Talk:Christina Aguilera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Christina Aguilera was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article revamping[edit]

In order to bring the Christina Aguilera article to GA, a revamping of the article has begun. In October 2013, User:WikiRedactor started a revamping process, however it was not done. Thus I wanted to re-start the process.

The article is quite large, which means that a team effort from several editors will be helpful in meeting the final goal. Below is a "checklist" of sorts, where you will find the current status of the various sections of the article. Feel free to "adopt" a section and help the cause!


(Note: Add your name by adding ~~~ under this list)

Updated: July 28, 2014[edit]

As of today (July 28, 2014), the article is now seems to be in better shape. However, there are still four sections need more work, as reported:

Lead and infobox
  • Yes check.svg Done
Career beginnings
  • X mark.svg Not done There are still {{cn}} remained
C. Aguilera, Stripped, Back to Basics, Bionic, and Lotus
  • All Yes check.svg Done
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Yes check.svg Done
Music and theme
  • @: I think the prose is in good shape, I'd still like to take a look at the sources to make sure it supports the information in the article. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Public image
  • Doing... This may needs more bit trimming
Legacy and philanthropy
  • X mark.svg Not done

To the participants With the current status, I think that we'll get this to GA very soon. WikiRedactor 11JORN And Petergriffin9901, would you mind helping in anymore? Simon (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@: I'll take care of the "Early life and career beginnings" section within the next couple of days. Also, I've expanded the introduction to mention some of her more notable songs and chart successes, since I found it odd that the only songs specifically mentioned in earlier revisions were the singles from her debut record. What do you think of the introduction now? WikiRedactor (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@WikiRedactor: Excellent! Now there are three sections left. I'll take care the "Legacy" section, you can adapt one, and the last one we'll do together! Simon (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@: I'll take care of the trimming that you requested for "Public image" and finish that section off, so we can tackle the largest section "Philanthropy" together and wrap this baby up! Face-smile.svg WikiRedactor (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're already starting again...[edit]

Copy from talk page

These problems before I came along? Let's not weigh in my edits to the article in comparison to yours buddy, because you have no room to even take a breath. I CLEARLY stated that if I took out any well-documented information that the Aguilera veterans thought was important, to feel free to re-place. Focus on your own work, before you get yourself into more trouble.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 07:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This achievement should be noted? Mate, this article isn't meant to litter with every little accomplishment or success she earned. That is why the article is fucking huge and written like an Aguilera fansite.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 07:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Please get off my talk page or I will request a block interaction. I will discuss these edits on her talk page with you and other editors, but do not come in here if you're going to start this again. Everything for the past few days, has been fine - even with Simon who called me a bastard/idiot/stupid before. This is my first and last warning so I do not want to see a reply here. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You cannot threaten or warn me for writing to you on your talk page after you've started throwing shade and weak accusations. You're on thin ice, so comments like "it was fine before you came along" is just an example of you ownership issues and bias opinions of me as an editor because of Carey. So no, you don't start because I've improved the first half of the article exponentially.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 07:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment – This is again turning into a big mess @Petergriffin9901, DeadSend4: and I would say that an edit warring is about to ensue from the look of it guys. @Acalamari: requesting your input on this. Any development to the article is completely being hindered in this way. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately. This guy just can't stop the bad faith and obviously doesn't understand policy the first time. I'ts impossible to work with or collaborate with him respectfully in any way/shape or form. Take a look at our edits. You'll see a very clear difference in their quality and neutrality.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 08:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have the same two people replying in regards to me who I go nowhere with. I'll make it easy for both of you since no one else is going to come to my defense. I never thought I would say this but I'm going to let this article and page be. I've worked with many over the years who I would like to thank and I will continue to find other articles of interest to edit and collaborate with others. But as far as this article, I can no longer be editing here especially with the way I've been treated the past month or so. I cannot be editing with someone who has been nothing but a terrible person ever since they began their reverts on this article. After I've been blocked this person comes on my talk page to harass/cuss at me. To any admin, I would like to request an interaction block with PeterGriffinTalk2Me, I have a feeling it's close to calling me a "twat" again. Whatever follows my response won't matter, at least to me since I won't be here to read it. Those that I've had the pleasure to edit with I will continue to communicate with. DeadSend4 (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • To respond to IndianBio's ping, I will not be taking any admin actions towards the article or towards any user (my regular editing of this article does not count as an "admin action", though); you will need to find another administrator if you want admin intervention here. I should note, however, that everyone who participated in this dispute last time will be under more scrutiny now, so there is a risk that calling another admin might result in several blocked users if things become overheated again - something that would be a loss to everyone and to the article. To avoid that happening, my strong recommendation is that no one edit war and no one use any sort of insulting or aggressive language. Acalamari 09:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Messy article![edit]

Because the articles of some artists can be long and not Aguilera? Example; Britney Spears article with complete information while Aguilera (who in my view also has enough information) has a messy article. (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As can be read in the above sections, this article is currently undergoing major changes. It would be helpful to those who are working on it if you share why you think it's a messy article. Acalamari 07:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Being long is not a criteria for a qualified article. Simon (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are concerned about the condition of the article, nothing is stopping you from joining the cleanup crew above that is reworking the article section by section. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
ChristinaLover If you want to leave any comments about our construction, you can leave it here. Simon (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki campaign[edit]

Given this and especially this, I thought I would draw everyone's attention to a supposed off-wiki campaign to "improve" Aguilera's articles. Usually I would dismiss a threat on my talk page like that but since there has been an increase of new editors editing this article today (and most of those edits have been to introduce POV-pushing/unsourced content), I thought I would mention it here. I haven't yet been able to locate the (fan)site from where this is being orchestrated. Acalamari 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank my fellow Aguilera #Fighters in helping improve this once sterling article. If you look at my previous edits, you'll see I was suspicious of one particular person. It's funny how this one person has Mariah Carey's legacy page reaching several paragraphs, but out of no where comes in to remove information (without bothering to find other proper citations) all in their excuse to remove "fan fluff". Since my edits on here cause controversy for some and an entire talk page headline dedicated to me. I'll refrain from editing here, as I've stated before, at least for now. I'm glad others see the mess that was made. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You can say what you want, but your "once sterling" article would never be qualified enough. And your "fellow #Fighters" are messing this article with lots of fan biases. If you want to edit the "sterling" article, you can start a Chrstina Wiki instead. Simon (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I always seem to pay little attention anytime you chime in :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@DeadSend4: As it just so happens, your once "sterling" article was full of ridiculous fluff/unreliable sources/bias NPOV/and just flat out fancruft that would be classified as C-level at best. Another point to note, since your exile (thankfully) we have all worked together in perfect harmony and have really upgraded this article into something soon worthy of GA. I think we can all agree this page (and probably everything else) is far better without you and your unnecessary fucking drama. Good day, and Ps. stop talking smack, at least learn to throw proper shade. Hope not to see you again Dahhling!--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This page is a mess[edit]

The pictures and the content kept changing every second. The Burlesque picture shouldn't be used as her main picture because it doesn't look like her at all. Someone please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanchu88 (talkcontribs) 05:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's because of the copyright issues. The Burlesque premiere is the only thing (and most recent one) that we have. <redacting attacking other editors> DeadSend4 (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Simon (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If needed[edit]

Simon (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)