Talk:Jennifer Lopez/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Introduction really long?

Is it just me or is intro really long? Even the intro of Madonna's article is not that long. Maybe it should be shortened? Hiya111 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from RileyLavender, 3 January 2011

Jennifer Lopez has a cat named Squiggles and a dog named Squoogles. And she is thinking about getting a bird named Squarp. RileyLavender (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Unless reliable sources document the pets, they won't be mentioned in the article. Even with reliable sources, it's arguable that this is too trivial to mention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez's real website is: http://www.jenniferlopezonline.com/default.aspx . The current website provided is an ad from Island DefJam. Thanks. vsenthil (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.220.236 (talk)

simple obvious edit

When the article says "She IS the richest person of Latin American descent in Hollywood according to Forbes" it should be changed to something like "she was the richest person of Latin American descent in [date] in Hollywood according to Forbes [describe which Forbes issue]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okthatsnice (talkcontribs) 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture Update?

While her main picture is not bad, it seems fairly outdated granted it's from 2004. I think it would be much better to include a much more recent photo of her, at least from 2010. Like this one for example (feel free to find another one if you don't like it): http://www.newfashionnews.com/newsitem/1386/Fashion-news-2010-Jennifer-Lopez-in-new-fashion-venture.html Just a suggestion. 1Dbad (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, new picture! Jennifer Lopez is way too beautiful to have that old picture as her Wikipedia cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.76.181 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Refs inside parens

Per WP:FN, refs may go inside parens if they apply to only part of the parenthetical bit. Since this citation appears to apply to the entire parenthetical bit, it would go outside the punctuation as normal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:FN, but in any event, that ref exists primarily to cite the year as that was the point of contention. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
My "interpretation"? How else do you interpret "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation. [Exception: ] where a reference applies to a specific term within a parenthetical phrase, rather than the entirety of that phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate."? And the reference happens to cover the entirety of that phrase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Refpunc explicitly allows cites inside parens, giving as an example a specific term. It does not say that all refs covering the "entirety" of a parenthetic phrase must be placed outside those parentheses. At least, I don't see those words. Nor has that been how WP:FN has been understood for years. Therefore, how else can I characterise it but your interpretation. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A reading of WP:FN (quoted above) should have cleared that misconception up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See WT:Citing_sources/Archive_31#RFC:_WP:REFPUNC_and_parentheses. Gimmetoo (talk)

Please Correct the Pitbull Wiki Page link.

Please change the Pitbull Wiki page link in the 4th paragraph in the first section from Pitbull to Pitbull_(rapper), because the current link directs to the pitbull dog page, which is not appropriate for this reference.

Current Version:

After two consecutive commercial failures of her singles, Lopez returned to the top of the charts with her recent single On The Floor featuring American rapper Pitbull from her new album entitled Love?[1]

Proposed Change:

After two consecutive commercial failures of her singles, Lopez returned to the top of the charts with her recent single On The Floor featuring American rapper Pitbull_(rapper) from her new album entitled Love?[2]

75.82.109.49 --NukedSRT (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, Thank you noticing the link error.Moxy (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Im refering to the picture with M.Anthony and a greek singer called Kostas Martakis. It is pretty obvious that the picture and the legend is part of promoting the greek singer, which is unfair and i dont think that an encyclopedic article on JLO should mention or have pic of a greek singer who opened her concert in Athens. The article of K.Martakis was also fixed to avoid promotion of an artist. Mydreamistofly (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The pictures were released as free content to Wikipedia by his label, and some of them are even featured pictures. There is no other free image of Jennifer Lopez from that time period. If you have one, then please feel free to add it instead. If there is really an issue with him being in it, then perhaps he should be cropped out of it. Greekboy (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Layout

Given that she started as an actress and only later started releasing albums shouldn't her film career be listed before her music career?24.191.235.199 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ojani Noa

Ojani Noa, Lopez's first husband redirects to Lopez's page. Does he have his own page, or could you make this a page-does-not-exist link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.74.198 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Image

[3] "Most current" is not a valid criterion for the image. We do not replace fine lead image with crappy ones just because the crappy one is more recent. The lead image should illustrate the subject, and the former one does, and does so with better clarity and definition. The new image duplicates a later one in the article, which is another reason it should never have been installed as lead image without prior discussion and consensus. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, the image should be replaced with a consensus. but I think the article "Jennifer Lopez" the only one who does not update their images, see Beyoncé Knowles and Britney Spears for example. If have a more recent image of the singer in the Commons, I do not see why not use. I put the image back because of this. Lucas Brígido Msg 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You could still use this picture.
Jennifer Lopez 2009.jpg
Just sayin'. (It was shoot in 2009).--Renesemee (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nickname Display

Is there an official way Jennifer likes to display her nickname?

It began as "J.Lo" (see here), then "J-Lo" (see here and here) and now its "JLo/JLO" (see here). *shrugs*

AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a late reply, but personally, I don't see a reason to include any in the lead, for this reason. She writes JLO so many different ways. Status {talkcontribs 04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

She has a new show, "Q´VIVA" airing next year as well

Can someone please find more information about this? She is apparently judging alongside her former husband Marc Anthony. It's airing next year. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

The name Lopez should be changed to López because that is how it is spelled not just this one but every other one names that have accents on them even if they are american should have accents thats the way to spell them


Greencardo (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, not really. It's entirely possible for there to be two different surnames, Lopez & López, and in this case it seems her surname does not have the accent--Jac16888 Talk 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've actually been looking for a source stating her last name as "López" for a while, and couldn't find any. Status {talkcontribs 16:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

López may be the Spanish spelling but Lopez is the English spelling and she may well have anglicized her name. Jennifer isn't a Spanish name after all. -- Beardo (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

In the first paragraph of this page, the phrase "is an American actress, businesswoman, dancer and recording artist." is repeated twice, and one of these should be removed. 27.99.107.38 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored hatnote

I've restored the hatnote to Jennifer Lopez (meteorologist) per WP:HATNOTE. I quote from the relevant section in the first paragraph: "Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because... the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, ... Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article...". Tassedethe (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

She is as notable as nothing though. Nobody would search her page up...or even care. But fine. −Arrekea(Talk) 00:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It got deleted again, perhaps by accident while rebuilding the infobox, on 12 April; I've replaced it. PamD 17:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Add mention of Puerto Rican descent to early life

Requesting mention that she is of Puerto Rican descent in the early life section - this is probably as relevant for this Latina artist as the fact that she was raised Catholic, and it seems odd to only mention that her parents were Puerto Rican way down in the Selena section. Siko (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently in the middle of being reconstructed. It will be added to the early life section if it can be put in appropriately (meaning that's it's just not a random statement). Regards, — Status {talkcontribs 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

so um yeah um yeah um when did she mtah mtah get mtah married mtah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.199.55 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Spelling: tho => to

80.42.231.67 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a spelling error under the J. Lo & Wedding Planner where week is spelled "weak".

Edit request on 31 March 2012

Under "Early life and career beginnings": I think 'ensisted' should be changed to 'insisted' and probably 'worth ethic' should be changed to 'work ethic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flizzjkzaop (talkcontribs) 13:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the "work ethic" problem, but deleted the section with "ensisted" since it was unsourced.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Leading Roles

I guess I'm confused about why "Out of Sight" wouldn't be listed as a leading role. She had top billing with Clooney and it was a Soderbergh film of some notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrippina Minor (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To keep it less bulky, only the films in which she is listed first in the credits are used. — Statυs (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

Hi, It's not a big deal, but am i the only one that thinks this image does much more then this one. The article talks about her being a big Hispanic influence, and i think it suits the article really well and does more for it then the other one. The image that shows her at the MTV awards is very outdated and while that does not matter you should consider it; while the image of her holding the Puerto Rican flag is from 2009. Obviously any picture can be used but instead of simply changing it without explaining. −Arrekea(Talk) 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The original image shows her face clearly. It's also been the stable lead image for years, and yes, I think that's a reason to keep it unless a much better image comes along. In the proposed image her eyes are covered; it doesn't show her face as well. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well let's just get other people's input on this before you change the image back to your preference. I for one think the image from 2009 should be used. Both images are fine and its not like she is wearing a rag on her face; her features are still visible. In regards to the image being the stable lead image for years; that's because before this year, nobody really bothered to look after or care about her page, (let alone care about the outdated image) it was a huge mess and basically neglected. −Arrekea(Talk) 04:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You want to replace a good image with another one that is different, maybe slightly better to some eyes, maybe worse to other eyes. That's a microcosm of what's happened at this article this year. -Gimmetoo (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep the original one from the VMA's or get a newer from from her newer, Idol days. The first one you linked to barely shows her face. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The one from the MTVs is soooo outdated. Also, how does the one from 2009 barely show her face? Her mouth, nose, ears, hair and parts of her body. I think it should be used because it is more recent (this isn't completely irrelevant). If that barely shows her face, what does this say [4]? I also like the idea of her holding the flag, conveying important info in the page about here being an influential Hispanic. −Arrekea(Talk) 07:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Because Michael's is face-on, not from a below angle. It's the angle I am not liking of the photo. And putting it up based on a flag, as well, I don't feel is what should be the sole factor of putting it up. I'd prefer something from the last year or two if we could find one that fits WP:NONFREE. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Remember, its not a sole factor but it is contributing. It is the most recent info-box worthy picture we have of her, being from 09. Also, that would be virtually impossible considering nobody would bother to add a picture from her Idol era and if i could i would but unfortunately there isn't much available. Also, Gimmetoo, i said i would like at least a few more opinions on the image change but i see you have done what you wanted. ;) −Arrekea(Talk) 05:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits which need to be made 1-5-2012

In the "1999–01: On the 6, J.Lo, The Wedding Planner and second marriage" section, the last sentence says "from their honeymoon" where it should say "for their honeymoon".

    • While I was typing this the other error was fixed**

95.18.72.52 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Allison, 1-5-12

Section title?

1999–01: On the 6, J.Lo, The Wedding Planner and second marriage. Shouldn't it read 1999–2001 since they are different centuries, per WP:YEAR? MusicFreak7676 TALK! 03:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for that. I was wondering where such things were started. — Statυs (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Aha. Just making sure and I didn't want to interrupt the marvelous work you and my good pal Arre have been doing!! It's making me shape up in my own editing skills! MusicFreak7676 TALK! 03:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Haha, thanks! Great to hear! — Statυs (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Typo

In the paragraph next to the wax figure photograph, the word "authentic" is misspelled as "athentic." Badattitudebob (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Moriori (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Why "recording artist" - why not "singer" ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Because not all recording artists are singers. Recording artist is a more broad term that is better to use. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 21:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please update the... iguess "profile piture of the page" because it was in 2004 and I believe that it needs to be updated CoolStoryBroNeedsMoreDragons (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)CoolStoryBroNeedsMoreDragonsCoolStoryBroNeedsMoreDragons (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a dream, but unfortunately, there are no other usable pictures of Jennifer. Once her tour begins, we might be able to get a very good live picture from her. Statυs (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a sub-article

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez (AfD discussion), spun out of this article in February of this year, is now listed at Articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

As you all may know, we don't have many good pictures of Jennifer here, the ones that we do have are either outdated or bad quality. Just reaching out to anybody who is going to see her on her tour (or co-headlining tour with Enrique Iglesias), it would be marvelous if you could get some pics of her on stage so we could use them...and they will be used on countless pages, as we sure do need it. Thanks. All you have to do is upload it to Wikimedia Commons.. :) −SoapJar 05:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Too long or too overly detailed? Need a split?

Is this article too long to read? Either way, are there too many details about Jennifer Lopez? If so, shall there be a split? If not, which key point can be summarized adequately well? When you the notice above, let's not mention Lopez's personal life, its stand-alone article, and anything else related, such as AFD. Doing so either is trivial to this section's purpose or may greatly influence a consensus of this section. If you make one mention about it (intentional or not), try to strike it out or remove it. If you want to discuss it, make a new section, or discuss it elsewhere.

Back on topic, what about legacy, music career, or acting career? Either of them is getting overly detailed or longer, and split and/or summarization of every aspect about Jennifer Lopez is needed. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think music and acting career could work as a separate article, and would extremely frowned upon. I think that Artistry could work separately. Legacy, needs to be trimmed down a significant amount. The only actual section of the article that is complete is "1969–94: Childhood and early work". "1995–98: Selena and first marriage" is close, but the rest, surprisingly enough, still need expansion. The sections basically just say 1) this happened and 2) that happened. Some of the information isn't even needed and should be moved to the album's article (such as mention of the bonus tracks). My summer starts on Tuesday, so I will be able to, after then, work full-time (well, not full, full time, but a lot) on getting the article up to snuff. Statυs (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What do you think about splitting the Musical style and themes section into List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez and summarizing its content in this article? That could cut down on some of the fluff here. A Controversy section is also located on the list of songs article, which was going to be added to the main article, but I decided that it would be more appropriate over there. Statυs (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • How about the creation of Cultural impact of Jennifer Lopez? It can include what is in the legacy section of this article also include the information about her relationships influence, seeing as how the personal life article will most likely get deleted. Statυs (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First, we must establish a consensus with a {{not a vote}} tag. So far, I have two ideas in hand:

  • Splitting Artistry section into "Artistry of Jennifer Lopez" and summarizing a section
  • Splitting portions of "Musical style and themes" into List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez and summarizing it.
  • Creating cultural impact subarticle

I have made two idea-based subsections below. By the way, make more ideas when you can. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional idea:

  • Splitting Products and endorsements section into Products and endorsements of Jennifer Lopez and summarizing a section. Jennifer is credited for bringing back celebrity perfume endorsements, which was "dead" since the late 1980s. The section does not contain that much information at its current state, but there is plenty of additional information that could be added, and will eventually be added, whether or not a separate article is created.

Statυs (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussion

Tag this article as "very long"?

I'm against adding {{very long}} because it would result something disastrous, like Personal life of Jennifer Lopez and Rihanna on Twitter, both which are deleted. Nevertheless, if splitting proposal would fail, condensation on this article is needed. Shall this article be tagged as very long then per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY? --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

SoapJar and I have been trying to construct Cultural impact of Jennifer Lopez in my sandbox. Statυs (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2012

Please add the following to Jennifer Lopez's filmography:

1995: Money Train, Grace Santiago 1996: Jack, Miss Marquez 1997: U-Turn, Grace McKenna 1998: Out of Sight, Karen Sisco 1998: Antz, Azteca


Dachshund75 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Lopez for wearing fur

Jennifer Lopez has continuously criticized for wearing fur and even adding it to her fashion line. People who have criticized Lopez include Pamela Anderson, singer Pink and the animal rights organization PETA. Even models who were supposed to wear Loepz's fashion line refused to wear fur in the show and thus caused huge controversy. Every article on Wikipedia includes PRO and CONTRA as this is the only way to make articles objective. For example an article about a US president would highlight his achievements and would also point out the things he has been criticized for. Therefore I think Jennifer Lopez's Wikipedia entry has to have a section of what she has been criticized for. However, fans of Lopez immediately remove all entries regarding fur. --Sunpoint (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunpoint (talkcontribs) 15:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that PETA's view is fairly extreme, and results in them condemning people based primarily on how much publicity the condemnation will provoke. PETA's criticism of Lopez is not particularly unusual or noteworthy. Anderson and Pink are both campaigners for PETA, so their criticism isn't additional criticism, it's just more of the same.
Adding such criticism to the articles about PETA's numerous targets would essentially be acting in support of the organisation. That's not Wikipedia's role.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Your argument would imply that PETA should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia as this would "be acting in support of the organisation." So maybe you'd like to go on and remove the mentioning of PETA on articles about Pamela Anderson, Pink and many other animal rights supporters. That would be censorship!
You can remove PETA's name from Lopez's article but it is a given fact that she has alienated many animal rights activists all over the world - that IS a huge part of Lopez's image. Her image is not the best because she uses fur for her fashion line. Not to mention this in her article is simply an act by fans trying to keep her image clean.
--Sunpoint (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because Anderson, Pink, and other have publicly associated themselves with PETA: it's a notable aspect of their lives. Being criticised by PETA isn't a notable portion of Lopez's life. If you want to start an article like "List of celebrities criticized by PETA", go ahead, because their choice of people to criticise 'is a notable aspect of PETA.
Please don't insult me by accusing me of being a fan of Jennifer Lopez: her article is on my watchlist because it's a frequently vandalized biography article. You'll find that a lot of admins have articles like this on their watchlist. It's not a sign of any personal interest in the topic.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, your arguments show that you are really biased, hence the assumption that you are a hardcore Jennifer Lopez fan.
I still have a different opinion on this. For example, I visited Wikipedia's article on PETA today and saw that their isn't a section called criticism either. However, I think it should be there. It should not only list PETA's achievements and projects but it should also point out why other people criticize this organisation. That is the only way that readers can make up their own mind about them. The same goes for Lopez. How many words has her page? It's quite lengthy, which is okay - but all of the entries only point out her achievements and not one line mentions that she has alienated people worldwide.
Would you say THAT is objective?--Sunpoint (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't need this on her main article. Please stop this. It's already mentioned in J.Lo by Jennifer Lopez if you bothered to have a look, because it is directly associated with that. While you point keep accusing people of being a "harcore" fan, you seem to not like her very much, just because she has been criticized by PETA, doesn't mean she has "alienated people" worldwide. Also, if you were going to add this PETA information to her article without being so assertive, could you be a little more smart about it, not just add a random section saying "Criticism". Maybe, some parts of Legacy should make up a heading that says "Public image", you could have gone down that route instead...just some suggestions. —ArreJLover 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
What bias do you perceive me as having?—Kww(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going anywhere. The Lopez fans have their point of view and I have my point of view. I think it's best if we file a request for mediation. Do you agree? --Sunpoint (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You can try. I can speak with relative certainty that you won't get anywhere. As before, I request that you cease insulting me by referring to me as a Jennifer Lopez fan.—Kww(talk) 07:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on any proposed split

Hey regular Jlo contributors. I would first like to start off by commending you guys for this recent expansion; her bio page is looking awesome. I just have some comments and view points I would like to establish. I think the second half of the article (legacy, videos etc.) needs to be trimmed down a bit. As it is, I believe the article is far too long (at one point almost 195k!?). Also, I disagree with any thought of splitting the page or creating new articles for certain sections. Her career milestones and influences can very easily be trimmed and all included here. I think a solid aim for the bio would be a nice 140k; anything more I feel would be too much puffery and going off on unnecessary tangents.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 23:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true. I started her video/choreography section but, I too, feel that it could be shortened a lot. Oh..and a Cultural Impact page is already being worked on to be published eventually (It includes things thats are mostly in the Legacy). I'll try to work on shortening her videos/choreography section for now. —ArreJLover 02:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Before any such page is created, it needs to be discussed and agreed upon. For example, I don't agree with it and don't think its necessary. I mean you can honestly do that with almost any artist. Imagine the kind of page like that you can make for some really big name artists. Its not usually done unless absolutely needed.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 03:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It has been agreed on and has begun to be worked upon. Statυs (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Where was it agreed on? I can't see that the Lopez group of articles needs any expansion at all: if anything, a 50-75% reduction in the amount of material devoted to her is in order. That her biography is oversized isn't a justification for a split, it's a justification for a trim.—Kww(talk) 07:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As you can see Status, a small group of Jlo fanatics is not in any way an agreement or consensus to start creating splits and new articles. Forgive me, but for God's sake your treating her like one of the most influential faces in pop music in terms of entertainment. She is no Michael, Janet or Madonna. There is absolutely no reason to create "Legacy and influence" articles.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 18:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"a small group of Jlo fanatics is not in any way an agreement or consensus to start creating splits and new articles" Well, when a discussion takes place over a month and only three different users comment on it, there isn't much else to be done. I can't force people to comment on a discussion they don't care about. And if you didn't notice, I just trimmed 50 bytes of the article off to make some room, so I'm not really sure why you're still going on about that. As for her sales, the list's "rules" state that "Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list." That list has nothing to do with her article. 50 million was reported back in 2010, and in 2012, it was reported to be 70 million. It adds up with the worldwide sales of the Love? singles, Love? itself and "Dance Again". Separating "she is recognized as one of the best-selling music artists of all time" could work, as I think maybe that's what you're problem is with it? That the list says 50 million, but here it says 70. Can't really help it that she doesn't have enough certifications to have it updated on the list. That's the record label's job to buy. The article needs a bit more expansion here and there, to include a bit more info on her personal life (there's a couple of missing lawsuits, a shopped around sex tape that she got stopped), but more commentary on her acting career and her influences of acting and dancing. I'm slowly working on rewritten the legacy section from before and putting it back into the article into Legacy and Honors and awards. I can see this article being around 160 bytes when it's all said and done; an acceptable size. Statυs (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clearly express my issues here. 1). creating legacy and influence articles when they could easily be included here (void of some fluff and puff). 2). The contradiction and listing of 70 million. Status, its not her label's fault, she just hasn't sold that much. As far as I can see, all her albums and singles are, for the most-part, certified As for your "2010 and not including her new sales" claim, there are a few issues. This is original research, and she hasn't sold anything near 20 million records since. The only sales that are really noteworthy are "On the Floor", which sold 8 million. As an example, none of her other singles have charted well or really been certified (again, not because of her label, but due to the fact that they just didn't sell). Also, you mentioned Love? as an example; the album sold 350k in the US and barely scrapped a Gold certification in Russia and Switzerland. The album, at most, sold around 750K-1 million. So I don't see where your justifying (aside from the OR) the addition of 20 million.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you're disputing the LA Times updated report on how many albums she sold? For the record, Love? sold just over one million in 2011. Not a reliable source, but both her official website and her record label are always calling for 70 million. I haven't added up any of her sales from the era to see if it would be close to the amount, I just estimated it's around there. But let's actually. As you said, "On the Floor" sold around 8 million in 2011. From its certifications, "I'm Into You" sold around 600k and "Papi" around 100k. "Dance Again" is around 600k as well, based on the certification. That brings us around 10.5 million in addition to the 50 million (which was additionally reported by some to be 55). With that alone, it's fairly close to 70 million, which is sourced by a reliable source. In addition to that, we also can factor in her back catalog. I don't know why you are throwing around OR in here, as if I'm randomly adding 20 million to her sales without a source or anything. "again, not because of her label, but due to the fact that they just didn't sell" Umm? Did you not know record that labels buy certifications? There's reliable sources for her selling 70 million records, I said that the fact that there isn't half of that in certification isn't anybody's fault but her record label's, as, again, they buy them. Statυs (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the 50 you previously mentioned, which would leave us at 60. Obviously Island is going to try to pump up her sales for promotional reasons. And again, yes labels buy certifications. That would be an issue if she was under-certified, which she is NOT. The issue is that her sales really aren't anything near 70 million. Its as simple as that. And again, the issue is the contradiction in the lead... Not to mention the certifications issue.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Saying her sales aren't near 70 million sounds like OR to me. This clearly states "Lopez has sold more than 70 million records worldwide", which was posted before her website or record label began using the number. Statυs (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You're really starting to annoy me. Please just get it. You can't have a blatant contradiction in the lead. The list you link to has rules that are not being followed here. That's it. My telling you her sales don't equal 70 million is a response, to, wait for it... your OR comment on her "sales of the last 2 years must equal that".--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 06:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As Status counted everything, (well Dance Again has sold 954k) it would amount to 70 million or roughly above. That's the most recent sales figure that people have been writing, so let's just run with that. It was reported on TV in early 2011 that she had sold 55 million records. Time has past and she has sold MORE then 5 million since that time (well above 10-12 million) so 70 million sounds very accurate. I think a writer from LA Times and her record label (even if they are 1 million below) more accurate then you insisting it's a blatant contradiction and that she has sold 50 million records.... —ArreJLover 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nathan, please show me where the guideline for any sales to be shown on Wikipedia are on that list. Come on, I'll wait for it. I'm annoying you? That's a laugh and a half. Where the fuck is my OR? Please, lead me toward the direction of it. OR is information that a source does not exist; you've seen one. Statυs (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it seems virtually impossible for her record sales to even be 60 by this day. If she had sold 55 million-50 million or even 48 million before 2011, she sold 8.2 million on On the Floor, 1.4 million on Dance Again, 1 million of Love? and roughly 1 million based on worldwide sales of her singles I'm Into You+Papi. That would be well over 50,55, or 60 million records. Let's not say people are annoying just because they seem to agree with a writer from the LA times over you...:) —ArreJLover 07:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Good Lord. Can you two just stop. You've clearly missed the point several flipping times already. You CANNOT have her listed st 70 million and link to a page listing 50. Its a blatant contradiction. What's so hard to understand!? And your OR is trying to pass on a claim that she easily could have so;d another 20 million in the last 2 years. Got it? And Arre, you think it sounds accurate? Her certifications add up to 26 million, how the hell has she then sold 70 million? DOn't tell me no crap about her label not paying to have her certified, because all her releases are over-certified if anything. Its not like she has 3 million selling US releases with no certs. And before you come with crap that this last bit is my OR, its not. Its a strong consensus that binds the list YOU LINK TO. Sorry I'm trying to keep her page from outrageously inflated claims and establish a well-regarded consensus. You want more editors to comment? Any editor that knows anything about sales/certifications would agree with the consensus there. Ask Kevin for God's sake, I guarantee you he would laugh at this number.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 07:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess you missed where I said that the link to the list could be removed. Quite frankly, I can't deal with you anymore. Now you're claiming she is over-certified. What the hell is your problem? Seriously? Can you provide a reliable source for that information? Statυs (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm hard to deal with because I speak the truth when apparently that's not a language you can understand. Do me a favor, no personal attacks please. I know you have a hard time keeping your cool, but try ;) Now let's go at it again from the top. What of her decent selling works have not been certified? All her early albums are all to date. So where does this BS "her label didn't have it certified" come in? Just face it, her sales are inflated. End of story. That solves half the problem. It can stay this way for now, but I want a discussion on the sales number, not just fans coming to defend a number they "know" to be true (its not, in case you didn't catch the sarcasm :)).--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 07:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean linking to a source that says 50 million? It was linked to the LA times source, before you changed it..and now it is fixed... Also, I find that offensive that you think this is the number "know to be true"...Then why in recent times has that been reported in the media as her record sales? Whatever...sorry if you are offended or anything. It's just, for 2 years her record sales were reported at 55million, so for it to now be 70 million only makes sense. Sorry, that's just my opinion. Yes, I'm a fan of hers, but if she didn't have the year or sales she has had, I would agree with you said she has sold 50-55 million. MuchLove. —ArreJLover 11:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Arre, you were missing the point. This bio listed her at 70 million and the page linked to, List of best-selling music artists, claims 50. That's the contradiction. Also, record companies always inflate artists sales for promotional purposes. Look at Michael Jackson, they claim 750 million for him when its somewhere near 350. News agencies, unfortunately, a lot of times quote these false claims made by the labels. That is why we pay attention to certifications, in order to give us an example of her sales. Arre, understand that Jlo's certifications in the US (which is equal to probably 40-50% of worldwide sales) equal at around 17 million (albums and singles). Hence, her total number is around 26 million. As an example, Britney Spears is listed at 100 million records, her US sales equal 41 million and a worldwide total of 66 million. How is Jlo, with nearly a third going to sell nearly as much? Britney has 2' diamond albums, Jlo has one 3 and 4 platinum. Also, to answer to Status' question. Britney is a perfect example of an artist who is under-certified (her certification should actually be much higher. Her singles "Womanizer", "3", "HIAM", "TTWE" (and those are just the big ones, remain uncertified in the US (that would be an extra 10 million right there). See my point?--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I agree, you're right about Britney. JLo too has un-certified singles like Do It Well which sold be gold, and others like "All I Have" etc which definitely should have at least a gold certification. She seems like an under certified artist too, i mean, she had one song alone sell 8 million, and one of her lowest-selling albums sell 1 million...that's 9 million+ all together, and she's only sold 17 million balance? No. I don't really care about the statistics needed for that list, to be honest. But i would like to say, her label and website only listed her record sales as 70 million after the media did. You've proven your point, though. —ArreJLover 06:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Influences section

What about the influences on her acting? Statυs (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rita Moreno is one, It's in legacy for some reason, it should be moved to influences. —ArreJLover 05:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Leading roles

Why are so many of her films left out? Where are Gigli and Shall We Dance? She is a leading star in the movie. Just because her name comes after Gere or Affleck doesn't have anything to do with it. She is the leading female actress.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 01:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The only ones listed on this page are the ones in which she is billed first in. Statυs (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand that. My question is why? She is a leading actor in the others I listed, regardless of whether her name is first or second.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, I've changed the title of the section. All her other roles can be seen here. Statυs (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Recognized as being the definition of America's sweetheart"

... is a ridiculous description that doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. There is no subjective way to be "the definition of America's sweetheart" and a description like this is totally unencyclopedic. This is just a phrase some blog used to describe her. It already appears in the Celebrity status and image section, and there's no good reason for it to appear in the lead paragraph, let alone qualified with the vague "Recognized as" as if there's some sort of broad consensus on this subjective-to-the-point-of-meaningless statement. JudahH (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded it. That kind of source is not representative of popular opinion, not to mention that the sentence was not written in NPOV. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This was fixed over a month ago. What you changed had nothing to do with what JudahH was talking about. Also, you introduced some grammar errors as well as accuracy errors in your rewording. Statυs (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, check my changes below the lead. And try fixing the grammar instead of reverting it. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Re: your edit comments: So you want to turn this into a personal issue, Status. You think I'm adding OR into the article? If I were you, I'd try reading for a turn. The non-NPOV single-source claim/synthesized sentence was already in the article. If you didn't read this completely, I merely reworded the sentence in the second part of my edit (not talking about lead paragraph, but that's what I also did for that part). When you reverted my changes, you just added OR by re-adding this: "Lopez has been said to have epitomized the definition of America's sweetheart, having crept into millions of homes with her music, movies, accessories and clothing lines." This is pov opinion and the source does not represent the general consensus/public.

As we can see from your block logs, it seems you have recently acquired a tendency to violate policy and edit war. So, if you revert again, you will violate 3RR and I will report you to ANI in addition to your behavior and comments/attacks against me/other editors. You've been editing since 2010? You should know proper behavior and policies. Also, you have no right to have filemover/rollback/reviewer abilities when you can't read something simple like this, follow policies correctly or exercise proper oversight. Maybe these rights should be revoked? Btw, thanks Till, for removing the single-sourced claim from the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And I'm warning you two, Arre and Status. You do not own the article no matter how many edits you may have made to this specific one. If you try to obstruct any updates or beneficial changes in order to push your own opinions/beliefs/agendas rather than maintain a NPOV, I won't hesitate to report both of you. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful M0rphzone. Calling a user "too blind and ignorant" is an attack. I understand your frustration, but it does not leave you free of being reported for personal attacks. Discuss the edits, not the editor's skill to read or understand. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with everything you said. I'm sick of editors being reverted for no good reason because they don't "like" the changes that others make to the article. WP:OWN states it very clear: work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will. Till 12:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In Status's defense though, one of those blocks listed in the log was inappropriate. That still doesn't give him an excuse to revert, the claim was terribly sourced and failed WP:NPOV. Also don't see the reason for reverting the copyedit, he had used the word "is" twice in one sentence. Till 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually just saying I was turning this into a personal issue, when you're the one talking about my blocks and user rights, unrelated to this at all? Let's take a look at what you said, shall we? "Lopez 's influence is widespread with her music, movies, accessories and clothing lines present in millions of homes." Show me in the source where it says her music, movies, accessories and clothing lines are PRESENT (meaning inside) millions of homes? That was my problem with your damn edit. I think it appears you should be the one reported M0rphzone, as you are quite close to personal attacks. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Statυs (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

M0rphzone, I don't know why you mentioned me. I reverted Till because It didn't imply that that line was from multiple sources; but if that was a violation of POV, forgive me. It was a suitable line for the section. Maybe the source could be written instead of just removing it altogether? You won't hesitate to report me for one rv? I agree with Status about that edit you made on the 'present' re-wording. Arre 15:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been looking at this discussion closely. In no way is this a 'warning', however.... M0rphzone, sorry if you are frustrated with edits that have been made but telling Status he 'sure doesn't seem experienced' or implying he could have been too 'blind' or 'ignorant' isn't the way to voice your concern for the matter, and Status is obviously upset by this. You did fix these comments, but they aren't erasable; please be sure to address fellow Wikipedians with a cool-headed respective manner. Thanks, Arre 16:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. You are uninvolved in this, Arre, as you have not attacked me or made any inappropriate (edit) comments. I merely referenced you because I saw you were also a major contributor/editor of this article. As for my comments, I believe I have the right to refactor or retract my statements do I not? Yes, they can be seen in the history, but I have already retracted them since they violate policy. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that Yes, it's good that you have retracted your comments; but try not to say them in the first place. As a user observing this discussion, I haven't noted Status personally insulting/attacking you. Thanks, Arre 04:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anyways, irrelevant issues aside, the original issue brought up by JudahH has been removed. As he said, "there is no subjective way to be "the definition of America's sweetheart" and a description like this is totally unencyclopedic. This is just a phrase some blog used to describe her. It already appears in the Celebrity status and image section, and there's no good reason for it to appear in the lead paragraph, let alone qualified with the vague "Recognized as" as if there's some sort of broad consensus on this subjective-to-the-point-of-meaningless statement." - M0rphzone (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I never added nor am I talking about it being in the lead. That was resolved a long time ago. It isn't in the celebrity status and image section. Arre 09:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(I wasn't actually talking to you; the outdent is to jump out the comment). Oops, I misread his post, but this is what I removed. It seemed to be a copy of what JudahH was referring to, and I removed it anyways per above reasons and in edit comments. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know you what are referring to. Forgive me, I thought you were talking to me because the last six comments have been between you and I. Arre 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)