Talk:Sabrina Carpenter

Profile Pictures.

I don't know How to say but That Profile Photo makes me feeling UnConfortable. and also, we should change some photo better in WikiCommns. IJBall, Im New But I Was Trying to find better Picture for her. Just Saying.Ah Ger K (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current picture? -- irn (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. That is also my question. Also, the way to do this is to show the three proposed portrait images side-by-side:

Three possible portrait images for Sabrina Carpenter

• 
  Current image
• 
  Alternative #1 (.png)
• 
  Alternative #2

Of these, the first has the best "composition" as a portrait image – yes, she's not smiling (not that that is necessary in a portrait image), and yes she's looking off to the side. But it's the best portrait image of these, as it's centered, and the face is in obstructed.

In Alternative #1, there's big microphone in front of her face which pretty much rules it out, IMO. And her head is tilted from center. Also, it's a .png, not a .jpg.

Alternate #2 is even worse than #1 – microphone in front of the face again, and in this one she's looking off to the side, and it's a "full torso shot" rather than a "portrait image".

So, of these options, the current image is clearly the best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you Said that, Well ok. But Still, I Need a Better photo for Current 2018. Since i found some Better in WikiCommons. well Non of These were potrait Face.Ah Ger K (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a common mistake to believe that portrait images need to be the "most current" (i.e. most recent) image. That's not the case – you just need a representative image. And older image that is "better" quality is preferable, most of the time, to a "more recent" image that is not. The only exception is child actors that have aged into adulthood – in those cases, a more recent image is of greater importance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Songwriter status

It's been debated several times via edit summaries whether Sabrina is classed as a songwriter or not. This is because she has wrote the majority of her own songs, but doesn't write for other people. Personally, I would class her as a singer-songwriter, rather than just a singer. What are everyone's thoughts on this? – DarkGlow (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to ping Geraldo Perez, as he's better at explaining what qualifies somebody for either "songwriter" or "singer-songwriter" status. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at her credits, it doesn't look like she is the sole songwriter on any of her stuff, just part of a team of writers. It is common for singers to have some creative input to the songs they sing and get listed with the professional songwriters in the credits, in my opinion more as a courtesy than anything else. They don't divide out who does what in the credit, I suspect her input is restricted to the lyrics with melody written by someone else. Singer-songwriters write both lyrics and melody on the stuff they perform and generally don't need help, Taylor Swift is an exemplar. The fact she doesn't write songs for others is more of an indication that songwriting is not a profession, more a adjunct to her singing where she has some creative input to the songs she sings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

she also done a collab with Austinstevenmoon(Madanraj) and Nolan Frank music on 14 may 2014. It was his first collab with Sabrina Carpenter and with her band members — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwerson (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

Sabrina Carpenter is a songwriter. She writes most of her songs. 42.191.188.195 (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Amaury • 07:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Also see above section where this is discussed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace

Sabrina Carpenter was born in East Greenville, PA but this wiki page does not reflect that and is protected. Ngraf12345 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Because there needs to be a WP:Reliable source that verifies that before it can be placed in the article. Right now, the Disney bio is all we have on this... So if you can produce a WP:RS here that includes this info, then it can be added to the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2020

Hello, Please remove the line under photograph "Related to Nancy Cartwright" As she does not want that information included. Nothing to replace. Thank you Dcar61 (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NOTCENSORED applies; in any case a verifiable relation to another notable person has little grounds to be removed. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagged for primary sources

Hi, I have tagged the article as having too much reliance on primary sources, especially social media such as Instagram. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources and, per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:SPS, we cannot rely on social media, especially because the inclusion criteria must be considered only by secondary source coverage. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIVACY for a strong reason to use them when it is appropriate particularly when that is the only source for some types of personal information. WP:BLPPRIMARY is more about using public records and does not negate WP:ABOUTSELF. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, if social media is the only source for "some types of personal information" then including that information is decidedly WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If the information in the social media meets the 5 criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF and is something normally included in bio articles such as names and birth info it is not UNDUE. Sometimes that is the only source there is of that sort of info. Going over the article's 100 or so references I don't see the justification for the tag that was added. More useful would be to point out exactly which primary sources you feel are inappropriate for this article. I am having a hard time finding them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been able to excise most of the offending sources. There are still some excessive and irrelevant social media cites (how many times did she need to Tweet about Singular I/II?) but I think it's more under control now that it doesn't especially need to be tagged. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, it's more problematic to use "sources" like Twist magazine than it is to use Carpenter's own social media. However, I broadly agree that WP:YOUTUBE sources should almost never be used, so removing all of those is appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, it's worth noting that prnewswire is explicitly listed in WP:RSP as red - totally unreliable except for claims about article authors. Elizium23 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case, it's being used to source the subject's own concert tour – I think that counts. Yes, it would be better to get a secondary source (so, if you find one, great) – but using the press release for that is not "out of bounds" in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Carpenter considered the "author" of the article in PR Newswire? It seems that they sourced it to "Live Nation". According to RSP, we can only take it as valid for claims about Live Nation, unless Carpenter penned this herself? Elizium23 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE – Does that tour exist? Did Carpenter have that tour? If so, then a PR about that tour, even if it's not directly from Carpenter, is probably OK as per WP:V. This isn't a blind rule-following bureaucracy. That said, if it bugs you this much, find a secondary source to replace the PR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I see concertarchives.org will support this tour as well, but that raises the question now: is that site reliable or just a glorified blog? Elizium23 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've brought it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for concert tours out of my own curiosity and the fact that concertarchives.org is widely used in WP:MUSIC. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo

I heard somewhere that she has a feud with Olivia Rodrigo. Is this true? And if so, is it important enough to put in the article? Dobekofcas (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Rfc: Lead Image

There are so many images available so I am unsure why we are stuck using an image from 2016. So I think creating a RFC would be helpful in coming towards a consensus. Picture C looks extremely similar to Picture A so I would not see much difference if we change to that. Some thoughts and comments would be helpful. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 22:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

New lead image

• 
  A (current image)
• 
  B
• 
  C

• For adults, portrait image quality is more important that "currentness". (I don't know why some editors think it "must" be the most recent image! There is certainly no guideline saying that.) Of these three, "B" is the worst as a "portrait" image (not looking straight on, head titled, etc.), so oppose that one. Of the remaining, "C" is OK (though head also tilted here, and not looking straight on...), so "A" is still better. I vote for remaining with "A", though "C" is an OK (backup) choice (just not as good...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not like A; the graphic seems off to me. Just thought it was a better change. I agree as per MOS:LEADIMAGE there are no rules on what year it has to be from... so why can't it be from 2020? Just some thoughts. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 22:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, for the IB "portrait" image, you want a "headshot" where the subject has their head vertically, and is looking as "straight on" as possible. Of the three choices, "A" is still the best at doing all of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

To add my comment in here, I don't think the position of the subject is the most important here, I think the quality is the most important. See Ariana Grande for a non vertical lead image that's still high quality and fits within guidelines.

In comparison to A, (which is to be frank quite an ugly and unflattering pic) B or C are far, far, superior. I think you may be reading too much into the positioning of the lead image. If you WP:IAR, it simply boils down to which pic looks prettier. B and C definitely are. shanghai.^{talk to me} 22:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that's your opinion – it's not an "objective truth". FTR, none of the images displayed at Ariana Grande make for good portrait images – they're all bad choices for that, based on the criteria I outlined above. I'm guessing some people don't like the current image because Carpenter is not "smiling", but that's really not a requirement at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support C first, then B. I think C's the most pretty pic, maybe crop the pants out a bit so it's just her top? Otherwise yeah, it's a really pretty pic. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep original image: A is a natural image that best shows her normal appearance. C is her making faces and doesn't reflect her natural appearance. B looks more like a natural smile but doesn't show her full face. A straight on image with a natural smile would be best but none of those have that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Change to D Given alternative D I prefer that over the original image. I think it more accurately portrays her normal appearance and is a more natural relaxed image than A. B and C are inferior to both. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep original image: I agree with both IJBall and Geraldo that A is the best image out of the three presented. Amaury • 01:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep original image for all the reasons IJBall gave. Oh, and can somebody start an RFC to change that Ariana Grande image that RogueShanghai mentioned? That is just about the furthest thing from an appropriate encyclopedic image that is still "safe for work". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope I'm not too late to add to the discussion and I am not trying to make things more complicated but seeing as not everyone wasn't satisfied with the outcome, is okay if I propose a fourth image that could be used?

• 
  A (current image)
• D (JPG)
  D (JPG)

Picture D has Carpenter with her head vertical and looking straight on, which IJBall said would be the most ideal for an infobox image. Notanyproblems (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Still not as good as A (for one thing, it looks a little blurry), but much better than B or C, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think D is a better photo than A, just a bit less sharp. I think her facial expression is a bit more normal, doesn't have the surprised look of A. Natural smile. Makeup and hair look more natural too. Good composition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A just seems so unflattering. D looks much better imo. It does not look too blurry + a smile is always nice when coming to a page rather than a look of 'surprise' or 'gasping'. Because there are no major guidelines on lead images except basic info, I say change to D. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 01:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The image is in a PNG format, I've uploaded a new JPG version which should make the image sharper. (Note: the original PNG will be deleted shortly since there should be only one version of the file). Notanyproblems (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That smirk in D is nowhere near a "natural expression" As far as "unflattering", you are conflating two ideas 1) designed to make her look bad and 2) not designed to make her look good. Picture A is simply not designed to make her look good, it does not actively make her look bad. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support change lead image to Picture D. Since I've fixed the blurriness issue, I don't see any other major problems using this image. I think it has better framing/composition than the current one being used. Notanyproblems (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Picture A is still better. Picture D is too posed and her hair covers the left hand side of her face in shadow. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That's also what I think. But I would not formally "object" to a switch to D. I just think that A is still somewhat better. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

Change current photo to updated picture, possibly a photo from the 2022 Met Gala, as the current photo is 6 years old. 24.104.73.24 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)