Talk:Joe McElderry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe McElderry 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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: The X Factor Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X Factor task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cheryl (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheryl, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CherylWikipedia:WikiProject CherylTemplate:WikiProject CherylCheryl articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) until notability requirements are met.

AfD

See Talk:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#Joe McElderry 2 for discussion on whether to restore the independent article. I42 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now this AfD is irrelevant as the results declared make Joe the winner and his contract with Sony makes this request obsolete. No need to answer further to this AfD now null and void. werldwayd (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Look, we're not all trolls. I've been trying to remove rubbish or repeated lines from the article to tidy it up, but now I'm unable to because a few children decided to say 'gay' and 'shite'. It's unfair on people who aren't vandals to have the page locked like this, unless you're going to address these issues yourselves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.126.98 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to the registered users please. Otherwise it will keep on being vandalised unfortunately. Feudonym (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do address them ourselves and this is a lot easier to do when a page is protected. It's true it is unfair but unfortunately in a situation like this it is a lot more practical to lock the page. On a sidenote, please be more careful when starting threads in teh future.raseaC^{talk to me} 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we encourage you to register and edit in this manner. The banning action is only temporary and applies to anonymous editors only. If you care so much about editing on this page, it is well worth your while to create a Wikipedia account of your own. PS: Using obscene language like "Fucksake" doesn't help either... werldwayd (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is vandalizing Joe's page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.116.66 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest offenders after the ban on the page is User:TheRatedRKOLegendKiller. If this behavior continues unabated, I suggest stiffer measures werldwayd (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to remove the bit in the Personal Life paragraph which is irrelevant. I am registered - why can't I do this? Oyster24 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone minimized the banner that explained it, but the article is semi-protected due to vandalism, which means both anonymous users and newly registered users won't be able to edit the article. It's unfortunate for those who mean good, but otherwise the vandalism would be too difficult to keep up with. If you have any suggestions for changes, feel free to post them here.

EDIT - it seems you've been a Wikipedian for a long time though. That's odd. I wonder, what would happen if you created yourself your page? — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ

The Climb (song)

Should the Debut single section be on The Climb (song) instead of this page? I moved it before but it all got reverted. MatthewWaller (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: Requesting 3-day protection of page until end of 21 December

To avert malicious vandalism (we had some very big vandalisers even today!) can we have a ban on anonymous editors from editing until end of Monday 21 December 2009? Hectic Christmas weekend sales on December 19 for both McElderry and Rage Agaist the Machine and the expected Christmas chart release on 20 December evening UK time will leave this Joe McElderry page at the mercy of disruptive irresponsible editors leaving obscenities, changing existing data just to create havoc and deleting of whole sections. By Monday, with the news already "old news" things would have calmed down. Please let us avert what happened on results night werldwayd (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to raise this at WP:RPP. I42 (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page for three days. The vandalism is becoming excessive and we all have better things to do with our time. I think Werlwayd is right in thinking this will calm down by Monday. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe is not the first X Factor winner to not reach Christmas no. 1 spot

The first x factor winner, steve brookstein, did not reach number 1 either, so Joe is the second winner to miss the christmas number 1 spot. I would change this myself, but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.179.52 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brookstein's single wasn't released in time for the Christmas chart, so it could never have been a Christmas number one anyway. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Brookstein was number one, so I think it should say McElderry is the first not to reach number one with his debut single. Though that may not be the case this time next week. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points raised above but the MOST important fact that should appear in this article is that he didn't get the Christmas number one. To most people this guy is irrelevant and just another X-Factor produced singer yet his most notable attribute is being beaten by Rage Against the Machine (and making a lot of people happy because of this).--Xania

^talk 20:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really something relevant to him or to his single? Either way, it really oughtn't be put in the lead. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not for the lead. It's mentioned further down which is fine. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this does not belong in the lead. But to be pedantic, it is not yet the case that he did not get to number one - he could still do it (just not for Christmas). I42 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

Where the hell was this suggested then? Because if I could actually find the suggestion that the banner refers too I could object in the strongest possible terms. As it appears the banner has been put there incorrectly are there any objections to its removal? A subsection is acceptable but a new article??! raseaC^{talk to me} 09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I've gone ahead and removed and the tag can be re-added if any such discussion is started (though I suspect it would be in vain). raseaC^{talk to me} 09:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Year number 1

I have amended the section about the single reaching number 1, as it didn't include any indication of when this occurred. I have also removed the sales figures; After searching the web I have found contradictory information on how many singles were sold by RATM, and decided that there was no purpose in listing the weekly sales figures other than for comparison. 69,000 was listed, and some website agreed with this figure, but several others referred to Joe's 196,000 being 'over 130,000' more than RATM - I make that less than 66,000. I also removed the total sales figures and the statement that this it is the 6th best selling single of 2009 - since the sentence needed re-writing, and 2009 is not yet over, I didn't think that confirmed, and the sales total will no doubt change anyway. I welcome your comments! Bertcocaine (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author of article

So I created the article in October, and was redirected again and again until the end of the day. A couple of days later I put it back again, and it was redirected again. In November I put it back and was redirected again, so I decided to nominate it for AfD, in which the result was redirect to the series. I put it back on 7 December, a day after it was announced Joe is in the top three, then I was blocked for 31 hours for it. About 12 hours before the result was announced (13 December) I put it back and I was blocked for 48 hours for doing that. On 14 December I found out that someone had finally put it back and how much mania there was just after the result was announced. I did create the article but I'm not sure whether I should be thanked for that. Tell me what you think. Hassaan19 (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Have a read of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "prize" for being the first to create an article. Clearly you think there is, judging by the articles on your user page which you display like a trophy list. And for the record, this article was anyway created by user:12bigbrother12. I42 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's 3,143,163 on English WP as a write this (it will have increased by the time you read this) and the vast majority of those will not have been thanked. Coupled with the disruptive way in which you continue to conduct yourself here there is absolutely no grounds for thanks whatsoever. If you had not created the article somebody else (who, statistically speaking, would probably have done so properly and also not asked for thanks) would have. THanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 13:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As you've just outlined (omitting details, including the numerous warnings you received and chose to ignore), you were repeatedly disruptive. You are not "the author" of the article. You are an editor of the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA star

I am wondering should an FA star be added to this article for being a featured article. Hassaan19 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has this been a featured article exactly? Nancy ^talk 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a featured article. You can't promote an article to featured status yourself, it has to be nominated and then assessed by members of the Wikipedia community against the Featured article criteria. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan, you made an article about some karaoke singer that next to noone cares about. Well done. Now please go on and continue to contribute but refrain from starting spurious threads such as this and the one above. Thank you, raseaC^{talk to me} 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You only say that because you made the article >.< --Yuka Chan (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles tend to only be about important things, art, biology, society, science, geography, law, literature and history. Whenever music is concerned it tends to cover artists such as U2, Metallica and Madonna, as well as obvious stuff like Mozart. An X-Factor winner is hardly going to be considered important enough for something like this.Scarfy (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. You're a moron :) (P.S. not a personal attack, before anyone starts becoming too precious about this comment)

Any editor is entitled to nominate an article at WP:FAC. The article can be about anything at all. Featured Articles do not need to be about "important things" but they must satisfy the the criteria. This article is an FA, it's not about anything important IMHO, but it got the star. Having said this, I'm sorry to say that the current version of this article is not even close FA quality and I would not recommend nominating it. It needs to achieve good article status and then, if we are lucky get a helpful peer review. There is no reason on earth why Joe McElderry cannot eventually be an FA, but not now, nor tomorrow, maybe later, if someone is prepared to make the effort. Happy New Year. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article was nominated, despite my comments and the FAC has been, rightly, withdrawn because the instructions were not followed. But, as I said above, it is also not ready. This comment, from me, is pasted from the premature nomination.

"Oppose - sorry. I have contributed to this article and I know it is far from ready for FA status. It's little more than a stub and the neutrality of many of the sources used is questionable to say the least. The Lead section is too short. But the main problem is that it is too early in Joe McElderry's singing career, if he has one, to write a meaningful, encyclopaedic engaging article. He has released just one solo single. At the moment the subject of the article is of questionable notability. After the release of Joe's album—due much later in the year—and following incorporation of it's critical appraisal into the article, the article should be taken to GA and peer review. There is no way this article is going to be promoted to FA in it's current form, and without further developments in McElderry's career to write about, I cannot see how it can be improved. This nomination is grossly premature. I would love to see Joe McElderry on the Main Page, but it is not going to happen this year. My God, even Elvis hasn't made it yet." Graham Colm ^Talk 23:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With?

In his discography Joe has a number one single with the help of the rest of helping haiti. I don't know the official line on this but checking leona lewis' page the song is credited in an adjoining section and she is mentioned as part of helping haiti. This seems more fair and as stands this article makes it look like Joe has more number ones than he does. Would anyone like to suggest a way to rectify this?Quoth 31 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

I know, I know, this topic is very controversial. But there is a small firestorm on Twitter as an editor type person (Dan Wooton) has outed him on twitter. The importance of this may mean, when more credible sources are present, that this should be included. In the coming days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.157.75 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wootton's twitter isn't reliable even though he's from News Of The World, but it'll probably be in the paper, so wait until then. Anemone Projectors 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Dan Wootton has been authorised by his paper to run these tweets as a teaser for a story that will be in the paper on Sunday - he's given a lot of detail away though! DWaterson (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now official http://www.joe-music.com/news/post/a_message_from_joe/ Anemone Projectors 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the statement doesn't actually say he's gay, though, was I wrong to update the article? Anemone Projectors 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the actual interview is in tomorrow's Daily Mirror [1]. Presumably Dan Wootton (of the NOTW) got a leaked early edition and ran the tweets as a spoiler, but anyway the article's online now. DWaterson (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating his sexuality on the article isn't really relevant unless he's in a relationship, it would be like saying someone is straight on an article of a straight person. MatthewWaller (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to reopen the oldest and most tedious debate on Wikipedia. Suffice to say that it is standard practice to do so where the subject of the article has discussed the matter publicly. DWaterson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Why is it not relevant? It allows for the article to be added to the LGBT categories. His relationship status doesn't make him any less gay. Anemone Projectors 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be added in the LGBT category but it doesn't need to be stated in the article. MatthewWaller (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't add something to a category without something in the article to back it up. Besides, it is totally relevant to the article. Anemone Projectors 23:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious - the Sun also has the story online now [2], and although I initially assumed it would be just a rewrite of the Mirror report, this doesn't appear to be the case as the photos of McElderry with Clemmie Moodie of the Mirror and Gordon Smart of the Sun are clearly taken in the same location and on the same day (same clothes and background), but are not crops/photoshops of each other. I guess this story was negotiated as a joint deal with both papers then? DWaterson (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McElderry's statement does say he had "important interviews", so it might be in others as well (though maybe not). Anemone Projectors 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection template

Is such a big scary semiprotected template on the article really that necessary? I wouldn't be surprised if the article got huge traffic, and the template may well give potential editors the wrong impression – not only that "new contributors can't edit", but also that this is commonplace for "currently in the news". I don't doubt that semi protection is necessary (I've not checked the history but I wouldn't be surprised if it was necessary) but feel that we could be putting potential editors off. matt (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only for three days and it is necessary IMHO. Wikipedia has to be over cautious with regard to articles about living people and my decision was based on the edits and the reversions that have occurred today. Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is the template rather than the protection, add the small=yes parameter. Anemone Projectors 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but would it frustrate/confuse new editors who don't know what the small icon means? If you or Matt disagree, then please change it. Graham Colm (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I always use small=yes when I protect a page and have never encountered any problems from editors. I think clicking on the icon gives an explanation, as well as attempting to edit the page. Anemone Projectors 01:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poor sales

The single "ambitions" entered the UK charts at N/o 6. However on it's second week, the song had fallen to N/o 21 on the official UK charts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.35.11 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The single didn't have poor sales, it is just another single charting in the charts, just because it has not getting number one, or platinum certification like other contestants, it does not mean it has had poor sales. --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor performances

Is it really necessary to have the X Factor performances on, as it shown on on The X Factor series 6 page.. plus Alexandra, JLS, Diana Vickers and more do not have them? :) --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utter trivia, along with much else in this article. That poor quality mobile phone image does nothing for the article, either. There is another, perfectly adequate, picture on the page. I42 (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most other articles do have them but I always found it unnecessary as they are in The X Factor series articles, which is why I never included them for Leona Lewis. As for the image, do you mean the signing autographs one? It's probably not necessary as there are better images already in the article, and once it's transfered to Commons it'll be available via the Commons link at the bottom. Anemone Projectors 13:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe remove the performances? --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the signing autographs picture. It was cluttering the section up (which already has a picture) and it wasn't even the right way up. I42 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just move the picture to a different section? MatthewWaller (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody Wake Me Up

Do you not think the single page should be made? --92.17.57.44 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it passes WP:NSONGS, which will be when it has charted. Anemone Projectors 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you know, it's "Someone Wake Me Up" not "Somebody". MatthewWaller (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Decca

News today says Joe is signed to Universal, with Cheryl Cole's help. Please update this. I would but I don't have time. –Anemone Projectors– 12:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe McElderry at album launch.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Joe McElderry at album launch.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality not mentioned?

Is his sexuality really not mentioned in this article - or is it my eye sight? It was decided that if an artist comes out that it should be added.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the personal life section was deleted completely. MatthewWaller (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any discussion for this? If not it probably should be re-added if not. There was a concensus once that sexuality meets the criteria for inclusion.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: 2011 Departure from Syco

The "departure from Syco" section reads as an extensive copy paste of a long series of "Breaking News"-style tabloid drivel. I understand when the departure was announced, it was a "big news" and some editors added every detail that emerged day after day including speculative talk by tabloids and very subjective word for word quotations of no long-term relevance whatsoever. And all these unnecessary details accumulated and stayed as a needless permanent coverage. Now that things have calmed dowm, things need to be put into perspective and McElderry's general work should get the focus and not minute details of departure from Syco as if it were the main focus of this artist career and life. I suggest removing most quotes and preparing a one paragraph factual presentation about the affair and then move on to his artistic work, as we should. This section needs a huge reedit werldwayd (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now introduced some amendments cutting some very obvious unnecessary details although the section needs more trimming just the same werldwayd (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other activities?

I was just wondering if this section is necessary. I think it would be better if everything in it went in the life and career sections, especially winning The Jump.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joe McElderry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 10:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe McElderry. 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/20160330081803/http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/joe-mcelderry-take-lead-role-9968241 to http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/joe-mcelderry-take-lead-role-9968241

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) 09:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joe McElderry. 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) 13:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

This article contained a lot of excess detail that isn't notable enough to be here. I have trimmed some of it. Also, the article needs more and better sources and has been tagged. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]