Talk:Beyoncé

Age

She cannot possibly be 31, it would mean she began in Destiny's Child aged 12/13... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.73.125 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Care to go into further details. And please credit whatever you are going to fabulate write with reliable sources. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé has stated her age many times and she is 31. She was first in destinys child when she was 9 and they realised there first album in 1998 when she was 16— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.130.139 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

2013

MORE DATES: "Knowles' The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour began on April 15 in Belgrade, Serbia and features 92 dates worldwide that will run until December 2013."

 Done Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 01:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

100 dates worldwide (update this, thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Politics

Trayvon Martin

http://www.beyonce.com/news/actnow4trayvon http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/20/jay-z-beyonce-trayvon-martin-rally-photo_n_3628592.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories to Add

If someone could add any/all of these categories that apply, that would be awesome.

Category:African-American feminists

Category:Christian feminists

Category:Sex-positive feminists

Category:Female music video directors

Category:Feminist artists

71.191.95.5 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Public image

Beyoncé makes Vanity Fair's 2013 International Best Dressed list!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2381976/Vanity-Fairs-International-Best-Dressed-List-published-today--Kate-Middleton-makes-cut-Michelle-Obamas-given-dressing-down.html http://www.hollywoodtake.com/vanity-fairs-international-best-dressed-list-2013-here-kerry-washington-kate-middleton-make-cut-see# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Change the title (Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé)

I thought the unnecessary "Knowles" in the page's title was one of those oversights and I decided to move this page to "Beyoncé". But unbeknownst to me, this was apparently a, quote, "controversial" act according to an editor, who promptly proceeded to revert it back.

Like I stated, not only did I not know it was controversial but I still don't! But I do want to know, so I opened this section as I see no discussion here on what valid grounds it is still titled "Beyoncé Knowles" in 2013.

The only thing I notice here on the talk page are the archived polling activities involving mostly the exact same editors and that is totally inadequate since polling is not a substitute for discussion.

And the discussion is simple: anno 2013 "Knowles" in the title is not only outrageously redundant (increasingly as time goes by), but nowadays it has become downright semi-inaccurate! The first sentence of this article itself refutes the title: she is now is a married person and as such "Carter" has also been added to her last name. So "Beyonce Knowles" is neither accurate nor common by any stretch of imagination. So quit vote stacking and do the only right thing: change the title to the one used by nearly all verified sources currently (almost all the "Knowles" references that I skimmed thru on the internet are old/longstanding pages that have evidently been un-updated). Literally all the fresh references of her in newspaper articles and the like nowadays (anno 2013) are all just "Beyoncé". I haven't found one "Beyonce Knowles" titled article. Here is a (by no means exhaustive) example of that:

• 2013 New York Times articles using the title "Beyoncé"................. 17
• 2013 New York Times articles using the title "Beyoncé Knowles"......... 0

Loginnigol (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else for now, the major reason (besides the lack of a talk page discussion) that Favonian reverted your edits is because you performed a cut and paste move when the move feature should have been used. I hope that clarifies part of why you were reverted. Acalamari 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Favonian reverted me just cause of the way I moved it (otherwise HE woud not revert it but correct my error move it the supposed right way (I don't care who moves it - what matters is that the page should move now, in 2013 - "Knowles" has long past the expiration date) Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 7 April 2006
• 21 September 2007
• 20 March 2010
• 1 July 2010
• 11 July 2010|11 July 2010
• 23 February 2012
• 3 February 2013
• 16 March 2013

Do you think the discussion has been beaten into the ground yet?—Kww(talk) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Does any of that laudatory list of polls (not discussions) address any of the points I raised in opening this discussion? I mean the only one that could address the point is the last poll and that is pure vote stacking involving ZERO discussion (= pure, unadulterated vote stacking involving barely five or six. And the rest (the previous) of those polls are not even applicable here since it requires future time-travel on order to even be capable of addressing the point raised in my opening post). Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Loginnigol, the reason why you were reverted is because you were not moving the page, you were copy-pasting it, which is wrong as it creates copyright problems. You can read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for further information. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the problem here is technical. Otherwise why didn't the editor simply correct my supposed wrong way of doing it and move the page the right way? I got the impression that he regarded the act "controversial" he said so himself. I take people at their word. Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Loggnnigol knows full well how to move pages, as his logbook shows. It's hard to take his failure to use it in this case as anything but an attempt to bypass the move protection that is in place on this article.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What are the valid grounds (valid for 2013) that the page is "protected" from a move? Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)