Talk:Ellie Goulding/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

But there are many other articles about celebrities who have a section on "personal life" like Shakira for example where it states she's dating Pique even though they're been together for 2 months. Even says so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_James_(DJ)81.141.96.0 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Which statement I think neatly puts a lid on the problem. Gossip sites may, "states she's dating Pique even though they're been together for 2 months". But at what point does the relationship affect the person of note, in a manner which is itself of note? When they have issue, human or artistic, certainly. Until then, or engagement, I d say it was mercurial and irrelevant. Jabberwoch (talk) 00:04, 24 November 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

You misunderstand my use of the term "messy". To use an extreme example, if I merged every article to do with the human brain into one parent article, it would look messy. However, that doesn't mean it is full of mess. Revise and re-comment. Feudonym (talk) 03:07, 5 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)

I hope you do not include me in this group of editors. I suggested possible mutual hostility towards her defenders when you wanted to edit/delete large parts of the article (rightly or wrongly so). I do not even know if your edits were successful, but your disparaging tone towards these editors seems like a perfect indicator, to me, as to the motive behind your merge proposal. Otherwise I really do fail to see your intention behind this. Does it really bug you that these articles on her released and charted UK singles remain on Wikipedia on its own? Something which you are prepared to spend months debating? It's somewhat baffling I have to admit. Her music and your/others' opinions on it have absolutely no bearing on this discussion and I'm glad you can see this. Feudonym (talk) 03:07, 5 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)

Translation: "But I like it!" And that's not good enough. NSONGS makes clear that they're gone, and if WP:IAR—which I take to be the gravamen of your "what harm" hail mary pass—has any force here, it argues against you (rules should be ignored to improve the encyclopedia, not to prevent its improvement). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Take another look at the above comment and see that when mÆniac says "worse", s/he maybe, just maybe, referring to the quality of the article as opposed to the music. Makes a bit more sense now doesn't it? The "rising star" comment refers to her popularity and credibility, and hence notability. Feudonym (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too bold here, Simon. Being right doesn't matter much. If you attempt to forcibly merge these articles, you'll face a backlash that will prevent you from getting anywhere on any article. Build a merged version in your userspace, and take the time to get it right. After that, start the discussion over. That way, you might stand a chance.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there are weeks if not months to run on this merger proposal yet. That is the great appeal to doing them through AfD: the issue is forced and resolution swift. In hindsight, I should have just nominated the articles for deletion and let D&R follow naturally. But what can you do? You try things a little differently sometimes. I don't expect a quick resolution here, but I do expect a favorable resolution since PafCool is alone in raising any serious arguments against the merge and no one has advanced any convincing argument against it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Build a version of the merged article first before putting it live. We can re-start the discussion there. Pafcool2 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that is a trap, as you know. If I prune more aggressively, you will claim vindication on the theory that some material is lost; if I do not, you will claim vindication on the theory that the resulting article is too long. Either argument would miss the mark, though, because the fate o the merge proposal does not turn on the immediate aftermath or long term status of the merged article (hence, trap: An attempt to have people buy into your real position by smuggling it in as a premise to a disposable argument). Neither argument will be convincing, though, and for that reason, I bring you two proposals, one longer, one shorter. Neither is ideal, in my view, but that is as I've said beside the point: I have made these to entertain concerns about the merger, not because the merger stands or falls depending on what happens to the material in the merged articles. I would be perfectly happy to delete and redirect, myself, so this is all to humor the concerns raised by PafCool (and similar).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, in summary, if you prune aggressively, material is lost; if you leave everything in, it will be long and messy. (It's an interesting proposition by the way: album articles containing all the information on every single released, save for a handful of classic outstanding singles (such as the oft-repeated "Do They Know it's Christmas?"); maybe you should create a new NPSONGS policy instead of wasting time here?); and, by your own admission, neither of your solutions is ideal; and you have not reached a consensus, with, by my latest count, the majority disagreeing; even an admin with a bias towards your opinion fails to see a consensus in your favour. OK, do carry on. Feudonym (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon, remember, as an editor I agree with you, but I'm going to put my admin hat on for a moment. You proposed something, and did not get consensus for your change. Most people view articles you are proposing merging as being better than stubs, and, simply by making FA status, it's been demonstrated that a large group of people find articles that you detest to actually be the model other editors should strive for. In that circumstance, proceeding is not an example of WP:BOLD, it comes close to being intentionally disruptive.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've said above, merge discussions tend to run for a long time. That a handful of editors who are involved in this article (and/or who like the subject, cf. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ellie_Goulding) are not receptive to a merge is to be expected, and their failure to advance credible policy arguments against the merge is more significant. Consensus "takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised" (emphasis added); "but I like it this way!" isn't good enough at AfD, and it isn't any better in this context, either. Thus, I would not accept the characterization of a merge over such meager objections to be pointy ("if consensus strongly disagrees with you": It doesn't, n.b. WP:NOTPOINTY and WP:DE), although I have no immediate intention of proceeding. We'll be back and forth to RFC and other venues before this is done, I'm sure (the last direct merge I performed did, and it took months).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to illustrate, I have seen any number of AfD discussions where the !votes were stacked (in some cases almost unanimously) on one side of the question, but the closing admin disregarded them because the !votes either misunderstood/misapplied policy (represented here by Pafcool), or just dis/liked the article regardless of what policy says (represented here by several comments). The closing admins in those noms were correct: See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Simon. What I am trying to tell you is that an admin that profoundly agrees with you (i.e., me), has read over the discussion and I couldn't find that you have a consensus in your favor, despite my bias towards your position.—Kww(talk) 19:45, 3 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)

• Well, I don't want to repeat myself, but I will. It's a fact she lived in council housing. A reputable newspaper decided to print that fact. What readers make of that fact is up to them. WP deals in facts. Quod erat demonstrandum. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not when those facts are being inserted as an attempt to skirt wikipedia's content guidelines, insinuating an unverified claim through the proxy of a verified fact.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the insinuation? A person's background is relevant to their biography. A reliable source says she grew up in a council house. It would be just as relevant if someone grew up in opulent luxury, with multi-millionaire parents and live-in servants. Some readers may see it in a negative way, and others in a positive way, but so long as it is written in a neutral way it helps improve the article. Jim Michael (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You just (unintentionally, I assume) underlined the point: your contrast of being raised in council housing versus being raised in opulent luxury tells us that the point you're trying to make isn't the kind of house but the economic circumstances you associate with that house. Hence the trojan/synth problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to give a better view of her upbringing by saying what her parents' employment at the time was, as well as saying she grew up in a council house. There is a small, but significant, minority of people who have progressed into high-paid, successful careers whilst living in council houses. Not all council house residents are poor, but they are usually poor when they move in. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 13 April 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)

Persistent Vandalism

Hey everyone. It appears this article is under assault from Ellie Goulding fans (understandably) who keep inserting things to the tune of "MARRY ME ELLIE" into parts of the article. Is there some way we can lock this stuff out of the article or no? I'm going to go through now and remove all of this stuff that I see, but if there's some more permanent solution available, I suggest we use it haha. BajcztheDamned (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The page is now protected, hopefully long enough for the people involved to get bored. If problems with persistent vandalism reoccur, then please raise a request at Requests for page protection. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the page isn't protected at all, anyone can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.76.220 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think whoever can make pages protected should make this one protected as anyone can edit it! 217.28.6.128 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to help! Jeeze! 217.28.6.128 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Associated Acts

This page says that Swedish House Mafia worked with Ellie Goulding, but they only work with Pharrell (on "One), Tinie Tempah (on "Miami 2 Ibiza"), John Ball (uncredited vocals on "Save The World") and Knife Party (on "Antidote" with vocals from Rob Swire) then they released "Greyhound" which was a solo project with some extra production from DJ Daaar and Tommy Trash - but there was no vocals from Ellie Goulding. The only thing I can think of is maybe Axwell,Steve Angello or Sebastian Ingrosso worked with Ellie Goulding on her album.

I also see that DJ Daaar is on the associated acts page - he never worked with Ellie Goulding. 87.254.76.220 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life?

My mate Matty says that Ellie is dating Skrillex, apparently he read it in heat magazine, (which may be true because he is a flower), but does anyone know if this is true or not?

That I don't know, it's there out in the article itself, but I'm not sure either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.104.230 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Genres

Ellie Goulding is definitely not just a pop artist. Her genres include indie pop, synthpop, and folktronica. I believe we should add those. Whatever318 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Jewish

Ellie Goulding and her parents aren't Jewish. I know Glamour Magazine's bio of Goulding included this information, but they were almost certainly just copying an old version of this article, which also incorrectly included the information. Other references, like ShalomLife, followed suit. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Lfe - Why is there no Age Specified, Brittish Libel Laws?

No age or birth date listed which is awfully strange. This entire Wikipedia entry is eerie and should be completely deleted and rewritten as a normal page with regular wiki headings and info.

As this page stands now, it ranks as the most horrid wiki page I have encountered and I read 2-40 entries a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.62.142 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please give us some reasons as to why it is "The most horrid wiki page I have encountered"? I get what you mean but I would appreciate it if you would tell us why exactly you believe it is the most horrid wiki page you have encountered. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.185.15 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding and her associated acts

Of curosity, is it true she's associated with Calvin Harris? Just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.185.15 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lena Meyer Landrut

Not only was Ellie's song used on Lena debut album Ellie also wrote a song for Lena's second album Good News. The song was called "who'd want to find love" --Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

EMGH Awards

Did you know this is the only article on Wikipedia that mentions the EMGH awards. When you type EMGH awards into Google it lists only this article, websites which get their information from this article and a news article on entertainmentwise.com[2], the author of which I suspect was reading this article. I've also checked the official Ellie Goulding website and, guess what, no mention there either! Based on this I've removed this particular entry from the awards list on the basis that they blatantly don't exist, or are at least as notable as my left slipper. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with you. I had never heard of said awards although I never chased it up its true that data of little to no relevance to the wider public is pointless. I will keep an eye in regards to making sure this entry stays off the page. BrotherDarksoul ^Blether 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course I could be proven wrong, it could even be a typo and the acronym is meant to be something else, but it just seems too bizarre that it's only mentioned here. It was also added by a non-registered user and at the time it broke the table, someone cleaned up the table but never challenged the information. It just seems someone's added it as a joke which went over everyone's heads and resulted in at least one dodgy official news article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It was added as a joke? That could be plausible. If it is a joke, it was an odd type of joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.55.164 (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dating

A discussion was opened on this talk page on 13 December 2010 by User:Pol430 (which has since been archived) regarding whether it was necessary and within Wikipedia guidelines to comment on people Goulding was currently 'dating'. The result of the discussion was the removal of such information from the article. At the time it was about Greg James, however the same kind of information is now appearing about Goulding's relationship to Skrillex. Is the earlier discussion still the general concensus and therefore should we continue to keep this kind of information from being included in the article? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the earlier discussion appears to be closed/ on hiatus, whichever you wish, but in terms of who Goulding is/was currently "dating", I personally believe that unless the person is notable, it should not be written down. We need to confirm details before we go off saying she's dating X or Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.25.243 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving a discussion doesn't do anything to alter its validity, it just means its more than 60 days old and a bot has tidied it to another page to stop this one bloating. The information about Skrillex is sourced and other sources could be found, the problem is not that, nor do I believe the notablity of the person she's dating is a problem either. I believe the issue is more to do with whether 'dating' anyone is notable. Unless it is a serious relationship it seems to become trivial gossip and therefore unencyclopedic. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant issue with the whole adding of her "dating" (which in itself in my opinion is not of relevance to that of an enyclopedia data wise) Skrillex. The data is almost always unsourced. Please could I stress all editors to delete this data until there is enough evidence that such affairs are going on which can be easily verified. Thanks. BrotherDarksoul ^Blether 10:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem providing sources to verify that she started a relationship with Skrillex, to bring this bang up-to-date there's also now no problem verifying that that relationship is now over. However, the whole reason why this information can be found is simply because people like celebrity gossip. The reason Ellie Goulding is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article is because she is famous for her music career, not her unfortunately short relationships with people less famous than she is. For that reason I'm convinced that most people reading this article aren't interested in said trivia regardless of how many IP editors seem to want to include it. In WP:BLPGOSSIP it says "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether [...], even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject". So this is why I've been removing references to information about her dating from the article, but not entirely sure anyone agrees with me, or whether they're removing the information just because no one can be bothered to put references in. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC) edited ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was quite shocked at the missing info in the "Personal Life" section, which is why I'm here now on this page. I would consider her relationships with Greg James and Skrillex to be notable and worthy of a brief mention in that section. Consider this: in recent interviews, Ellie's album Halycon has been described as "a break-up album following her split with Radio 1 DJ Greg James". It's clear that her personal life experiences are a key influence on her musical work.87.114.64.43 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's in the 'Personal life' section with no context to anything, I maintain this isn't notable information. However, if you can find reliable sources which directly state that her records have been influenced by her relationships with these people, then I agree they should be included but only in the sections and articles relevant to those records and only included in context with the records. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2012-10/08/ellie-goulding-halcyon-album-interview http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/sftw/4572649/ellie-goulding-halcyon-new-album-boyfriend-skrillex-ex-greg-james.html 87.114.64.43 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so there's enough there to add a line or two to the Halcyon section, the Halcyon article and possibly somewhere on the Greg James article about how some of the songs were written about her relationship with Greg James. The only thing we can say about Skrillex based on these sources are that he influenced her music, we cannot say that their dating each other had any bearing on the outcome of any of her records. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heya, I didn't know this discussion was going on when I added a bit on her/skrillex's relationship (with refs of course) and only became aware of the discussion after the fact. This is the only BLP i've come across where referenced information on past relationships isn't added to the article, most celebrities have this type of information and I don't quite understand why this page is different. Not meaning to sound jerk-ish just genuinely curious. I'm also pressed for time right now so I wasn't able to read this whole discussion as I just saw that my edit was reverted before I head out for work. Regards, — -dainomite   07:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dainomite. Please read through the whole thing when you get chance and let us know what you think, it would be great to have a fresh pair of eyes on the discussion. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up; Ellie Goulding is now dating Jeremy Irvine. Jeremy Irvine is notable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia, so I believe that putting their relationship in the personal life section would be appropriate. smileguy91^talk 03:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source to that effect then such tabloid fodder can go in.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to tangle myself in controversy, but I'll be bold and Y do it. smileguy91^talk 23:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Added relationship status on Personal Life section. smileguy91^talk 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

N And it got deleted. smileguy91^talk 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding at Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding reception - She was the only performer

Ellie Goulding was the only performer at the wedding reception, and should be corrected to state as such. See the referenced article - "The Starry Eyed singer was the only performer at the evening reception…" - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowdsurftn (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Such facts are not necessary; that is not a key point, but thanks for pointing it out!smileguy91^talk 21:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Ellie Goulding FLC

List of songs recorded by Ellie Goulding is currently at FLC. Please review the article and leave any feedback or comments. Let's raise it to FL status! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Goulding"

Incorrect pronunciation of Goulding is quite common. The correct pronunciation is "Golding" as made very clear in this video. Do you think mentioning correct pronunciation at the beginning of the article or elsewhere is warranted? I feel that it is, but I'd like to know the thoughts of the moderators. Some people (like me to start with) pronounce(d) Goulding- Gow-Ding. ~~ Electricmaster (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First off wiki doesn't have moderators, we're expected to self govern through good faith and cooperation, there are processes for disputes. On topic I think if mispronunciation is a common problem it may be appropriate to mention the correct pronunciation right at the front of the lead- provided that is in fact how Ellie pronounces it herself. A lot of people forget that it's up to the people who have the names how they should be pronounced.Batvette (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

English or British?

Most artists from the UK are down as being British. But Ellie is down as being "English", which is not a passport nationality. Should we leave it or change it? 80.111.172.25 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

English is fine. See WP:UKNATIONALS. You will need to provide a source that she self-identifies as British rather than English. Nymf (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP also needs to read WP:3RR and WP:Consensus. --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And no, it isn't important really - only to someone who has an agenda which is what is coming across here Mr. IP...that note is hardly necessary especially considering you have no consensus and it is WP:BURDEN on you. -Somchai Sun (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This article says that she is Welsh. 80.111.172.25 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page. Well, that's interesting info - but questionable. It contradicts the current sourced info about her growing up and attending school in England, and going on to attended the University of Kent. Her supposedly being Welsh is further discredited by her Facebook page which states her hometown is in England, along with her official twitter. Also, that Guardian piece is not written by Ellie herself and the info could always be wrong. I think the most damming thing though is that if Ellie Goulding objected to being described as English i'm sure her PR team or herself would of personally contacted Wikipedia. It's an old source and it appears to be unreliable due to more up-to-date sources being present, along with the other contradictions. Interesting to note but isn't her surname Jewish? --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Her surname is English. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what to do with the article. English isn't a passport nationality, British is. 80.111.172.25 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be a passport nationality for someone to self identify by their own interpretations. Batvette (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

I am a student at the University of Arizona and I am taking an online class called, Rock and American Popular Music. My assignment this week is to pick and read a Wikipedia article relating to music in some sort of way. We then have to do further research on articles that are more reliable, using our UofA library, and find more reliable information on the same given topic. After researching, we are assigned to return back to the Wikipedia page with our new, reliable information, and either edit any info that is not correct (dates, etc.) or add a a truthful, factual sentence that could enhance the page in some way. For my assignment I will make minor changes, such as making changes to, "she began playing the clarinet at the age of nine, and at 14 began learning guitar," changing "14," to "fourteen."

Pettibon (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Pettibon, welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions, the edit request process is only for proposing specific changes, not for general permission to edit the page. I've changed the "14" to "fourteen" as you mentioned; if you have any more specific changes to propose, please open another request. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Note: If you have the time, you can wait four days and make ten edits, after which your account will be autoconfirmed, meaning you can edit this and other semi-protected pages yourself. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Niall Horan

How come it mentions her other boyfriends but not Niall Horan? 80.111.184.146 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Valid and reliable sources must be provided for such an edit to be made. It is possible that such sources do not exist, thus resulting in the nonexistence of the edit. smileguy91^talk 20:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of singles

Just a link to the continuing debate about the singles of Ellie Goulding. Previously about a merge, User:Simon Dodd is now proposing deletion of the articles. To add to the debate go to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song)

Jewish

I've often seen on the internet that Goulding is of Jewish ancestry and then other people saying its false.

Has anyone came across this article http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/fashion/People/article1157384.ece - all of the other people pictured in the article have some Jewish ancestry so surely she must as well since she is included?--Andrew Dorsons (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

She is not of Jewish ancestry. Internet error. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she is Jewish. Here is proof from reliable source: http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/ellie-goulding --Gwaron (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reliable source also says that she dated "Australian" DJ Skrillex. Someone better call Obama and tell them to yank his US passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.94.150 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to extend this discussion, but I think this information should be added into the article. smileguy91^talk 20:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe she is of Jewish ancestry, maybe not. How could we possibly know for sure? 80.111.174.103 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actress?

How come the article states that she's an actress? Looking quickly over the article, I don't see any mention along those lines (I could have missed it), and I don't see any IMDb on-screen credits where she isn't appearing as 'herself'. If there isn't a mention in the text along the lines of "She starred/appeared in [title] as [character]", then the claim of 'actress' should be removed. -- Katana (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Katana: Yeah I agree with your comment. It is confusing, I've never heard her acting in anything. I'm going to wait and see if other editors have to say something about this. If not, I'll remove it.--Chamith (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She has acted in some short films and other works; even though she is not exactly notable for being an actress, the fact that she has acted qualifies her as an actress. smileguy91^talk 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Smileguy91:+@Chamith: I see that 'actress' isn't in the article anymore (which is how I currently think it should be). While admittedly not looking deeply into this, I could only find the short film 'Tom & Issy' - which is basically an 11 minute Nokia commercial. This might be worth mentioning in the article, if background to the production is public; is it an independent work, or a comissioned commercial product? You mention 'short films and other works'. If you or someone else could post info/links here, then perhaps we can substantiate the 'actress' moniker. -- Katana (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous IP added actress earlier, but as the individual has been mildly diruprive on this page and was recently blocked I've taken it out again. This is Paul (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Her nationality

Is she British or English? The article has described her as an English singer for some time, but an anonymous IP has recently been changing it to British. I have no preference personally, but tend to think whatever is used should stand unless there's a good reason to change it. To avoid the usual edit warring and disagreements that surround biography articles about people from the UK and its home nations let's have some consensus on what she should be. Is Ellie Goulding English or British? Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There's an older discussion on her nationality that may inform this one. Lapadite (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I hadn't spotted that, but I'd say it involves the same anonymous user. This is Paul (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

She is clearly both British and English only one being her "nationality" but as previous discussion no reason not to call her an English singer in the lead which is perfectly correct and using the term English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish is widely used in articles about persons from the "home nations" so I dont see a reason to change it here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dating history

A couple of times recently someone has added Goulding's dating history to the article, which has then subsequently been removed anonymously. I'm of the school of thought that although referenced this type of information is not of encyclopedic content, so having watched it appear and disappear a couple of times I removed it earlier today. It has, however, been pointed out to me that other articles contain this information. Anyway I've removed it again for now and thought we should discuss the matter here. What do others think? This is Paul (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary. 109.255.120.83 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's called the "personal life" section, and this information is crucial to her personal life. It's reliably sourced and many other high-quality articles such as Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato contain relationship histories in this section. People come to Wikipedia to quickly learn information about a topic, and relationship histories of a celebrity are definitely something someone would want to learn about, which is why it's absolutely crucial to include them. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you in the case of a high profile relationship, but in this instance I would argue that it's not "crucial" to our understanding of her. Also we're not a news aggregating service. Regardless of whether or not the information is sourced, listing a person's entire dating history (i.e., she dated X then Y then Z) seems to be straying too far into tabloid territory, and the fact this information is included in other articles isn't a sufficient argument to do so here. If people want to read that sort of thing there are plenty of celebrity magazines/websites to choose from. Another problem is the sources themselves. At least one of them is from Mail Online, which we know from past experience can be very unreliable. Digital Spy and Hello Magazine could also present similar difficulties. If you can find a better quality source that discusses this topic (such as The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph or BBC News then perhaps there's a stronger case for its inclusion here. This is Paul (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that having every little fling is a bit overdoing it. But her relationship with Skrillex for instance, was highly puplicised during that time and definitely should be included. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just had a quick look to see if I could find anything usable as you are right about Skrillex, and it has been discussed at length. Rolling Stone and NME both have good articles on the subject, and would be usable here. If we can find good sources for any of the others then we have a better case for inclusion those as well. I'll see what else I can find. This is Paul (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, this from The Telegraph (if we don't have it already) has quite a lot of stuff about her background. This is Paul (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Greg James: London Evening Standard mentions her going through a high profile break up with James. MTV mentions an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan magazine in which she discusses the relationship. She also talks about her health troubles before her career took off.

Jeremy Irvine: Telegraph article from January 2014 mentions that they had a brief relationship.

Dougie Poynter: Lots of information about this one, mostly "are they/aren't they in a relationship?", but high-profile nonetheless. Huffington Post carries a story in which Poynter confirms they are together following weeks of rumours. Capital FM article discusses an interview she gave to Elle magazine in which she said Poynter was "the one", and laments about how wrong she feels it is that female singers appear to be defined by the relationships they've had (ironic as that's what we seem to be doing here). TV3.ie mentions when and where they met.

So guys, decision time is here. As I fared better in my research than I'd anticipated, I've no objection to including the information with the new sources. James, Skrillex and Poynter seem to be the three most important people here. I'll put something together in the next couple of days, unless someone else wants to do it. Any other comments are also welcome. This is Paul (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Paul. Only relationships confirmed by high-quality sources should be included in the article. Lapadite (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

She was also dating Irvine. She confirmed it on The Ellen Degeneres Show. check this out. (Bistymings (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC))

We can't use that source, but Irvine is mentioned in the information I added above. This is Paul (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

"please remove the duplicated word 'and' from the following text in the Personal Life section. This is for a grammatical reason"

cities on her UK tour,[34] and and said that she would be

Portland richie (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jared Preston (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

Update image to 90.212.59.188 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done the image is copyright - Arjayay (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2016

At the end of the 2015-present section of the career header, mention the fact that on 31st March 2016, she announced that she has recorded another song with Calvin Harris. It will feature an unknown male artist as well. 94.1.110.14 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead image change

The lead image of her at the Divergent premiere is dated and also somewhat low quality. Also, please show me the rule which states that close-ups are preferred to full-body pictures. Benmite (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you deem an image "dated" does not mean it should be changed; there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current leading image, therefore, it does not need to be changed, especially to one that is less-clear than the image currently in-use. livelikemusic talk! 01:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A picture taken around the same time as the last time the lead image was updated.

@livelikemusic I fail to see how the image that I used is somehow "less clear" than the one used previously. It shows her face, it shows that she is human, and it also shows her doing something that she wasn't before, which is singing. Therefore, I would almost go as far as to say the image that I added was even more clear. However, if you would rather the article remain more relevant to the Triassic Period, then that is fine by me. Benmite (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@livelikemusic Who am I waiting for consensus from? Unless you are writing a novel, it is clear you have no intention of reaching a consensus with me any time soon. What is your issue with the image? I understand that it is not necessarily an improvement in your eyes. I already explained why I consider it an improvement. Therefore, I am still waiting on a clear explanation as to your removal of the image other than "the other one was fine". Benmite (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to continue linking to my username, Benmite. Your attitude is not assuming good faith and is borderline battlefield-like behaviour and a hint of ownership to your own uploaded image. As explained to you before, discussion was opened and a consensus must be reached between editors, and I will not sit here and engagement in a back-and-forth argument where I do not believe good faith is being assumed, and adhered to towards Wikipedia's policies. As for clearer issues; the image is place now is a clear-cut image of Goulding's face, while the image that you want in place, is darker and is not as clear of quality as the image in place. It is blurry, likely due to its darker nature. livelikemusic talk! 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Battlefield-like behaviour? That's a bold statement. I guess you're not wrong, though. But you have to admit, the Triassic Period joke was sort of funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll help. The portrait picture of the face gives a much better sense of who she is, and whatever the picture's age, she still looks very much like that. The standing, full-body shot verges on an upskirt, and it's actually hard to see her face. The focus is on her body. If she were a body-oriented performance artist, that might be appropriate. In this case, the face portrait is much better.

Finally, I can't keep track of all the back-and-forth above, but whoever is talking about dinosaurs and spending time linking to dino pix is way out of line and is violating the expectations of civility in wikipedia land. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This photo have no relation with ellie Goulding so what do you mean ? Hibapiratistaa (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2016

I wanted to edit the 'years active' part. She had no career in 2008. It started in early 2009 when she signed to Polydor. When Ellie's debut single 'Under the Sheets' was being recorded. https://twitter.com/starsmith/status/1949729381 Should the 'years active' section actually display '2009-present' instead of 2008. Emmaan01 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There are recordings of her online dating back to 2007/2008. 80.111.246.131 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that Emmaan01 is right I've remark it too Hibapiratistaa (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Political comments

Hi, I removed the political comments as they aren't really relevant to the article and her personal life.

Plus generally it is usually with some people in the public eye to try and either state a view or make something up for publicity.

Regrds

Pam-javelin (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if she did "make something up for publicity", it is still encyclopedic information being expressed in the political views section. It is not any editor's opinion. It is not defamatory. Those would be valid reasons to remove said content (if uncited). She has made politics a part of her personal life by expressing her political interests, as the references show. --bojo1498 talk 16:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The political comments should remain in. They are a core facet of her being and personality. They are part of what make her Ellie Goulding. We don't pick and choose what goes into her bio -- she does by her words and behaviors. GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough!

Pam-javelin (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ellie Goulding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121112094345/https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/wish-i-stayed-single-week/id347421814 to https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/wish-i-stayed-single-week/id347421814
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529131624/http://www.katyperry.com/ellie-goulding-to-join-the-california-dreams-tour-in-november/ to http://www.katyperry.com/ellie-goulding-to-join-the-california-dreams-tour-in-november/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.interscope.com/artist/news/default.aspx?nid=39109&aid=1187
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030043034/http://www.entertainmentwise.com:80/news/130769/Ellie-Goulding-Releases-How-Long-Will-I-Love-You-As-BBC-Children-In-Need-Single-WATCH to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/130769/Ellie-Goulding-Releases-How-Long-Will-I-Love-You-As-BBC-Children-In-Need-Single-WATCH
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103062456/http://www.mixmag.net/words/news/zedd-and-ellie-goulding-to-appear-on-soundtrack to http://www.mixmag.net/words/news/zedd-and-ellie-goulding-to-appear-on-soundtrack
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/goss/206252/Ellie-Goulding-s-fury-over-Amy-Winehouse

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{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) 01:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

It should be added under the Endorsements section that Ellie Goulding is currently endorsing Pantene Pro-V on television and on the official Pantene website as an ambassador under the tagline "Strong Is Beautiful"

This campaign has been running since 21 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racxie (talk • contribs)

References

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi Protected (minor) edit request 18 June 2017

Personal life/health issues should be edited for clarity. It would be better to say that "Lights" {rose to fame} or {increased in popularity} instead of {got fame}. Thanks!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ellie Goulding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.southsonic.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=391&Itemid=69
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/130769/Ellie-Goulding-Releases-How-Long-Will-I-Love-You-As-BBC-Children-In-Need-Single-WATCH
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615001604/http://www.popculturemadness.com/interview/Lissie.html to http://www.popculturemadness.com/interview/Lissie.html

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) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Request for Comment There is a Request for Comment open about a related article So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song). Interested editors may comment on the issue. See Talk:So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song)#RfC - January 11. — Zawl 08:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

I would like to write on this page to tell everyone that i am ellie gouldings COUSIN im 10 and my mom could be related to hers Freyda cara (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to dissapoint you but being her cousin is not encyclopedic so we would not mention it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding is she dream pop?

When I was reading about I noticed how she wasn't mentioned in the dream pop artists list why is that A.jerie 09:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Where is the dream pop artists list? 123.201.227.106 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 February 2019

Would someone please update the link to her Brexit tweet (in the personal life section) with the archive link [3]? The original tweet is no longer viewable. 123.201.227.106 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

jewish father

paternal grandparents were jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.232.215 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is true her biological father Arthur Goulding was of Jewish descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:71D5:E662:D097:55D9 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

But it has no relevance to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! And besides she has no Jewish ancestry at all! She is of English and Welsh descent! NOT Jewish at all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.209.61 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cruft

Seems to be a large amount of minutiae in this article, or fancruft as some people call it. Can it not be judiciously pruned? - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Political views

There does not seem to be a consensus for the removal of sourced information in the Political Views section. Airbornemihir (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In an edit today I haven't removed any actual content from the Political Views section, but I've merged the Political Views and the Health Issues section into her Personal life section. As per guidelines at MOS:PARAGRAPH, short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Previously the short paragraphs had their own subheading. I've kept in the Personal life section a quote from her on Twitter about politics, but I don't think it needs to be given particular prominence in the article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: Looks good to me. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2019

In the introductory sentence please change "is a singer/songwriter" to "is an English [[singer-songwriter]]." 80.3.78.196 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 20:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Marriage 31 August 2019

She married Caspar Jopling today: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/31/wedding-ellie-goulding-caspar-jopling-pictures/ Her husband is grandson of the politician Michael Jopling, Baron Jopling; an internal link to his article would probably be justified- see Burke's Peerage 2003, vol. 2, p. 2115, also https://www.tatler.com/gallery/castle-howard-wedding-ellie-goulding-caspar-jopling https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/31/ellie-goulding-caspar-jopling-wedding-royals-a-listers-arrive/

Also, why is there no mention of her parents in the article? There are several reputable sources for their names (e.g. the Times engagement announcement) and occupations etc online; seems a slightly odd omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.194.99 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! It looks like someone has already added the news of her marriage. I think I'll edit it slightly to mention the portfolio held by Michael Jopling - I think it's important. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

University

The "Early life" section says: "After enrolling on a degree in Drama and Theatre Studies at the University of Kent and remaining until her final year she met Jamie Lillywhite who became her manager....". What does that mean? Did she drop out before her final exams to pursue her career, or did she fail them? JezGrove (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Ellie would like someone to change her photo on Wiki. Mertucc (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

Change the photo please, she looks like a gorm. use this one instead https://gettotext.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Ellie-Goulding-She39s-going-to-be-a-first-time-mom.jpg 92.19.46.42 (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 92.19.46.42 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide an image that is free of copyright concerns that you would like us to use. We cannot use images that do not have the correct license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Correction: Family

Small correction but for some reason I felt the need to point it out. Article states brother Alex as being older than Goulding, this is incorrect. Alex Goulding was a friend of mine through college. I don't recall his birthday but we were in the same academic year and I was born in 1988. This would make him younger, not older than Goulding. 51.9.171.181 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support this information? Segaton (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course not.. nothing that could be cited, its hardly headline news. I could direct you to his Facebook page (which, now I check, confirms his DOB as 5 July 1989) but it is set to private. Here's a screenshot. https://freeimage.host/i/j1vXJS 51.9.171.181 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not bad. Fixed here. Segaton (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a discrepency with the sisters as well. While Daily Mirror isn't exactly the most reliable source out there per WP:RSPS (which states there's "no consensus" on its reliability in comparison to other British tabloids), this article mentions the ages of her siblings. It is dated 4 June 2015, so Ellie would have been 28 at the time. It mentions "her sisters Isabel, now 30, and Jordan, 23" as well as "brother Alex, 25" (which corroborates anon's account that Alex is younger than Ellie). I think the best course of action would be to remove any mentions of age for all siblings. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 18:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

She stated that she has a "difficult" relationship with her mother.

I am her mother and this is incorrect. Workflow77 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Article reflects what is in the source. RudolfRed (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Workflow77 THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE 166.181.89.6 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)