Talk:Sabrina Carpenter

Songwriter status

It's been debated several times via edit summaries whether Sabrina is classed as a songwriter or not. This is because she has wrote the majority of her own songs, but doesn't write for other people. Personally, I would class her as a singer-songwriter, rather than just a singer. What are everyone's thoughts on this? – DarkGlow (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to ping Geraldo Perez, as he's better at explaining what qualifies somebody for either "songwriter" or "singer-songwriter" status. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at her credits, it doesn't look like she is the sole songwriter on any of her stuff, just part of a team of writers. It is common for singers to have some creative input to the songs they sing and get listed with the professional songwriters in the credits, in my opinion more as a courtesy than anything else. They don't divide out who does what in the credit, I suspect her input is restricted to the lyrics with melody written by someone else. Singer-songwriters write both lyrics and melody on the stuff they perform and generally don't need help, Taylor Swift is an exemplar. The fact she doesn't write songs for others is more of an indication that songwriting is not a profession, more a adjunct to her singing where she has some creative input to the songs she sings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

She's wrote for others briefly. She co-wrote for a duo named Aquila for their song 'Stupid Not to Try' as well as co-wrote 'Heaven is You' by Joshua Bassett. Those are the only two I know of but there could be more. Aw2000921 (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

she also done a collab with Austinstevenmoon(Madanraj) and Nolan Frank music on 14 may 2014. It was his first collab with Sabrina Carpenter and with her band members — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwerson (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

She has co-written most of her own songs, just like a number of singers classified as songwriters. There is no reason to doubt her status here, and it should in reinstated, in my view. Childeroland (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't know why its not included. Whether or not people think its notable, its what she does. She just released her album, and she is listed a songwriter on EVERY SINGLE SONG IN IT. Plus she has written many of her other songs. I just makes no sense as to why it is not included. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

She contributes to a songwriting team, I don't see anything she has written on just her own. The others on the team are the professional songwriters, she is the singer who gives input as to what she wants them to write for her and gets a credit for that contribution. Per MOS:ROLEBIO songwriting is not an independent notable activity, it is just an adjunct to her notable career as a singer. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Footnote "b" in MOS:ROLEBIO states "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox photo, 2024

@PHShanghai and Ronherry: Didn't realize there was a past discussion on the infobox photo. But consensus can change and I think there are better options to be chosen.

• 
  A (2020, current)
• B (2019)
  B (2019)
• 
  C (2020)

More on Commons. Among these three, my preference is B or C equally; A seems of lower quality being so straight-on and kind of frozen, hard to articulate. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer A, more even lighting. B and C have her face partially shadowed. Also her facial expression in A looks more natural. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Vote for C. Either B or C is fine, but the latter is more recent. "A" is very blurry. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A is fine and high quality besides it's the closest to what she looks like now. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I vote for C. C is the best. Her face is relaxed with a gentle smile. Plus, she's looking directly into the camera. In A, she's looking somewhere else, and is relatively less quality (less defined in pixels) than the other two. B is old. C is the best choice. ℛonherry☘ 05:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In the past few days, a couple of additional photos have popped up (three if counting a cropped version of one of them separately), replacing what was in the infobox. I have restored the image in the infobox to option A, which was the one present showing at the time the discussion here was started a couple of months ago. Also, in that time, option B has no longer become available (deleted photo). Here's an update of the available photos that should be considered, with B excluded.

• 
  A (2020, current)
• 
  C (2020)
• 
  D (2021)
• 
  E (2024)
• 
  F (2021, cropped version of D)

I will also note that just because it's the most recent doesn't necessarily mean we go with that one. I'm not too particular about which to go with, but the three added ones just don't seem right and especially E. So if I had to make a pick, I would stick with A. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A further comment: I don't know whether the year on D and F is correct (this is what was shown in the image's file name). It appears from the source, some YouTube video, that it's a lot more recent ... as in this year, around the time of "Espresso". MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)