Talk:Cheryl (singer)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Cheryl (singer). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rename request 4

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close as disruptive; set RM moratorium of three months. This request is the fourth in three months and the third in a row with substantially the same proposed alternative. Whilst consensus can change, new discussions at such a rate are unhelpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole → Cheryl (singer) – This is getting stupid now, under WP:COMMONNAME this article should be called Cheryl (singer). Her legal name is not Cole. The main reason people still call her cole is the article's name. Every media outlet calls her Fernandez-Versini now. The current article name will cause confusion. 94.7.162.173 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — 94.7.162.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support. I don't know if it's not too soon after the previous discussion for this, but she does seem to be known more as Cheryl than Cole these days. This is Paul (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support WP:COMMONNAME says, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic 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 mine). Published sources who now use "Cheryl Cole" are in a tiny minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Question newspapers are calling her "formerly Carol Cole"...should en.wp treat her as Cat Stevens...or as who? What's the alternative example to Yusuf Islam? Am reversing previous opinion and thinking now Weak Support, as previous support for moving Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl [Tweedy] was married to England footballer Ashley Cole from July 2006[12] until September 2010, when she divorced him following the announcement of their separation earlier that year

Support per my above comment here - I also commend the nom for doing this a month later and not a few days later (I was expecting this to appear the next day but surprised it wasn't). –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:NCP discourages discarding her well-known surname: if the surname is "fairly often used", do not use only the first name along with parenthetical disambiguation. Look at Bing News results, but you can't go pass 14th page, limiting to only 136. Hmm... her name Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is also commonly used in articles. I oppose the parenthetical disambiguation and find "Cheryl Cole" not obscure or inaccurate per WP:NATURAL. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@This is Paul, In ictu oculi, Davey2010: Your response? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My response is that I think maybe WP:BLP should take precedence over WP:NCP sometimes. Just as I think there is an unpleasant odour around the titling issue of the Yusuf Islam BLP, and just as there is an unpleasant odour around the gratuitous "English name ..., Wogs-begin-at-Calais name ..." leads in a few of our BLPs. I am now thinking that this BLP title is problematic too. Is it right to be counting old sources, if the lady is divorced and still singing. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't mention naming an article (aside from privacy issues and one example in footnotes). Can you specifically show me which part of it we are referring to? --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit there's most definitely pros and cons to the renaming, I personally think renaming to said article and redirecting "Cheryl Cole" to said article is fine but that's just my opinion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My response. Very different circumstances, I know, but we've moved articles like Kellie Maloney and Chelsea Manning (which involve a name change) fairly quickly. The circumstances there are somewhat more complex and controversial, so I'm not sure why we can't do it here. She got divorced, remarried, doesn't want to use her former married name, the media are not using it any more, so we should follow. Just out of interest, I tried to look up how long it was after she married Ashley Cole that we moved the article from Cheryl Tweedy to Cheryl Cole. They married in July 2006, but I haven't managed to locate the log. Can anyone shed some light on that? Also, for the record, I didn't nominate this, but fixed things for the nominator. This is Paul (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl singer results include Fernandez-Versini. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, leave transgendered / transsexual people out of this. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That issue was raised by someone in a previous discussion, so I'm not sure what the problem is with mentioning it again. Putting that aside though, I've no doubt if we trawled Wikipedia for long enough we could find any number of people who've changed their names through marriage, via deed poll and so on. I don't tend to keep an eye on celebrity marriages, but one that springs to mind is Samantha Womack, who changed her name upon marriage, and had been professionally known as Samantha Janus before then. We could also cite The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, but I think that predates Wikipedia. I suspect the reason your Bing search found hits for Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is because that is now her surname. The idea of a move to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini was pretty much ruled out some time ago, but what is certain is that she's no longer Cheryl Cole. This is now the fourth discussion we've had about moving the article in a ridiculously short amount of time, and I can imagine if we don't address this somehow then the subject will be raised again and again. If there's no rule preventing a move, then let's do it, and go back to doing something a bit more constructive. If we don't move it then there needs to be some kind of ban for a set period (say three months) on a fifth nomination. This is Paul (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per my statement in the previous RM; she hasn't always been known by a singular name. This is different from people like Adele or Madonna. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per above comments by George Ho and WP:NCP guidelines. IPadPerson (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm... it's a guideline, not a policy. Either follow the rules or common sense, but I never heard (or forgotten) the singer "Cheryl" or "Cheryl Cole" until now. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The OP is right - this is getting stupid now. Four page move requests in three months is in fact more than "getting stupid", but is way beyond stupid. Also to assume that the rest of the civilised world bases her used name around a Wikipedia article is flattering to the project, but rather unlikely. My opposition is based on the fact that this is quite simply a case of continual requests until succesful, and that arguments presented against the move in the previous three requests are still valid.

I am also interested in hearing further from Davey2010, who in the previous rename request stated "whatever the outcome this would be a last request I think" - well, not only are we here again, but Davey is seemingly supportive of a rename. Based on his previous comment, it would be fair to assume that he would oppose any new requests as he would support the outcome of the last one? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's because I forgot that I previously said that ? ... With all respect I can't remember every fucking sentence I say on here you know!

Back on topic - I will however admit saying "whatever the outcome this would be a last request I think" was a poor statement to make and shouldn't have said it since I can't control who makes a request, However I never stated I wouldn't make another !vote if one arose,

Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - It should remain as Cheryl Cole. Professional she is now known as "Cheryl", legally she is now known as "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" but most importantly, she is commonly known as "Cheryl Cole", and has always will be. I guarantee that when people google her, people goole "cheryl cole". She ha never been known as just Cheryl either, unlike Rihanna, Madonna, Adele etc. I know Beyonce was change to Beyonce from Beyonce Knowles, but she has really always been known as Beyonce, even in DC. — ₳aron 18:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support But suggest Cheryl Fernandez-Versini her professional name on television programmes such as the x-factor. The current designation makes Wikipedia, I think, seem either out of touch or utterly obtuse. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Previously, you opposed "Fernandez-Versini"; what changed your mind? Also, to what designation are you referring? --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Time changed my mind. It didn't take very much. I consider the current Wikipedia designation Cheryl Cole as either out of touch or utterly obtuse. It's not her current name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, the article title needs to have a surname (family name). She became famous as Cheryl Cole. Newspapers and the BBC either call her Cheryl Fernandez-Versini or Cheryl Cole. Sooner or later the article will need to be moved to her new family name (if she sticks with it). There are other singers called Cheryl; Cheryl (singer) is not a helpful article title. Imagine if we applied the Cheryl (singer) article name concept to other articles Angela (politician) or Red Ed (politician); it is not sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose "Cheryl Cole" is WP:NATURALDAB and fairly common. AND still in use -- 7Nov2014,9Nov2014,20Oct2014 20Oct2014 -- "Cheryl Cole" is quite clearly used as the headline descriptor, therefore the most visible name to the readership of these. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm fairly sure this is the 6th or 7th move nomination, not the 4th, unless you mean 4th in 2014 -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name change

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.

Moratorium mentioned above has passed. She has made it very clear that she is (and wishes to be known as) Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. When Bruce Jenner and Bradley Manning changed their names, their wikipedia page was changed within seconds to reflect their new identities, despite the fact that most people still know them as Bruce and Bradley respectively. Fernandez-Versini is being treated unfairly and this should be rectified. The fact that her name change came about via marriage rather than a sex change should have no bearing on its validity. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should reflect facts not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.12.233 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies. A google search for Cheryl Cole turns up 21,200,000 results and 1,630,000 for Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. It does not matter what she wants to be called, we have to go by Wikipedia's policies.--5 albert square (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Not going to reopen this right now but it's not that simple. WP:COMMONNAME says, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic 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 mine). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I also won't file another move request, but it is perhaps worth noting that the page move from Cheryl Tweedy to Cheryl Cole took place on 27 July 2006, twelve days after her marriage to Ashley Cole, when (presumably) the number of search results for her married name would have been considerably fewer than those for her maiden name. I do also think we need to address the apparent discrepancy between this case and the others discussed at length here. This is Paul (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner returns 105 million results. Caitlyn Jenner 62.2 million. Bradley Manning return 18.5 million; Chelsea 10.6 mil. Where's the consistency? Why does it matter what the two people that I mentioned want to be called but not what the woman in question wants? 78.133.12.233 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

But people still call her Cheryl Cole whether she likes it or not. — Calvin999 20:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to filter down Google results to a date range (it used to be easy!) but looking on Google News (which I believe only shows recent stuff (not sure what "recent" means exactly)), there are 648,000 results for "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" and 239,000 results for "Cheryl Cole". In the latter search, there are still many mentions of "Fernandez-Versini". –anemone projectors– 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Type in your search term, then you need to go to Search tools > Any time > Custom range, and enter the dates you want into the boxes. Hope this helps. This is Paul (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't because, as I already suspected, it doesn't give the number of results. –anemone projectors– 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think the name should stay, Whether she hates it or not atleast for now millions of people know her by her surname, Perhaps in a year or 2/3 it could be moved but for now IMHO it should stay . –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to rename this article Cheryl (singer) per WP:COMMONNAME. Not once in the last eight months have I heard her last name associated with her and she has been known by the mononym "Cheryl" for her latest two albums. Just like how Beyoncé only goes by her mononym, so should Cheryl. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:F054:442E:C90D:5EFA (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MONONYM, "don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used". I only ever hear her referred to as Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, or sometimes Cheryl Cole, but rarely as just Cheryl. Her last name is known and is very often used, unlike people such as Shakira - I couldn't even guess at her last name even though I've heard it before. Similarly, Kylie Minogue is usually called just "Kylie" and she has used the mononym professionally, but her article is not and should not be renamed to reflect a mononym because her last name is known and often used, the same as Cheryl F-V. –anemone projectors– 15:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheryl's name - used both professionally and personally - is Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. She no longer uses the name Cheryl Cole professionally or personally, and the UK media seem to always call her Cheryl Fernandez-Versini now. Other examples: the actress Jessica Hynes established her career under the name Jessica Stevenson before changing it after marriage. Her page was change to reflect her new name. Another example - the director Sam Taylor-Wood and actor Aaron Johnson married and both took the surname Taylor-Johnson. Both of their pages have been retitled with their new names, despite both (especially Taylor-Wood) having established careers under their former names. It seems unfair to still use Fernandez-Versini's former married name. Robyn2000 (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I may have mentioned elsewhere that there's also Samantha Womack, who was Samantha Janus for years before she married and changed her name, and we moved that article. And no doubt we could find scores of other examples. The only thing we seem to be agreed on here is that we don't agree. This is Paul (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly support a pagemove to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. –anemone projectors– 14:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I feel all the factors discussed above in favour of the name change are well explained and delineated. I don't see why she should be referred to as Cheryl Cole, and not Cheryl Fernandez Versini. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, Cheryl is the common name used. This article needs a name change and those who oppose the fact need something better to do. The media in the UK call her Cheryl Fernandez-Versini so the article should be either "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" or "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini (Cheryl Cole)" m.laverick (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? We don't need to "move for a name change". JUST FUCKING CHANGE IT! SHE HAS NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH ASHLEY COLE YOU OUT DATED FUCKING PRICKS!--82.3.247.25 (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I still prefer "Cheryl Cole", as I believe it trumps meets commonname over Fernandez-Versini, but I have to say that's a well thought out and profoundly convincing discussion from 82.3.247.25 there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think many sources since her marriage still call her Cheryl Cole, as that's neither her legal nor her professional name. You might prefer it but she definitely doesn't! Can we get on with a move request now to try to gain consensus one way or the other? –anemone projectors– 10:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

edited curse words* I'm on Team Cole. Cheryl divorced Ashley five years ago, and even then she still called herself Cheryl COLE or simply Cheryl. Her reason given was because she was better known as Cole rather than Tweedy at the time. Even if she still had changed her name back to Tweedy, the general public would still call her Cole. Hell, it's been a year since she got married and whenever anyone I know talks about her, they call her Cheryl COLE. It doesn't matter if she is no longer married to Ashley. Some women are well-known by their ex-husbands names even after divorced. She hasn't used FV (it's a pain to type out the full form while Cole is just 4 letters, plus I hate double names) on any promotional material, has she? Look at things like her book, her music, her perfume, which are either released under the name Cheryl Cole or just Cheryl. And what if she divorced JB? Would she keep FV or go back to Cole or Tweedy or just simply go as Cheryl? Why not just settle this debate by calling the article Cheryl or Cheryl (singer), as her promotional stuff (music, perfume etc.) is just released under her first name? And about the more common name debate, what do you think people are more likely to type into Google? The overly-long double name or the four-letter, easy to spell/pronounce/remember Cole which she has been known as for the last NINE years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.185.10 (talk • contribs)

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.

Requested move 26 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that since she changed here name, she is most commonly referred to as "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole → Cheryl Fernandez-Versini – She has been known as this name for some time now. Looking at Google results, typing in "Cheryl Cole", the first suggestions are now for "Cheryl Fernandez Versini". Other than when a fellow X Factor judge accidentally called her Cole, I'm not aware that any other media call her this name. 5 albert square (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support per prior discussion. This is her name, both legally and professionally, and the media no longer call her Cheryl Cole. –anemone projectors– 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - I think it's now an acceptable time to change it, too. — Calvin999 11:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - Truth be told I honestly hate the name!, But that aside I'd imagine most people would now know her as "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini", The article can't stay as "Cheryl Cole" forever so now seems a better time than any to move it. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Support per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Support even this toilet attendant thumping "thug" deserves acknowledgement of her own name. This change should have been made long ago. Issues such as relate to Hillary Clinton do not apply here with the subject consistently using and insisting on the use of the proposed name. Greg Kaye 11:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Support Clearly her professional name, and something we've done for countless others in a far quicker timeframe, including the lady herself on the occasion of her previous marriage. Oh, and btw, why is there no mention of her second marriage under personal life? This is Paul (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose — Longstanding career as "Cheryl Cole", and even in her professional singing career, she only goes by "Cheryl". A one-year marriage is hardly worth warranting a move, when the majority of her career, both domestically and internationally, she's been referred to as "Cheryl Cole". In a standard Google search, "Cheryl Cole" pulls in 19,300,000 results, while "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" pulls in 3,010,000 results. That is a difference of 16,290,000 results. In a Google News search, "Cheryl Cole" pulls 1,890,000 results, while "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini pulls 541,000 results, again a significant difference. Per this, "Cole" still pulls a stronger presence, which relates to the common-name policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Support WP:COMMONNAME says, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic 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 mine). Published sources who now use "Cheryl Cole" are in a tiny minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment But even in the search results, Cole is still associated to Cheryl's reports, and shouldn't that hold significant weight, especially within her music career, which she is most known for, especially since it also states: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[7]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." The search engine results for News show favor for "Cole" over "Fernandez-Versini", a.k.a. significant weight, a.k.a. the most frequently used name, especially within major international organizations. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring the time factor. Limit your searches to the past year and you get vastly different results. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cut down to the past year, "Cole" still maintains 4,480,000 results while "Fernandez-Versini" maintains 1,480,000 results in the overall Google search from the past-year; "Cole" is still the significant majority. As well with "Book" results, "Cole" receives a total of 1,230 results while "Fernandez-Versini" holds 522 results. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How (and why) are you cutting down general search results? News gives 525K to "Fernandez-Versini" and 95K to Cole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It requests which names are most-frequently used; it does not state (in its paragraph) that it is following the person's name change itself. As it also states: 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. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. So you're saying her changing her name overpowers the sources within the article, and the overall news and books results? I'd think not, because she could easily divorce Mr. Fernandez-Versini tomorrow, especially considering in her music career she's predominately known as either "Cheryl Cole" or "Cheryl". livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, you're ignoring the time factor. Let's take the Bombay/Mumbai naming as an example. Bombay has centuries' worth of academic books, papers, literature, newspaper articles, travel guides, and pop culture references behind it. It would take Mumbai decades and decades to catch up. But our article is named Mumbai because that's what is commonly used now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually not ignoring it, I'm more so pointing out other factors and more so trying to figure out why those are being ignored, especially when it comes to sources (which Wikipedia relies heavily on). And comparing a singer and television personality to a historical location is kind of an unfair comparison, wouldn't you say so? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, the same guidelines apply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

But my question is still not answered, you're saying TIME outweighs the vast majority of sources within the article, which the common-name policy also calls to take into account? That seems a bit contradictory, don't you think? That's saying the past 10-12 months is worth more than 10+ years of sources and notability within the music industry? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The music industry is not exempt from all the clauses in WP:COMMONNAME, including the one I quoted in my support !vote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

oooo, look at this:

"cheryl Fernandez-Versini" gets "About 578,000 results"[1] for the last years news

"cheryl cole" gets "About 59,100 results"[2] while

Greg Kaye 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even just looking at "recent" Google News, CFV has 591,000 results, CC has 265,000 results. –anemone projectors– 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini → Cheryl (entertainer) – I truly apologize for bringing this issue up again, but I truly feel that since there has been so much debate over what her last name should be on Wikipedia, it should just be moved to Cheryl (entertainer) because that is her stage name and then we truly don't have to worry about another move again. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:95CE:54AC:9EA7:1B6C (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose since it took us so long to reach the current decision, and Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is her name at the end of the day. How ever we choose to name this article someone is always going to disagree, and discussions like this can become disruptive. Might I suggest another three or six month moratorium on move requests to stop possible repetition. This is Paul (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose six months moratorum. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:SINGLENAME; "Fernandez-Versini" is so often used, so let's not use parenthetical disamibuguation then. Okay? --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 04:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see that this was proposed before. George Ho (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, since thanks to redirects, she can be found using any of the three surnames she has used to date. Bearhair (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Well it took roughly 6 request moves until it was moved to her new name so it doesn't have a chance in hell of ever being moved to a new name, No point in starting all this shit again - We all eventually agreed on the new name so it should stay at the new name. –Davey2010^Talk 12:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change of name 2

Any takers for this?78.151.30.236 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in definitely! Guys let's be honest, she is rarely known as Cheryl Fernandez-Versini (especially outside of UK, note that she is famous in Europe too). I suggest we move her simply to Cheryl, because obviously that is how she wants people to know her (albums/singles artworks, YouTube videos) whenever she is getting a divorce or no. Also, the inconsistency of her name/surname (Cole/Fernandez-Versini song/album/whatever) on the Wikipedia articles is awful. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

While we will no doubt need to address this eventually, now is probably not the time. We should wait for an official announcement from the lady herself. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. She isn't even divorced yet and for all we know she may still want to keep the name Fernandez-Versini. Besides "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" gets a lot more hits than "Cheryl" and Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is what she is referred to in the media.--5 albert square (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand how many people get confused when they see Cole and Fernandez-Versini used on her articles titles at the same time? Even I haven't checked her bio article recently, I was freaking surprised when I saw it being titled as it is right now. It's stupid and ridiculous. At the end of the day it's not how the media calls her, it's how SHE wanted to be called. Obviously, she wants to go simply by Cheryl. We also discussed this for Beyonce Knowles which is now only Beyonce on Wikipedia. And yeah, I would like to see the statistics where Cheryl Fernandez-Versini gets more hits than Cheryl. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - if you read the previous suggestions, you'll know that it's not just how she wants to be known as, but a blend of what she wants to be known as, and what the common name in media presents her as, along with the name the public associated her with. This is where the problem lies, in that a sizeable percentage of these still refer to her - or know her - as Cheryl Cole. Cat Stevens springs to mind. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I was not here when the name change of the article was happening, but honestly, yes I would say it should stayed Cheryl Cole rather than Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, which is her legal name now. However, the most logical solution for me would be Cheryl (singer) with both former surnames and the one she is currently using redirecting to it. I am very concerned about the subsequent differ usage of Cole and Fernandez-Versini on her other articles names (ex. The Flood (Cheryl Cole song) vs. Only Human (Cheryl Fernandez-Versini album))... And I don't think the right decision is moving Cole to Fernandez-Versini (on the article titles being used) — Tom^(T2ME) 19:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:COMMONNAME in particular the part that refers to media reports.--5 albert square (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read the part, and yeah, although maybe most of the media right now calls her Cheryl Fernandez-Versini it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should call her too. Why? I already explained why. The media subsequently calls her Cheryl and Cheryl Cole too. There is no need to write 'Cheryl Fernandez-Versini' on Google in order to get results for her, writing simply 'Cheryl' is enough. Also, I explained the problem why her name usage on Wikipedia right now is vague and badly shaped. We need to choose one name for her which will be present in all of her articles and according to me Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is not the right one. — Tom^(T2ME) 06:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:MONONYM says: "don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used". Yes she uses the mononym for her recording career, but in her every day life, in the media, and when working on The X Factor, she is called Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, so the last name should be used in the article title. A Google search for "Cheryl" brings up her official websites with just "Cheryl", and then the rest are all "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini", until I get a result about someone called Cheryl Wheeler on page 3. Anemone Projectors 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't familiar with her, my music collection expandeth. :) This is Paul (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow!, After all those requests ... and the moment we eventually allow it she decides to divorce!, I sure as shit am not doing all this again ... so personally think we should either Keep it at this name or move back to Cheryl Cole (The latter would probably be pointless now but it's just a suggestion), No point in moving to any other name as the moment it gets moved she'll probably divorce so thus all these requests would be a waste of time. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, she still has "Mrs C" tattooed on the back of her neck. I suppose it might mean "Mrs Cheryl" of course.92.31.90.226 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Look. Call a spade a spade. Cheryl is about to be divorced. Live with it.92.31.90.226 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally Steve Allen calls her Cheryl Spagbol on LBC. Not terribly funny but mildly appropriate.92.31.90.226 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't suppose it'll catch on, so I guess a move to Cheryl Spagbol is out of the question. :) A redirect, perhaps? This is Paul (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that this may please @Davey2010: (if the Daily Fail can be believed!), according to them Cheryl will stay as Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. I suspect it could be something to do with the fact that she may have to wait 3 years for her divorce!--5 albert square (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm delighted, Think I'll have a beer I mean why not it's only 2:30 in the morning

, She shouldn't be allowed to divorce full stop ... Infact she should never marry again ... That way it keeps us all happy lol, –Davey2010^Talk 02:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Divorce?

Look: Cheryl Fernandez Versini Google News search. Also look:

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is lodging divorce papers to end her stormy second marriage, it was reported on Sunday.
— Cheryl Fernandez-Versini 'to end stormy second marriage after 19 months' - The Telegraph

The X Factor judge has begun formal legal proceedings by filing paperwork which cites irreconcilable differences between her and partner Jean-Bernard.
— Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is DIVORCING husband Jean-Bernard after 18 months of marriage - The Mirror

Is Cheryl getting divorced, there seems to be quite a bit in the tabloids and gossip magazines at the moment about this, but I'm not sure there's anything substantial in more reliable sources yet? Is there? Seagull123 Φ 23:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

People were adding this last night, and I was one of those to revert it since there didn't seem to be many reliable sources at the time. The Telegraph adds more weight to it, but from past experience we know the quality newspapers can be wrong as well. I guess we wait for her to make an official announcement, as no doubt she will in time. Then cue the raft of debates about what to call her next. This is Paul (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"Then cue the raft of debates about what to call her next" - I thought exactly that. I'd go for "Bob", as at the current rate she's going through names it's only a matter of time before she gets to this one. Chaheel Riens (talk) OK. But I wouldn't go for Bob Marley. He isn't her type of music. And though he's dead, he was talented78.149.208.161 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)15:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...I really didn't expect it to begin this soon. This is Paul (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you sighing for?78.149.208.161 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Because I know we're going to have months of pointless arguments about what to call her, and I'd hoped it wouldn't start quite so soon. This is Paul (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the big deal? She isn't a head of state or the Pope. She's getting a divorce. Like millions of other ordinary peopleWythy (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2016

This edit request to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Cheryl Fernandez Versini to Cheryl as she is now divorcing husband Jean Bernard Fernandez Versini after 18 months. I would also like to request that you update Cheryl's personal life section to dating One Direction singer Liam Payne as of February 2016 as confirmed by Liam Payne's instagram account @fakeliampayne Max cheryl123 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Max cheryl123 - Just so you're aware - It was decided above that this shouldn't be moved and quite rightly so, We're not gonna keep moving the article everytime she gets married and then divorced, Not our problem if she can't stay with one man. –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is evidently a rumour that got going after Payne posted a picture of them together on his Instagram page (check out Liam Payne fuels rumours of romance with Cheryl Fernandez-Versini from The Guardian; oh, and note they are still calling her Fernandez-Versini). I am constantly amused by those who believe social media to be the fountain of all knowledge. This is Paul (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately This is Paul todays generation is fucked beyond all hope...., Alls I can say is I'm glad I wasn't born in this decade!.

, –Davey2010^Talk 23:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090923183631/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/showbiz/article-23703040-details/Cheryl+Cole+tops+Glamour's+TV+personality+poll/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23703040-details/Cheryl+Cole+tops+Glamour%27s+TV+personality+poll/article.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Puffery

This article reads like a publicity puff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.224.222 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you know what to do. This is Paul (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales today deprecated the use of Wikipedia by showbusiness agents for promoting their clients. Clearly this is one of those clients. In my view. 78.151.28.113 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has always suffered from NPOV and COI problems. It isn't just the PR promotion, it's the editing by deluded fans. All reality TV BLPs tend to be like this and I don't have a solution. --Ef80 (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ef80. Thank you for that. We could press for Z-listers to be barred I suppose. 78.151.24.27 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

COI complaint

Just to let people know, there's been a COI complaint here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. The complaint IMO seems to be without merit since no evidence of a COI has been presented thus far. Late in the complaint, an accusation was made of editors on this talk page working together and possibly being sockpuppets, again IMO without merit. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It can be very difficult to demonstrate COI editing beyond dispute if it has been done well. The tone of the article is the giveaway - if the article consistently accentuates the positive and diminishes the negative then COI editing is very likely. This isn't just fancruft - it is apparent in celeb articles where almost no actual fans exist, such as Heather Mills. As I said in an earlier comment, there is no obvious solution to the problem of well resourced PRs gaming WP. --Ef80 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I admit it ... It's me ....I'm the COI editor!, I love the woman so much I just had to fill the page with all my love! </sarcasm>. –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Change of name 3

LBC's Steve Allen says that she now wishes to be know as the single name "Cheryl".78.151.24.27 (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

She can call herself Gertrude all for I care - Article's staying as it is. –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing as she changes her name every 5 minutes, it's not going to affect this article any time soon. anemoneprojectors 09:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  - It's a two minute job.78.151.30.74 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    - That's two minutes of our lives that we never get back every time she gets fed up with being known as X or Y. Article can stay as Cheryl Fernandes-Versini for the rest of this decade as far as I'm concerned. This is Paul (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      - And, if it were to change, it'd be back to Cheryl Cole if anything. livelikemusic talk! 01:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        Maybe we should move the page to a title including all possible names, like Cheryl Tweedy-Cole-(singer)-Fernandez-Versini (you know her, the woman from the telly who sings). LOL, sorry, I'm really in a jokey mood. Anyway, being serious, on her social media accounts she calls herself simply Cheryl. Newspapers refer to her as either Cheryl F-V or just Cheryl. In light of her soon-to-be divorce from J-B, she might drop the F-V. Still, for now, I think we should leave the article as it is. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        Linguist111 - I have a few but they're not really appropriate here :P, I'd support just Cheryl as then that way it would never need to be moved again :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        At a recent awards gala, she was presented as "Cheryl Cole". I am fairly certain she will simply be known as "Cheryl" in her music career. livelikemusic talk! 23:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        Or maybe we could give her a brand new name, something really random or another celebrity's name, like "Tori Spelling" or something. (Just kidding, still :-p) Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 23:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        I just think it's going to become problematic and proves why the page should've never been moved to its current title in the first place. livelikemusic talk! 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        
        Problem is I don't think none of us expected a name change that quick - She's gone through so many surnames that it's got the point where the community is now fed up of moving it from one name to the next so I do genuinely wonder if a last request to "Cheryl" is a good idea as opposed to this, All singers have different surnames in the their lives and I understand that but with her it's a new surname every week!, If a request popped up I'd give it 100%. –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
        If another name request opened, I'd only support it be changed back to "Cheryl Cole" or to "Cheryl (entertainer)", as she's not really a singer-per say. Never liked it being changed to F-V, as she barely had the name for six-months to one-year before it was changed. livelikemusic talk! 00:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition towards moving this page. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini → Cheryl (entertainer) – After the discussion above I've decided to hopefully fill a last ever request - Many BLPs have gone through various surnames in their lives however this BLP has gone through quite alot, Many requests for this to be moved to F-V had failed until 6 months ago when it was eventually decided it should be moved .... but now 6 months later she's divorced (or going to be divorced) so I'm assuming at some point soon she's going to end up with a new surname and thus all this is going to go in another cycle and start all over again with requests & moving and it could go on forever ..... So I'm proposing that we as a last move request move this article so that we don't have this stupid cycle of after 6months to a year the article has to be moved to a new surname, Many sources even this year still state "Cheryl Cole" (Results on GNews 214,000), "Cheryl V-F" (Results on GNews: 123,000) and just "Cheryl", Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl (musician), Cheryl (singer) are others I've thought of If that's of any help, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

Support — To once and for-all end the on-going page moves. She's chosen to refer to herself as "Cheryl" in her music career, which is her main notable career choice of almost two-decades. This should end the endless page-request moves! livelikemusic talk! 01:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I must also state that I am supporting the music to "Cheryl (entertainer)" other the other suggested name-changes for the following reason: Cheryl is not known for being a singer; she is an overall entertainer, much like Britney Spears and Madonna (the latter of whom sports "entertainer" in her page title). livelikemusic talk! 01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Support per nom and livelikemusic. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Support as Insertcleverphrasehere said above. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 15:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Support per Davey2010 and others, as a very sensible suggestion. I did say the other day the article could "stay as Cheryl Fernandes-Versini for the rest of this decade" but did so in disdain at the prospect of yet another move discussion. A move to Cheryl (entertainer), however, would hopefully put an end to all that endless keybashing. This is Paul (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Support, though I've been against this move in the past, it's probably the only way to stop the myriad move discussions happening in future, so it makes sense. She uses the mononym professionally and Googling "Cheryl" does show that even news sources use by the mononym now. anemone projectors 08:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Support I guess it's the only logical solution. Alternatively we could just ban her from marrying ever again! :D--5 albert square (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha I love that idea ... If only we could make it happen –Davey2010^Talk 14:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We could ask Jimbo if he would be so kind as to do that. That might be a first, us taking a celebrity to court to stop them marrying again. Might open up a whole new avenue for other court cases! :p--5 albert square (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could ask parliament to debate the pros and cons of preventing her from entering into further nuptials. This is Paul (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should marry her, and change my last name to "(entertainer)" beforehand! Or maybe we should make a law saying that any fiancés Cheryl may have in the future must change their last name to "(entertainer)". This should solve this page move problem, easily. (Unfortunately, given that she's almost twice my age, and other obvious reasons, there's no chance that either of those things will happen :-P) Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 20:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

5 albert square - I can't think of anyone who would want to marry Jimbo ,
This is Paul - That's a brilliant idea! - Wouldn't be suprised if it legit reached over 1000 sigs or whatever it is,
Linguist111 - Marrying her would probably be a living nightmare on so many levels but If you'd sacrifice your happiness to stop page moves then you deserve an OBE! . –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Marrying a woman twice my age to stop a Wikipedia page from being renamed... hmmm, maybe not a great idea on second thought (or on first thought). Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 21:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh shit I'd missed the age - Yeah probably not a wise idea , –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

I don't see a reason against this move. There are multiple good reasons for the move. Aside from her saying she is only using her first name, I don't think there is anyone else at her level of fame with the name "Cheryl", at least in the UK; she's well-renowned and people who search for "Cheryl" on WP and see a title like Cheryl (entertainer) will know it's her regardless of the mononymous title, and will clearly see it's her by the info in the lead, infobox etc. This means that hopefully there will be no necessity in moving the page again after this. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 15:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if you Google the name Cheryl you get pages of stuff about her before anything else shows up, which would suggest to me when wanting to know about those in the world of entertainment, Cheryl is as common a search term as something like Adele or Madonna. This is Paul (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly.
I said above, in "Change of name 3", the article should stay as it is, but that was only because of the possible continuation of page moves/requested moves that may result if the article was moved again, due to Cheryl's constant name changes. I'm supporting this move as it seems there's a good chance there will be no moves needed in the future. Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I was sure I commented here last night, but in reply to "you get pages of stuff about her before anything else shows up", page 2 includes Cheryl Wheeler and Cheryl Frances-Hoad. Page 3 includes Dr. Cheryl McGeachan and Cheryl Richardson. Page 4 includes Cheryl Arkison, Cheryl Fergison, Cheryl Dunn, Cheryl Wood, Cheryl Yeoh, Cheryl Morgan, Cheryl Kaiser and Cheryl McKinnon. Page 5 has only 3 results for Cheryl F-V. So not pages of stuff about Cheryl F-V before anything else. I just wanted to point that out before I decide how to !vote. anemone projectors 08:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I fear I was being a tad ironic, but the fact is that the majority of top search results for the name Cheryl do relate to Cheryl F-V. This is Paul (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too big

This article is too big. Too many unencyclopaedic words like "reveal" instead of "said", and so on. 78.151.31.198 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I just checked the article for "reveal", it appears 8 times, 4 of those as part of reference names! Therefore appearing 4 times as part of the main article which really is not much.--5 albert square (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. Cheers 78.149.214.161 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's now only in there once but I don't think it should be used as it can convey a meaning that is not intended, e.g. the thing that was revealed was a secret. Another editor has done a copyedit on the article so it's a little shorter. anemone projectors 18:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Still far too big. Needs cutting down to size; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Ball_singer talk page, "pruned" section. The editor is "shocked" that whole years are included in the article. Cheryl's page goes down to much, much more detail. Who's going to get the pruning shears out? 78.149.214.161 (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Love life

It's pretty tangled. There should be a section on it and her preferences. 78.149.209.149 (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a Personal life section. Jim Michael (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Marriage in infobox

Listing the marriage as "2015 separated" is not wrong, as it's cited within the article that they separated in 2015. It's not saying they are divorced; it's only saying they are separated, meaning no longer together. It was listed as such for some time, before it was changed to "divorced", and don't see the problem for it being listed such a way now. Especially since {{Marriage}} allows for us to use "separated" as a cause/reason for a change in the marriage's state. This would not be the first time the infobox has reflecting such state of a marriage. livelikemusic talk! 00:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Marriage/doc doesn't list a "separated" parameter; only those for start and end dates. Unless there is something like a legal separation implemented, I don't see a reason to include the information on the separation. As a matter of fact, I feel having it there may be somewhat misleading to readers in a way, as it may give the impression that they definitely are going to divorce, and, although this isn't likely, it is entirely possible they won't actually end up divorcing. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 01:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cheryl (entertainer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpi.co.uk%2Fcertified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64wvbyh3C?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aria.com.au%2Fpages%2Fhttpwww.aria.com.auaccreds2010.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.auaccreds2010.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33132895
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/the-x-factor/news/a789388/cheryl-quits-the-x-factor-to-focus-on-her-pop-career/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/news/803394/cheryl-fernandez-versini-and-jean-bernard-fernandez-versini-are-officially-divorced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Divorce

Here is the link https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2012945/cheryl-divorce-papers-marriage-ends/amp/ Carmarec (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Find a different source and we can add it. Use that one and we can't. This is Paul (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What is a decree nisi, anyway? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 13:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Per Decree nisi, it states: "A decree nisi or rule nisi (from Latin nisi, meaning "unless") is a court order that does not have any force unless a particular condition is met. Once the condition is met, the ruling becomes a decree absolute (rule absolute), and is binding. Typically, the condition is that an adversely affected party fail to provide satisfactory evidence or argument that the decree should not take effect (i.e. the decree takes effect unless the party shows that it shouldn't). For that reason, a decree nisi may also be called a rule, order or decree to show cause." While she might've been given a decree nisi, E! News made claim she is "officially divorced" (which is cited within article) in their headline, while her rep confirmed they would no longer discuss the subject further. livelikemusic talk! 16:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Is E! a tabloid? It looks a bit tabloid-ish and I doubt its reliability. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 17:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

E! is actually quite reliable. It's unfortunate association with the Kardashian family has somewhat lessened it, but it has always been a reliable source. livelikemusic talk! 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carmarec, This is Paul, and Livelikemusic: Sorry for the late reply – given the circumstances and all of the uncertainty and dispute over this, I marked the marriage as "decree nisi" in the infobox ([3]). I think that's best for now. If you disagree, feel free to change it. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 13:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheryl (entertainer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Assault conviction

This should be put in the lede.

As with Jonathan Aitken, where Aitken's conviction leads the article, with a fuller exposé in the body of the article.

Cheryl should be treated on equal footing as Mr Aitken Wythy (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A lead should summarise why a person is notable. Is Cheryl's conviction a main reason she is notable? What I'm strongly disagreeing with is this being the second sentence of the article, which definitely lends undue weight. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 07:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether it should go in the lede, though on balance probably not. But it clearly shouldn't be the second sentence, given that this is not something she is famous for. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

This edit request to Cheryl (entertainer) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Cheryl's pregnancy photoshoot was actually for The Princes Trust and not exclusively for the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror. The correct information can be seen on her official Twitter page and on The Princes Trust official website and social media. 2A02:C7D:639F:2200:CBD:330E:ADA1:B19B (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Including Payne in infobox

I'm wondering if it's appropriate to include Payne in the infobox. My own thoughts are that it's worth considering, since he's her current squeeze and she has a kid with him, but others may disagree. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Surname

Apparently, she's Cheryl Tweedy again, after the divorce, what do we do ? ArturSik (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a pity she hasn't taken her current beau's surname really, since it would sum up well my feelings about this whole debate (probably a few others as well). I guess that what we do is if there's a good source that says she's Cheryl Tweedy again then we can use it at the beginning of the lede to change that back at least, and say something like:

Cheryl Ann Tweedy (born 30 June 1983) is an English singer, dancer, and television personality...

Her other names can be mentioned later on. I'm sure I'm not alone in not wanting to go through another "let's change her surname" discussion since we've had several already. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't find any sources that say she's changed back to her maiden name. Unless any of you can find any non-tabloids that say so, it's best to leave it. Linguist ^talk|contribs 18:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to moan but this is the exact damn reason why I got this moved to "entertainer" in the first place, Anyway I agree with Paul just have the lede as Tweedy and perhaps mention her surnames further down in the Early Life or Personal life sections, Can't really see how you can do it in the lede as "Cheryl Ann Tweedy (née Fernandez-Versini and Tweedy; born 30 June 1983)" wouldn't make much sense,

(Just edit conflicted with the above - If sources can't be found then don't change it),

Wonder what her surname in 2018 will be!... Not that I care anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be "Black". Not that I care anyway. Wythy (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We should change it to "Riens" - sooner or later she'll get to that surname, and then at least we'll be ahead of the curve - even if only briefly. I'm pretty sure I made some cheap jibe like that in one of the previous move requests, but I really can't be bothered to trawl through the archive to find it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How about we pretend she's Icelandic and change the last name to the patronymic Garrysdóttir, after her father? Say she was born and has lived her whole life in Reykjavik, married Ashley Ronsson and then Jean-Bernard Bernardsson, and now in a relationship with Liam Geoffsson. Perfectly acceptable per WP:IAR. Linguist ^talk|contribs 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

:) This is Paul (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not forgetting her bandmates Sarah Johnsdóttir, Kimberley Johnsdóttir and Nadine Niallsdóttir (can't find one for Nicola). Come to think of it, why don't we start a patronymic names wiki. Getting back on topic though, I think we have more pressing things to do than changing Cheryl's name yet again. This is Paul (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nicola Paulsdóttir, apparently. This is Paul (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As per this discussion, leave it. That was the whole point of moving it to Cheryl (Entertainer)!--5 albert square (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

For me, this is not an argument of moving the article to Cheryl Tweedy/Cole/F-V/whatever (that was settled in the last move discussion; unless she does start using a surname professionally for an indefinite period of time, I oppose a move as the article is at its best possible title in my opinion), but of what the full name should be in the lead (Cheryl Ann Surname (née Tweedy)). For now, until a reliable source confirms she has changed her surname (it shouldn't affect the article title unless she uses a surname professionally), I support everything being left as it is (article title: Cheryl (entertainer); infobox title: Cheryl; first mention in lead: Cheryl Ann Fernandez-Versini (née Tweedy...); name used to refer to her in all other instances (except optionally Cheryl Ann Tweedy in the first mention in Early life): Cheryl). Linguist ^talk|contribs 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there a source that states she is Cheryl Tweedy again, at all? Because at last year's Cannes festivities, she was referred to as Cheryl Cole. Also, why do some give two-shits about moving the page, again? This is why it was moved to its current title, as she goes by simply Cheryl in her professional career. livelikemusic talk! 00:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's because, I suppose, article titles are not solely based on what an artist wishes to be known as, but what they are known as in the media. This was the main discussion in previous requests - not what her current name is, but what she could be found in the mediasphere as - adn to find a name that would keep up with her rapid changes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Because, as stated above, she has changed her name so many times, I don't think we can assign her a WP:COMMONNAME. The common name policy can cover people who stick to one name that is not their birth name (e.g. Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton). Cheryl uses the mononym professionally, is referred to with the mononym frequently by the press, and the issue of the constantly-changing surname's affect on the article title is solved by the exclusion of the surname in the title. With all of this considered I still believe the article is at its best possible title. I also believe what I stated in my last reply to this thread reflects the current consensus, and I would like to make a note of it at the top of the talk page. Linguist111 (away) (my main account) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible suggestion. This is Paul (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 - I too like the suggestion - It might hopefully put a stop to these glorious threads lol. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're agreeing to here? Isn't Cheryl (entertainer) still the popular choice? The only change I'd suggest is from Cheryl (entertainer) to Cheryl (entertaining), because that's what this is... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

no one wants to change the name of the article. we're just debating what name should be used in the lead as at the moment it is Fernandez-Versini but as they're no longer together and divorced now she's probably called something else but God only knows what it is now.ArturSik (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's hard to prove anything here. Sources currently covering her alternate between Cheryl, Cheryl Cole and Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. I think CFV is being used the least, with the mononym now being used more often, as much or more than CC (in British newspapers, at least). About her being divorced, no reliable source that we know of states that she is, but given what has been confirmed by reliable sources, I'd say she is de facto divorced (not saying this should be included in the article, though, it's just my opinion). Note that she didn't appear to change her surname back to Tweedy after divorcing Ashley Cole. Not that that means anything, necessarily. Since we don't know now, we should just use what was confirmed most recently. Linguist ^talk|contribs 12:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.ArturSik (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

This edit request to Cheryl (entertainer) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7D:A1A7:9B00:BC90:AD2D:A5C8:319E (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

1 child

Not sure what you're on about here. Her kid is mentioned both in the infobox and in the section about her personal life. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit as to what it is you want us to do. This is Paul (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Marriage

Reliable sources confirmed in October 2016 that our Newcastle lass got a decree nisi in her bid to divorce her second husband Jean-Bernard Fernandez-Versini. The |spouse= parameter in the infobox therefore states that the couple married in 2014, and the marriage reached a decree nisi in 2016, like so:

|spouse=

Jean-Bernard Fernandez-Versini
   
 
(m. 2014; decree nisi 2016)

I set it like this due to ongoing dispute as to whether they were actually divorced or not (see the revisions between the one dated 20:10, 22/10/16 and the one dated 18:01, 23/10/16, and this discussion). In the latter discussion, it was stated that, as detailed at Decree nisi, a DN does not have any force unless a particular condition is met. Once the condition is met, the ruling becomes a decree absolute (rule absolute), and is binding. Typically, the condition is that an adversely affected party fail to provide satisfactory evidence or argument that the decree should not take effect (i.e. the decree takes effect unless the party shows that it shouldn't). It was also stated in the same discussion that a rep for Cheryl said the couple would no longer discuss the subject further (a citation may be needed for this). So it seems that, for the binding decree to not take effect, Fernandez-Versini would have needed to provide satisfactory evidence why it should not take effect within 42 or 43 days. Obviously more than 43 days have passed since October, and it doesn't appear that Fernandez-Versini took any action against the decree, as it was apparently said they would no longer discuss it and I can't find any sources that state he did, so I would think that would mean they are officially divorced.

In the past while discussing this potential divorce, I have said that I believe them to be de facto divorced, as A) they (obviously) separated, B) they didn't seem to have any intention of resuming their relationship, C) legal marriage-ending action (papers etc.) has taken place and D) Cheryl has moved on, starting a relationship with Liam Payne several months before even the decree nisi came up (and now also E) they have a child together); however, this should not be included in the article, as it is simply a term I made up. One might think that a reliable source confirming they definitely are divorced no-ifs-no-buts will be necessary to state they are divorced in the article, but I have a feeling that the dictionary definition of a decree nisi may be all we need. As well as that, Cheryl hardly gets any coverage in reliable sources nowadays as she's not doing anything at the moment (conversely, there's a huge amount of tabloids covering her), and evidently, in the eyes of all sources, their marriage is old news, as it's now all about Cheryl + Liam + baby makes three. I don't mean to speculate anything here; this is only my interpretation of the evidence we have.

So, are they divorced? To me ~~there's a high chance they are~~ (struck, see what I wrote in my next post). Linguist ^talk|contribs 15:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe typically there's a gap of six weeks between a decree nisi and a decree absolute, so chances are she may be divorced by now. But I Googled "Cheryl" and "Decree Absolute" and there don't seem to be any press reports about it, so perhaps proceedings are still ongoing. This is Paul (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This Huffington Post article from December 2016 refers to Fernandez-Versini as her ex-husband, though it later claims they were granted a divorce in October (which contradicts other reports). This is Paul (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That article helps a bit, but I would prefer something more in-depth. It only gives the possible divorce a few small mentions, one of which links to another October article, which only gives a couple of trivial (albeit bloated, with the word "officially") mentions to it. The chances of an in-depth article coming up is unlikely, as it was said by Cheryl's rep that "no further comment will be made", and I'm assuming it's old news anyway in the eyes of news services. Maybe I'm being a bit picky here, but this is a BLP, and I'm a bit more doubtful now than I was when I wrote my original post (because of, among other things, the chance that proceedings may still be ongoing). Linguist ^talk|contribs 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the source in the article, she is divorced from Fernandez-Versini, as of October 2016. I doubt anything else will be said about the state of their marriage, etc., as per Cheryl's own rep, they are not discussing it further. livelikemusic talk! 22:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, two things. I think I've gotten everything wrong here.

It says at Decree nisi that a DN does not have any force unless a particular condition is met. Once the condition is met, the ruling becomes a decree absolute (rule absolute), and is binding. Typically, the condition is that an adversely affected party fail to provide satisfactory evidence or argument that the decree should not take effect (i.e. the decree takes effect unless the party shows that it shouldn't). My interpretation of that was that, in the Cheryl-JB case, the scenario would be as follows:

What we know:

C files for divorce.
JB defends (objects to, in some way) the grounds for divorce.
C is granted a decree nisi in October.

What may or may not have happened:

JB (the adversely affected party) does not do anything to contest the decree (per Livelikemusic's statement of the two not discussing it further).
Therefore, after 43 days, the decree nisi automatically becomes a decree absolute, finalising the divorce.

However, I've come across this. Having looked at that, my interpretation is this would be the scenario:

What we know:

C files for divorce.
JB does or does not defend the grounds for divorce.
C is granted a decree nisi in October.

What may or may not have happened:

An adversely affected party (possibly but not necessarily JB?) fails to provide satisfactory reasoning in contest to the decree.
Therefore, after 43 days, C can apply for a decree absolute and, if there is no reason not to finalise the divorce, get it finalised, but she has to apply. It's not automatic.

So I can conclude there that a reliable source from December or later (43 or more days after the DN was granted) is needed to confirm Cheryl applied for a DA and that she successfully divorced JB. One has not been found.

Second, I will address Livelikemusic's statement of Per the source in the article, she is divorced from Fernandez-Versini, as of October 2016. I doubt anything else will be said about the state of their marriage, etc., as per Cheryl's own rep, they are not discussing it further. I've justed stated a reliable source from December or later will be necessary, because in October, when the E! article was written, the decree nisi was only just granted and the gov.uk source says a decree nisi does not grant a divorce; a decree absolute is needed for that. Furthermore, that source gives the apparent divorce a few trivial (albeit bloated) mentions before talking about Cheryl's relationship with Liam Payne, so I'm overall a bit doubtful about that article. What I had wanted to do was address was the "not discussing it further" part, and ask you whether you gathered this assumption from the rep statement written in that article ("No further comment will be made and they ask for their privacy to be respected"). To me, the statement could mean something like, "This is a private matter so no more information will be given to the public". I don't think it matters though, now knowing that a lack of contest to the divorce from JB was not all that would be needed to make the divorce final, and that Cheryl would need to actually apply for a decree absolute.

Sorry if I've wasted everyone's time here by writing loads on this before doing my research properly. Linguist ^talk|contribs 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So, I tried finding something from more recent time, and unfortunately, 99% of the sources are either from October 2016, or they come from unreliable sources, etc. However, I did find this, from The Times of India], and while I am unsure of the validity or reliability of them, it stated on January 27, 2017, that they were set to divorce "this week". livelikemusic talk! 12:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, found this from HuffPost, which was published in February 2017, which stated she is divorced from JB, and that it was finalized in October 2016 — which we know is not the certain case, as per the remaining of the October 2016 sources, etc. livelikemusic talk! 12:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once more. The HP isn't much of a help really as per what you said, and it only gives one trivial mention to the matter. Sorry if I'm bitching too much about these trivial mentions, but I'm wary of many of the sources covering Cheryl as, being Cheryl, she gets very little coverage in reliable sources nowadays compared to the constant slew of tabloid releases, and I don't think newspapers bother to give much in-depth coverage to legal stuff involving people like Miss Tabloids UK. The India Times one helps a little as it goes more in-depth, but it relies too much on the Mirror, which is not a reliable source.

To address the original point, Cheryl and Jean-Bernard, if they have not divorced, are still married by a very specific technicality. I can conclude that, in my opinion, the spouse parameter should remain as it is, citing the decree nisi. Thanks to both of you for input to this discussion. Linguist111 (away) (my main account) 13:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Cheryl (entertainer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Last name

Cheryl reportedly changed her last name back to Tweedy. Her last name on here is Fernandez-Versini, therefore it should be corrected.Aaron Saltzer (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Where was it reported? Do you have any sources to back up this statement? It should only be changed back if it can be verified by reliable third party sources, otherwise it stays as it is. This is Paul (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Liam Payne confirmed that she is back to Cheryl Tweedy. livelikemusic talk! 12:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess we could use that if it's ok as a reliable source. I use Digital Spy quite a lot for television related stuff, but I'm never sure about it when it comes to BLPs. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never had any issues with Digital Spy being questioned as a source, or being questioned on its reliability, especially since it cites Payne's interview itself, etc.. livelikemusic talk! 13:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In that case, let's go for it. This is Paul (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheryl (entertainer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609223715/http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a183376/cheryl-cole-tops-irish-singles-chart.html to http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a183376/cheryl-cole-tops-irish-singles-chart.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Sun

CHERYL WHO?What is Cheryl’s surname now? From Tweedy to Cole to Fernandez-Versini and back to Tweedy again She's now just 'Cheryl', but will that change anytime soon? . Hey ho In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I give it a month tops before she gets bored with Tweedy!, There seems to be a growing trend in her going from one surname to the next. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Who says she isn't bored now? It is in her interests to remain with Tweedy Wythy (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cheryl (singer) as proposed. A number of the oppose !votes were more concerned with the quantity of move requests than the accuracy of the name. Article stability is important, but accuracy and clarity are also important. The proposer and supporters noted that "singer" is a more accurate disambiguator than "entertainer." In establishing consensus for this position, I noted that the word "entertainer" is not currently used at all in the article, and the lede describes her first and foremost as a singer. While numerically the vote is not clear, this is not really a vote, and I see much more merit in the comments relating to the accuracy of the disambiguator used. The commenters concerned with article stability will have their objections satisfied when this article is at a stable title, which this move will hopefully accomplish. (Or at least until Cheryl changes her name again.) (closed by page mover) Brad v 14:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheryl (entertainer) → Cheryl (singer) – WP:CRITERIA No. 1, 2 and 5: She's a singer, known as "the singer Cheryl" in sources, not "the entertainer Cheryl". Use normal English which readers will recognize. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Brad v 00:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh God, not again.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope as per Chaheel Riens - The article was moved by myself as a last ditch attempt to stop the stupid requests ... we're not going to have a whole new debate on whether she's an entertainer or singer - She's both so as such the article stays. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, in fact not again - yes there have been umpteen other requests about her many surnames, but having finally settled on "Cheryl" we now have a chance to call a singer a singer. Davey2010 you are more than welcome to absent yourself from the discussion about (singer) or (entertainer). The article lead actually says "is an English singer, dancer and television personality." so entertainer isn't mentioned in lead or the rest of article. Nor in most sources, 6,990 hits which call the singer a singer, compared to 6 hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree this isn't about her surname however regardless the point is we've finally settled on a name as well as a description .... Not everyone is going to be happy with "Entertainer" but if we move then someone's going to find fault with "Singer" so to save the whole description debacle the article should stay as it is, As for the lede - Well we can't have the article as "Cheryl (singer, dancer and television personality) as that's just too long so Entertainer was chosen as a shorter description - Moving to singer gives the impression she's just a singer which is obviously not the case, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 13:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look at this: 6,990 hits (singer Cheryl) compared to 6 hits (entertainer Cheryl) then explain what the problem is with this RM. Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If we're playing google top trumps, then how's about this - 327,000 hits for "Cheryl Cole annoying" and 289,000 hits for "cheryl fernandez-versini annoying" But we don't mention that in the lede either. In all seriousness, my reasoning is per Davey - she is not just a singer, but by fulfilling the roles described in the lede - "singer, dancer and television personality" she meets the "entertainer" criteria.

Also - is she really accurately described as a singer? What is her more commmon vocation now? She last released a single in 2014... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Cheryl (annoying) is a suitable disambiguator. By all means adjust the search parameters for 2016-2017, but she's still called "singer Cheryl", no one calls her "entertainer Cheryl" except a few Wikipedia editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral – this article is well on its way to breaking the record for the most RMs, so I sympathise with Chaheel and Davey's “enough's enough” argument, which was one reason I at first was close to opposing this move. I also thought the same as Davey's point of view (Moving to singer gives the impression she's just a singer which is obviously not the case), but I think IIO has a valid point too – that sources refer to her more as a singer rather than an entertainer. Nevertheless, this strikes me as something of a WP:COMMONNAME/“what the sources say” argument in a sense, and in my opinion this argument is not the strongest possible in every situation (cf. Davey's “just a singer” comment). I don't have sufficient basis for either a support vote or an oppose vote at the moment, so for now I'm at neutral. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reaffirming neutral following the above comments by Chaheel and IIO. On one hand, sources do tend to refer to her as a singer and not an entertainer, as shown in the links provided by IIO (including when you exclude the sources talking about other singers named Cheryl, tabloids etc.). On the other hand, as pointed out by Chaheel, Cheryl is also largely notable for endeavours other than her singing, and so the disambiguator (entertainer) may cover this better than (singer). In the end, either title is alright for me. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 14:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: You're joking, right? How many move requests does this one make? I'm going to say oppose because entertainer is a more accurate description. Yes she sings, but she also presents, and does other stuff too. This is Paul (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the eighth move request, according to the top of the talk page. There were four failed move requests from Cheryl Cole (one to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, one to Cheryl (musician) and two to Cheryl (singer)), followed by a successful move request to Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. There were then two move requests from that title to Cheryl (entertainer) – the first failed and the second was successful. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 16:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There will inevitably be another move request to (singer) next year as the current (dab) is a Wikipedia affectation at odds with sources. If painlessness is the objective then move it to (singer) like every other western singer except she who is above all others and let the article title be stable. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose — The endless requests to change the name of this article has to stop. It's ridiculous. Plus, Cheryl is more than simply a singer; she is a dancer, author, television personality, etc. so to move this page is pointless. People really need to spend their free time elsewhere. livelikemusic talk! 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above and previous discussions. Enough is enough. She is more than a singer which is why entertainer was agreed upon. 5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. Can't understand the problem here. Whatever else she's done, she is quite clearly first and foremost a singer. This "entertainer" rubbish is getting out of hand. A disambiguator is solely there to distinguish one person from another, not to cover everything someone has ever done. "Singer" does that quite sufficiently. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

she is quite clearly first and foremost a singer - The lede states is an English singer, dancer and television personality so she's quite clearly more than just a singer, Readers may know her through XFactor for instance and they may have no idea she was or is a singer before that .... (Not everyone is going to be clued up on peoples past etc)... Having it as "Singer" just misdescribes her and creates more pointless drama like this, "Entertainer" covers it all and is the most appropriate name here. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Readers may know her through XFactor for instance and they may have no idea she was or is a singer before that: I must assume you are joking here, given how ridiculous that comment is. Nobody who watched X-Factor could possibly be unaware that she was a singer. It was continually mentioned and she invariably sang on the show! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. As previously stated she's not only a singer but also a dancer, tv personality and many other things. Simply an entertainer. ArturSik (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably Tom Jones isn't a singer then? Given he was also a judge on a TV show! The many years that he was a singer have presumably been negated by his TV appearances. These comments make absolutely no sense. Disambiguators generally take the thing people are best-known for; they don't attempt to include absolutely everything they're known for. That's not their purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. I'm with IIO on this, "entertainer" should really be a dab of last resort and here we have the perfectly good "singer" that we can use instead. Think of readers trying to reach this article – even if they are coming because of her television work, it seems to me that they would be much more likely to recognise the article they're after if it has "singer" in the title than the vague "entertainer". Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

They'd probably search for Cheryl in the first instance. This is Paul (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If we're being honest, they'd probably search for Cheryl Cole in the first instance! That's how most people still know her. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but looking at the move archive above, that was the root of this long string of RMs. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 12:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Support per IIO, Jenks and Necrothesp. The proposed disambiguator better describes what she's known for. "Enough is enough" is not a valid argument either. WP:NOHURRY applies, and if it takes us 1 year, 2 years, 10 years or more to get to the right title, then so be it. — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well no it doesn't, if anything it misdecribes her, "Enough is enough" is a valid and justified response when there's been repeated and failed RMs, As it currently stands this is the correct title. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am hugely against Amakuru's comment of "if it takes us 1 year, 2 years, 10 years or more to get to the right title, then so be it", which is basically saying "we'll keep relisting this until we get what we want, and if consensus goes against us we'll just relist in a month, and then again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. In fact, the opposite was decided last year where it was concluded that the constant RM's were disruptive and should be stopped. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that the proposed disambiguator misdescribes her, given her 12-year-long singing career, and how that is how sources describe her. I’m personally not so fussed about an article’s title, as long as it is not unreasonably erroneous or in violation of WP:BLP. When people click on a link to a Wikipedia article, they’ll usually want to read the actual article and have little interest in the title, redirects help when the title does not match the term they searched for. As far as the repeated move requests go (“Enough is enough”), there is some validity in this argument, in that big numbers of move requests for an individual article (such as this one, which has been the subject of seven (including five failed) move requests) are likely to be viewed as disruptive. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 18:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Who is this "us" you're talking about? The article has been listed many times, and on some of those listings it has been moved. I have no particular skin in this game, I haven't been campaigning for one name or another for years, with a view to railroading it through. I just looked at the nomination and thought it made some sense. You could argue it both ways though, entertainer or singer, it's not really a big deal. The point I was trying to make though is that shutting down the conversation by saying "enough is enough" is the very opposite of the collegiate cooperative spirit we try to adopt here. Repeated relistings immediately after previous ones are one thing, and the community usually polices those effectively, but this one is a year and a half after the last, and has had lots of constructive engagement, so it's not valid to say we shouldn't have had the discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how long the space of time between one RM and another is, the listing of an individual article at RM more than once or twice is likely to be viewed as tedious by some editors. I’m hoping that, however this RM concludes, it will be an indication of this to other editors, and that we’ll have reached a title that we can agree is at least reasonable. As I have said, while I think Cheryl (entertainer) is a reasonable title (and I therefore don’t see an outstanding need to move it to Cheryl (singer)), I think Cheryl (singer) is a reasonable title as well (and don’t see a need to oppose a move to this title either). So, in my view, this RM wasn’t a necessity, but, on its own, it’s not harmful either. If it’s not broken, there’s no need to fix it, but if someone (or multiple editors) wants to fix it, that’s fine. Just as long as we avoid page move wars. In my opinion, it is better to devote time to more important things, such as encyclopaedic prose, sourcing and perhaps GA or FA promotion for more “advanced” articles (like this one), rather than something which provides little comparable encyclopaedic value. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 14:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. She's an entertainer who is more fully rounded than just a singer. Famous for dancing, and hosting shows as well as singing. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What those saying "more than a singer" "not just a singer" should consider is whether that is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. In WP:RS she is not an "entertainer", since books, newspapers, magazines all say "singer". wikt:entertainer is not a WP:HONORIFIC, a rung above (singer); the word usually means entertainers of the music-hall variety. This BLP isn't an "entertainer" in WP:RS, she's a "singer". Likewise the BLP subject isn't an "actress" or "dancer", as the article states: "Cheryl holds the record for the British female artist with the most number one singles at five.". That explains why to books, newspapers, magazines and TV she is a "singer". In ictu oculi (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment. It seems a lot of editors commenting here don't really understand what disambiguators are for. They're not to list everything someone is known for. They're simply to distinguish one person from another. We therefore take the best-known thing they're known for. Does Cheryl dance for a living? No, she doesn't. She dances while she sings, as do many singers. Did she just suddenly appear out of nowhere as a TV personality? No, she didn't. She became an X-Factor judge because she was well-known as a singer. Does any source call her an entertainer? Nope; they call her a singer. Anyone arguing for "entertainer" is missing the point of disambiguation completely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well hang on a minute every person that's been a judge on XFactor has only been one because they were known as a singer so that point is moot (You wouldn't put a footballer as a judge would you?), Exactly and "entertainer" distinguishes her from the likes of Cheryl Ladd, Cheryl Lynn, Cheryl Baker and so on and so fourth, Having her as "Singer" would be the same as having her as "TV personality" both are incorrect one could argue she's both there so again "Entertainer" covers both singer and tv personality, yes she was known as a singer however that was then and this is now. –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? Don't recall the songs released by Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh and Sharon Osbourne. Would you care to enlighten me? And are actors not also entertainers in the general sense? Plus, how on earth does it distinguish her from Cheryl Baker? It's a term that harks back to music hall and is only appropriately used in the present for people like Bruce Forsyth! So, you're saying she's not now known as a singer? Of course she is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the Comment: We don't take the best-known thing - we take the most accurate thing. In this case it is more accurate to call her an entertainer as that covers her activities as described in the article best. That allows us to distinguish one person from another. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. A parenthetical disambiguator is not a comprehensive summary of the subject's accomplishments. It should be the most concise term to clearly differentiate the subject from others of the same name. This Cheryl is best known as a singer, so that should be the disambiguator. — AjaxSmack 03:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"It should be the most concise term to clearly differentiate the subject from others of the same name." - "Entertainer" does just that, Nope I disagree she's best known as both a singer and a tv personality. –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Necrothesp - are you also claiming that Cheryl Ladd, Cheryl Baker and Cheryl Lynn are not known as singers? I don't think anybody here has ever claimed that she's not known as a singer, only that it's not the only thing and that it's not the most accurate thing to describe her. Valid point about Walsh, Osbourne and Cowell not being singers - although Cheryl herself hasn't actually released anything since 2014, and her last single failed to make the top 100. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't bring them up in the first place! Singers are all entertainers in the most general sense. So are actors. Dancers. TV personalities. Circus performers. Comedians. Musicians. They're all "entertainers" (not that we'd generally use that term for them, or indeed for the Cheryl formerly known as Cole). So I fail to see why bringing them up was relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. She sings but she doesn't entertain me... but seriously she's known for being a singer, that's why she's famous. Her contributions to dance wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia page and she's been a judge on X-Factor for the very fact that she was in a successful girl band. Zarcadia (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- "She sings but she doesn't entertain me..." That, ladies and gentlemen, should be enough to justify this move per WP:NOVOTE. — AjaxSmack 15:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  - Conversely, I think her singing is a source of entertainment for many people - albeit possibly not in the manner she intends. Chaheel Riens (talk)
    - I absolutely agree with Chaheel "singing" comes under entertainment so all's you've done is proved that point even more, Thanks for that. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Support, after reading the above discussions. "Singer" is apt for people primarily known as singers, with their other activities surrounding and promoting their singing career. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – there is no need to keep changing the article title when it is fine just as it is. She is much more than a singer, she is also a television host which a lot of people know her solely from her appearances on television. Oppose per Davey2010. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- She's not a TV host. She's a TV judge. So are many other singers and dancers. Does that negate their years of singing and dancing? Given that's the only reason they were invited to be a judge in the first place. Do you really think a TV judge is an "entertainer"? Weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that just by calling her an "entertainer" we are in some way denying her any other talents or abilities? Quite the opposite - by giving her the title of "entertainer" we are acknowledging that she has many strings to her bow - some of which overshadow her role as a singer. The only distinction we are drawing is that "singer" is not the most accurate of terms that could be used to describe her. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.