Talk:Grace VanderWaal

Vevo link

The Vevo link that was excluded as an external link (Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#ELs_again), has been repeatedly inserted in the article body. This appears to be nothing other than blatant spam, an external link repeatedly being added for the purpose of promoting it's content. It's not a source for anything, so WP:REFSPAM seems to describe it accurately other than it's just this one article. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing everything, and you are wrong again. Your edits show that you don't know anything about this subject, including your confusion about the name of the EP, vs. the names of the songs. The official VEVO link is the correct and efficient choice to show, with *one* ref, that all of these lyrics videos for each of the songs exist. It is asserting nothing more than their existence, and it is not promotional in the least. It appears that either you don't understand what promotional means, or perhaps you are not a native English speaker, and are confused by Wikipedia's guidelines. Ronz, your edits on this article since the beginning of your editing here have been unconstructive and are just a massive waste of other editors' time. For example, in this case, because of your objections to the Vevo link, an editor spent time to find and add individual references for each of the five lyrics videos. Another editor disagreed with that approach and converted them into the hidden comment that we currently have under the VEVO ref, and which you unconstructively have made a mess of more than once, and caused the other editors of the article to spend more time agreeing on. If you would stop interfering, having that long hidden comment would not be necessary at all, and we could simply rely on the perfectly acceptable and very efficient VEVO ref. Your edits simply make it more difficult for everyone to work on this article and focus on content as we continue to expand it to follow this subject's fast-moving career. Instead, we spend all this time arguing with you about your misunderstanding of the guidelines and your repeated unconstructive edits. Your edits, taken together, constitute vandalism. For the good of the Wikipedia project, I again ask you to unwatch this article and stop editing here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

With regards to including a VEVO reference or link, I am unable to understand why there are continued repeated objections (and edits) by Ronz. Looking at a sampling of articles about pop musicians, I see that in many cases there is a reference or link to VEVO. Why has it been necessary to expend so much energy on this issue, with this article? One editor seems insistent on repeatedly making it an issue. It isn't helpful. It has consumed time that could have been spent on worthwhile matters. The explanation provided above by Ssilvers is clear and direct, and I am in agreement. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Full agreement. Voluntarily or otherwise, the disruption must stop. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no way to engage with someone like Ronz. Just revert per consensus at talk, and reply to comments with a brief "as previously discussed". Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid simply attacking an editor is not a response, rather disruption. Could editors please WP:FOC and cite policies and guidelines that they believe support content changes? --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Go FOC yourself.

You are repeatedly and belligerently disrupting this article and this talk page, which is vandalism per VAND and POINT. That you do so intentionally and dishonestly [the malapplication, not just misapplication, of policies and guidelines] renders you a vandal, in full agreement of at least three editors. You have exactly two options, and one of them is a voluntary TBAN. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you are not interested in discussing content or content policies, then I don't see much point to this. Since you persist and will not respond on your talk page: Could you could identify specific comments I've made and why you find them to be evidence for vandalism? --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You will not get another opportunity to institute a voluntary TBAN. We are done with you. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please make some effort to support your accusations. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Meantime, a proposal

Ssilvers, Somambulant1, and Johnuniq: the sentence in question has been changed to the unquestionably accurate "Lyrics videos of songs from Perfectly Imperfect have been released on VanderWaal's YouTubeVEVO channel." To verify "videos" (plural), we need only provide reliable sources for two of them. The proposal: cite the sentence with Billboard and Teen Vogue, and put the VEVO channel back in the external links. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My only thought at the moment is that any problems in this article are very minor and I do not see a need for all the turmoil. It is impossible to fully satisfy all the people all the time. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The ref to the VEVO uploads page unambiguously covers all five videos for all five songs on the album. However, this ref and this ref each name all 5 songs, so if you agree that one of these can be used for the proposition that all five of the lyrics videos are posted to the VEVO channel, then I would not object to citing it and moving the VEVO ref back to ELs (although the vandal may try to delete it again). Including the refs that you suggest would not verify the fact that all 5 of the songs have received lyrics videos. Also, I note that VanderWaal (like all music creators) is responsible for all the videos posted on her VEVO channel, even if she and Columbia/Sony have an agreement for Sony to create and upload them. Therefore, it would be better grammatically (and just as accurate) to use the active voice and say: "VanderWaal has posted lyrics videos of the songs from Perfectly Imperfect to her YouTubeVEVO channel." -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would mention three things: 1) that a potential PROMO argument, that her page needn't say all five songs have lyric videos, would not be invalid; 2) many editors have issues with IB Times as a reliable source; and 3) I do prefer that we err on the side of caution with respect to the wording.

That said, if there is an unquestionable consensus, no matter how small, to include the channel in the ELs, then fuck the vandal. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1) It is not promotional in the least to note the fact that all 5 songs from the album have lyrics videos. We should state that fact, as it is of encyclopedic interest to our readers. Indeed, one might add the fact that they have quickly attracted millions of views. 2) I agree that IB Times sucks, although in this case the information is not at all controversial: the fact that these videos exist and are posted on VanderWaal's VEVO channel is as plain as the nose on her face. 3) I don't see how "caution" is involved. VanderWaal is responsible for all videos posted to her YouTube channels, both legally and factually. The channel belongs to VanderWaal; Sony (or whoever is making the lyrics videos) is just a contractor. 4) I agree that we should not be afraid to post the VEVO channel to ELs, as long as you are willing to help fight off the vandal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1) agree to disagree; 2) agree; 3) agree to disagree; 4) we'll cross that bridge when we find it. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line regarding your proposal is: Do you agree that one of the two IB Times refs can be used for the proposition that ""Lyrics videos of the songs from Perfectly Imperfect have been released on VanderWaal's YouTubeVEVO channel"? If so, which one do you prefer? And, if so, then I would agree that the VEVO ref can be moved to ELs. If not, then I think it should stay where it is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would use the second of the two you include above, because the first says "videos for 'I Don’t Know My Name', 'Beautiful Thing', 'Light the Sky' and 'Clay' [were] also released online" while the second specifies YouTube (I would have preferred that they be more specific to YouTubeVEVO, but it doesn't run afoul of SYNTH since it can only be). —ATS 🖖 talk 01:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My view remains the same as at the time the VEVO channel was launched, that the VEVO link should be included as an EL. Arguments to the contrary have not affected my position about that. Also, there's nothing promotional about stating a plain fact. Somambulant1 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The link is doubly redundant, as pointed out in the previous discussion: Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#ELs_again. Her VEVO site is linked from both here official site and here YouTube site. All those videos are linked from her main YouTube site. It also appears the videos have been linked from most, if not all, of her other social media sites. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

First, content must be verifiable. We had one source verifying one video was hosted on VEVO. That sources has been subsequently removed, so the content is no longer verified by the references. The current source (IBT, Heimbrod) does verify that there's a lyrics video for each song on the album. How about we just remove the mention of VEVO hosting and be done with it? The source does mention all the videos are available on YouTube, and we have an external link to her YouTube website, where the videos can all be accessed. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No one agrees with you or your dishonest faulty arguments, Ronz. Your obstructionist "do it my way" edit warring is not appreciated. It's time for you to give it up and move on. Somambulant1 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest? Sounds like a personal attack. Could you provide some evidence that absolutely anything I've writen here is "dishonest" in any way whatsoever? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User Ronz, your repeated edit warring and editing against consensus is inherently dishonest, as well as disruptive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, since you asked, here is an example of a dishonest statement you made on this page. In an apparent effort to dismiss the significance of the VEVO channel, you wrote that it had only one unique video. You posted that statement on December 5, after seven unique videos had been posted on the VEVO channel (and not on the personal channel), and after those videos had already been discussed here. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ssilvers and Somambulant1: may I opine that WP:DENY applies here? I would prefer that the TBAN be voluntary ... —ATS 🖖 talk 23:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Somambulant1, for the example.

Re: you wrote that it had only one unique video You have taken my comment out of context [1]. At that time, only one video on the VEVO site was not linked from her YouTube site. What I said was correct. If you didn't understand (or still don't), I am happy to clarify further. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Relation to the physicist Van der Waals?

Is there a relation to the dutch physicist Johannes Diderik van der Waals? I mean, her family name name whould be a prime example of an americanised Version of Van der Waals. --122.103.84.111 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 122.103.84.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since the purpose of a talk page is to improve the article, a yes answer to the question could, if notable, be considered an improvement—but there would need to be a reliable source for such data. If you are aware of one, please let us know. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not "Smith", but Van der Wal and derivatives thereof is a quite common Dutch surname. (It means 'the guy who lives by the dam'; dams not being really rare in the Netherlands.) The chances of establishing a connection are slim, to say the least. Hotel Papa (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links - Jan 2017 dispute

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#External_Links
• Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#YouTube_channel
• Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#ELs_again
• Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#Vevo_link

Currently we have only her official website [2]. Looking over all the past discussion and content changes, I personally think we had fairly good consensus with having three links (her official site, her YouTube site, and a link to her AGT audition) 3 Nov, which was changed Jan 3 after some attempts to incorporate it into the article content Dec 28. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that just the one official site makes the YouTube and Vevo links redundant, last I checked the audition, which is probably the most notable aspect of her life, is not linked from any of these sites (because the content of the YouTube site changes so frequently, I've not checked to see if it has been subsequently added in the past month).

Given that her official site is just a banner with links to her social media, I have asked for an exception to EL, ELOFFICIAL, and ELMINOFFICIAL to follow the purpose of ELOFFICIAL: Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. While her YouTube site is becoming overwhelmed with her marketing campaign, it does offer links to the very personal videos she made early on. Because of this, I think her main YouTube site is worth keeping as an exception.

The videos on her VEVO site are promoted and linked from her YouTube site, completely or nearly so, and the VEVO site is linked from her YouTube site. Because of this, I think the VEVO site should not be listed. As far as I can tell, the VEVO site is just automatically populated by the hosting service, so there's nothing personal about it. I wonder why there is a special click monitor to her VEVO site from her official site through smarturl.it. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to avoid making any edits to the article related to this topic while we get this dispute resolved. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That was not me being reverted, and identifying it as vandalism is a mistake. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ronz has keept this nonsense boiling for several weeks and the above shows the absurd amount of energy and bad will Ronz is prepared to spend over a couple of external links in a good article. Unfortunately the ANI report is likely to fail owing to tactical mistakes but Ronz should know that their triumph involves bullying good editors over a trivial issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe following our policies and guidelines is "nonsense", nor do I believe this is a good article (Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#SOAP_problems).

Which "bad will" would that be? Incivility? Accusations of vandalism? Refusal to engage in basic discussion with other editors? Claiming consensus while ignoring arguments based upon policies and guidelines?

I'm extremely sorry that anything I've done would be considered "bullying", but it's apparent that some things I have done are seen in that light. Pointing to AGF, CIVIL, BATTLE, etc doesn't resolve the bad feelings that have come to a boil or near so. I honestly would like suggestions on how to balance improving this encyclopedia with de-escalating the emotional responses that editors can have, and have been working on this matter for many years now. (If you have any, leave me a note)

Meanwhile, I think it best to resolve this content dispute clearly, because I agree that there are much bigger problems to address. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You cannot see how dominating good editors over very minor issues is counterproductive in a collaborative project like Wikipedia? Your bulldog approach would be fine with SPAs who are using the encyclopedia to promote a cause, but any soap issues here are very minor and are certainly not due to the article being used for promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Who is dominating who? You did see me mention AGF, CIVIL, and BATTLE? I'm trying to create strong consensus by focusing on policies and guidelines. If we can't do that for something so simple, how can we possibly do it for anything else?

Meanwhile, we disagree on the SOAP issues. I'd like to be able to approach them without being told they don't exist or are minor before I even make a case. (I think the first discussion was productive, but we were side-tracked.) --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article was created on 14 September 2016. Since then, you have edited this talk page 62 times, my talk 13 times, and made another four edits at two other editor's talk. The article is in good shape for a new topic, and your bluster is only causing distress that helps drive good editors away from Wikipedia—editors who develop articles like this. It may be possible for you to win a battle and remove a couple of external links but the cost is far too high while the benefit is far too low. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we're going in circles at this point, which I already pointed out on your talk. Again, who's dominating who? Who's bluster? Consensus can be difficult, especially when editors choose to make it so. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:ELNO, WP:ELOFFICIAL WP:ELMINOFFICIAL are very clear that for biographies there are one external link to official websites and to avoid linking to social media. Her official webpage contains links to all her social media accounts, including both the youtube and VEVO channels. Ref 21 in the article contains a link to the audition video. None of the external links contain any unique content that is not already linked in the article or through her official website. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is also very clear that local consensus does not override wider community policies and guidelines without a very good reason. Said good reason is completely absent here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree with your conclusions about the interpretation of those rules in every case. For example, they do not say that only one EL to official websites are allowed. As we have discussed above, WP:ELOFFICIAL states that Normally only one official link should be included and goes on to state that "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. ... Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information." This article has only 4 ELs. You want to delete 3 of those. VanderWaal is notable mainly for three things: (1) her YouTube videos; (2) her new EP; and (3) her appearances (and win) on AGT. The first is a link to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second is a link to the "videos" page of her GraceVanderWaalVEVO channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and which has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). Each of these three links supports one of the three key indicia of WanderWaal's notability. As WP:ELOFFICIAL requires, they are "the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah so ignoring completely the bit that says do not link if already linked from their official website. Got it. In short, your interpretation of a commonly applied guideline (which expressly addresses this situation to avoid spam youtube links) in your mind allows you to spam youtube links. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what "spam" means. WP:LINKSPAM says: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." These two links are not added to promote YouTube. In fact the opposite. They allow our readers to see VanderWaal's videos and hear her music *for free*! If a person searches for this article on Wikipedia, in addition to the information that we give about her, they very likely want to get quick access to her videos and to see the original AGT performance that made her famous. That is exactly what we link to. That is what makes Wikipedia a useful online resource. The purpose of the EL guidelines is to help give substance to our policies WP:N and WP:NOT. They are there to prevent articles from becoming indiscriminate lists of links or to promote commercial sales of a product or service, not to stop our readers from freely accessing the most important material about our subjects. Guidelines, as they all state at the top, should be applied with common sense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think this longterm tempest in a teacup can be solved with a little WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:AGF, and WP:COLLABORATE. It makes sense to me that a notable singer's YouTube channel be provided as an EL (in addition to their official webpage, even if there is a crosslink there). [Especially so when the bulk of their notable output is on YouTube rather than available via other channels (such as CDs or iTunes).] I think the audition link is notable and important enough to include, separately, as well. I think it's also probably helpful to the reader to separate out the Vevo link as well, since it features her EP. None of these links were added in bad faith or as spam or promotion, but simply as aids to the reader. Also, none of the linked guidelines (not policies) strictly forbids the use of more than one official site, and they allow for a "minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". It is the reader we always need to keep in mind when editing Wikipedia, not the forced implementation of guidelines which are themselves already flexible. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. I must say, it's been particularly grating to be accused of spamming ... —ATS 🖖 talk 07:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with Only in death on this issue. WP:ELNO, WP:ELOFFICIAL WP:ELMINOFFICIAL are accepted by Community Consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not over ride those policies. Especially with as few editors as have commented here. It would be different if a WP:RFC came to another conclusion. Looking at it from a possible WP:GA point of view if I was the reviewer that would be a flag for me when revising the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not policies, and they do not forbid the use of more than one official site; in fact they allow for a "minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". Also note that even a content guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not even apply here; this is not a WikiProject dictum, it is a WP:COMMONSENSE discussion about a single article, as recommended in the guideline. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on the editors wishing to include the material. Claiming WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't apply in the face of vast community consensus and policy (WP:NOT), is not a way to convince anyone that any specific content belongs.

I've not tried counting how many times the audition video is available through all the refs, but we can all agree that it's there, and even highlighted in the content. As such, it doesn't belong in the External links section.

The VEVO link contributes a total of two videos with unique content, if editors feel that individual performances of the same songs count as unique content at all. Unique content suitable for additional external links in an article about a person? I don't see how anyone could make a convincing argument. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, Ronz, as has been explained to you above by Somambulant1. I would agree to convert the EL to the VEVO channel to a ref in the body of the article where we discuss the lyrics videos if ATS and the other editors on this page all agree. I can't fathom why a person of good faith would continue to waste everyone's time here. Really, don't you have anything constructive to do? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Who's wrong, and how? I've provided evidence for my views, asked for others to do the same, and no one did then or since. The two performances that are unique to the VEVO site currently are the ones for the Today Show and the Tonight Show. Everyone is welcome to take a look. Perhaps I'm missing something. I'd like to get this settled, as it is part of the dispute resolution discussion that I'd like to submit. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That's another outright untruth by you, Ronz. As you well know, because I have explained this to you above, the recent videos on the personal YouTube channel are *not* the lyrics videos; they are just promos for the lyrics videos. The lyrics videos exist only on the VEVO channel. It strains credulity that you are claiming not to understand that, even though I pointed it out to you previously. Also you are the only person who has not responded to other editor's requests, after Somambulant1 patiently provided the evidence for his/her views. After all of your unconstructive editing, we *must* conclude that you are merely trolling this page in a spiteful campaign to waste as much of other editors' time as possible. Again, I urge you to stop. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

[3][4] It doesn't matter where they are hosted, but rather where they are linked from. I'm saying the album videos are doubly linked from her personal YouTube page: the six videos (the five lyrics videos and "Grace VanderWaal - Perfectly Imperfect") are individually linked from her Hosts subsection (under the heading "Perfectly Imperfect EP out now!", and there is a playlist that includes them as well. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

These are the most important works by VanderWaal since the release of her EP. So you are wrong: it *does* matter where they are hosted, and a direct link to them is just common sense, as required by all Wikipedia guidelines. As I said, if you can get ATS and the other editors who actually care about this article to agree, I would be willing to agree with a new consensus to covert the link to an in-line ref. Otherwise, please just go away and stop wasting everyone's time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt there will be any consensus for giving external links priority based upon what they host vs what they link to. I'm unaware of it ever making a difference in any dispute over external links.

I'm glad that it's now clear what I mean when I say that there are only two unique videos linked from the VEVO channel. Thanks for taking the time to help settle that. Ssilvers, thank you for taking the time to work with me to settle the confusion about this. (refactored --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC) ) --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your insincere thanks betrays the true nature of your mission—to grind down opponents regardless of the merits of a particular case. Who cares what damage is done so long as a couple of links are removed? Who cares how long it takes to win? Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you feel it is insincere? I've refactored, and am happy to make further changes if there's anything I wrote that conveys anything long those lines.

As far as merits go, this is a matter in which multiple editors felt I was being less that accurate. I think such misunderstandings are important to resolve. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In the hope we can get clear consensus and move on from this, I've started a discussion at ELN. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Vevo's link removed from External links section and added as a primary source instead

[5] The edit summary didn't indicate any of this, so I wanted to make it apparent for anyone looking to close the ELN dispute or otherwise review the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

ELN discussion

Closed by Eggishorn. —ATS 🖖 talk; closure effective 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing the closing arguments:

Clear consensus to keep the official website and the audition link.

Rough consensus to include her YouTube channel: After sorting through the weeds, comes down mostly to an argument of assisting a reader versus WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, with a rough consensus for inclusion

No consensus to include VEVO's link, There is no consensus on either keeping or removing the Vevo site. Policy- and guideline-based arguments suggest against it, and the arguments in favor are largely based n personal preferences --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Discography section

I don't think it is helpful to have a Level 2 discography or filmography section, unless the section lists multiple examples. I suggest that we remove the Discography section until VanderWaal has released at least a couple more recordings. If, on the other hand, others disagree, and we are going to include a discography section in the article, why isn't the single listed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's very odd to have a separate section at this stage. It is likely that it will be needed in due course, but standard procedure is to wait until then. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a particular preference; that said, "IDKMN" should be there as a single per Billboard. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made by Ssilvers and Johnuniq above concerning removing the Discography section until there's more content. Jack1956 (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion on this.

While I'm no expert in the consensus for music-related articles, I don't see anything in WP:MOSMUSIC, MOS:DISCOGRAPHY, etc about limiting the use of a Discography section. Given the notability of the EP and all the discussion about how we need to give it prominence, it seems like a obvious way to do so. Looking for GA articles for examples, I found Lauryn_Hill#Discography and Jeff_Buckley#Discography (no longer GA). It's a long-term approach to the article. While I've seen tables for discographies (Neal_E._Boyd#Discography, and Kevin_Skinner#Discography, both AGT winners), those I think are overkill. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Grace now also plays the guitar

Vanderwaal has begun playing the guitar. She played a cover of Ed Sheeran's "The A Team" at an appearance recently at Paste magazine studios using the guitar that Shawn Mendes gave to her. She also played the guitar to accompany her Alessia Cara cover, "Scars to Your Beautiful", on the Elvis Duran and the Morning Show on Z100. [ADD: Huffington Post published this article and Teen Vogue published this one praising the cover and noting Cara's reaction]. Should we mention the guitar playing yet in the article yet? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning CRYSTAL on this one. Perhaps in passing—"she accompanied herself on guitar" or somesuch—as part of a sentence about a notable appearance, until we're certain (from an encylopedic standpoint) that it's more than a fancy. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait until she plays it in a TV or major concert appearance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

I'm wondering why the subject is billed as a "singer and songwriter" rather than a "singer-songwriter"? Typically an artist is only described as a "singer and songwriter" if a significant degree of the said artist's notability is also for writing songs for others—rather than for themselves alone—to sing, as a distinctly separate facet of the artist's career; Vanderwaal, however, is the epitome of a "singer-songwriter", as she only writes songs for herself to sing and has never written a song for anyone else to perform. I propose that this be swiftly remedied, as it is truly a factual error. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Great! Much better now. But how do we change it in the description under the article name?WikiEditorial101 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean the needless repetition in the Disinfobox? Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I'm referring to what I just realized is a new feature that must only be viewable from the mobile version (it displays like the first half of the sentence of the lead (basic nationality/occupation/notability), as, now that I look, it's not there on the desktop version. It still reads "singer and songwriter", and I've not figured out who or what determines what it says or how to edit it. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A singer-songwriter is a specific type of singer that performs folk/acoustic music; such as Bob Dylan, Ed Sheeran, etc. Artists that just happen to both sing and write songs are referred to as a singer and songwriter. Like artists such as Katy Perry, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, etc. Read more at singer-songwriter. Because of this, I'd say VanderWaal is more of a singer and songwriter, rather than a singer-songwriter. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot cite itself; that said, both the article and the sources contradict this assertion. In addition, per OED, a singer-songwriter "sings and writes popular songs, especially professionally"; Collins specifies "their own songs"; AllMusic writes, "most singer/songwriter records have a similar sound, which is usually spare, direct, and reflective, which places the emphasis on the song itself"; SongCat adds, "many songs in the genre are built on personal experiences or life situations, resulting in singer-songwriters often connecting with audiences on a more relatable level."

TL;DR: I support the change. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that she seems to satisfy the definition of singer-songwriter. It seems quite clear to me that one does not need to be a folk singer to be a singer-songwriter. As WikiEditorial101 notes, VanderWaal has not written songs for other professional singers. Therefore, I made the suggested change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing Grace's bio

Hello, I'd like to add Grace's current management which is TH3RDBRAIN to her biography.