Jump to content

Talk:Hello (Adele song)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.164.204.231 (talk) at 05:20, 5 March 2018 (→‎Genre). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Video in infobox

Please discuss here on whether to include link to official video in infobox. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. It should be in WP:EL since its an external link and not discussed in the article, not in the infobox because it does not give any general information. Its an external link for click bait which is generally what YouTube is for. Just because other articles use it I definitely think we should not use that as example. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe above as click bait is exact reason in my opinion we should keep link. Official video is an external link of importance and something visitors search for. Furthermore, this is a highly visited page (stats), and placement of link makes a difference. Result of this discussion can be generalized to other songs too... Looking forward to opinions of other editors, infobox can be updated accordingly. Gizmocorot (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT upto us to make any EL a clickbait and if you are going through that route I would have to question your understanding of WP policies. The fact that this page has a high viewer ship (obviously duh) holds no candle to an external link which is not used in the article. If you want go ahead and raise RFC. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianBio: This is not first page to include video links. Opened RfC below.. Gizmocorot (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound clip

Any one knows how to create sound clip/copyright issues with creating it? Looking forward to discuss which part/snippet of song to include in clip... Gizmocorot (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Sales

An interesting tidbit you might want to add to its commercial performance is that at its peak it sold 5.2 copies a second. This is second only to Candle in the Wind 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.180.197 (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a source for this information? Btljs (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Including official video links in external links

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to include the official video link in the article infobox. However, since this discussion was held on the talk page of a single song article, I won't be so bold as to claim this consensus applies to all song article infoboxes everywhere, as the original question was asking, though it can be used as evidence. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC has been created to open discussion on whether it's fine to include links to official video links in infoboxes of songs. Arguments have been raised that so is a violation of WP:EL. Examples of pages that include link to official video page: Hello (Adele song), California Gurls, Teenage Dream (Katy Perry song), Maldito Alcohol, Sympathy (Goo Goo Dolls song), Coke Bottle (song), Love Alone Is Worth the Fight, Girlfriend (Jay Park song), Tik Tok, Die Young (Kesha song), Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song). Gizmocorot (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO I don't think the video link should be included in the song infobox, but rather in the external links sections. I have to agree with IndianBio on this one it makes the infobox even longer and not so much accessible especially when you have 3+ artists on the song (example, "FourFiveSeconds"). — Tom(T2ME) 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question of RfC is if posting links is in violation of WP:EL, main concerned raised in objection to link placement.. Gizmocorot (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ELPOINTS #2 explicitly allows external links in infoboxes, with the ambiguous criteria in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. Template {{External_music_video}} has been in use for seven years, and the usage documentation reads This template is used with the |Misc= parameter of an infobox template. A substantial discussion of this exact issue happened five years ago in a deletion discussion on the template. Good arguments were made in both directions, with a no-consensus outcome. The template was kept, and I would say the current De Facto situation is that Music Video links are permissible in infoboxes. A link to an official Music Video seems to me to be a uniquely high-value resource, which maybe does warrant inclusion in the infobox. My recommendation is to withdraw this RFC (delete the {{rfc}} template), and if Gizmocorot and/or Indian:BIO still think this needs resolution then open a new deletion discussion on Template {{External_music_video}}. I would suggest something to the effect of: Template External_music_video should either be deleted as an improper External Link in the infobox, or it should be merged as supported fields in Infobox song and Infobox single. If that deletion discussion is started, I suggest linking to it on Template_talk:Infobox_song, Template_talk:Infobox_single and probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Alsee (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to second Alsee, it seems explicitly supported in WP:ELPOINTS #2. A review of relevant video policies on that page doesn't say anything about including them in infoboxes. It's not in the scope of this RfC, but I can see discussion for when there are multiple versions of a song and video. In that case, I'd say you'd have to negotiate it just as you would discuss an infobox image. Again, doesn't apply here anyway. I recommend keeping the link in the infobox. Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Alsee. The placement of the link in the infobox is supported. Although, I normally put the link under the section "external link" together with the link to lyrics, etc etc. Suggestion: Carry on the discussion at the appropriate policy talk page, so that consensus will be immediately applied to song/single articles. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - To be honest I've added YT vids but only if they're needed - If the album info is in the infobox then I'll add it in the External Links below, If there's no album info in the infobox then I add the vid to both the infobox and the external links section, In this case I'd say it's fine, The infobox doesn't look long so personally don't see an issue with it, –Davey2010Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as there is no copyright problem I see no problem in linking to a video (and so says wp:YOUTUBE as I read it), quite the opposite, being able to listen and see a music performance of the song described in the article. It is important to make it clear it is an external link, and to where. This one in this infobox feels just right - Nabla (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Hello" by Adele - Vocal Range

I would like to point out that the vocal range currently written in the article ("F3 to Ab5") is probably wrong. F3 seems correct but Ab5 does not. I haven't checked this with a piano and I am not a professional musician but it is probably Ab4.

Christina - Always an Adele fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.244.134 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I think we should add that source is by Musicnotes.com. It's quite strange when saying her highest note in the song is Ab5. Minhhai 2000 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user and Minhhai 2000, I have added Musicnotes.com as direct attribution. I'm not an expert on this, too, but I think Ab5 is correct. It's at 4:52 (in the music video), in which she reached the note via the head voice register. Would make sense, too, because the song is played in the key of F minor, according to the website. Instead of G#, it should be Ab. Hope this helps. --Efe (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, she reached Eb5 at 4:44 (in the music video). So the higher note at 4:52 would be Ab5. Cheers. --Efe (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The common term is G#5 and it is falsetto, not head voice. Two completely different things.  — Calvin999 11:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First live performance

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

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

Release history

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

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

References

  1. ^ "Adele - Hello Radiodate". radioairplay.fm. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Hot/Modern/AC > Future Releases". allaccess.com. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  3. ^ "Top 40 Mainstream > Future Releases". allaccess.com. 23 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
I had the same "question" on "Photograph" by Ed Sheeran. I think it's a matter of available sources. Should we put a note that it's incomplete? --Efe (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures: combined vs traditional

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

At the end of the introduction, move the comma that is now after "including" to before that word59.171.229.33 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

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

Critical acclaim?

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

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

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

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

Saturday Night Light sketch

 Not done

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

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

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

Korea sales

Resolved

Is there a reason why the sales in Korea (which are reported from their official Gaon chart) are removed from the certifications box? 113.23.48.120 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded them again. Don't know who removed it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

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

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

Dispute

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

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

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

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

Hello is also charting on the R&B Airplay charts

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

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

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

View count or not view count

@Unreal7 and @IndianBio and anyone else concerned/interested

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

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

Notability:

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

Sourcing:

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

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

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

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

Something else to ponder:

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

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

Thanks guys - appreciate your hard work.

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

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

WikiProject Adele proposal

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Adele. All comments are welcome and appreciated! MaranoFan (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Christie campaign ad

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

Parodies

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2016

Luis5795 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year-end charts isn't updated... Why

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

Ukrainian peak and lack of consequence

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 08:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hello_(Adele_song)&oldid=828862871"