Talk:Beyoncé

Beyonce and Jay-Z named Pop music industry's first billionaire couple + Information on Family Ties

This would also be a great addition to the lead.

• [1]
• [2]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• [3]

All sources given as reliable as per Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Added the latter (CNN) to the intro for the $75 million in total sales and corrected her mom's early profession but the projections from the tour and total are just that projections: We have to wait. Here is Tomica taking out my saying that Beyoncé wants a second kid. Similar issue: It's interesting but not encyclopedic ... yet.--Aichik (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Marie Claire link says that the H&M collection is swimwear only. Jennie, could you confirm (and put in if it is)?--Aichik (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay to take out?

We attribute one Billboard list to two writers here in the third paragraph (Keith Caulfield and Gary Trust) when we don't do it anywhere else. Okay to take them out?

Related: In the Honors and awards section we talk about Knowles being ranked #53 on VH1's list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time yet merely two years later, she is suddenly third on VH1's 100 Greatest Women in Music. I know the status of women in music isn't all that great but isn't this a little extreme in the discrepancy? What happened in between? Could we take the first, or both, out? --Aichik (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Main image

I just added the new main image to the article as we need a new one and I took the picture, however I understand it is at an angle and does not look as good when shrunk down to wiki size.

However, I also uploaded 2 more high quality photo's I took front row at the concert, but they are more close up, maybe you could decide if they would be a better main image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lolcakes25 --Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good (in fact, for the first images we have of this tour, they're brilliant), I've added another in the Fifth studio album section. Thank you very much! —Jennie | ☎ 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Politics

"In December, Knowles along with a variety of other celebrities teamed up and produced a video campaign for "Demand A Plan", a bipartisan effort by a group of 950 US mayors and others[130] designed to influence the federal government into rethinking its gun control laws, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[131]"

This should be in Politics too, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure. The group she supported is bipartisan. And gun control advocates would say the issue is much larger than politics.--Aichik (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"New Year's Eve 2009 Beyonce performed in St. Barts, for the likes of Lindsay Lohan, Russell Simmons, her husband Jay-Z, Usher and Jon Bon Jovi--and the family of Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi (war criminal and terrorist) footed the bill. Hannibal Gaddafi was host to the party and is no stranger to violence No confirmation on just how much Hannibal paid Beyonce for her private performance. Asked to comment, Beyonce's spokesperson, Yvette Noel-Schure emailed The Huffington Post: "All monies paid to Beyoncé for her performance at a private party at Nikki Beach St. Barts on New Year's Eve 2009, including the commissions paid to her booking agency, were donated to the earthquake relief efforts in Haiti, over a year ago. Once it became known that the third party promoter was linked to the Qaddafi family, the decision was made to put that payment to a good cause." It took an entire year to find out how signed the check.

I think this should be included being that it involves high profile political leaders. I apologize this is my first time adding to Wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do exactly I found this info on the Huffington Post wed site.

It should also be added the she and jay-z took a trip to Cuba. Being that it is such a hot button political is with the embargo and all. Let me know what you think.

Edit request on 19 May 2013

At the beginning when it tells you what Beyoncés name is it also says she uses a stage name when she doesn't so please fix it. Thank you. Laraib02 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: You're really splitting hairs with this request. I personally don't see an issue with the wording as it stands, but I'm open to suggestions. If you would like it to be changed, please make a specific suggestion in the form of "Change X to Y", rather than simply asking that it be fixed. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Stage name does imply a change in name: I've tweaked it. We've use "mononymically known as" but some editors think this word is too difficult for the general reader.--Aichik (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed further - It's not limited to just the stage; she's known professionally (in almost all other ventures except acting) as Beyoncé singularly. —Jennie | ☎ 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Retitling Awards and Honors section

The third paragraph is entirely rankings: Describing one's wealth relative to others' isn't an honor or an award, it's ranking. Rankings are also listed in the other two prior paragraphs. In the first, there is one near the end, "VH1 ranked her third on their list of the "100 Greatest Women in Music" (my emphasis). In the second it's those record Grammy nominations, rankings from the awards/nominations. You can't make awards out of awards, in other words. --Aichik (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page. The second paragraph is related to Grammy records (which aren't really rankings) and the term itself is ambiguous, and would only refer to the few instances in the section. —Jennie | ☎ 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And moved the third paragraph into a Wealth section under Personal Life. —Jennie | ☎ 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I strongly disagree with once again padding the lead section of the article with lists upon list of accomplishments of how great Beyonce is. An article about a singer has gone on to talk about album sales, and the video for "Single Ladies" and public declaration of marriage etc etc etc and "Crazy in Love" being voted by some magazine as the greatest in history. All this is not necessary, and it's what I was trying to move away from when I edited out the fluff and crafted a succinct account of the artist and her music. Can we just change it back please? The previous organization was a lot better than this. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)

I'm still working on reducing some of the accomplishments, but the lead is (and has been for a long time) a little short, so it did need padding out. We are also working with a very commercial recording artist here, so naturally sales figures and the rest are more relevant than a normal musician. Take a look at the leads of artists like Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Madonna and Janet Jackson. —Jennie | ☎ 18:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The leads of those artists are all superfluous. I worked on the Mariah Carey article, helping to bring it to featured status with User: Extraordinary Machine, and at the time it was promoted, it was never that padded with commercial fluff. The MJ article is relevant because it dealt with a legacy. The Madonna and Janet Jackson article could use some cutting as well. I just miss a time when the article dealt with the artist and their music, instead of now saying that every artist is one of the best selling of all time with a million #1 singles yadda yadda yadda. I guess the NPOV tag has become obsolete. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)

Saw the new changes. I like it :). 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)

I completely agree with you! But I think it boils down to people not wanting to budge on sales figures and therefore making their favourite artist's bio look weaker, so therefore they're all superfluous. If there was a Wiki-wide crack down or cooperative effort (although I have no idea how this could be achieved) then I think it could work. —Jennie | ☎ 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, what would you think of this article as a FA candidate? —Jennie | ☎ 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I firmly oppose FA status until copyediting is complete. Don't be fooled by the sugarcoating, folks. Jennie here is all about promoting her favorite star in whatever shape or form.--Aichik (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are bitter attacks relevant here? Can we stick to the main topic of discussion, please. (Also, I'm not sure the FA process works like that, it's either nominated or it's not). —Jennie | ☎ 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently at work, so I'll talk more when I can. Aichik, no one is disputing whether or not a copy-edit would be necessarly. There are a couple of issues with the article, of course, but Jennie was simply asking if the potential is there for a possible FA. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)

Your advice/comments would be great! I have never approached FA, although I've done a fair amount of GA work. —Jennie | ☎ 20:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Any attack that's factually based is relevant. --Aichik (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wealth

Beyoncé Cracks Top 20 on Forbes Most Powerful Women List! In just a year, Beyoncé moved from #32 to #17 on Forbes annual The World's Most Powerful Women list. Making her the most powerful singler of 2013! She and Oprah are the only celebrity/entrepreneurs in the top 20.

http://www.forbes.com/power-women/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search: http://www.forbes.com/profile/beyonce-knowles/

 Not done: Sorry, no. This article just came out of Good Article Reassessment for too many similar kinds of rankings: Her Wealth section is already substantial. If you can propose a line this new information can replace, however, that's different. Also don't forget to sign your comments.--Aichik (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Public image

The looks already mentioned that Rihanna and Ciara allegedly stole are of Beyoncé's performance persona, so we can add the converse instances where Beyoncé borrowed looks from other people, most recently the look from her Mrs. Carter world tour.--Aichik (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove - per WP:BLPREMOVE, poorly sourced contentious material; the claim "copied liberally" is incredibly biased. You also haven't provided a source for Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker or Lorella Cuccarini, and the sources for Kerli are unreliable, which is a violation of the WP:BLP guidelines in general. (Although I also advocate a removal of the stuff on Rihanna/Ciara, I think it deviates from the topic in question). —User:JennKR | ☎ 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to mischaracterize and outwardly lie, Jennie. I'd added a reference to Vibe magazine, and the De Keermaeker and Cuccarini links that you are well familiar with, are readily available on the articles on the Beyoncé videos that apply to them.--Aichik (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't lied: you failed to provide sources for the assertion of 2/3 people you listed. The fact it's discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't stop this being an unsourced, contentious attribution. —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You lied about my only providing the Yahoo blog as a source: I provided Vibe magazine. And yet in your revert you kept screaming "blog" referring to my first edit. As for the information about the other two artists, putting your fingers in your ears and pretending you'd never heard of them makes you the biased one. Yeah, spending hours clearing up copyedits you never even detected (then belittled as unimportant), really makes me biased.--Aichik (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've full protected the article. Will add a message on Aichik's page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning "copying"; Knowles has asserted she viewed both artists (De Keermaeker and Cuccarini) work and was inspired from them. It also turns out the latter's work was inspired by another artist's work. All three cases refer to the artist's music videos (and are found on these pages), which are ultimately irrelevant to a Public image section. This part of the article should not serve as a hotchpotch of criticism which should and could be integrated into the biography section or even other related articles (which in this case it has been). I have always supported the inclusion of criticism and controversy in BLPs, however, poorly-sourced material put into a section it does not belong, serves only to make a point which is unfounded. I would also reiterate that I support the removal of the Rihanna/Ciara information which also seems to deviate from the point. Regards. —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that a Yahoo Music blog story is not a reliable source is simply wrong. A blog story from any credible news organization with full editorial oversight is absolutely considered reliable and is no different than any other stories they publish. Be careful never to confuse a news organization blog with self-published or user-generated blogs, which have no editoral control. That's the question to ask when deciding if a blog story is reliable: Is there full editorial oversight over this blog and this blogger? Many of the biggest mainstream news organizations in the world have blogs, written by their journalists. The New York Times alone publishes at least eight or 10 blogs by their top writers, not to mention other blogs on various topics. So any story from the Yahoo branches - Yahoo News, Yahoo Music, Yahoo Sports, etc. - are indeed reliable if there's editorial oversight and not user-generated. And Vibe magazine is absolutely a mainstream magazine that has been around for about 20 years. It was founded by Quincy Jones. Now, as far edit-warring, that's a completely different story, Aichik. If you're edit-warring, you could have the greatest sources in the world and it wouldn't matter. And of course the content must be worthy of inclusion. Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an encylopedic article. In fact, most reliably-sourced information in the history of the world does not belong on Wikipedia. Otherwise, everything ever printed by a reliable source could go on Wikipedia. Although I'm neutral on whether the content about Beyonce that you want to add is important enough to add, I do think it's interesting and seems to fit right in with the type of content I quickly browsed in the "Public image" section. But I did see some grammar problems, such as the part that includes "Beyoncé has noted for copying liberally". Even if content is reliably sourced and encylopedic, it needs to be written using proper English. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that blogs can be reliable, but something as contentious as this cannot be asserted by something with authorship as questionable. But this isn't my main problem; the content doesn't fit in with the "Public image" section. All three cases are taken from music videos (with two instances discussed on those pages) and this does not translate into how a person is viewed by the public/media; the criticism of her smoking or having light-skin in images exemplifies the right sort of content that should go into this section. The fact that critics have questioned the looks/visuals/dances in her music videos form part of her work. There is also the much larger question of whether it's notable. Regards. —User:JennKR | ☎ 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Understandably, some editors confuse amatuer blogs with legitimate news blogs. It's always fair and reasonable to be cautious if you think a source may not be reliable. But simply because a story is from a "blog" does not necessarily mean it's unreliable. It's pretty simple; just look at who's publishing it. Is it a legitimate site that's known for publishing real news, with a real editor-in-chief and news staff? Do they have full editorial oversight? Do they follow standard fact-checking policies? Do they have advertisers? So taking all of this into consideration, it's usually pretty easy to tell. If you're still not sure, you can always drop a note on the BLP noticeboard and ask... Hey, is this a reliable source? Amatuer blogs are simple to spot, of course. The pseudo-news sites pretending to be real news are usually pretty easy to spot, too. Of course, if it's an opinion piece, then any content used from it in a Wikipedia article must be attributed to that writer; it must never be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Finally, if traditional reliable sources are available to verify content, especially potentially contentious content, then it's always better to use them instead of blogs. The policy on this is WP:NEWSBLOG, which is a subsection of one of Wikipedia's most important policies, WP:VERIFY. The more specific blog policy within WP:BLP is WP:BLPSPS, which focuses on the use of self-published blogs. As far as whether the content belongs in the "Public image" section, you honestly would know better than me; I only casually browsed that one section. If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title

P.S. I find it really interesting that the article isn't simply titled "Beyoncé", since that's how I see her overwhelmingly referred to as in most reliable sources I've ever read. Even all her concert tickets and albums that I've seen have her first name only. And I just noticed that the lead of this articles says "known simply as Beyoncé", which makes one think: If she's known simply as Beyoncé, then that's saying Beyoncé is her common name. So it seems, from my experience, that Beyoncé is clearly her common name, but I wouldn't be surprised it there have been numerous heated debates here about this issue. ;) Just an observation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about that, but I think that derives from her using "Knowles" in her acting career, so some people feel quite passionately her surname should stay. —User:JennKR | ☎ 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If the rationale for using her last name is because of her acting career, that's a pretty weak argument because obviously her primary career is her music. But more importantly, we determine article titles solely by following the common name policy, which says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." But thanks for letting me know about that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Jenn, I saw your message. You made some really good points. You're absolutely right... whoever used the argument "She is called Beyoncé Knowles in her album's liner notes" as a reason for using her last name in the title is way off base. That's a totally invalid criteria. That editor apparently is unaware that we base article titles solely on common usage per reliable sources. And, yes, you're right on the money about many or even most artists using the real names in liner notes and other credits for legal and professional reasons. But that's completely irrelevant to the issue of how Wikipedia articles are titled. Therefore, a closing editor is supposed to look at a comment like that and essentially throw it out the window. ;) That's why consenus isn't about counting votes; it's about counting reasonable, valid arguments that are in line with policies and guidelines. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at WP:COMMONNAME to see if there is a case and update this further. —JennKR | ☎ 23:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. There are many, many musicians who use their real names on their music credits, and a lot of people would never even notice it. As a random example, Ne-Yo uses "S. Smith" for his writing credit on Sexy Love. (His real name is Shaffer Smith.) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé is Beyoncé Knowles in all of her credits, and she was known as Beyoncé Knowles in the early part of her career. Ne-Yo has always been known as Ne-Yo and is always credited as Shaffer Smith in booklets, just like Rihanna has always been known as Rihanna, and is credited in booklets as Robyn Fenty. That's why Beyoncé's article title is different to Ne-Yo's or Rihanna's. Same with Madonna, or Adele, or Shakria, or Usher. They have never performed or been know by their surnames too, but Beyoncé has.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaron, how her name is used in her credits is irrelevant to how we decide article titles. It is based solely on usage in reliable sources. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of her using her last name in the early part of career, the policy makes clear that we do not use an earlier common name usage over a more recent common name usage. The policy says that Wikpedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person...changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". (emphasis added). The bottom line to consider is: What do most reliable sources call her? How she is credited in her work or the name she uses on other documents are not considered when creating an article title. For the record, all her album covers and concert tickets use her first name only; and music is her primary field of entertainment. But, again, it's all about how she's named in most reliable sources. And all the other singers you named have those article titles because that is their common name, per reliable sources. If Madonna were to start going by Madonna Ciccone or Usher started going by Usher Raymond and it got to the point where most reliable sources started referring to them that way, then we would change their article titles. John Mellencamp was John Cougar and John Cougar Mellencamp for the first 14 years of his music career, but of course his article is titled John Mellencamp because that's his most recent common name. Hope that helps. Thanks for your input. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Another argument from the previous move request was the full name used on a single cover for "Why Don't You Love Me". Here, the full name is used as a stylistic preference that pays homage to Leave It to Beaver; she didn't release the single or music video as by Beyoncé Knowles, but by Beyoncé. (See here and here). —JennKR | ☎ 09:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Jenn. :) Another good point. Yeah, the only thing that matters is what the majority of reliable sources call her. Her name on a random cover or on any other listings is irrelevant. You did a great job in debunking that claim about that single cover. And again, although it's moot, all her album covers and concert tickets use her first name only. Thanks for your hard word on this. Have a great week! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... if you do a Google News search for non-archived articles that use her full name vs. just her first name, about 15,000 use her full name, but a little over 100,000 use her first name only. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), the following is mentioned:

"Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. Only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym, etc.) can the recommendations of Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens below be followed."

I think the previous move discussions have neglected this; the singular form is undoubtedly the true artist's name and stage name; all music has been released by her under the singular and her official websites ("beyonce.com" and "beyonceonline.com") have used this. "Knowles" is only used in reference to her acting career and other ventures, and is becoming increasingly redundant considering she is now "Knowles-Carter" and is using this more frequently. Do you think a requested move should be made? Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would have the same result as before: the best name for the article remains "Beyoncé Knowles", as she does use her full name for many aspects of her business and "Beyoncé" is just a shortened form.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155, I was only giving an answer to your statement and explaining how things work. I don't really expect to receive a reply from you giving me an explanation about how things work. I'm not the only one who has said she using her surname in virtually everything she does, you're in the minority here.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it probably may have the same result as before, but "Beyoncé Knowles" is only really used for acting. On here, the surname is also found in her music; song articles are titled as, "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé Knowles song) etc., which in a way is fallacious as no song has ever been released as such. Reading over some of the past moves, quite a lot of editors feel passionately about keeping the surname, is the main reason because of the association with acting or is it something else? —JennKR | ☎ 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Aaron believes he can tell others "how things works", but that others are not allowed to tell him how things work. ;) I also see that he has yet to even acknowledge Jenn's very good points. I'd recommend that he check his facts about his claim that Beyoncé uses her last name "in virtually everything she does". Really? That reveals that he hasn't looked at her album covers and concert tickets, or has forgotten what they say. And the magazine covers she's been on. Perhaps Aaron would like to provide us with links that show some proof that she uses her full name on everything. But that point is moot anyway because we have very clear guidelines on titling articles. It's called WP:COMMONNAME and it tells us that we base article titles on usage in reliable sources. As the evidence shows, a Google News search for non-archived articles that use her full name vs. just her first name returns about 15,000 results using her full name, and over 100,000 using her first name only. So, what I'm saying is not based on unsubstantiated claims or personal preference, but on widely-accepted editing policy and the the overwhelming evidence presented by reliable sources. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I know how things work. I would rather the article be simply renamed as Beyonce as that is what everyone commonly knows her by now, but I was explaining to you how credits work and why other singers bio's do not include their surname. So don't try and act like you know everything or attempt to show me in a bad light, for some strange reason. My first reply to wasn't supporting or rejecting your statement, it was merely a comment. If you want me to take you seriously, create an account instead of using an IP address, because IPs comments are usually tied with the same (nonsense) brush on here. She doesn't use her surname for album covers or most single covers, but for credits, producing, acting and designing, she does. I didn't say "everything", I said "virtualIy everything", which means nearly. I don't see why you are making a beeline for me? I haven't actually gone against your reasoning, have I. (Rhetorical, doesn't need an answer). You're making yourself look a bit stupid to be honest.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"A bit stupid"? "Aaron" or "Calvin" or whatever your name is, you need to start behaving like a civil human being. Quite honestly, editors could care less whether you take them seriously or not, particularly when you act so inappropriately. I sense you are very young, but if you don't know how to behave properly in discussions with other editors, then you shouldn't do so. Both Jenn and I are addressing the issue, not you. We see that you still have yet to provide any links, as requested, that back your claim that "virtually everything" of Beyonce's is credited with her full name. Inexplicably, you have chosen to ignore all the facts. More importantly, you have yet to understand or even acknowledge the fact that we title articles based on WP:COMMONNAME. Finally, for the record, I'll advise you that you are actually more anonymous than me; I suggest you read WP:HUMAN to educate yourself. Resorting to silly anonymous/IP rants like "IPs comments are usually tied with the same (nonsense) brush on here" comes across as quite desperate and erodes much of your credibility. That comment is also extremely ironic, and therefore funny, in case you didn't notice. If you don't understand why, ask someone to explain it to you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Behaviour aside, Calvin999 is correct that her acting credits use "Knowles". I have never bought anything she is involved with so I don't have a copy of any of her CDs to scan for production credits and such. While his tone is inappropriate, there's a kernel of truth in it: it's hard to take an editor seriously when he refuses to edit in a format that provides a permanent talk page or a complete contributions history. Editing anonymously may be permitted, but it signals a refusal to accept full accountability.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:HUMAN, too. Some of the project's best editors are long-time IPs. And some of the most disruptive are registered users. As well, many registered users are socks. In fact, even you may perhaps be a sock who uses multiple registered and IP accounts. ;) If you don't like it that unregistered users are allowed to edit, write to Jimbo and complain about it. Or take steps to get the policy changed. See how that works out for you. But don't spout your nonsense generalities and discriminatory hostilities about unregistered users. Btw, let me fill you in on a little secret: You are an IP too! Now, as far as the content issue, no one disputes that her last name is used in her acting credits, but that's completely irrelevant to how we title articles. We create titles based strictly on dominant usage in reliable sources. And for the record, her primary career is music, not acting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so certain about that last part. Indulge a hypothetical for a moment. Assume we had a person that exclusively used one name for acting and another name for writing books. Would you argue that we have to go count mentions of "acting" vs. "book authorship" and title the article by numerical majority?—Kww(talk) 22:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very interesting hypothetical. But, again, policy gives us clear guidance on such a situation. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and if "there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic...editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering "Deciding on an article title". Obviously, if the subject is a person, choosing a title is much easier than if it's an event. For names, reliable sources tend to lean heavily towards one or two usages. But for events, you could have 100 reliable sources with 20 different usages. Out of curiosty, do you have a few examples of any other famous singers or actors who use different names or name formats for different aspects of their careers? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Give me a day. I know that I know examples, but they are not coming readily to mind.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Drake (entertainer). Adabow (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In Drake's most recent film role, he was credited as Drake though. Simon Rex would be a good example, he acts as Simon Rex, and performs as Dirt Nasty.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Discography

Hello,

On Beyonce's discography page is Mrs. Carter as an album listed. I have seen reports that this will be the name of her upcoming album, but it isn't listed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.158.111 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The addition of Mrs. Carter as an album has been reverted by me from the discography page. Some reports like from Rolling Stone asserted that this would be the title of the album, however this seemed to be because the tour was called so. As the tour is not new material and as there has been no confirmation of a title, release date or track list from Columbia Records, Sony Music, Parkwood Entertainment or Knowles herself, it must be considered unreliable and unconfirmed. All we know is that it is planned to be released some time this year. Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 16:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)