Talk:÷ (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ÷ (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

COTH & SOY were dual released.

Wikipedia can't decide which one was released first. They were released on the same day at the same time as the lead single from the album. The right thing is to indicate such with a "\".--219.90.108.180 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: This is a dual release and there is absolutely no way to ascertain that Shape of You was released before Castle on the Hill. It's a dual release.--219.90.108.180 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dual release would be when both of the songs would be released as a bundle, on a same link for download on iTunes or a CD. This is a totally separate release, so 2 singles, not a single release! — Tom^(T2ME) 19:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just go with alphabetical order for the sake of not arguing? There's no good reason for either song to be listed first, so why not go with that? Someone keeps reverting my edits, but not giving any reason why SOY should be before COTH. No reason whatsoever. How is that ok? 73.81.150.34 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need any order? The preference clearly was to have "Shape of You" first before an unregistered likely sockpuppet such as yourself came along and decided there needed to be. Alphabetical order, for literally all of two items, is simply a weak excuse. I'm not going to be lectured by an IP-hopping edit warrior who thinks they know the way Wikipedia works, but reverts the way the page was before they came along then attempts to discuss. Frankly, nobody needs to explain themselves to a vandal, either. Ss 112 00:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not a vandal? And since when did personal preference become a perfectly reasonable reason? That's not a reason at all. I've provided a perfectly logical reason to put COTH first, and your reason is personal preference? Get real. 73.81.150.34 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except you literally are a vandal? You blanked a page with no explanation, are hopping around on different IP addresses every few hours and are edit warring. What's the difference? You're quite obviously a blocked user having a power trip. Ss 112 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

73.81.150.34 - Would the official UK charts lie? 1, 2 --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The order they put them in has no bearing on this. Anyone could put them in the order they want them to. Alphabetical order is a pretty logical reason here. Neither single is more prominent, you just have a personal preference that you can't get over. 73.81.150.34 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I implore everyone to be more civil. Alphabetical order is a personal preference. The fact that the Official UK Charts, the industry standard UK record chart company, list "Shape of You" first in their chronological ordering of Sheeran's singles is the most compelling evidence I have yet seen. Life of Tau (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the Official Charts' list is somewhat of a cop-out; they list singles released on the same day in order of peak chart position, which is why they have "Shape of You" listed first. Life of Tau (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the page Sheeran released them on is the most definitive source — https://atlanti.cr/2singles — which has Castle on the Hill first on the GIF, page title, text, and each retailer. ‑‑Yodin^T 13:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider it definitive proof, but the fact that in addition to that, the front page of Sheeran's website and Sheeran's official announcement on Twitter both list "Castle on the Hill" first, and Sheeran's official YouTube channel published the "Castle on the Hill" video before the "Shape of You" one, is a strong indication that we should also list "Castle on the Hill" first. Life of Tau (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I would like to give my point of view. Since both songs were released together and since we are talking about dates, it's better to list the one that was released on radio first. "Shape of You" was released on January 10, 2017, and "Castle on the Hill" was released six days later. It's better than to go with the order that the songs are on Twitter/YouTube (which doesn't indicate that one was released first). It makes more sense to follow the dates of the radio impact, since both songs were released the same day on iTunes. FanofPopMusic (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting info, but we don't list singles in order of radio release, only by official release date, which both songs share. As far as I can tell, radio release is irrelevant. Life of Tau (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio release is not irrelevant AT ALL, because basically all of the singles on Wikipedia (mainly the ones that are released after the album) receives its release date due to the RADIO date. So it's a very relevant and strong point, way more than the order that the song was posted on YouTube/Twitter, which is just a "guess", the radio date indicates very clearly which song was released first. FanofPopMusic (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of these singles, it is. You yourself admitted that radio release is mainly applicable to singles that are released following the album they appear on, which describes neither CotH nor SoY. Radio release is only relevant if it's the first instance of the single being released outside of the album. That's not the case with Sheeran's two new singles, which were first released to streaming services at the same time on the same day. The order that they were released in for other formats days later doesn't change the fact that they share the same official release date, which is what matters. The sources previously mentioned are relevant not because they show that one single was released before the other, but because they are an indication of the order that Sheeran's label intends for them to be listed in (and when all four use the same ordering, it's highly unlikely that it's a "guess"). Also, for the sake of discussion, it would be helpful if you provided the source for the radio release dates you've given; not that I doubt you, but I am having difficulty finding this info. Life of Tau (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they were also released on the same day and at the same time on YouTube, and a placement on Twitter it's not indicating that COTH is the "first" one, since they were released together, it was just a matter of "choosing the first to be written/uploaded first", since they are different songs, that's why I suggested to consider the radio release date, since a single is considered a single here on Wikipedia mainly due to the radio release. By the way, the sources are there! FanofPopMusic (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...a placement on Twitter it's not indicating that COTH is the "first" one, since they were released together, it was just a matter of "choosing the first to be written/uploaded first"

I completely agree with this, hence why I wrote "The sources previously mentioned are relevant not because they show that one single was released before the other, but because they are an indication of the order that Sheeran's label intends for them to be listed in." What I'm trying to say is that there's no point in trying to find which single came first since we already know they were released at the same time, so the next best thing is to determine which order Sheeran's label prefers, as that should be the order we also use. The Linkfire, Sheeran website, Twitter, and YouTube pages all indicate that their preference is to have "Castle on the Hill" listed first. Again, radio release is only relevant if it marks the first instance of the single being released outside of the album, which is not the case for either song; it doesn't get to serve as a tie-breaker when the official release dates are the same. Thanks for providing sources for the radio dates, though; it is appreciated. (That iTunes link below is not from me; some IP snuck it in while I was typing my reply) Life of Tau (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On iTunes shape if you is his latest release see

https://itun.es/gb/Fqs7k

I appreciate the attempt to contribute to the discussion, but that statement is not at all true. The page orders them by the number of times they've been purchased and downloaded, which is completely irrelevant here, and it says nothing about release order. Life of Tau (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Song list

Can someone help me with adding the song list, source and photo at https://mobile.twitter.com/edsheeran?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Hi. Everything is already added. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so... the dual release thing

What's wrong with combining them in the single slot in the infobox? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: Well, because generally that's done for double A-sides and would imply how that's how they were released. As another editor pointed out above, they were merely two singles released on the same day, not as part of the same download package. Ss 112 07:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. fair enough.

--Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC

Non-single album tracks

The recent unprecedented success of the album (all 16 tracks in the top 20) has created a strange situation. I had thought that a top 40 entry at least (and many singles that reach the top 100 also get an entry) was a big factor behind a song being notable. I created articles for the non official singles that reached the top 20 (Shape of You, Castle on the Hill, How Would You Feel and Galway Girl already existed) with references and chart positions but they have been redirected back to the album. Is the issue that they were not official singles that makes them lack notability? Perfect, for example, reached number 4 and pretty much every song in history that reached this position has an article. Surely all the songs are independently notable. Nancy Mulligan, for example, has articles on its influences and backstory that could be added.

What are people's thoughts. 03 md 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil chart edit war

Can somebody explain to this dim-witted admin exactly what is the issue with this edit? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Brazilian charts are no longer archived at the site that template uses. The Brazilian album chart, when it worked using that site, also required a chart ID number (as per Template:Album chart, Brazil only required the id parameter when charts were shown on abpd.org.br). They're also copying unnecessary information that pertains to Hung Medien sites (i.e. australian-charts.com and that network)—the hexademical code required to access the brackets in the title. The IP continuing to add the template clearly does not understand this and would have to add a manual reference to the actual place they're getting said information from (the Brazilian chart where ÷ was number 1). Ss 112 16:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not what I would consider an "edit war" or even particularly a content dispute. It's an IP not understanding why they've been reverted and continuing to readd it despite being told why not to. Ss 112 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better course of action would have been to get the source for the Brazillian chart placing and fix it up manually, not just blindly revert it out. Unfortunately I'm having problems with getting such a source as I'm getting a load of false positives of Ed Sheeran and Ronaldo hob-nobbing together. BTW if you try editing Wikipedia as an IP it's sometimes difficult to know if you have messages. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Exactly, which is why I didn't leave it in. I don't know where they're getting said information from. I didn't think it was verifiable. Ss 112 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just manually put the chart placing back in and add a {{fact}} tag to it? It doesn't sound particularly unbelievable that the album has hit #1 here, there and everywhere. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Maybe we can now, as I think they're using Billboard Brasil? Breakthrough: http://www.billboard.com.br/rankings, then clicking on Billboard 200, shows it was at number 1, but that page would need to be archived, as there doesn't appear to be a way to access it otherwise (as they do not appear to archive previous versions of the charts). Ss 112 16:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Right, I've had a look through the last month's of Billboard's Brazil chart archives, and the only thing has been at #1 since ÷ was released is the compilation "Samba de Enredo". So it's not just unverifiable, it's wrong. I'm happy, so the article is now unprotected. As you were. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The American Billboard is separate from Billboard Brasil. The American Billboard publishes its own Brazil Albums, while billboard.com/br/rankings has its own Brazilian-compiled singles and albums charts, and shows it as being at #1 before Drake's More Life. Ss 112 16:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, foreign chart places make my head hurt and I leave them alone. I'm confused now, earlier you said the chart placing wasn't verifiable, now you're telling me it is? :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Yes, because I tried looking yesterday but couldn't find anything, then just remembered Billboard Brasil existed. Ss 112 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so could you do me a favour and pop the Brazil chart place stuff back in the article, manually, with a suitable source? That should hopefully resolve the dispute once and for all. It seems my original hunch was correct then, the IP is having problems with WP:COMPETENCE, and we can't block for that (well, without a large discussion on ANI first, at least). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COTH is the next single

According to Billboard, the next single is COTH source. Now I suppose "SOY" can be considered the first single? It's a little confusing since he has release Galway Girl as an apparent UK only single thus far. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just the next single being serviced to US radio, because "Castle on the Hill" wasn't already sent to pop or AC radio as they preferred "Shape of You", and probably didn't want two singles going to radio at once. Ss 112 07:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tour photograph

Hey guys. So I thought I'd upload a picture from his divide tour to show some images of him performing. Glevy017 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 albums in the top 10

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I do not know whether this fits in the +, x or ÷ article, but Sheeran had all three albums charting in the top 10 at the same time in the UK, Ireland and Australia (in 2017 AND 2018) source source source. Since this is a very rare achievement (there are only a handful of examples on a worldwide base apart from post-mortal pushes, e.g. Adele in Australia in March 2017, Pablo Alborán in Spain in November 2012 or Dire Straits in New Zealand in June 1986), it should be included in some way. Maybe you have an idea in this context! --2A02:B98:473F:3C0C:95E5:A09B:E1EE:B699 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further details? OK, here we go: "A rare achievement, Sheeran had his first three albums +, x or ÷ charting in the top 10 simultenously in the UK, Ireland and Australia source source source."

In which article should that sentence be included? --2A02:B98:473C:7460:C50B:9954:7EE6:BE7F (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned in the main article, Ed Sheeran. If you feel it has a place in the album articles you may WP:BEBOLD and add it yourself as you do have the access. — IVORK _Discuss 00:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous album

Should 5 be the previous album? It is just a number of old albums repackaged. It is like the Kings of Leon situation. Only By The Night was 2008, Boxed was 2009 and Come Around Sundown was 2010 but Only By The Night was listed as previous in Come Around Sundown and Come Around Sundown was listed as next on Only By The night. Mobile mundo (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Given that the word "Divide" is right there in the middle of the symbol, why isn't this article titled "Divide (album)" with a note that "Divide, stylized as ÷, is the third studio album..."? Heck, why are we even treating the symbol as anything more than just a graphic element of the cover image? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]