Talk:Ariana Grande

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ariana Grande was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 1, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed

A reference should be exact[edit]

The reference (Arriana's twitter) says Greek/Italian. while the text says just Italian. Moreover, it notes .."checked"... why not, will anyone?

At various times, Grande has said various things about her heritage. All of her Grandparents were from Italy, and the one thing that is crystal clear is that she is of Italian descent. Any further information would require high-quality definitive sourcing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Then the reference should point to that "crystal clear" thing. The reference cannot have different content from the article.
I've replaced the social media ref with a high quality news ref. that is indeed "crystal clear". -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Headings[edit]

The consensus is that the years should not be included in the section headings as had been done here.

Editors noted that there are overlaps in Ariana Grande's career, which could confuse readers. The consensus is that WP:MOS does not require dates in headers.

Somambulant1, UWS Guy, SchroCat, Aoi, Davey2010, and Ssilvers opposed including years in the headers.

Fan4Life supported including years in the headers.

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan4Life wrote in an edit summary: "Removal of years violates MoS." What part of the MOS requires that the years be stated in the headings? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life, please do not edit war. Instead please explain specifically how the MOS supports your reasoning for changing the section headings. Somambulant1 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

All other pages of this type include years, so why should this page be any different? Fan4Life (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not correct. For example, this Featured article about Jo Stafford does not have years in the headings. You are changing your story. First you said the MOS required it. That was wrong. Now you say that all other bio articles for singers have them. It is hard to take anything you say seriously, when you just make stuff up to support your position. Sometimes years in the headings can make sense and help the reader's understanding of the topic. At other times, as here, where there are overlapping parts of the career, they are not helpful and, in fact, can cause problems in organizing the sections helpfully for the reader. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought it did, but I looked and couldn't find anything. But that doesn't excuse you accusing me of making things up. It doesn't matter whether or not MoS requires it, you still made a major change to the organisation and layout of the page without any discussion first, which is against Wikipedia policy. So until you are willing to discuss it properly and politely, and until you gain consensus, I will be changing it back to the previous version, which is the agreed upon version as far as discussion is concerned. Fan4Life (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Fan4Life, who continues to engage in edit warring. He is the only editor insisting on using headings that contain the inappropriate year numbers, which are not helpful. The heading format without year numbers more clearly introduces the subsections, in this case. Fan4Life is incorrect in claiming that all articles "of this type" use year numbers and that MOS requires the use of year numbers. I don't understand how, with both of his arguments having been refuted, he continues to insist on his position. Somambulant1 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Somnambulant1 and ssilver. The years in the section headings are not helpful in the Ariana Grande page. Also, Fan4Life keeps deleting the subheadings specific to the album titles, which I think are essential. Also, Fan4Life's most recent edit to change the Reception and accolades heading also seems to be a poor choice, since "accolades" is a broader term and so it is more useful than "awards", and "reception" is a customary heading for artists on Wikipedia. UWS Guy (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
But it makes the section a mess, it fails to define the years of her life that each heading spans. Fan4Life (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus yet, you can't just ignore this discussion and leave it. Fan4Life (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus. You are the only one who disagrees with the consensus, and the changes that you advocate would not help the article. They would only introduce confusion into the description of Grande's life and career at this point. You seem to have a mechanical view of how to write the headings that does not make sense here. You have made your points several times, but no one has agreed with any of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, I agree that using year numbers in the headings is not a good approach for this article. Somambulant1 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have written articles that use dates in headings and written them without dates in headings, and it depends on the context. With such a short career (so far), it makes little practical sense to include them. This may change in the future as her career develops, but not yet. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: There is not consensus as you have not properly discussed it yet, what you have done is take it upon yourself to make a major change to the structure of the page without discussing it first, then refused to discuss it instead just questioning me for following Wikipedia and insisting that you do the same. There is no consensus, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, meaning that consensus isn't simply more people agree than disagree and that's that, it means that there is general agreement as to what should happen. Two users agreeing vs one user disagreeing is not consensus, especially when it is concerning a major change to the structure of the article, as a third of the users involved disagree. So either discuss and gain consensus, or I will revert back to the last agreed upon version of the article, which includes years in the headings. Fan4Life (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Per the users above, I don't think it is necessary nor desirable to delineate each heading with years, given the overlap in various parts of Grande's career. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There is still no consensus, two users agreeing versus one user disagreeing is not consensus. In fact, without the years there is more of an overlap, as there are years covered by multiple sections, 2013 is covered by two sections, so is 2014, and 2015. The Yours Truly section includes information about her work on Nickelodeon, along with information about My Everything. With the years, there was no overlap, her early life and career beginnings were clearly defined, her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly were in one section, all information about My Everything was in one section, and all the information about Dangerous Woman was in one section. Removing the years actually creates an overlap between sections, it creates a problem that wasn't there before. Therefore there is no reason for it. The overlap of the different parts of her career is a reason to keep the years, if a part of her career overlaps with another in terms of years, as her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly do, then it can't be divided into sections based purely on projects/parts of her career. The only way for the sections not to overlap is to have the years, and to have her breakthrough on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly together, which is only possible with the years. This proves that there is no reason at all to remove the years, as the reason given is overlapping, however with the years there is no overlap, an overlap only exists without the years. Fan4Life (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • All of the above are correct - her career does overlap so adding years to headings in this case would only confuse the reader - We want to help the reader not confuse the poor souls!, I see nothing in MOS that explicitly states "Headings must have years", I would advise Fan4Life to stop the disruptive editing here and focus on editing articles in a productive and helpful manner. –Davey2010Talk 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Fan4Life, you are having difficulty counting, so here are the editors who have expressed disagreement with you: (1) Somambulant1; (2) UWS Guy; (3) SchroCat; (4) Aoi; (5) Davey2010 and (6) me. We all disagree with your reasoning, your assertion that adding the years was required by the MOS was false, and your next assertion that all similar bio articles have years in the headings was also false. I hope you have finished edit warring. Your other arguments are also wrongheaded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't insult me. Removing years makes it more confusing as it makes it seem as though her career can be divided into those sections, which it can't. There are multiple overlaps, meaning that the only way to divide her career is years, as without years, her life and career is divided by projects, however these projects overlap, such as her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly. I stopped talking about MOS before this discussion, I even admitted I was wrong about that, so you clearly haven't been reading my posts. Why can't you just discuss this politely? All you have done is insult me and my intelligence. Removing years doesn't work as her career can't be cleanly divided by her different works, meaning that the only way to divide it without overlaps is using years. Fan4Life (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here but no one is insulting you or your intelligence, You believe there should be years in headings - 4-5 editors disagree so at this stage I see no reason why this needs to continue?..., You can repeat over and over why there should be years however inshort consensus is not to have them so discussing this further is really a waste of everyones time and your time too. –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ssilvers has done nothing but insult me. There is a point in continuing, the reason given for removing the years was overlapping, however before the years were removed there was no overlap between sections, but now that they have been removed, there are huge overlaps, meaning that there is no justification for it. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, consensus isn't simply more editors in agreement than disagreement, it means general agreement between editors, as long as any editor is actively dissenting, there is no consensus. Fan4Life (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
But what about the fact that the justification for the removal was overlapping, however before they were removed, there was no overlap between sections, however now they have been removed, there are huge overlaps, meaning that there is literally no reason for it. Fan4Life (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

The years have been removed from headings with no justification. The justification was that there were overlaps, however, before the years were removed, there weren't any overlaps, all the sections were concise. But now the years have been removed, there are huge overlaps, which is due to the fact that mulitple parts of Grande's career took place around the same time, like her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly. Removing the years only works if there is no overlap between parts of an person's career and there have never been multiple projects at once, which is the case with Ariana. The fact that the reasoning given is completely incorrect means that it needs to be discussed, as currently there is no reason for it, not to mention the fact that the change was made without discussion and was only discussed at all due to it being challenged, even then it wasn't really a proper discussion, the editors in favour simply would not provide any reason or evidence as to why the years should be removed, it was just repeated that more editors were in favour than opposition. Fan4Life (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

comment perhaps you can link a version of the article with and without years in the headers and/or or give an example here in the rfc. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The years were only added by you and you only and as can be seen above various editors disagreed with you so as such starting an RFC is simply disruptive, I've removed the RFC template and again I suggest you find something productive to do. –Davey2010Talk 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps such action would best be left up to an author not involved in the discussion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Headings (Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017)[edit]

Answered above -- Begoon 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re-closed. There is a very solid consensus in the above discussion that years should not be included in the headings. Repeatedly re-posting basically the same request to edit against that consensus is not productive. -- Begoon 05:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It should be

  • 2012-13:’’Victorious’’===
  • 2013-14:’’Yours Truly’’ and ’’Sam & Cat’’===
  • 2014-15:’’My Everything’’===
  • 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== Bahoputaymo (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done. See the discussion about headings above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Repeated repostings of basically the same request to add years to section titles

dude the headings are bothering me! Why the years have been removed? This will confuse the readers.

This should look like this:

  • 2012-13:’’Victorious’’===
  • 2013-14:’’Yours Truly’’ and ’’Sam & Cat’’===
  • 2014-15:’’My Everything’’===
  • 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’===

Can someone please update this, seriously!!!! §Bahoputaymo (talk) pat n06:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Answered above -- Begoon 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don’t know what you’re trying to say, why can’t you just do this:

  • 2012-13:’’Victorious’’ and ‘’Yours Truly’’===
  • 2013-15:’’Sam & Cat’’ and ‘’My Everything’’===
  • 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’===

OR

  • 2012-13:’’Victorious’’===
  • 2013-14:’’Yours Truly’’ and ’’Sam & Cat’’===
  • 2014-15:’’My Everything’’===
  • 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’===

OR

  • 2012-13:’’Victorious’’===
  • 2013-15:’’Yours Truly’’, ’’Sam & Cat’’ and ‘’My Everything’’===
  • 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahoputaymo (talkcontribs) 22:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

so it is easier to read, since her album ‘’Yours Truly’’ released on 2013 and finishes also in a same year. ‘’Sam & Cat’’ started from June 2013 to July 2014 and Ariana Grande was focusing on her album ‘’My Everything’’ from April 2014 to October 2015 including her concert tour and the release of her singles Bahoputaymo (talk)

As you've been told twice already, please see the lengthy discussion above, which indicated a very solid consensus that years should not be included in the headings. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People magazine article[edit]

Does anyone think that there is anything in this People magazine article that belongs in any of the Ariana Grande-related articles? For example:

I'm on the fence about it. If people think so, please feel free to go ahead and add whatever you think is appropriate. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)