Talk:Thinking Out Loud

Genre

This song seems to have a blue eyed soul feel to it, like some of the songs on his record, x. Could I add that genre? <Cajalden (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)>

Removed one link. Not working as of the moment. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move this article to Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song), and consensus not to move the disambiguation page at this time, per the discussion below. However, please note User talk:Dekimasu#Raining Men (song); please help fix any new links and redirects to the disambiguation page, because this will still appear to be malplaced, preemptive disambiguation to many uninvoled editors. Dekimasuよ! 19:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

---

• Thinking Out Loud (song) → Thinking Out Loud
• Thinking Out Loud → Thinking Out Loud (disambiguation)

– Claim WP:RECENTISM all you want, but the other three articles were barely getting any attention before this song existed. And even with it existing now, they're still getting almost no traffic: whilst the song has been viewed almost 45,000 times this month alone,[1] the three other articles combined have received less than 1,700 views in the last three months.[2][3][4] --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 02:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - because of the albums and other meanings, additionally move to Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song), even though the other two songs are only B-sides they still exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• They do still exist, but this song is the primary topic as the other topics are nowhere near as notable as this. Unreal7 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTABILITY is not a comparative concept. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment we appear to be missing an article on the idiom/phrase, which is the same one that should be for Think Out Loud... if someone would construct such an article, Think Out Loud and Thinking Out Loud would then redirect there. Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song) would be the preferred title to this article per IIO. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that necessary? And even then wouldn't that be on Wikimedia? Unreal7 (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – with four albums, three songs, and a TV documentary by the same title, it makes no sense to make one primary just because it's currently popular. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above, and support the suggestion to move to Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song). Including the artist's name in the title is helpful to readers (e.g., to clarify the topic of a printed article), and the popularity of music is generally volatile and fleeting. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and support the suggestion to move to Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song). I even wonder whether we need to tweak the RM guidelines, something along the lines of while a vote may usefully be supported purely by page view statistics, one that also addresses the other considerations will carry far more weight, and a move nomination based purely on page view statistics is most often a complete waste of time. Wording not perfect, and other suggestions welcome, but do you see my gist? Andrewa (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requesting info for article

So according to Songfacts Ed Sheeran told Q Magazine that with the song he was trying to channel Van Morrison. I looked on Q Magazine's website and they don't seem to have the article online. I don't really feel great sourcing Songfacts unless it was a direct interview by them so I wondering if someone maybe had the issue where he said that and could add something about it. --68.3.87.197 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that this song is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song) → Thinking Out Loud
• Thinking Out Loud → Thinking Out Loud (disambiguation)

– When I made the same request last year, this song wasn't really that big a deal. Now, however, it's a huge deal: it's become one of only seven songs to go 3× Platinum in the UK this century and has also become one of the best-selling songs of all time (in addition to half a billion Spotify streams, more than any other song), so it definitely isn't going to be forgotten any time soon. Judging by the length of the pages of the other two albums, as well as a lack of chart positions and references, I seriously doubt anyone outside of Japan will be even vaguely familiar with the Bonnie Pink album, and I also seriously doubt anyone who isn't a Frank Gambale fan will know anything about his album either. Neither of these albums even have even a fraction of the notability of the Ed Sheeran song and the same can also be said about the other topics on the disambiguation page which do or don't have articles - and to be perfectly honest, I am very doubtful that any of them will ever be anywhere near as notable as this song. All these reasons explain why the Ed Sheeran song deserves to be the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Similar to I Will Always Love You; I agree the song has earned its pedigree of long-term notability. In addition to the points made above, it also holds two all time records on the UK charts and is likely to break some others before it's finished. Btljs (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Also, googling "thinking out loud" and "ed sheeran" yields 13,900,000 results. Per guidelines, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the aboves. The existence of albums and other songs with the same name doesn't prevent this one from being the primary topic. Calidum 12:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this hasn't "earned" anything, barely heard of this singer. WP:RECENT In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Those statements are both factually incorrect, he's the most famous singer around right now (that's a terrible reason to oppose by the way - you having barely heard of him is completely irrelevant, as millions and millions of others have heard of him and are very, very familiar with this tune) and this song has most definitely earned the right to be the primary topic. Look at everything we mentioned above. Unreal7 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the second statement can't be factually incorrect can it? The first is debatable : it is not proven that a June 2014 song has "earned" a place displacing all other uses - consider that I Will Always Love You (Dolly Parton, 1974) could claim to have "earned" something - by appearing in reliable print sources over 4 decades. 4 decades, 1 year. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because this song hasn't been around for many, many years doesn't mean it isn't notable enough to be the primary topic. It's the only song to be in the UK top 40 for an entire year and it's also gone 3× Platinum, a feat achieved by only six other songs in the 21st century (see other reasons above in my original post). Unreal7 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Popular culture items NEVER meet the long-term requirement of primary (which song is as notable as that French city mentioned in the guidelines?). "Thinking out loud", and, for that matter, "crying out loud" are common expressions and as such are used commonly in popular culture. This is why a clever songwriter like Sheeran uses the title. It is a Sheeran song, why must there be an issue to hide this fact? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes they do, please face facts instead of fiction. Unreal7 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Example then, please. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Do you debate that this is true for this case? Btljs (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Btljs mentioned I Will Always Love You above. Then there's also It's My Birthday and I'm Not the Only One. By the way, I did not propose this move because I had an issue with the disambiguation explaining whose song it was, I proposed it because none of the other Thinking Out Louds even come close to this in terms of notability, aka PRIMARY TOPIC. Unreal7 (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I've read the debate In ictu oculi and Richhoncho have been involved in at WP:DABSONG and it seems you challenge the notion that a recent song can claim enough notability to be a primary topic compared to older songs, even if they are less well-known. I sympathise with the sentiment, but this is the world as it is, not as we would wish it. The question I ask myself is: in 10, 50 or 100 years time is it likely without unforeseeable events that the other older songs would approach this recent song in popularity? In the case of this particular song (and incidentally, also the Rihanna song which you also oppose being a primary topic) my answer is a clear "No". Therefore, it is biased AGAINST recent songs to simply wait for the most likely outcome before promoting them to primary topic.

Your other point seems to be about reader friendliness of including the artist in the page title. This is a valid point of view, and should be discussed in the relevant forum, because it would have to apply to all songs consistently. This is not currently WP policy. Btljs (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• For what is worth I totally agree with WP:NCM which suggests there should not be a primary topic between songs and/or albums. In practice WP agrees with me. If you don't believe that popular culture is time-limited see Category:Singles by year where the number of entries is nearly incremental by year! There is a title reused which has been a charting single at least three times and the most successful/notable 1940s song doesn't have a WP article! (I don't mention the title because, thankfully, all the articles are fully disambiguated per WP:NCM). Those that are voting "support" are saying AT THE PRESENT TIME, this is the primary topic. I am hoping that WP is around longer than any of us. Also, reminder, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline, not a compunction. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• But when one thing is 1000 times more notable than anything else with the same name is, was and (I'm pretty sure) ever will be, then we have a clear primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't the colloquialism the primary topic or are we now attributing the saying to Sheeran? I am glad you are pretty sure... --Richhoncho (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Neither. But the expression is not a more likely destination on Wikipedia. Unreal7 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• The saying Thinking out loud doesn't have an article (as you can see), we are talking about Thinking Out Loud the title (hence capitalisation) so let's stay on topic, because it is an interesting one. WP:NCM deosn't give guidelines about whether there should be primary topics or not; it refers the editor to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I do believe popular culture is time limited, but consider this: when I was growing up I used to read Pears Cyclopaedia and the detail in its history section used to decrease the further back you went (ie. day by day for the last century, months, years and eventually decades and centuries). Did this imply that recent events were more important? No. Would an edition from 2015 have the same detail of events in 1970? No. We live in a dynamic world where people's interests are transient. If Wikipedia was printed each year, it would change each year - some things would be relegated and some promoted. As it is constantly edited, it can be changed far more often than that and it really doesn't matter. If you hang on to the idea that something that is 50 or 100 years old has more importance than something recent then you are not looking at the relative merits of each one. I too hope that WP outlasts us and if it does, can you honestly claim that it is more user friendly to have DAB pages with huge lists of song titles going back hundreds of years than directing the users of the day to whatever version is most popular (not necessarily current - it may be an old classic, but there is still a primary topic)? Btljs (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting, but WP:NOTPAPER applies doesn't it? WP doesn't have to do what Pears did and edit out the old to make room for the new. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I never heard of him either. But that has nothing to do the primary topic issue, which is about comparing the readership of this article to that of other Wikipedia articles that might reasonably be titled "Thinking Out Loud." As the mathematicians would say, 20,553 >> 116 + 169. Gulangyu (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, especially per Gulangyu's evidence. This is the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Thinking Out Loud. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/67728650/x-factor-recap-joe-irvine-and-finlay-robertson-eliminated
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626101305/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20150615/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20150615
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6W9ImDfUZ?url=http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/pop/ to http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/pop/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6W9ItrBuW?url=http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/anglo/ to http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/anglo/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitlisten.nu/aarslister.asp?list=Download%2050
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104175405/http://austriancharts.at/year.asp?cat=s&id=2015 to http://austriancharts.at/year.asp?cat=s&id=2015

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Thinking Out Loud

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thinking Out Loud's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bpi":

• From + (Ed Sheeran album): "Certified Awards". British Phonographic Industry. 10 December 2011. Archived from the original on 6 February 2013. Retrieved 25 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Union J discography: "Certified Awards". British Phonographic Industry. 11 March 2015.
• From Photograph (Ed Sheeran song): "Ed Sheeran's ÷ Leads to 6 BPI Awards". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 18 March 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)