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 (I was never previously involved in any editing and/or discussing here) 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 would not have just reverted but corrected and completed my move the supposed right way (I don't care who moves it - what matters is that the page, now, in 2013 can only be validly titled "Beyoncé". Clearly, as demonstrated, "Knowles" has long passed 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 in March involving ZERO discussion (= pure, unadulterated vote stacking involving barely five or six). And the rest (the previous) of those polls are not even applicable since it requires future time-travel in order to address the point I 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)

Because pages are moved with consensus, not because an user wants it to be moved, or in your case copy-pasted. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:11, 2 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) 23:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That there's a consensus not to move it. Edit-warring cut-and-paste moves to get past protections that you don't like (while claiming to be performing a "merge") and then coming to the talk page and saying that you "did not know it was controversial" is a really good way to get blocked for bad faith and disruptive editing. I wouldn't repeat a stunt like that were I you.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"to get past protections that you don't like (while claiming to be performing a "merge") and then coming to the talk page and saying that you "did not know it was controversial" is a really good way to get blocked for bad faith and disruptive editing."

What about false accusations (reverting an article only once can hardly be called an "edit war") and threatening with blocks and attacking me personally with patronizing claims involving what I know and what I don't know? Are those not grounds for blocking? Is going offtopic not grounds for blocking? Or how about stalking activity - is that not grounds for bad faith and blocking?

Do you have anything to say abut the topic? Lest ye forget the title of this page is talk:Beyonce not talk:Loginnigol. You have now posted multiples of times already but yet you have not addressed the only reason why I opened this discussion: What are the valid reasons for keeping the article at this page at this time instead of the title with only "Beyoncé"?

Here are my reasons why it should move (that have yet to be addressed even once):

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

Loginnigol (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww already gave you the reasons why it hasn't been moved in several years. Instead of taking this personal, why don't you check them, especially those of 2013, and have a new idea why NYT references are trivial as NYT is not the only reliable reference. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww only gave me a laundry list of polls even though I had stated that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Besides there was no discussion to speak of in that last poll (here look at it). Barely five or six people participated and the only thing they did was vote and claim that there was nothing to discuss, that's it. No attempt was made to provide specific reasons as to why "Beyonce Knowles" was still a more valid title than "Beyonce" even in 2013. Yet that is precisely what I wanted to find out and the ONLY reason why I opened this discussion section --Loginnigol (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2013 "poll" is not helpful, but at that time it didn't belong to this talk page, it belonged to WP:MRV because there was a discussion one month before it, and the rationale was "There's really only one Beyoncé", which is not a reason to move. Regardless if these "polls" are polls or not--because then AFD discussions would be polls in their structure as well--this has been discussed many times, and they have been presented in the same way you do, "'Beyoncé' is the common name". Yes, it is, but exclusively in music, in other topics, like films, she is credited as "Knowles" so both terms are correct. If you want to move this page you have to prove something has happened from the last three or four RM discussions to say that a) the page needs to be moved, b) the current title is incorrect, c) the past RM discussions are incorrect because this is 2013 and past RMs are outdated. With this I mean that you need to prove that she is now overwhelming known as Beyoncé, and that pre-2013 references are not valid enough to use her last name.

It is not as simply to come here and say "I have 17 NYT references, now move the page". No, it doesn't work like this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yawn! Favonian awakens. Regarding Loginnigol's claim "I don't think Favonian reverted me just cause of the way I moved it - otherwise he would not have just reverted but corrected and completed my move", I did indeed revert because cut-and-paste moves are a bad thing. I don't personally give a hoot what the article is called, but I was aware of the multitude of discussions, so clearly the move couldn't be completed as uncontroversial. Over-and-out and off to work! Favonian (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Standing on the Sun

I would like to add this line to the article: "On June 24 a song was leaked online called Standing on the Sun featuring Beyonce and Jamaican Dancehall artiste Mr. Vegas. This leak fueled specualion that Standing on the Sun could be the first single off Beyonce's upcomming album. Citation: http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2013/07/24/beyonce-standing-on-the-sun-sos-reggae-mix/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alykhatpr (talk • contribs) 1:54 pm, Today (UTC+12)

WP:LEAK would apply, so no.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

End of Time performing poorly in the US.

"End of Time" was never released as a single within the United States. It peaked at #113 upon the release of the '4' album. "End of Time" was a single in the United Kingdom however.