Talk:Sugababes/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Spiral and Red Dress

If Spiral is going to be released then is it still necessary to list Red Dress because it is unlike that one will be released shortly after the other because they tend to wait until a single has left the charts before releasing the next one. KittenKlub 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiral is William Orbit's single not the sugababes. It will be 'Spiral' William Orbit FEAT. sugababes.

Spiral is available on William Orbit's new album "Hello Waveforms", it's also available as a multitrack mixer so you can make your own remix via the "OrbitMixer" at williamorbit.com, there's also other mixes to appear on William's web site very soon.

William Orbit will be doing all the promotion for that track, which is why, aparently Mutya agreed to do it....

Re-release question

This is more of a question than concern. Are the album sales for Taller In More Ways counting the re-release sales? Thx in advance. shakilover 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Guinness World Records

I deleted the award "add" of Guiness World Records, stating that the Sugababes won Best Female Act of the Century. "Best" is an opinion, so I don't think the Sugababes have received such an award by Guiness. --Soetermans 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They HAVE received an award for it.

Check the official site, bud they have infact recieve such an award including the word "best" in it. DarkCastle 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies. Surely you agree that such an award seems a little strange, coming from Guiness World Records. --Soetermans 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

DarkCastle, can you provide a specific citation? I can't find a reference to this. --Yamla 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked on the Guiness site and can find no mention. --Yamla 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

When i said official site, i meant the Sugababes official site, theres also a citation from a website(s). DarkCastle 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide a URL? Their official website doesn't work for me (falsely claims I don't have flash 7 installed, though really we shouldn't link to their site if it requires proprietary browser plugins) and I can't find a reliable source elsewhere. A few google hits, some of which, like answer.com, really refer to the Wikipedia article, and some unreliable hits. --Yamla 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's one (the first links the citation on the sugababes page), [1],[2], [3] and several forums commenting on the fact that they recieved the award. DarkCastle 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These are not really reliable sources. We need a link directly to Guiness rather than to chat forums or unreliable reviews. Guiness does not give out awards like this. They aren't in the business of judging the best female act of the century. That said, they may well call the award this but justify it based on ticket sales or the like. Nevertheless, I am deeply unsatisfied with the citations given thus far, particularly as the Guiness Records site refuses to confirm this. As such, I have removed the award from the article itself. --Yamla 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Most noticeable error, references go right after a full-stop or comma, no spacing
Years with dates example, 13 November 2006 should be wikilinked to November 13, 2006
Buena gave birth to a daughter, sounds really cheesy, try reword it
External link to a fansite, which is a no-no, also the IMDB link is pointless
"Easy" was released on CD the week prior to the hits compilation album, and peaked at number eight in the UK Single Charts. released as a single you mean?
Since they were 8, eight and fourteen as these numbers are low
The Sugababes are a girl band that formed in London, England in 1998., remove 'that' also what style of music do they play?
They have released seventeen singles, how many albums?
The lead needs serious work, its basically , they were the first, they also.. they were

References and images are fine, goodluck M3tal H3ad 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that review. Thought it would take 1+ weeks to get one. Have done changes where noted. DarkCastle 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues addressed, i will promote this to GA. My advice is try incorporate the album sales into each album section and don't reference it in the lead. Also expand the lead and go for a peer review if you want to bring it up to FA quality. M3tal H3ad 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and will take it into consideration for FA DarkCastle 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed reference 18 is in the middle of a sentence, move it to the end or add a comma and it will be fine :) M3tal H3ad 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! DarkCastle 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good To Be Gone

If it is at all possible, please leave each letter starting with a word in capital letters for "Good To Be Gone." I noticed a pattern in changes for the song being typed as "Good to be Gone" or such other similar typing. The title typed as "Good To Be Gone," is the correct punctuation for the title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misteeqfan3 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Good To Be Gone release date

In the Overloaded section it says GTBG was expected to be released on 29th January 2006 - shouldn't that be 2007? --CC 91 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Walk This Way

Can somebody please make an article on the new Comic Relief single? Im hoping to have it said Walk This Way (Girls Aloud Song) (Sugababes song), so both Wikipedias of Sugababes and Girls Aloud could share the same information since its more of a group singing rather than just one artist being portrayed as the lead singer and the other is just a guest appearance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misteeqfan3 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

LPMA 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia protocole on covers of songs is to list them in the existing article. See other Girls Aloud singles for example. So we can't create a new page for this one.

Then how about we do it like Girls Aloud's covers? I tried doing it before but somebody deleted it, which pisses me off a bit.

"Replacement"

Wouldn't you prefer "substitute" too? Does not sound so "mechanical", as a replacement of parts inside a machine ;) -andy 80.129.114.20 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Certification

The Sugababes have three triple platinum albums.

Angels with Dirty Faces sold over 900,0000. Three shipped over 900,000 but sold over 847,000. Taller in More Ways shipped 900,000 but sold 877,000.

Each one mean its been certified Triple Platinum so stop bring Three and Taller down to Double Platinum when they are triple platinum and have the sources above them in the certificationn box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy2 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the BPI website for confirmation. Anyone care to contribute to solve this ongoing dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveem (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

UK or England?

There is a little bit of inconsistency in the main Sugababes article in that the background information table says London, England, while the main article says London, UK. I know you can put both down but I thought it would be better to stick either to England or UK. I would have prefer it to be the UK as England is part of the UK. Manm hk 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

England and U.K. are both the same thing, just a different use. Such as like America and United States are the same thing.

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are in the UK and they're not England. CC 91 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Some how i dont think they like being called "England" as England is only one country out of four.

Actually, American and the United States is different. When someone says to me: "I'm going to America?", I automically say: "Where abouts?" and normally it's the US. However, to me America could be from Canada to Panama. LemonZebras 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

England and UK are not the same thing, as England is part of the UK, so that's impossible. America and the USA are also different, USA is part of America. Saying someone is from England is fine, and saying that same person is from the UK is also fine. I feel the best option would be to put London, England because England is still a country, even though it's part of the UK. Articles such as The Beatles, Genesis (band) (featured article) and Pink Floyd (featured article) all put from England, so I will change it back to from England, keeping the same style for all bands. — jacĸrм (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian #1s

I'm not sure if the Russian chart positions are correct for some singles, but if they are they need to be added to the Number Ones table. Could someone please cite them or delete them so they can be added. Charmer 08:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If noone cites them i will change the #1 singles chart to this:

Number-one singles

Year	Title	Album	Chart positions
Year	Title	Album	UK	IRE	POL	DEN	AUT	NZ	TAN	RUS	CRO	EU
2002	"Freak Like Me"	Angels with Dirty Faces	1	2	15	14	22	25	18		5	9
2002	"Round Round"		1	2	6	3	8	2	1		3	3
2003	"Shape" with Sting		11	9	1	16	50	-	25		12	29
	"Hole in the Head"	Three	1	2	1	1	5	11	6	1	2	3
	"Too Lost in You"		10	13	6	17	26	31		1		11
2004	"In the Middle"		8	13	3	-	27	8		1		29
2004	"Caught in a Moment"		8	28	4	-	-	-		1		-
2005	"Push the Button"	Taller in More Ways	1	1	1	3	1	1	1		1	1
2006	"Ugly"	Taller in More Ways	3	7	2	4	14	5		1		15
2007	"Walk This Way" with Girls Aloud	for Comic Relief	1	14	7	-	-	-	-		10	15
	"About You Now"	Change	1	2	8	12	4	20	1		1	4
	"Change"	Change	26	47					1
Total Number-one hits			6	1	3	1	1	1	4	5	2	1

Charmer (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New photo

Any chance we can get a photo with the current members in it? 82.5.97.136 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

British tabloid

It's very, very late here and I need to go to bed, but that new paragraph at the end of the British Tabloid section is appalling. Can someone please go through it, punctuate anything worth saving and get rid of the rest? Thanks Faerie Queene (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Overloaded (section)

Whomever is continuing to change the Overloaded: The Singles Collection section, please leave it as is. We as fans should keep the page looking neat and in order just as it looks from the beginning. The article that is currently up for the section is an example of how it should be and should not be changed. So please do not change it once again. Thank you for your consideration.

response: The changes you talk about are not mine but i disagree. As "fans" you should not be doing anything with the page. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be biased. Information which is agreeable or not should be published free of bias. "Fans" have no place in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.13.92 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To the pervert who rearranged the Overloaded tracklistings in an inappropriate matter. I have reported you.

Brit nomination

in 2004 the sugababes recevied a Brit nominated for the song in the middle can someone put it in the awards box please. 18 April 2008 3.35pm --92.12.40.142 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture and articles

can someone get a really nice picture of the sugababes with amelle in mutya left ages ago and also can you also put in an article for sponsorship deals because they were sponsored by purple Sony Ericsson K770i Cyber-shotTM phone, can you put it in their Wilkipedia. can someone also put in an article about the sugababes deal with Deichanan Shoes in their Wilkipedia please. 18 April 2008 3.30pm --92.12.40.142 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Marcus648 (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Sugababes more hits than any female act" :
- {{cite web | work= |title=BBC - Sugababes - more hits than any female act | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6055250.stm | accessdate = 2007-11-19}}
- {{cite web | work= |title=BBC - Sugababes - more hits than any female act | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6055250.stm | accessdate = 2006-10-16}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a new section to the article about Deichmann shoes and the references went all freaky with different articles citing the same references as those that I posted, but I think it's sorted out now Marcus648 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Catfights and Spotlights

I need a better name for that part of the article. It is about Sugababes next album / future work. I wasn't sure what to call that part.

Thx Hdk94 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not needed.

Loveem (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (GMT)

... meaning that this is more the kind of content that you'd find in a forum or blog, but not in an encyclopaedic article. The section was talking about their future intentions, which are prone to changes, and not really of encyclopaedic notability. I hope you agree.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Split

I read in News of the World on Sunday that the Sugababes had split up. But, there isn't a inch of this on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.60.31 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No one's added a cited reference yet. Numerous editors have tried to add uncited speculation, and they've been reverted. Has anything official been announced, or is this just speculation from the NotW? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Spilt has been confirmed via the Sugababes website as well as being reported as official by Sky News. The article should be changed to incorporate the split. FenrirRising (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you have a reference, could you make the change? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the website states that they aren't splitting, it states: "please stay tuned for some massive news coming very soon about the next exciting part of our careers…", so the page is now fine. 86.134.225.89 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! They state last weekend's claim is completely untrue - "nothing could be further from the truth!" This reinforces why it's so important to use reliable sources for references, and not rush to repeat tabloid rumours. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mexican flu

The Mirror says two of the girls have come down with the swine flu. Worth a mention? http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/3am/2009/07/23/sugababes-struck-down-with-swine-flu-115875-21540714/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.189.117 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Amelle leaving/offical split rumour

Somebody edited the box listing Amelle as a former member and adding Jade Ewen as a current member. I have changed it back until we hear something from a credible and/or official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamking (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 September 2009

Will be constant issued for next day or two. Have requested Semi-protection of page. SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One slightly dubious source confirms. [4]. SunCreator (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Sun in this case. Most news sites are saying "apparently" and "according to reports". It still hasn't been confirmed that Amelle has quit. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Its been confirmed earlier on Digital Spy. AB has officially quit the group amid fears of her safety from Keisha Bunchanan and been replaced by Jade Ewan.

Do the band make official announcements through DigitalSpy, or is DigitalSpy citing the band's usual official channel?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a178081/amelle-berrabah-quits-sugababes.html Its confirms her leaving and annouces replacement as Jade Ewan

No, it says Amelle Berrabah has allegedly quit the Sugababes, According to Heatworld, the singer has parted ways with Keisha Buchanan and Heidi Range following rumours of a rift in the group, An insider said: "I've been told off the record that Jade is joining the Sugababes"", a statement from Jade's label has also hinted that there could be truth in the new speculation. This isn't official, it doesn't confirm anything, it's gossip and rumour. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC) My bold; italics are original quotes

The question mark in the headline is a big clue too. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted Amelle this afternoon and will release a statement as and when i get it... so watch this space... (FYI: Contact throught twitter)

And "I spoke to someone at The Sun, trust me" does not constitute a reliable source. An official statement from the band, from their label, or such a statement quoted in a newspaper does. At the moment we are still doing with gossip - but now the gossip has moved to "an editor on Wikipedia claims to have spoken to a journalist at The Sun who claims it's legitimate." Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually you could do with checking my link above. It's from the sun; but even that is not a wp:rs SunCreator (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, seen it - The Sun isn't quoting the band or the label, or any form of official statement - they're simply reporting rumour ("A source said: ...") as fact, while acknowledging that "A spokesman for the group refused to confirm or deny ...". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to follow all the Sugababes and Jade on Twitter in case they deny or confirm the rumour :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Amelle Berrabah and Jade Ewen both getting similiar rumour edits without a reliable confirmation. SunCreator (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted The Sun directly regarding this they have said they have spoken to the girls manager early this morning, and he confirmed that the girls are splitting AND will not be completeing or releasing Sweet 7.

That's original research, and isn't OK because it can't be verified. You still need to wait until The Sun publish, and you can cite the source. Incidentally, the words underlined in blue in my post link to relevant policies and guidelines which may help you understand why this claim can't be made at this time. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Amelle is leaving the band.

If I try and contact somebody from the record label would that help??

If you get someone from the label to release an official statement that would help; reporting that "you've spoken to someone" would still be original research and unverifiable. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Read this. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, seen it. SunCreator (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So we can safely say that Jade Ewen will is not joining the Sugababes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Listening to BBC Radio 1 now and they claim that she has left the group with Jade replacing her. Probably still not reliable though. StephenBHedges (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an old rumour from Radio 1, the rumour has been denied in the Sunday press. SunCreator (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the alleged Sugababe member that will be leaving has now been revealed to be Keisha not Amelle and yes Jade Ewen will replace her. Blueknightex (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Personnel section

I've added a Personnel section to the page stating the terms the bandmembers were there for and a chart showing the overlap of tenures. Although the section is very bare and an ardent fan is likely to remove it, I think the chart is at least worth keeping somewhere within the page (probably a bit smaller in size) to show the changes physcially in band members instead of reading it. steveking89 09:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Accents

Having lived in England my entire life leads me to ask a quick question, if the Sugarbabes are from London why do they all speak with scouse accents (Liverpool / Merseyside (which is 200 miles away))....or have I missed something obvious like they all speak scouse in London or maybe The Beatles are from London too? Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.107.192 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The group are from London. Heidi Range is from Liverpool, and has a scouse accent. None of the other current or former members have scouse accents. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Past members infobox wording

Musicfan83 added the text "Original Members that started the sugababes <br/>" to the infobox in the "past members" section. I've removed it, only to be reverted twice for no reason at all and by two accounts. I don't see why this text needs to be added: it's not standard in any other type of infobox, plus, it's mentioned later on in the article regarding the former Sugababes. Acalamari 00:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been reverted again for no reason at all. As with the image issue above, I've given reasons for my reverts, but the people (or person with different IPs?) who have reverted here haven't bothered to provide any reason to revert other than a blanket undo. It would be nice to hear reasons. Acalamari 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Reverted again, this time with a reason, but only telling me to stop reverting and that the text "is relevant" and "should stay" with no reason why it's relevant or should stay. I'm actually tired of the apparent refusal to discuss/lack of replies here, so I've asked another editor to comment. Acalamari 19:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the editor again to join this discussion and explain why he finds this change important. It's not actually wrong, just rather unusual, so I think everyone can live with the current version for a short while. Amalthea 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

While several editors have made modifications in that regard, only those opposing the addition of "Original Members that started the sugababes" in the infobox have laid out their reasoning. Therefore, unless reasoning in favor is presented here during the next one or two hours, consensus is very clear. Amalthea 15:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, it has been removed by yet another editor. Consensus is clearly against it, and it should not be added back without a prior discussion and a new consensus on this talk page.
Amalthea 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that the edit war has continued over the last few days while I've been away, but I've now just come across this piece of vandalism to the Heidi Range article from this morning and a revert from the IP to restore it. Acalamari 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Details Template

Ok. The sections in history are named after the albums, yet the sections mostly talk about what was going on in the Suga Universe during the conceptions of these albums, not the album its self. I added the details template for people who want information on the album. It has been done in many a music article. The template says "For more details on the album, see...". IHelpWhenICan (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
well, yes, because those sections are part of the parent section "History": They aren't supposed to get into detail about the albums, the intention is to detail the band history here, and a convenient structure for readers is often to break down the information into periods correlated with album releases, which is more meaningful for most readers than pure dates. The discography section, where actual information about the albums should be placed, is in turn usually completely split out into the respective album articles, and contains nothing but a list of article links.
Have a look at some featured band articles, please, like Metallica, Big Star, or Audioslave. In contrast, other band articles don't structure their history section by albums, like AC/DC or Genesis (band), so again the album articles are mainly linked to from prose, discography section, and navbox.
Amalthea 04:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I wont argue. Do what you feel. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring. Today: band membership date ranges.

Ok, I'm getting sick of the edit warring on this page. Apparently, there is a dispute about date ranges describing the time of membership of the current and past members of this band. I'd think it's a trivial issue, but apparently contentious enough that editors continue to revert each other over it so let's have it: Why is this so good/bad that this is necessary? It's apparently at the core of some POV pushing that none of the "real" Sugababes are left in the band, but let's discuss this rationally and maturely, shall we?
In my opinion, I find the date ranges in the infobox useful, and see no reason why they shouldn't remain there. We have the room, they don't make it unclear or confusing, they give a concise overview of the membership history. What are the reasons against them? Amalthea 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I don't care much about whether the band is the "real" Sugababes or not. That's for others to discuss. My main concern is about the infobox not getting too cluttered. But if it's absolutely necessary for the logic of the article to keep the years of membership in the infobox, I won't fuss. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bothered with the dates staying there unless there's some infobox standard against them; however, I am concerned with the manner that the dates have been added: most of Musicfan83's edits and 82.23.144.111's are to revert-war to preserve their own edits (with the exception of this vandalism), and Musicfan83 just re-added the dates with an explanation citing "confusion" as the reason to keep the dates in, though all of the edit-warring over the last couple of weeks appears more to be like subtle POV pushing against the current members of the Sugababes as the original members are no longer in the band. Acalamari 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about the intent, but the idea was in my opinion still worthy of consideration. Amalthea 09:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus that, to keep infoboxes uncluttered, we just list the names there. Article text is the place for other stuff. --John (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of that, but consulting Template:Infobox musical artist/doc you are correct. So, seeing that only I argued in favor, with Musicfan83 deciding to not taking part in the discussion, and in absence of an explicit consensus for an exception here, we'll stick to the infobox standard and do not add the date ranges. Amalthea 09:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Heidi's solo?!

why does it say heidi didn't complete solomaterial?? it is comfirmed she features on a shayne ward song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanvd (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Current image

A few days ago, SqueakBox moved the image of the third line-up of the Sugababes from lower down the article to the infobox, but he made sure that the caption clearly stated that the image displayed the previous line-up, not the current. I don't have any objection to this move (we don't seem to have a free image of the line-up with Jade Ewen yet), but ever since he did, IPs have been removing the image for no reason at all, see [5][6][7][8][9]. Why the determination to remove the image when no one was removing it before? Acalamari 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think my move was justified; sure if we could get an image of the current line up that would be better but as someone who wants to see a recognisable image of whichever band I am looking for on wikipedia I feel what i did was fully justifiable; I suggest a semi-protection request if no good reasons are provided here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs came back to remove it (again with no explanation) so I left a note on their talk page asking them to discuss here. If this continues, semi-protection is probably a good idea (though I won't be the one to protect it as I've reverted the IPs a few times). Acalamari 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't You Got A Better Image That One Is Disgusting, They All look, fat and tired/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.0.214 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The current images that are better seem to be all fair-use images, which can easily be replaced as the band is intact and new pictures can still be taken of them: the current free image should not be replaced by copyrighted images. The image you have just replaced the current image with has no status, is likely a copyrighted image, and as such should not be used to replace any free images. Simply not liking an image is not a reason to replace it with copyrighted images. Acalamari 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding it, like you have done again: I've explained to you here why we can't use that image, and there are edit summaries in the page history telling you why we can't use that image. If you keep revert-warring to add a copyvio image, you'll end up being blocked. Acalamari 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the article has been protected for 3 days, though I can't say I'm happy with the reasons recommended for protection, as I actually have tried above to discuss the current issue. So far, the two reasons for removing the image have been: (1) a case of not liking the image, (2) it's an outdated picture (though as I stated above, SqueakBox gave the image a decent caption to show it's not the current line-up). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks. Acalamari 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another anonymous IP removed the image again. I'll leave it to the authors to restore as it seems to be a topic of discussion here. Perspeculum (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the picture of the 3rd lineup? Mutya Buena and Keisha Buchanan are no longer in the band. Please remove it and update this to the current lineup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate18 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected status

I think this and the album sweet7 should both be semi protected and only members can edit as i have had to remove silly fan garbage alot of the time like twitter names Nbeau1989 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RPP. fetchcomms☛ 23:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture

Why do people insist on having other lineups as the main picture? The current lineup in Amelle, Heidi and Jade. They should be in the picture. Please update this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate18 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't have a picture that was licensed under a compatible free license by the copyright owner or was released into the public domain, we have little choice. It's either showing no image, or one showing an older lineup of the topic. Amalthea 23:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sugababes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

Large sections of the article appear to be unsourced. A small sampling:
- "...having won the award for Best British Dance Act. Their success led to the recording of a new track, entitled "Party in the Club", for the theme tune to ITV's teenage drama show Girls in Love, based on the book of the same name by Jacqueline Wilson."
- "The album was preceded by Xenomania-produced lead single "Hole in the Head", which became the groups's third UK number-one single and their first chart-topper in Denmark. It also reached number two in Ireland, Netherlands and Norway, and became the Sugababes' first single to chart in the US, reaching number ninety-six on the Billboard Hot 100 and the top of the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart."
- "The second single, the Diane Warren-penned "Too Lost in You", appeared on the soundtrack to the film Love Actually (2003) and went top ten in Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. The album's third single, "In the Middle", was released in 2004 and garnered the group another BRIT Award nomination for Best Single; like its successor, the ballad "Caught in a Moment", it went to number eight on the UK Singles Chart."
- "The third single from Taller in More Ways was a re-recorded version of "Red Dress", which was released in early 2006, and gave the Sugababes a third consecutive top five hit from the album, entering the UK singles chart at number four. Berrabah re-recorded three tracks and co-wrote a brand new track with Buchanan and Range, and these tracks appeared on a re-release of Taller in More Ways that reached number 18 in the UK chart."
- All the the "Members" section; as this appears to be a major WP:BLP issue I think unless well-sourced much of the commentary should be axed.
What makes Gm.tv, Ilikemusic, Celebrity Link, Artist Direct, thehiphopchronicle, Digital Spy, Spoonfed, Pop Justice, Youtube, contactmusic, and fortheone reliable sources? Furthermore, all citations need to be fully and consistently formatted, in whatever form you wish (but right now there are a mish-mash of incomplete templates.) There are lots of dead/redirect links!
A paragraph must have at least three full sentences. Many groupings, i.e."All members, former and current, with the exception of Heidi Range, have completed solo work.", are not only unsourced but incomplete.
The laundry list that is "Notable television appearances" needs to be cut down. Likewise, the last section covering just over a year is a whopping 12 paragraphs, far more coverage than any other section, and smacks of WP:RECENTISM.

I am putting the article on hold pending upkeep and improvement of the above for one week. Please keep me appraised of progress on this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As no apparent and significant progress has been made in the time alotted, I am delisting the article. You may renominate it at WP:GAN any time, but I encourage addressing the above issues. If you have questions, take it to my talk (I don't watchlist these archived reviews.) Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

http://www.sugababes.com/data/image/sb2_0.jpg< Please may you use this picture as the main picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic95 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC) The caption for the main picture is incorrect, mutya left in 2005, so it can be in 2007! plus Sugababes are no longer signed to Roc Nation, thus you should change it to (2009-2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouchingtiger62 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal

I believe the Sugababes should have a Portal, they are more succsessful than Girls Aloud and they have one. --SitDownOnIt (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lowest selling album in the UK?

"Catfights and Spotlights" is the Sugababes lowest selling album in the UK receiving only Silver certification.[36]

isn't Sweet 7 lowest selling album in the UK?--SveroH (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, don't think so, just 'cause it charted lower, doesn't mean it didn't sell more copies. --SitDownOnIt (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It (Sweet 7) defo didnt sell more copies. 15000 copies in first week earned it starting place of 14 the about 4000 more earned it a place at like #43 in week two. There's no way the album has sold more than 20k copies based on the very fragmented sales figures we have. anyway without a source it is their least commercially successful album because it is not certified.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

New picture, two of them are not even in the group.--L.Geee 07:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGee (talk • contribs)

Historical overview table

The history of this band is pretty complex, so I knocked up the following table:

Extended content

Years	Lineup			Albums	UK #1 Singles	Tours
1998 - 2001	Keisha Buchanan	Mutya Buena	Siobhán Donaghy	One Touch
2001 - 2005	Keisha Buchanan	Mutya Buena	Heidi Range	* Angels with Dirty Faces * Three * Taller in More Ways	* "Freak Like Me" (2002) * "Round Round" (2002) * "Hole in the Head" * "Push the Button" (2005)	* Overload * Angels with Dirty Faces * Three
2005 - 2009	Keisha Buchanan	Amelle Berrabah	Heidi Range	* Taller in More Ways (re-release) * Overloaded (Greatest Hits) * Change * Catfights and Spotlights	* "About You Now" (2007)	* Taller in More Ways * Overloaded * Change
2009 - present	Jade Ewen	Amelle Berrabah	Heidi Range	Sweet 7

Now I am shocked, shocked I say (sense the sarcasm), to find it was immediately reverted by someone else [10], because they think it is "not required" and needs consensus, and they chucked out some vague link to the MoS, as if that helps. All I have to say is I don't give a toss, I absolutley knew someone would throw out my magnanimous offer to this article in this arrogant way, it's par for the course in this period of Wikipedia's development, and I really have no interest in this silly little band to spend any more time on it. I leave the coding here for others to judge whether it helps reader or not, if they feel it might get 'consensus' in future. Why anyone would want to read the article prose for the required amount of time to get the same information that table gives you in a couple of seconds, is beyond me, I want to shoot myself if I read this garbage for more than ten minutes. Adios and have fun kids. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow can we stop please. We have rules outlined at WP:MOS setting the styles for different article types. There are numerous examples of articles with colourful histories which don't have such things. If you want to to introduce something non-standard which drastically changes the nature of an article get a consensus to include it... simple!.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

spoof

The below sentence is from a spoof article, and as such serves as nothing other than an advert for the website it links to. it needs to be removed.

"In September 2010 it was announced that the Sugababes would be nationalised by the government." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.105.122 (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.141.21.43, 27 May 2011

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

please mention that the girls have a new song 'Freedom' which they performed at a festival in Morocco - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiOPVZnxAyU

188.141.21.43 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not donePlease find a reliable source, such as a music retailer, documenting this. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Artical

The artical is terrible. It mostly talks about the line-up changes, not much to do with sucess they've had. Terrible artical!

Like I said below, if you have any information suggesting more success, please feel free to specify so they can be added. Otherwise, it would seem to me that perhaps they have not had as much success as you perceive. Fixer23 (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Intro of the article

Lets get a few things straight.

They weren't named in the Guinness World records as the most sucessful female act
They weren't named in the Guinness World records at all, they were the publisher of British Hit Singles & Albums
They weren't named in any publication as the most sucessful female act
They were named in 2006 by British Hit Singles & Albums as The most successful UK all-female act.

Stating anything other than the last line is incorrect and misleading Torqueing (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Then remove it :) Fixer23 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Please specify what kind of achievements the Sugababes have that have not been mentioned in the introduction. Fixer23 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Also, no one is stopping you from adding to the introduction what you see fit, since you have the editing right. You can pattern it after the Girls Aloud introduction then. Fixer23 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Then do it :) Like I said no one is stopping you if you have the evidence to back it up. Fixer23 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just reread this and the Girls Aloud article. There's really no need for the attitude. Besides what's to admire about the Girls Aloud introduction? As if the Sugababes can claim any of the hilarious "Best Reality Show Creation" awards. Fixer23 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal issues

Shouldn't this article state something about the legal battle over the "Sugababes" brand name with Mutya Buena ? Till I Go Home (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You gonna write it? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely :). Till I Go Home (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm interested on how this turns out, are you working on it (: ? Fixer23 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added it. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Original line-up reformation

I edited the article to include some info sourced from Popjustice's article today on the reformation of the original Sugababes line-up, but I've been reverted by Till I Go Home (talk · contribs). Can I ask why Popjustice shouldn't be considered a reliable source? The website is edited by Peter Robinson, who's written and reported for the likes of The Guardian, NME, Time Out etc.—see Peter Robinson (journalist).

I appreciate the need to avoid rumour-mongering, but the material I included was from established third-party sources. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you also need to look at the quality and prose; is it in a neutral point of view, is it a blog etc. The source you provided can hardly be taken seriously with the style of writing, using words such as "sadface" "happyface". Feel free to add the information again except with this time a more reliable source i.e. BBC, Mirror or the Sun. Till I Go Home (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The website's house style is meant to be satirical and irreverent—hence "sadface", statements in all caps, etc., which is one of the reasons that it's become so well-regarded in the music business. Such is the website's standing that the likes of NME, Music Week, The Mirror (although is a tabloid a reliable source for this sort of thing?), The Huffington Post and the Metro are now reporting on the story, so I'm going to re-add the material with the newest sources included. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See [11] and [12]. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The first article reports that Professor Green has denied that he's recording with the original lineup, not that the reunion isn't happening at all. The second uses two "tweets" from Mutya Buena, neither of which has her unequivocally deny that the reunion is happening, to claim that she has actually denied the rumours... even though she didn't. (The writer also chooses to omit the first part of the statement from Keisha Buchanan's publicist, that she "has been working on a number of exciting projects both old and new." Why is this?)

In any case, we've got one reliable source (Popjustice) reporting one thing (and the "story" then picked up by other reliable sources), another (The Guardian) reporting another thing—not really grounds to remove the paragraph wholesale, is it? The conflicting reports can comfortably be summarised within the article. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best if we just wait to see what happens from here. There have been plenty of rumors concerning the original line-up reunion, plus this is a BLP so we need to be extra cautious of such material. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Let's wait and see. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, some more updates:

MTV News - Emeli Sande says she's writing a song for the original line-up (also reported by NME, 4Music, The Guardian);
Heatworld, Digital Spy - Siobhan Donaghy tweets that an album is due in autumn & a single in summer;
The Press Association - Heidi Range wishes them good luck.

Maybe it's time? Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone please change spelling

As the article is locked I would kindly ask someone with access to change the spelling of "endeavors" (in the "Other endeavors" section) to the British spelling "endeavours". Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎109.125.2.247 (talk • contribs)

Done. Acalamari 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More top tens since...

"they have had more top ten hits with original songs than any other girl group since The Supremes, Destiny's Child, and Bananarama" This sentence is worded poorly and the reference given (a BBC web page) doesn't appear to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.248.226 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this wikipedia article gives enough credit to the Sugababes. If you look at the Girls Aloud article, you will see in the introduction an explanation of their success, their number ones and consecutive top 10 hits. Whereas here, all that is mentioned in the introduction are the line up changes. Where is the fact they are the most successful female act of the 21st century and that they have 6 number ones! I tried adding it but you took it away as I expected, however I think you should consider mentioning it, as no credit of their sales and success has been written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouchingtiger62 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The wording is indeed bad - original songs is awkward (which of The Supremes songs were genuinely original). Besides, having done a count of these acts in the UK; Sugababes have had 18 top 10 hits, Supremes 13, Destiny's Child 14 and Bananarama 10, so they win out anyway. However, Girls Aloud have had 20 (and a higher charting average). --Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mutya Keisha Siobhan as an associated act

I disagree with the new band Mutya Keisha Siobhan being listed as an associated act. I don't think they meet the definition because they didn't form from the Sugababes (the current members of the Sugababes had no role in the formation of this new band), the bands have not worked together; and based on how I read the definition of "associated acts", merely having members in common doesn't, in itself, make bands associated acts of each other. Bringing this here as to not keep reverting, and to have consensus on whether to include them as an associated act or not. Acalamari 13:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

With all the respect Acalamari, I think it should stay because according to this, an associated act can be a group [Mutya Keisha Siobhan] which has spun off from another group [Sugababes]. Till I Go Home 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for commenting, Till I Go Home. :) I did consider that part of the definition, but even then I didn't think the bands in themselves were associated acts because Mutya Keisha Siobhan hasn't really spawned from the Sugababes, rather, it's the original lineup reforming as an entirely new group (of course, I don't dispute whatsoever that both bands should be listed as associated acts of Buena, Buchanan, and Donaghy as they have been part of both). Still, I'll abide by any consensus either way. :) Acalamari 16:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Technically yes, but both Buena and Buchanan have worked with one Sugababe (Heidi Range), plus Buchanan worked with both Amelle Berrabah and Range. Confusing I know, and the history of this band(s) is very complex as it as :S Till I Go Home 23:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    - Okay! Plus, their working together goes beyond just a featured song, which definitely isn't a criterion. I'm happy with that. :) Thanks. Acalamari 18:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Supposed split

Can we not be too hasty in changing the article to say that the Sugababes have split? Reading this article, Jade Ewen wasn't confirming that the band had split and even if she were, Amelle Berrabah is saying the opposite. They are still on hiatus unless something official is stated. Acalamari 11:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sugababes. 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 https://web.archive.org/20080907121727/http://www.brits.co.uk/nominations/40/ to http://www.brits.co.uk/nominations/40/

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 06:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sugababes. 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: 18 January 2022).

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} 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sugababes. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC about the photo

Photo 1. User:Adotchar User talk:Adotchar 10:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick update: The half colour half black & white image was originally uploaded to EN only and the full Black & White image was simply overwritten so I have uploaded both images to Commons separately, Consensus here was to use the B&W one which is at File:SugababesInEntirety (black & white).png), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Which photo should it be? _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Photo 1, includes more people and seems better in the article. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Photo 1. I think using a photo montage is ideal for a group with rotating members. Using a montage with every member (within reason; six members is fine, if there were 25 past and present Sugababes it could be different) seems like it would typically be better than a single lineup among many (unless perhaps there is a consensus "classic" lineup; I don't know anything about Sugababes so I won't presume that the final lineup is their "quintessential" lineup.) It even works well for some groups that have always had one lineup, like Radiohead (using montage) or Led Zeppelin (montage), because it plainly identifies the members' faces on a relatively equal plane without different distances or blocking by anything onstage. I'm not sure how I feel about the aesthetics of Photo 1 in particular as a montage—mixing black and white photos and color photos gives it an odd look, and some members are shown further away than others. Ideally, every member would be framed as closely as possible to the way Jade Ewen is framed on the right, but I understand that not every member will have the same quality of free photos available and you work with what you have. Even with minor quibbles, those things could be tweaked if possible, and regardless I think even a sub-optimal montage of all members would still be better than Photo 2. Plus, with the way that the other three lineups are photographically presented in the article body, it would make chronological sense to place Photo 2 in that era's section, where there is currently a photo of only a single member. If emphasizing that single member is especially important to the group's history at that time, using a vertical arrangement of Photo 2 and File:Jade Ewen Chester Rocks 2011.jpg|the photo of the single member with template:multiple image might be a good option to consider. —BLZ · talk 21:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Photo 1 request for comment bot sent me here. Photo 1 is more representative. Could be turned to all black & white with permission? It would look better on the page. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Photo 1 - Admittingly I do prefer 2 however with 1 I think it's pretty cool that the black & white represents the past and colour being the here & now, Ofcourse if members change again then we'd probably have to settle with 3 in one image but for now photo 1 looks pretty damn cool. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Note: @Netherzone: I made the photo black and white and added it; i'll watch for an edit war as it's been going on in the past few weeks about the picture, which is why I started this RFC. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Adotchar - Not gonna edit war over it but IMHO half b&W and half colour was much much better than having it gully black & white. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: - Feel free to change it if you want, or start another RFC on the color of it, as I was just stopping the edit war over the two pictures. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie I'll start an RFC, Consensus was to use it and quite honestly it's not worth reverting over but I don't ignore consensus anyway, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC about the photo 2

The consensus is to use photo 2. Three editors supported photo 2 (Davey2010, Meatsgains, and Brandt Luke Zorn) and one editor abstained (IHelpWhenICan). IHelpWhenICan noted that he could create a new image. There is no prejudice against introducing a new photo in a new RfC after a few months since Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change notes, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." I recommend pinging the RfC participants here and at Talk:Sugababes/Archive 1#RFC about the photo for any new discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Consensus in the previous RFC was to use photo 1 (full black & white) however IMHO photo 2 (half colour half b&w) is better as it represents those that have left (b&w) and those that are present (colour), Ofcourse if the members gets bigger then we can go with a 3-person image only instead of a montage but anyway I figured I'd start an RFC and get peoples opinions on it, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Support photo 2 - Summoned by bot. As Davey2010 noted, the members in color make a clear distinction between the those that are still with the group as the black and white illustrates those who have left. Meatsgains (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support photo 2 I voiced support in the previous RfC for Photo 2 to become either consistently color or b&w, but not mixed, saying at the time "mixing black and white photos and color photos gives it an odd look." I thought at the time that the mix was random, just a result of what free photos were available or something. Now that I understand that the b&w carries meaning to signify former members, I support Photo 2. As Davey2010 notes, the current illustration is useful now but may change as the group changes. It's clear that there are editors engaged with this article who will be responsive to change the photo if there's a new lineup, if there are too many members over time, or if the band breaks up, destroying the former/current member distinction. I think this is a great illustration to use while the current lineup exists. One minor thing: I still feel like Heidi (third from right) is far away relative to other members. It looks like the Heidi photo is lower-resolution than the others, so zooming in may not look good, but if there's an acceptable higher-res alternative it might be a good idea to get a closer frame of her face. —BLZ · talk 17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Hello. I am the original creator of this photo - seven years ago (time sure does fly)! When creating the image, I did the best that I could at the time. The reason Heidi's picture is so distant is because I couldn't find a better picture at the time. Depending on whatever resolution is reached, I will review some images and see if I can create something that gives the same effect as this image from seven years ago. As far as my opinion on which picture should be used, I think I will abstain from voting because I can see adequate reasons to use either. I kinda find it cool that this pic actually matters in a place like WP, with SO MANY changes and re-dos and etc. I ^help _dןǝɥ I 21:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Comment - Should we keep it in a straight line or should the next one, if a "next one" can be made, be three-over-three? I ^help _dןǝɥ I 21:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I wished you had come when this RFC was started as then I could've put the RFC on hold but anyway to change it again would mean another RFC due to the consensus directly above which I shan't be doing as this one has dragged on long enough, We should probably leave it at the 2 options above and if someone wants it changed in a year or so then they can start another RFC but as it stands it's stupid to close this and fire up another RFC thus wasting a whole month, The lack of comments here is another thing that doesn't help, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sugababes. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=53
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105081933/http://www.bobgeldof.info/Charity/bandaid.html to http://www.bobgeldof.info/Charity/bandaid.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C4-2005580126%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121193844/http://itn.co.uk/news/c73cbfb520c0d3c4ad20694b7162647d.html to http://itn.co.uk/news/c73cbfb520c0d3c4ad20694b7162647d.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929025140/http://www.sugababes.com/news-detail.php?id=73 to http://www.sugababes.com/news-detail.php?id=73
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830112717/http://www.mediaessentials.co.uk/2011/07/media-essentials-sugababes-sign-to-sony-rca/ to http://www.mediaessentials.co.uk/2011/07/media-essentials-sugababes-sign-to-sony-rca/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/sitecomponent/a28814/singles-release-diary.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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Sugababes. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sugababes. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)