Talk:No Angel

Fair use rationale for Image:Didothankyou.jpg

Image:Didothankyou.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Album release

I remember reading in an interview with Dido that this album was released in the US first due to advice from her brother Rollo. Of course I read this ages ago and have no idea where the source would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.123.57 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Agiozef5k1gf5

--CactusBot (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

world wide sales

The article says 21 million world wide sales, but has no source. The only source I could find was 14 million. http://www.mediatraffic.de/2000-2009-album-chart.htm 86.178.229.183 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No Angel. 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.ifpi.gr/chart01.htm

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No Angel. 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/20120716174749/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_D.php?debut=34 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_D.php?debut=34

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) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:No Angel (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Don't Think of Me" is a single

Alright, so we're at D of WP:BRD. Sure, I will do as asked. "Don't Think of Me" should be listed as a single, because it is one. I've been reverted twice, and I object to the response given in the edit summary. The song was serviced to radio with an official add date by a reputable publication. As far as I'm concerned, typical practice is that alone is enough evidence. I was countered with, "according to Template:Infobox album, limited radio-only releases do not belong in the singles section of the infobox; their status should be explained in prose, which it already is" ("Do not add specialty- or limited-release singles, such as those supplied to radio stations and music publications, which are often marked as "Promo copy" or "Promotional"). This is inconsistent with what broader Wikipedia actually does; such promotional singles are not given an official impact date, and "Don't Think of Me" was, according to page 82 of this issue of Radio & Records. I cited WP:SINGLE? for my actions,

I reverted, stating this was given an actual add date and this was sufficient sourcing. I was reverted again, with the other party stating, "out of the criteria you referred to, "Don't Think of Me" checks only one box out of four. that's insufficient [emphasis obviously mine]. neither Dido nor Arista have ever referred to the song as a single." But here's the thing: they didn't need to. There is nothing available to us that has expressly shared that it is not a single, either. As far as I can tell, nowhere in recorded Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or essays, is it written that we require "X plus". They provided "To Zion" by Lauryn Hill as a similar example, but I have the same problem with that article's application of the term and would love this to be precedent to change that one, too, but that can be addressed later.

Bronx Langford, respectfully, who are you to decide how much is required to call a single? The reason I ask is simply you're the first person I've run across who wants to challenge it, not because I personally think your perspective is a problem. mftp dan ^oops 18:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, there is a source stating (albeit indirectly, but clearly regardless) that "Don't Think of Me" was never released as an official single: Billboard. According to page 114 of the issue dated November 25, 2000, "Thank You" served as the follow-up to "Here with Me", meaning no single was released in between. This to me indicates that only those two songs (and later "Hunter") were considered singles. After all, Billboard is the most reputable music publication of all.

It is true I'm not qualified to unilaterally decide what constitutes a single. However, is a simple, silent radio add date (especially on a genre-specific format) really all it takes? While I'm well aware that a substantial number of singles lacked a commercial release in the US following Billboard's December 1998 chart rule change (meaning that the only format they were made available on in the country was airplay), all those singles were released commercially internationally – and that made them full-scale singles. "Don't Think of Me" was not released on a commercial format anywhere. Of course, all these industry practices would change again in the digital consumption era, but that would not happen before the late 2000s.

The promotional recording article defines a promotional single as "a single that is made available to radio stations, nightclubs, music publications, and other media outlets by a record label to promote a commercial single or album. A song may be released as a promotional single even if no commercial version of the single is available to buy." Apart from airplay (exclusive to hot AC radio stations), the only format "Don't Think of Me" was made available on (aside from being an album cut) is a promotional CD single (catalog no. ARPCD-3803).

For what it's worth, I don't personally think your perspective is a problem either, and it gave me a lot to think about. I acknowledge your arguments, but according to the sources I've found so far, I wouldn't classify "Don't Think of Me" as a single. As for other Wikipedia articles, to be perfectly honest it seems to me like the term "single" tends to be tossed around rather loosely – I don't think every singular release of a song is worthy of placement in the singles section of the infobox (even reissue singles must be excluded from it, no matter how widely they were distributed on commercial formats).

I'd appreciate if other editors engaged in this discussion, too. Bronx Langford (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, her label/website doesn't consider it a single either, like Let Us Move On, which was promoted but never referred as the first single off Girl Who Got Away. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 19:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bronx Langford: I understood all of these circumstances, save for the Billboard article, before this discussion. Had that source been provided, this could have been avoided; I was simply using what had been provided us already. That's the kind of sourcing that I was looking for to determine otherwise, and it should be implemented into Wikipedia. To answer your questions: for one, yes. WP:SINGLE says it explicitly: the fact that The song was only released in one territory/to one radio format does not affect the legitimacy of a single. The example provided is Exile (song). For two, I understood physical promotional recordings of songs to be capable of being singles if the song itself received an actual add date, regardless of how many formats it was serviced to; however, many do not, and I was aware that "Don't Think of Me" did not receive any physical commercial release. Thus, if it wasn't for the Billboard article stating otherwise, I would still call "Don't Think of Me" a single, but I agree an artist or article saying it isn't trumps what else we had available. Admittedly, over the years Wikipedia has been a little irresponsible with how we define singles, but this is partly why WP:SINGLE was created. Incidentally, Bronx, it's funny you bring up reissue singles because I actually have a discussion where I'm advocating for change on those here. It's struggling for participation and if you have thoughts on the matter I would greatly appreciate it. mftp dan ^oops 20:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconvenience; I should've immediately presented you with the Billboard source so we'd avoid this argument. Though I don't agree with you completely, I understand your points.

I've checked your discussion regarding reissue singles and voted in support! I disagree with the ongoing rule regarding that and I think you provided some great insights. Hope the discussion actually results in a positive outcome. Bronx Langford (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)