blow up into another "Blurred Lines#Marvin Gaye lawsuit and authorship questions". I wouldn't want to be a song writer/producer right now as the immediate availability of over sixty years of popular music without leaving your sofa coupled with social media makes for a perfect storm of accusations and litigations. Btljs (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, you should also understand that there are countless articles we monitor, and a faceless(?) post without any sources or references provided is NOT taken seriously. We have instances of countless IPs posting random questions and texts which they want to mention in the article, but if there are no sources, it will never be added. So the sources you listed now, you probably should have placed in the first post, and we wouldn't have taken your post lightly. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and got the correct song Btljs (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live sketch[edit]

 Not done

The SNL episode featuring Adele as performer also included a sketch in which people having Thanksgiving dinner break into song (Adele's "Hello"). Is this worth including in the article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defintely considering the third party sources it gained. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've not updated the article, but here are a few sources for future expansion:

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

This is not soul. It's Psychedelic Soul Soul is too vague and could mean anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.97.243 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a music critic? 115.164.204.231 (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

@Chucky1978miller and IndianBio: could we discuss what's going on? Having a look at the reference on the section you are (nearly) both edit warring over, I see a mention of "sold 3.1 million in its first seven weeks". My understanding is a single goes platinum at 1 million sales, so I would agree with Chucky1978miller that this is 3x platinum. Any thoughts? In the meantime, I'd ask both of you to stop reverting as you have already broken the three revert rule -- samtar whisper 13:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in question: reference 34 -- samtar whisper 13:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference doesn't mention platinum awards and anyway RIAA is the source which should be used: [2], where, as you can see, it is certified 4X Platinum. Btljs (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, sales are not the be-all and end-all of certifications so you can easily sell 3.1M and be 4X Platinum with streaming. Btljs (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samtar I hope Btljs has clarified your concern regarding edit warring? I was reverting the user for continuously going against source, WP:OR and deliberate factual error. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, the other editor should not have been blocked as they stopped after being warned. You both edit warred, and if one gets a block, so should the other. Your edits were not, in my opinion, reverting blatant vandalism, and so you violated WP:3RR. -- samtar whisper 17:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where the other editor has stopped after being warned? He/she specifically was left multiple warnings regarding deliberate factual errors, not only from me but from other editor also. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically after I placed the 3RR warning on both your talk pages. I also believe the reverting stopped when I created this section and pinged you both (which should have already been done), but I can't be sure. Shall we continue this on the edit warring report? -- samtar whisper 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had logged off just after my last edit on the article. So I did not see your message to me until I logged in now. I had created the AIV report much before and explained multiple times to the user. But you are right, I will comment in the report page. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello is also charting on the R&B Airplay charts[edit]

Hello is #9 on Adult R&B Songs and #18 on R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay with an audience of 11 million in that format. It was just reported by Billboard: Billboard Article

Can someone add this, because I'm not very good with editing chart tables!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliassarris (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View count or not view count[edit]

@Unreal7 and @IndianBio and anyone else concerned/interested

I believe that a view count and ranking is appropriate in this situation. I think that the two issues are notability and sourcing.

I have done many edits across Wikipedia on these things, and something I strive for is consistency across the site.

Notability:

A few years back before my time, there was much discussion on List of most viewed YouTube videos on how long the list should be. It was eventually decided to be thirty videos long, so this seems to be the criteria for notability of view rankings that we have used in general across Wikipedia. So you will find that all the top thirty videos' articles have a line on their YouTube ranking. Recently, 'Hello' entered the top thirty (it is now 26th) so I added a YouTube view ranking line and removed the one for the thirty-first video's article. Another thing to consider is that Hello's views are growing very fast, so I fully expect it to reach the top five most viewed videos within a few months. So one way of putting it is that the notability is growing.

Sourcing:

We had some discussion more recently on Love the Way you Lie (a featured article) on whether the sources given of the MyTop100Videos YouTube playlist and the YouTube video itself were reputable enough to be used for sources for the view ranking and count respectively. It was decided to let the view ranking and count stay. I believe this was because:

a) For the view ranking, the playlist is auto-updated and also popular, so not susceptible to fanboys tampering with it. The order is also verifiable by comparing the counts of the videos.

b) For the view count, usually we need a third-party media source for content, but this is a rare case where the content we are interested in (the YouTube view count) is actually defined by the number on the YouTube page for the video. Any third-party media source would just be quoting the figure from this page. It does not come under the usual sourcing criteria, because if the content says 'On this webpage, it says the number is x', then that webpage is by definition the most reputable source for that information (if notable enough, as already discussed).

Since what is good enough for a featured article is good enough for the rest of Wikipedia, all top thirty most viewed videos' articles have a YouTube ranking and views line on Wikipedia, so I think we should keep it on Hello as part of this group.

Something else to ponder:

Another point to consider is how much to round the view counts. We usually round to the nearest 10 million views, and Wikipedia's rounding policy has nothing specific to say on it. As I said before, Hello's views are growing very fast (about 8 million per day) so would probably be updated almost every day. It might be possible to make an exception for Hello and change to round to 100 million to avoid this, but this would be hard to enforce (ie other people would change it and would be right to do so). The 8 million per day figure will fall though so I think it will be fine in the long run.

I've readded the view count and ranking for now but added these two new sources that I referred to (as in Love The Way You Lie) - feel free to debate on here.

Thanks guys - appreciate your hard work.

--Tcamfield (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it, and I'm gonna post the reason shortly. Writing it in textpad so that no edit conflict. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Christie campaign ad[edit]

Not sure if this is worth mentioning or not, but the song was used in a Chris Christie presidential campaign ad. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies[edit]

I just placed a section in this article called "Parodies" as there have been some well-known parodies of this song. It was a bold move to be certain. If consensus is that this section needs to go, no problem. Just a heads up KoshVorlon 15:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC) (edit) It was reverted, but the information is still visible | at this link KoshVorlon 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, and now lets discuss it per WP:BRD. I totally oppose them since none of them seem to be remotely passing WP:NOTABILITY beyond just mentions in sources which I barely pass WP:RS. There are umpteen cover versions, (happens for any popular song), so lets take them one by one: Daily Mail - tabloid, grossly unreliable. Today - Better source, but have you even read the content to assert how is it even notable? Israeli News - Same as Today. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I put it up so that it could be discussed. You made your opinion known already and I disagree with you , hence the discussion here. Since you asked, "Today" is part of NBC - thus it's notable, I realize dailymail is considered "tabloidish" however, it has some notability but it must be used carefully, It think it fits for the Adele parody I mentioned, as it's not contentious by any means, and as far as Israel National News, I'm not familiar with this news outlet, however they look to have editorial staff and control which we consider when we're rating anything as reliable or not. It also appears to be connected to a radio station as well, so without knowing Israel National News very well, I'd consider it reliable. KoshVorlon 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the content that was added to the article, but I do think a "Parodies" section may be appropriate. The Saturday Night Live parody is particularly noteworthy. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year-end charts isn't updated... Why[edit]

I don't know why nobody update rankings that hello is in "Year-end charts". For example, I visited Uptown Funk. Then, I went to the link; http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2015&cat=s, in the section of "Year-end charts". Finally, I saw in Belgium Hello is in the top ten. I want to update this section if none doesn't care. Luis5795 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Luis5795 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian peak and lack of consequence[edit]

Can someone kindly explain to me why my peak info about the Ukrainian radio chart (http://fdr.com.ua/charts.php) was removed and at the same time on the "25" page the lenta source was accepted, whereas: 1) I don't think it's a less reliable website than FDR 2) this way we can post every iTunes chart. Why don't we do this? India and Philippines can't wait! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prz rulez (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hello (Adele song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hello (Adele song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hello_(Adele_song)&oldid=1195302438"