Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Collaborations

Hello, Please add Troye Sivan's Dance to this and Nicki Minaj's BED to the Sweetener section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarasb (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This article does not discuss individual songs, unless they are top 10 on the Billboard 100 or are in some other way unusually important to Grande's career. Other songs are discussed in her Discography or other sub-articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Troys Sivan's 'Dance to this ' is not part of the sweetener album it is is part of "Bloom". Nicki's "bed" is part of "Queen". Sibudaqueen (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Years in headings

I know this has already been discussed extensively, but I really think we should include years. Ariana's career now spans 10 years and has very distinct phases which can be clearly defined by years, other pages without years in the headings are for people with far less extensive careers and fewer notable works without distinct phases that can be defined by years. I would propose that the section headings be:

• 1993–2008: Early life and career beginnings
• 2009–2013: Breakthrough on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly
• 2014–2015: My Everything
• 2016–2017: Dangerous Woman and other projects
• 2018–present: Sweetener

I just don't see why years shouldn't be included in the headings when we can split Ariana's life and career into very clear and distinct sections which don't overlap. Having years is clearer and more organised, not having them creates confusion and results in overlapping sections. Fan4Life (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that adding years to the headings would be helpful. In fact, I think they add confusion because there are some overlaps, as we have discussed before. Let's focus on the important developments in Grande's career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The current sections overlap massively, but the sections I have proposed don't overlap at all. What exactly is the reason for defying well-established convention by not having years? The reason that has been given time and time again is overlapping, yet removing the years has created overlaps that previously didn't exist, overlaps that would be got rid of if we included years in the headings and organised the sections as I have proposed. Fan4Life (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself, and, of course, I can repeat myself and say "you're wrong", "your suggested change is unhelpful", "concise headings are better", "the change you suggest actually would hamper development of the article in the future", "whenever you have stated as fact that something is 'well-established convention' in the past, you have been overstating your claims, so you have zero credibility", etc. So let's just wait to see if a new WP:CONSENSUS develops. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You're also repeating yourself. You keep saying how including years results in overlapping, even though that's not true. Fan4Life (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ssilvers. It's a no from me. livelikemusic talk! 23:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But why? I'm yet to be given an actual reason why we shouldn't have years in the headings, the only reason I've been given is overlapping, however not having years creates overlaps, whereas having years gets rid of them. Fan4Life (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"But why?" Because I agree with the debate and reasons given by another member; there's no need to redundantly repeat them over and over again. Also, let the opening statement from what would be 2018: Sweetner be a case as to why years should NOT be included: Grande began working on songs for the album with Pharrell in 2016, but "the events in Manchester gave a hard reset to the project's expectations". 2018 would be inappropriate, as it states she began the album in 2016; that's overlapping. Adding said-years would just complicate matters more. This has been discussed before, and continuing to discuss it was redundantly repetitive and a waste of this encyclopedia's time, when we could be focused on bigger and more important issues at hand. livelikemusic talk! 14:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the years in headings don't need to refer to the year a project was started, they can refer to the year of release, for example. The circumstances surrounding the projects can be included as normal in chronological order, regardless of the headings. I don't mind this kind of structure and I think it helps readers get a better sense of the career timeline and trajectory. It doesn't suit every article however, and I'm not familiar enough with this subject's career or article to sway one way or another. Lapadite (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Naming the years would not be helpful in this article. Better to just identify periods by naming the main projects completed during those years. There will be no difficulty for anyone in finding information that covers any given time period, as the relevant dates are always mentioned in each paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I've extensively opposed this for quite some time ... however looking at Sean Paul, Eminem, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj and David Guetta all have years in the heading titles so IMHO we should follow suit, I also personally believe having years in the heading titles is helpful as you're able to know what happened in their career in say 2005 .... –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If we switch to years, I suggest that we do it the way the Minaj article does, with just the years, not trying to combine years and projects in the headings, which is what leads to the confusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I feel having projects is more helpful to the reader as it would explain what that whole section is about, Maybe an RFC would be better but anywho that's my 2 quids worth, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation style

I have previously seen WP:CITEVAR cited as a reason in edit summaries for changing the reference style inserted by various editors on this article, but yet early revisions of this page from 2010 (example from August 2010) and 2011 (example from July 2011) used Template:Cite web in basically all instances. I've changed a few already but it's far too tedious to change all myself. I'm investigating whether there is a script to unify all references (as I don't use scripts so don't have knowledge in this area of scripts to carry out such tasks) because if we're going to follow CITEVAR, all references should attempt to follow the same established style, which was Template:Cite web and variations thereof (Template:Cite news, etc). The citation style is really all over the place and should be unified to the one style anyway. Ss112 13:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I also think unifying the citation style could help the page if in the future it develops to a good article, or featured status. At least, it certainly can't hurt. Ss112 13:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There currently is no consistent citation style in this article, and I disagree that there ever has been; the example you give shows just the opposite: citations using manual style. I think that manual footnotes are more consistent with Wikipedia's goal of making the encyclopedia accessible to all readers and editors. BTW, lots of FA articles use the manual style (except for book sources). That being said, and ancient history aside, if there is a WP:CONSENSUS of editors here to change to templates, and you do a good job of harmonizing all the citations into one consistent style, I would not oppose it. I think it was premature of you to begin the project without getting a consensus first, but you seem very excited to do it, so if you go ahead and finish promptly, I will not revert your edits from today pending a formal WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but I just thought nobody would really be opposed to citation templates or unifying the style so thought I'd get started already. I understand your style, for reasons of accessibility and such. It'll be tedious but I'll attempt to get most of it down now. Ss112 14:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've worked hard. I cannot imagine why people want to add tedious computer code to citations, when manual citations are shorter and more flexible and can be worked with by people who don't know anything about computer code. As I said above, I believe that the proliferation of templates in Wikipedia is contrary to its basic goal of making editing accessible to everyone. But, we work by consensus, and I suspect that most of the people who work on this article prefer the templates. Now, if someone does add a manual citation in the future, please WP:AFG and, instead of scolding them, please send a friendly reminder (sometimes it is hard to remember which articles are in the template format when one works mostly with articles that are not); and feel free to go ahead and change it to be consistent with your template formats. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Aretha Franklin's funeral

Could this article point out that Ariana Grande was the funeral of Aretha Franklin?Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018

It must be a correction on Ariana Grande trivia that she is Half Italian. In 2014 she found out that she is heavily Greek and part-north African. She wrote it on her twitter account. Elsaki Elsaki (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Elsaki Elsaki: Even if you found the tweet in question, it would be the issue of whether to rely on a self-published source or an independent one. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ariana Grande Should Be Noted As A Songwriter

I don't really use wikipedia that much, i'm just a basic Arianator looking for correct recognition of Ariana and her work. This started because i saw one day that she wasn't noted as a songwriter. I changed it a while back because i know, for a fact, Ariana has a large role in writing her own music. Now more then ever. My main points in favour would be:

Factually: Ariana Grande co-wrote most of the songs on Sweetener. She was also lead songwriter on about half. She was credited in her albums book. It would be illegal, and pointless, to put her down as a songwriter when she doesn't writer her own songs. Logically: It's very clear to anyone listening to Ariana's music that she has written the songs on sweetener. Notably "Get well soon" which is about Manchester, "Pete Davidson" Which is literally titled after her fiance. Even "God Is A Woman" which she spoke about multiple times in livestreams staying it was originally meant for a Rapper so only the hook was given to her. She voiced that she had taken it home herself and worked on it and brought it back into the studio to record.

I am a little bit confused as to why we need to have a massive talk over something as simple as this. I will do what needs to be done, i will link the evidence that needs to be linked and i will hopefully get this allowed on the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenhpia (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: lead sentence

Omitting footnotes, the lead sentence currently begins:

Ariana Grande-Butera (/ˌɑːriˈɑːnə ˈɡrɑːndeɪ/; born June 26, 1993) is an American singer...

This states that the name "Grande-Butera" is pronounced "Grande"!

Please reword it to:

Ariana Grande-Butera, known professionally as Ariana Grande (/ˌɑːriˈɑːnə ˈɡrɑːndeɪ/; born June 26, 1993), is an American singer...

or some similar wording (see WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names). --76.69.47.228 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. I am in favor of this suggestion. I note that this same language was removed from the article within the past year or two, citing another guideline. What do others thing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Passing of Mac Miller

In early September 2018, Ariana Grande's ex of 18 months, Mac Miller passed away due to an overdose. Ariana took a few weeks to respond to the passing of her exboyfriend initially but when she did react to it publicly, she posted a heart felt video with the caption "I'm so mad, I'm so sad I don't know what to do. you were my dearest friend." http://www.tmz.com/2018/09/14/ariana-grande-mac-miller-death-reaction-ex-boyfriend/ When the 2018 Emmy's broadcasted on the 17th of September, Ariana and new fiancé Pete Davidson were not present. The couple is said to be in New York, taking time to heal from the incident, as Grande is taking a break from the spotlight of Hollywood. https://www.eonline.com/news/968981/ariana-grande-misses-2018-emmys-takes-time-to-heal-after-mac-miller-s-death — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscho503 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Where Grande is "said to be" at any particular time is not encyclopedic information. Some of this may be relevant to Miller's article, but it is tangential here. Wikipedia is not a celebrity fan publication. See WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

change "Partner: Pete Davidson (2018-)" to "Partner: Pete Davidson (2018-2018)" Anttesoriero (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• The documentation for the infobox says the partner parameter is for a long-term partner. Since this relationship ran less than a year, he should be removed from the infobox altogether. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Removed L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

Change the first sentence to 'Ariana Grande is an American Singer, Songwriter and Actress. 2A00:23C5:508:4600:D4FE:1894:BDE9:6DF6 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

As I put in my edit summary earlier, could all parties who have been involved in the to-and-fro please stop, respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO and discuss the matter calmly here BEFORE trying to force in any more changes. The 3RR noticeboard beckons if you decide not to bother with the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Break up with Pete

It's obvious that it's true as it's been 5 days since it was first reported and neither Ariana nor her representatives have denied it, Ariana was seen without her engagement ring and with her "pete" tattoo covered up, plus she seemed to address it on Instagram. As well as this, Pete pulled out of a comedy show for "personal reasons", further proving that he and Ariana have broken up. Saying that "several entertainment news outlets" have reported it makes it sound like a rumour, which it isn't at this point, and also Wikpedia isn't a tabloid (see WP:NOTNEWS), so rumours aren't included in articles anyway. Fan4Life (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not denying something is not the same as agreeing with it. I haven't read the Instagram post, so I won't comment on that directly, but there certainly appears to be some good circumstantial evidence from Grande for the breakup. As for Davidson, there are a number of "personal reasons" that could cause him to pull out of a show—illness or a situation involving a relative being the most obvious—so I do think it is reading between the lines to use that as evidence for the breakup. Finally, the general practice on Wikipedia is to attribute disputed claims, so it is appropriate to disclaim with a statement like "entertainment news outlets have reported". Finally, if it weren't for the tattoo and engagement ring, we'd just exclude the relationship from the article altogether, because Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or a Tiger Beat-grade magazine that covers every minute detail of a celebrity's life. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been 5 days and there's been no denial, plus there's been evidence to corroborate it. Saying that "several entertainment news outlets" have reported it is ridiculous when it's quite obviously true. If we don't take the evidence we have now then we'll be waiting for an explicit confirmation that will likely never come. Fan4Life (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been no official announcement yet. TMZ and People said that it was confirmed to them by "a source close to Grande". All we can say is that it has been reported by various sources. That is not at all the same as a rumor; it is a fact that major news outlets have reported this, especially since no major news outlets have disputed it. Your summary above of the anecdotal evidence and speculations show that you still don't understand what encyclopedic information is. As I have said before, and with all good will, I do not think Wikipedia is right for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You're insisting on waiting for an explicit confirmation that is clearly never coming. Saying that "several entertianment news outlets" have reported is calling it a rumour, which it isn't. Don't patronise me by saying that I "don't understand why encyclopedic information is". Fan4Life (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying "several entertainment news outlets" is not saying it is a rumour. It is saying that a number of different sources have commented on something. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm insisting only on encyclopedic information. This encyclopedia is not for "fans for life", it is for neutral, collaborative writing about subjects of historical interest based on the weight of reliable published sources, rather than cherry-picking and original research. See also WP:RECENT. Perhaps you could write a good blog about celebrities, and your time would be much better spent. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Davidson confirmed the split on October 20 onstage. I've updated the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic score of 81

"Acclaim" is not the same as "4 out of 5 reviews have been positive." A Metacritic score of 81 means *exactly* that it has received generally positive reviews from critics. Acclaim is a word that should be reserved for unusual situations where something has received almost all rave reviews or has subsequently been written about by historians in unusually glowing terms. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a Metacritic score of 81 indicates "universal acclaim". It's not up to you to determine what a score means. Fan4Life (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And therein lies the danger of the aggregator sites: boiling down finely honed criticism that strikes a balance into a dumbed down number which they classify with a hyperbolic label. Pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

But the point stands that it's not up to you or any other user to determine what a score means. It has a Metacritic score of 81 and as far as Metacritic is concerned that indicates "universal acclaim". Fan4Life (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is up to editors. If we provide a label that is misleading (which the inaccurate and hyperbolic "universal acclaim" is), then we are not being honest to readers. The best course would be to remove it entirely, but if it has to stay, then it needs to be described honestly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion demonstrates what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Its content is based on our policies, guidelines and the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources, not based on a gobbledegook, exaggerated label applied by a single media outlet. You are making an argument so ridiculous that it was satirized in Alice in Wonderland: Humpty Dumpty, like "Metacritic", said: "words mean what I mean them to say. Nothing more, nothing less." But, in fact, "universal" means "all", and "acclaim" means "enthusiastic" praise, not just a review that is more positive than negative. So "4 out of 5 were positive" simply does *not* mean "universal acclaim", and if you think it does, then you should be in marketing or writing a blog, or a politician, but not contributing to an encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, not the opinions of its users. It doesn't matter what you and User:SchroCat think, Metacritic interprets a score of 81 as "universal acclaim" and as that is the source used for the overall reception to the album, that is what should be written in the article. Fan4Life (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you really think that, then the Metacritic "score" should be taken out - of at least the misleading hyperbole they use to describe it. Too much weight to a piece of misleading fluff, only of interest to misguided fanboys is not encyclopaedic content. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Again this is purely your opinion, which is irrelevant. Fan4Life (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, and f you grasped what "encyclopaedic content" actually is, you would be able to see what people are on about. I see why others are suggesting you go off and write fanboy blogs, rather than a grown up encyclopaedia. Thankfully the consensus is against you on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Tour section

I notice that there is a hidden note that in the tour section that asks that tour information not be added until a tour officially has begun. I understand this note was added earlier this year when editors were disruptively speculating when Grande's next tour would begin.

Would it make more sense to change this note to allow a tour to be listed once the tour has been confirmed? An official announcement of this tour was released earlier today and I notice it has already been added to Template:Ariana Grande. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is still premature. It should be mentioned in the text above, but the lists at the bottom of articles really are intended to be lists of things that already happened. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is to leave out tours until they begin, I am OK with that. However, I do not believe WP:CRYSTAL applies in this case -- the policy exists to prevent unverifiable speculation or presumptions, but allows coverage of anticipated events if they are verifiable and notable. Specifically, the policy states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." In this case, the event is verifiable (the tour was officially announced) and the subject matter is notable -- it has already received quite a bit of independent news coverage (and, in fact, an article on the subject already exists). Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The article on the tour is currently at AfD. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that an officially-announced tour by the artist should be covered at least briefly in the main article's text, and we *do* cover it in the article. But it is a future event that can be cancelled, and so I don't think it should *also* be in the list "of her tours" at the bottom until it actually exists and is a historical fact. I bet there is a more specific guideline somewhere that I just haven't put my finger on about listing upcoming things in the tables on the bottom of bios, but note that WP:CRYSTAL also says: "events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place...." Another guideline that gives some color on this (although it also is not directly applicable) is WP:NTOUR, which says that the notability of a tour depends partly on "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience": an upcoming tour cannot even be measured in terms of any of these factors, because it doesn't exist yet. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, a fansite or a newspaper, so we don't have to "scoop" anyone: WP:NOTNEWS says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events ... routine news reporting of announcements ... or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia … breaking news should not be emphasized. So we should be patient regarding upcoming events, and begin with coverage in the biography's text, graduating to also including it in the list once it exists, and finally adding it to the Lead if it becomes a really important part of the artist's life and career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Manchester Arena bombing

While there is a mention of Ariana having a concert to donate to victims of the Manchester Arena bombing (hyperlink or not), I find it odd that the attack itself, happening after/in one of her concerts is not mentioned as part of her life. I think if she can be mentioned licking a doughnut, she can have this tragedy listed as part of her bio. Perhaps with a quote from her about it. Imagine if a President were to give a speech, 139 people were (mostly children) were wounded there, 23 killed, and no one at Wiki put it directly in the biography... Just a hyperlink in a long list of charities they'd given to? Please see if you can't come up with a paragraph on this. Wiki should be history, not a tidy fan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsiddia67 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is already mentioned three times in this article. Of course, the bombing has its own article too, and it is mentioned in the Manchester Arena article, Dangerous Woman Tour article, and numerous others. It is thoroughly covered to the extent appropriate in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the bombing killed 22 victims and 1 wasteful human from isis so 23 isn’t the correct amount of victims. It also injured over 800 people. The reason she hasn’t spoke about it is because whenever Someone brings it up she has a break down it still lies very heavy on her heart, she did a interview with beats radio on Apple Music and completely had a breakdown and fell apart speaking about it MoonlightbaeRVN (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the bombing should be mentioned in the intro, and have its own section. Unless I'm mistaken, it's the third deadliest attack on a concert in the history of the world, after Paris and Las Vegas. I realize that Grande would prefer not to focus on that, but Wikipedia is supposed to be objective.Don't Be Evil (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Pronounciation

The IPA says /ɡrɑːndeɪ/ but links to a video in which she says /ɡrɑːnde/. I think it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.213.102 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, what it says is the same as what she says. Another user suggested still another pronunciation based on a joking discussion Grande had with a radio host. But she almost always says "Granday", always explaining that she and Frankie decided to use that pronunciation years ago, and until she changes it officially, that is the pronunciation. We do not need TWO sets of IPA at the top of the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you should listen to the interview again because the part where she talked about the pronunciation was clearly serious. The only really jokey part of that portion was when she talked about "grahnday" and said "Ariana [Grahnday]-Butera. Literally that's my name, like I'm a pizza. I'm a fucking meatball...That name is a joke." Contrast that to how she talked about "grand-ee" as part of her family and her personal history because that's how she pronounced it while she was growing up; clearly either is acceptable to her and both are relevant. As for "We do not need TWO sets of IPA at the top of the article!"—it's a dozen characters. We do need it if she considers both correct. lethargilistic (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are making a serious mistake by focusing on only one interview. This is only one interview, and Grande was obviously in a mood. She has pronounced her name Granday hundreds of times elsewhere and continues to do so. She is introduced as "granday" at her concerts. In any case, there is no WP:CONSENSUS to make the change that you are suggesting, so unless other commenters agree with you that we should clutter up the first line of this article, then your suggestion fails. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Stick with the current one, which is the overwhelmingly used one. If there are future occurrences or a statement about a change, it can be addressed again at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: Listen to Grande pronounce her name in her 2018 documentary as "Grahnday" in front of her Grandmother and mother. at 22:22 here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank U, Next

There are currently 2 drafts: Draft:Thank U, Next and Draft:Thank You, Next. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a great pop song and was #1 Alexabug26 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

Change it to singer, songwriter and actress. 2A00:23C5:508:4600:A185:DEFB:A18:FDA (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fair and supported by the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hose-McCann

The company Hose-McCann is described as "a marine communications equipment company". However, the firm also supplies communications products for use on land, as well as other safety equipment.

Hose-McCann should preferably be described as "a provider of industrial communications and safety equipment". 195.147.82.34 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)endingdotthreefour

Changed to "... Hose-McCann Communications, a manufacturer of communications and safety equipment ..." General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think "provider" or "supplier" instead of manufacturer is correct. I do not think they manufacture their own lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.82.34 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hose-McCann Communications is the Leading Manufacturer and Designer of Marine Turn-Key Communication Solutions."[1]; "Hose-McCann Communications is the Leading Manufacturer and Designer of Land Turn-Key Communication Solutions."[2] Since this article is not about the company, I think the distinction, if any is to be made, is not particularly important to be made here. General Ization ^Talk 18:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018

Please discuss her most recent song "Imagine" in the wiki. Thank you Ajoyyy (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make precise requests and cite reliable sources if applicable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2018

Al Shahriar Shawon (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Edit Ariana Grande Profile Photo"

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

CHANGE THE 2018 TO 2019! THE THANK U NEXT ALBUM IS EXPECTED TO RELEASE IN 2019

The thank u next album is expected to be released in 2018 ---> should be 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C2:700:F13:340B:F7D3:DBBE:E059 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Logically, the album will release in 2019. Without a release date, though, it's bad WP form to speculate, so I've removed the date from the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Out of date sections

I've inserted Template:Update to the "Artistry" and "Public image" sections as they need updating, very little information has been added to these sections since 2015. Fan4Life (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Donut or Doughnut?

Currently the article says doughnut. I'm thinking it should be donut, because the subject of the article is American. Thoughts? 73.252.158.66 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

My main thought is that this whole thing isn't needed in the article. But, both spellings are acceptable and used by Americans -- but it should be as it says in the source(s), at it does say "doughnut". --Musdan77 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Small Update to Early Career

I was looking over the Early Career section and I noticed that her role in the musical 13 was not very highlighted. Of course she was quite young and it is not what she is currently renowned for. However, I would like to suggest that the composer of the musical 13 is listed by name at least once in this page. The musical 13 was written by Jason Robert Brown. He is a Tony Award winning composer and I think that it is important enough to mention in this article as his name carries weight in the musical theater community where Ariana Grande got her start. More information on Jason Robert Brown can be seen through this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Robert_Brown

I understand that this is a small edit, but those in the musical theater community would definitely be interested to know that her first Broadway appearance was in a Jason Robert Brown show. Thank you for considering and let me know what you think about this suggestion! Tailcomet2 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tailcomet2: That seems incidental to an article about Grande. If readers wwant to know that Brown was the composer, they can read the article about 13 and find the information there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Death of Mac Miller

Mac Miller's untimely death at the age of 26 may be worth mentioning in the "Relationships" section, as Miller's death deeply affected Ariana Grande and contributed to the dissolution of her relationship with Pete Davidson. Thanks for considering my suggestion, as I am a new user!

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/ariana-grande-pete-davidson-break-caused-mac-millers-death-report-1171369

Jnagle8 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Updating Relationships Section

After reading the Relationships section, I think it would be a good idea to develope or update it a little more. Her relationship with Big Sean isn’t mentioned, though that was a highly publicized relationship and he even featured on her track, “Best Mistake.” Thank you for considering the suggestion!

Pinkpurpleblue155 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Template talk

To garner more discussion, I'd like to redirect attention to Template talk:Ariana Grande#Split template into Template:Ariana Grande songs. There's a current proposal to split the template into a separate one for the growing number of Grande songs. Thanks. Nice4What (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess the picture of ama 2014 would look good here instead of cover of Elle. What do you say? Kushal2004 (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Voice Type

Ariana is a light lyric soprano, she is not only a soprano alone , she's a light lyric, her range extends from C # 3 to Bb7 as exclamation i think you should put that , that's an great information, it's crazy to lie to people like that--148.255.59.186 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Slay Moonlight

About changing the picture of Ariana Grande's cover of Elle 2018 which is shown first.

Ariana Grande is exquisitely beautiful. That's above any doubt. But to me, the picture which is shown first to us (I mean the picture of taking a photoshoot for the cover of Elle in 2018), is not good at all. I guess, instead of that, you can use any of her photos of AMA's 2014 as the first picture to be showed. It's because the dress which she worn to perform the single "Love Me Harder" with Canadian singer, XO label-head, The Weeknd, was no doubt, gorgeous to look at. Actually, to be honest with you, I started liking her. So, I think, you should remove the present picture of her and use that AMA's 2014 picture. (You can pick any of them. I won't mind.) I guess that would be better for you and for all the fans of hers. Have a nice day. Thank you. From, Kushal Chowdhury User name : Kushal2004. Kushal2004 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why you people ain't taking my opinion seriously? Kushal2004 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Please change 'LGBT Singers' category, she didn't come out she just said she didn't label her sexuality 109.157.107.6 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I think you're right. Inclusion in these categories are not supported by anything in the article text and probably constituted a BLP policy violation. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aoi: Ariana has said she likes women and men, so she isn't straight. Just because she doesn't label herself, that doesn't make her sexuality any less valid. Kesha doesn't label her sexuality and she's included in the 'LGBT Singers' category, Sarah Paulson doesn't label her sexuality and she's included in LGBT categories. If someone likes women and men but doesn't label their sexuality, that doesn't mean they aren't part of the LGBTQ+ community, it just means they don't identify with any specific label. Fan4Life (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What reliable source do you have that backs up your contention? Nothing in the article supports it. No sources are provided. If you provide a reliable source that satisfies BLP policy, that is fine but if you cannot find one, I will remove the categories. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aoi: It's mentioned in the article that Ariana doesn't label her sexuality and a tweet from her is cited as a source. Ariana sang in "Monopoly" that she likes women and men, she revealed that she doesn't label herself in response to speculation surrounding that lyric, confirming that it's true. Fan4Life (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't meet BLP standards. A song isn't a reliable source for these purposes. People sing about things all the time; it isn't up for us to determine what is true or what isn't. The tweet doesn't cut it either; what is needed is a reliable source that states affirmatively that she is or identifies as LGBT. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Obviously she shouldn’t be included in the category. Lmao.—NØ 10:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aoi and MaranoFan: What exactly makes Ariana different from other celebrities such as Kesha and Sarah Paulson in terms of whether she should be included in LGBT categories? Ariana said in a tweet that she doesn't label herself, how is Ariana saying that she doesn't label herself not a good enough source? Fan4Life (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If Ariana "doesn't label herself", then that means she does not consider herself as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. I can’t think of any other way to comprehend that statement.—NØ 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if Ariana Grande expressly stated that she doesn't label herself, why would Wikipedia label her on her behalf? Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan and Aoi: You ignored my first point about what makes her different from other celebrities who don't label themselves such as Kesha and Sarah Paulson in terms of whether she should be included in LGBT categories. Including her in LGBT categories isn't putting a label on her. Fan4Life (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regardless of whatever is going on in other articles, the discussion here is about Ariana Grande and whether there are sufficient reliable sources to include this edit. There are no sources that meet WP:RS to support the inclusion, and including it would violate WP:BLP. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that’s an otherstuffexists argument. Classifying someone as an "LGBT singer" is a very controversial matter and certainly shouldn’t be done when she has, only dated boys as well as, explicitly stated she doesn’t label herself.—NØ 00:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I get the point. People who don't label themselves aren't necessarily part of the LGBTQ+ community, and since Ariana hasn't said that she identifies as being part of the LGBTQ+ community, it's not accurate to include her in LGBT categories. Fan4Life (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ariana Grande's alleges

As some of you may know, Ariana Grande is allergic to Bananas and Cats which is ironic because Ariana played the role of Cat Valentine in the Nickelodeon show "Victorious". In the year 2019 Ariana Grande shared that she developed a allergy to tomatoes; her allergic reaction was so bad that she had to take a little break from her Sweetener\thank u, next tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:2E7F:C27D:8070:3EDF:B816:117E (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Associated acts

I shouldn’t have to be discussing this because I am right but I will anyway. 2 Chainz should be added as an associated act. Read Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#associated acts for the actual rules instead of rules that are completely made up, like that artists have to collaborate on 5 songs to be associated. That is not true. The literal rules only say "multiple" which means at least 2 songs. Also, I'm pretty sure none of the other artists listed have collaborated on 5 songs with Grande. Someone at Katy Perry said writing and producing songs doesn't count. So Victoria Monét, Social House, Pharrell Williams and whoever Tayla Parx should actually be removed because they have only collaborated once with Grande (if Parx has ever even). 2 Chainz has collaborated with Grande on two songs. ("7 Rings (Remix)" and "Rule the World". Billiekhalidfan (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines on the infobox template give examples of what the field can include, but there's no actual rules or policies. Associated acts are other musicians who are significant and notable to the artist's career, Victoria Monét, Social House, Pharrell Williams and Tayla Parx are all significant to Ariana's career. Victoria has co-written songs on all of Ariana's albums and her Christmas & Chill EP, they have three songs together ("Monopoly", "Got Her Own", and "Better Days"), she's opened for Ariana on tour, she's performed with Ariana on several occasions, and she's appeared in multiple music videos with Ariana. Social House have co-written and produced songs on two of Ariana's albums, they have a song together ("Boyfriend"), they're opening for Ariana on tour, and they've performed with Ariana. Pharrell Williams wrote/co-wrote and produced seven songs on Sweetener and they have two songs together ("Heatstroke" and "Blazed"). Tayla Parx has co-written songs on two of Ariana's albums, she's appeared in two of Ariana's music videos ("Thank U, Next" and "7 Rings"), and she's performed with Ariana. 2 Chainz isn't at all significant or notable to Ariana's career, they have two songs together, one of which was just a remix, and they performed together once. It doesn't appear that there was ever a discussion deciding to have the five songs rule, but it's been adhered to for a while and it's a good rule, although Big Sean and Mac Miller are exceptions to it. If associated acts were decided on a case-by-case basis, it would be impossible to argue that any of the artists currently listed are not significant and notable to Ariana's career, and it would be impossible to argue that any artist not currently listed is significant or notable to her career. Fan4Life (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ariana Grande Elle 2018 (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

Malik Tarry (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: @Malik Tarry: I don't see anything that demonstrates that celebwist is a reliable source. Where'd they get their info? —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"Big Ariana" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Big Ariana. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"А. Гранде Бутера" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect А. Гранде Бутера. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Best female artist

Ariana Grande is definitely one of the best female artist of this decade. Miles Pedro (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

How is that relevant to improving this article? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox pic

I'd like to know exactly why the photo now is better than the other options, because I find "This photo isn't very good, but it's better..." to be contradictory. Wikipedia is pretty infamous for having bad portraits of people at times and I ideally would like for that stereotype to be confronted. The poor girl mostly has photos that are too grainy or weirdly lit. Hopefully there will be more good pics of her taken in the future. 100cellsman (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Social House and Ariana Grande are not associated acts

@Fan4Life: Please read Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. An act opening for another act does not make said acts associated. Neither does collaborating on a single song. They have never toured together as a single collaboration act, so I'm not sure where you got that from. You ignorantly stated that "There's no rule or policy preventing them from being included", ignoring the guideline I linked for you to read in the previous edit summary. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines aren't rules or policies. Associated acts are other artists who are significant and notable to the artist's career, Social House are significant and notable to Ariana's career. Fan4Life (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The instructions at the template represent long-standing consensus for music article content. You will need to obtain a strong local consensus if you want to go against Wikipedia-wide established practices. You do not have such local consensus right now. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

INDEXING

So, 20 children were murdered at one of her concerts and you're not even going to make a link to it in the INDEX?

It's something to be buried as a side note in a tour date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B05A:FE00:BDAB:FF76:28F3:CF4E (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am a big fan i am so glad to meat you and I am Cassidy i am in 5th grade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D300:E6D0:3CB4:C3B2:AB:F1B6 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Relationships Section has an out-of-context statement

In the relationship sentence currently, there is the following sentence:

"In April 2019, following the release of the song "Monopoly" with Victoria Monét, Grande said that she does not label herself, stating "I haven't before and still don't feel the need to now".[312]"

I know very little about Mrs Grande's life so this statement seems lacking some context. Following the reference leads to a tweet who's reference has been deleted. So the reference does not provide any additional context. Can someone who knows more, correct this please? Gabefair (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I will remove it entirely. It doesn’t seem to make much sense but it seems like the person was trying to insinuate without evidence that Grande is pansexual or something like that. Trillfendi (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AG SWT TUN.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sweetener Tour Ariana Grande O2 Arena.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

Can the pictures be updated/ more relevant? For example, the picture used to indicate her time on nickelodeon is from a red carpet event for the shrek movie. Why not use a picture that was from her time filming to show what she really looked like. Just a suggestion :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyssar1999 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alyssar1999: It's hard to get free photos from a closed set or studio. It's easier to get them at red carpet events. So, we went with the best available free picture. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Associated acts

@EvergreenFir: Just because something has been wrong for 8 months doesn't mean it should inherently stay there. Big Sean is not an associated act just because he did 1 (ONE) song with her nearly a decade ago then they dated briefly. What happened to standards.

@Mirrored7:: I don't know what has given you the idea that Pharrell Williams (who has been a music producer since 1992 for God's sake) is an associated for one occasion but Max Martin who produced 4 (FOUR) of her albums and her biggest hits is not "because he's a producer". For crying out loud they did the same album! Nothing in the parameter says that a producer shan't be included (reminding you again that Pharrell Williams is a producer and only sings part-time). Someone who has contributed greatly to her career is an associated act. I tried to remind you by putting exactly what the parameter says yet you resorted to edit warring. So now let's sort this all out. I assume you've been here long enough to know what's what even though you exclusively edit Ariana Grande articles.

Now let's review what the parameter actually says:

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

For individuals: groups of which they have been a member Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together Groups which have spun off from this group

A group from which this group has spun off

Please explain how Victoria Monét who has written at least 12 (TWELVE) songs with Ariana Grande and toured iwth her does not fit into this nonsensical logic of exclusion. Make it make sense. ⌚️ (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It does not appear to be patently false, so WP:STATUSQUO. Get some consensus or demonstrate that the current version is wrong and we can easily change it. But the edit war is not constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Since when does single mean multiple. The parameter says "has collaborated on multiple occasioins" yet they only collaborated once in 2013, then never again. So yes it is patently false. ⌚️ (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove Big Sean then. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So now is there agreement that if Pharrell Williams is an associated act for Sweetener that Max Martin is also an associated act. And is there agreement that Victoria Monét’s contributions to Ariana Grande’s career (meeting two criteria) is also an associated act. ⌚️ (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Gain consensus from others on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No one else will bother to join this without RfC. "Mirrored7" sure won’t. ⌚️ (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Give it a few days first. Mirrored7 should join or, as just happened, that will be blocked again for continuing edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Big Sean and Grande have done 4 collaborations together, which could justify associated acts. Once in 2013, twice in 2014, and once in 2015. -- Divine618 (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammy noms in lead section

All a-listers in WP don't have Grammy nominations in the lead section when they have already won, only the wins. With already a condensed and elaborated intro, why should it stay there? (cc. @Trillfendi:) Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Beyoncé (a Good Article no less), is a random example of someone whose Grammy nominations are in the lead section. It’s a major award, it only makes sense to put it there when describing the breadth of someone’s career because the nomination itself is deemed an accomplishment. ⌚️ (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a special case: the record for most nominations for a woman. It's not a "nominated for pop album" or "nominated for aoty", does not fit in a lead like that, for example. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is, the lead is supposed to summarize not only the article but the subject’s life and career. Each album is apt to have a trivia tidbit next to it. Who cares if she didn’t win. The fact is it gives the album has a notable trait. If she were a film actress and were nominated for an Oscar, Golden Globe, etc. for a film it should go there too, e.g. Saoirse Ronan. ⌚️ (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Actors are a whole different category. They all have and should have Oscar noms in their lead. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well for a music artist, obviously, a Grammy is on equivalent calibre to an Oscar. Hence EGOT. ⌚️ (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Just readding this reply sorry. My point still, no a-lister have an aoty nom in the lead section. And there are only 4 Oscar noms for actors yearly. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Association acts with Nick Minaj

Ariana is a friend of Tanya Maraj? Cause they seemed so close...or they just catch up when they will be recording a track Allexandra Senòrita Belcalis (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Political views

Mentioning Ariana’s endorsement of Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primaries but none of her previous endorsements violates WP:NEUTRAL as it gives undue weight to it. Given how vocal Ariana is about politics it makes sense to mention her political views, but tweeting support for a particular candidate in one election cycle isn’t notable. 2A02:C7F:B8CE:A700:41A6:E0F4:E1D5:B2BD (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

The addition of Jai Brooks, Big Sean, and Ricky Alvarez to the relationships section goes against previous talk page discussions, per consensus only Graham Phillips, Mac Miller, and Pete Davidson should be included. 2A02:C7F:B8CE:A700:41A6:E0F4:E1D5:B2BD (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now. So what do you want to do about it? Also, please link to the particular discussion(s) where consensus was determined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I want the three boyfriends who don’t meet the previously agreed criteria for inclusion to be removed, as per Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 4#Mac Miller, Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 4#Constant deletion of sourced content mentioning Grande’s relationship with Mac Miller, and Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 4#Relationships (again). 2A02:C7F:B8CE:A700:41A6:E0F4:E1D5:B2BD (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I reopened the request, but will leave it for someone more comfortable with the topic in case there are any other considerations. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. 2A02:C7F:B8CE:A700:41A6:E0F4:E1D5:B2BD (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Done, per talk page. i looked over the discussions and there seemed to be a consensus that the relationship had to be minimum a year (if they had a page) or two (if they didn't). there was a bit of discussion over big sean, as she wrote a lyric (song? something) about him, but that can be discussed if someone reallllly wants it to stay. QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

I would like to change Ariana Grande's name because her name doesn't have "Butera" in it. 2A02:C7F:A4C:E500:129:1C2A:4C64:5823 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

She was born Ariana Grande Butera but she is not known as that as an actress/singer, I do think the page name should remain as Ariana Grande. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The standard way this is done is to give the full name even if it is not the WP:COMMONNAME; see for eg. Bill Clinton RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

She was born a Butera. She changed it. It doesn't make any difference if the list her as Ariana Grande Butera. It's the professional to list the full name. I hope this helps, and sorry for any inconvenience. Wale18 (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Did she change it in the legal sense or just shorten it as a stage name? —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Revised Grande lead

Reasons why I do not agree that my editing under the direction of Grande has been revised.

1. 'Further success' for her second album seems to be underestimated and not applicable. The success of the first album was not comparable and it was only through her second album that she gained worldwide attention. Therefore, the songs "Problem", "Bang Bang" and "Break Free" should be in the lead. They are literally one of her signature songs and the ones that have made her internationally known. 2. Genre has almost every music artist in its lead, so I don't understand why it shouldn't be included in her lead too. Her musical direction has changed rapidly in recent years, see 'The Way' from 'Problem' to '7 Rings'. People should get an overview. 3. Grande is known to be a feminist and to support the LGBT community. Grande has dedicated a whole series of songs and music videos to these topics, and promoted it in many of her tours. She has also worked intensively with female musicians in the sign of female empowerment, and is very open to it on her social media. 4. Little is said about her status as a leading artist in general. Grande is also known for her wide vocal range, but there are no signs of it in the lead.

In addition, Isaacsorry who revised this appears to be biased and not objective towards other artists. He basically adds the same thing that he criticized about Grande's lead on Frank Ocean and other artist sites. I don't understand how someone who obviously can't be objective towards an artist (highly anticipated, most dominant, highly acclaimed) can literally revise everything after the lead role has been like that for months, and he clearly isn't objectiv about the artist. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Provide sources for your claims about Grande. 2. My edits on Frank Ocean were supported by sources. P.S. I would prefer if you stopped mentioning me when it comes to your problems with the Ariana Grande article. Isaacsorry (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1. I have enough sources, but most of them are not needed, because 1. they are on this page, or either of her discography page, 2. it's all well known 3. your edits about Frank Ocean, and your favourite R&B artists, are not sourced as well. Mirrored7 (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provided an example for this. Isaacsorry (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I said you, you can look it up for yourself. On Wikipedia, among that. Now it's showing that you don't have clue about the artist, and you think you just can edit something. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: It is a courtesy in a discussion to provide specifics to back up a claim—especially when it could rally other users to your cause if they see that a claim is already sourced, so it can be readily added to the intro. Please focus on the content of this article, not other articles or other editors' conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead section is condensed and fine as it is. Tho I take issue with the inclusion of an award nomination in the lead section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. As you see in the top. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You can clearly see all the sources on her main page, her discography. Is there a specific point where you need a source? C.Fred Mirrored7 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Nowhere in this article or the "Stuck with U" article do I see it clearly stated that she's the first artist to have her first three Billboard number ones debut at number one, although it is supported by a Billboard source in the song's article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You will need to read the article again, it's clearly stated. Can I revise the lead, with all the "sources" that I have, so just that you can have an overview? C.Fred Mirrored7 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended protection

@C.Fred: Hi C.Fred, I believe that this article should be changed to extended-protected due to the continuous edit wars initiated by the user Mirrored7. Isaacsorry (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't you STOP mentioning me? How i'm doing edit wars. I try to clear in the talk page? Your edits are the ones that are biased. After I was editing the Frank Ocean page, you were the one coming here, and trying to be unconstructive. So, who's doing edit wars? Mirrored7 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I support this petition for extended protection. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was clear. You are not even interested in this page, Cornerstonepicker. Isaacsorry is doing the same thing I get criticized for, on every page he wants, but you do nothing. I am authorized to edit and improve the website and I am the only one of you who does it regularly. You guys really just try to prove a point, because i'm newer here. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Glaring misspelling!

The introductory paragraph it says: "She rose to promimence for her role..." Can someone fix that misspelling? Prominence! Come on.

 Done. Thank you, whoever spotted that. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ariana's collab with Square Enix

I just added information about the collaboration between Ariana and Square Enix for the Brave Exvius game. It is currently under the "Endorsements" section, as I couldn't find a better spot. If anyone has any better ideas, feel free to change it or list them here. --YoureAGhostBaby (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Autograph

Hi! There's no source approving that the image used as "signature" is THE signature of Ariana Grande. Evidently, it is an autograph. Autographs aren't required in infoboxes. Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and Rihanna don't have signatures in their infoboxes. when she's relatively new, why does Ariana? BawinV (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content in lead.

The phrase "international prominence" in the line Grande gained international prominence with the studio albums My Everything (2014) and Dangerous Woman (2016). is unsourced. It was removed by me, with an edit summary requesting for its source. @Mirrored7: reverted me twice (see here: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/965290696, 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/965479601) , both times with invalid edit summaries and refused to source the claim that Grande gained international prominence after the release of the mentioned albums. @Sergecross73: came across this "edit war" already, and thus I ask his/her/their input too. BawinV (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll try to mediate. Mirrored7, what is your response to this? Per WP:V, all content must be sourced. It’d be best if you could provide sourcing that supports the sentiment. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BawinV (talk), you are clearly not objective, so it doesn't make any sense for me to discussed with you. I wasn't the only one opposed to your editing of the Taylor Swift article, so you should accept that and keep going. After that, you just focused on Ariana Grande's article because you didn't like how the situation ended for you. I cannot work with that, because you are clearly angry and unwilling to have a normal conversation. After undoing your changes, I asked you to discuss them on the discussion page, but you didn't respond. This is my last comment on that. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mirrored7 - That is not a valid option right now. It’s regrettable that these discussions didn’t happen sooner, but Bawin is attempting to have them in good-faith with you right now. You need to engage in discussion, or drop it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73 msg me, you need to read this article, and her discography article, to see her growth in popularity from her first to her second, and third album, by numbers. The album itself, and songs like 'Problem', 'Bang Bang', and 'Break Free' were significant for Grande's career globally, and not to be compared with her first album. Before that, she was simply a child star with a huge following, and a local career as a singer, but not a household name yet. Taylor Swift's article had the same on the top (also, unsourced), but I didn't agree with it, because I thought that her second album and singles were rather local, and now BawinV tries to vandalize on this page, like on Taylor Swift. Do you want some sources from other sites, that clearly state she had a breakthrough with both albums, or is that enough? The top has been like this for weeks, and no one complained about it, until now, of course. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As the person who tried to make a new change to the article (you), the WP:BURDEN is on you to convince the opposer (Bawin) or persuade a WP:consensus of other editors to override Bawin’s stance. The easiest path forward, yes, is to just provide some sources. It’s a very mainstream artist and a pretty broad claim, so it should be relatively easy to source if true. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I stated clearly, that this specific editor, isn't objectiv, and is clearly angry, because of the changes on the Taylor Swift page. But oh well, I will see if I can find sources about that - even if you can clearly see the difference in the body of the articles. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Ahem, "objective" "angry". Lol, You weren't asked to write an article on what you think about me. You were asked to provide sources for your claim. Stick to the topic. Go, fetch them sources. Regards. BawinV (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A common mantra on Wikipedia is “comment on content, not editors”. Things would probably go smoother if you both tried to follow that a bit more. Please. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Mirrored has edited the lead in the same like, again, while the discussion is still happening here. Mirrored was supposed to provide "sources" here in the talk discussion. Instead, he has added "one" source in the lead, that neither cites "international" nor "prominence". Please look into this. Thanks. BawinV (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Mirrored really should be presenting it here first. They didn’t “revert” per se, so it’s not a block. But it should be discussed here first as long as discussions are ongoing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: but he's not talking here. and the source he added says nothing about "international prominence". so what should be done now? BawinV (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looking over the source, it says something like “breakout” but nothing about international. Mirrored7, you need to rejoin the discussion, and not make any more changes to the article until you’ve got a WP:CONSENSUS here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Mirrored7 - WP:V must be followed at all times. If you cannot provide a source, then you have no valid grounds for your reverting. As is, if policy is being followed, then your edit should not be retained, and you should not make the edit again until you’ve provided a source on the talk page that garners a consensus to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Also "She is 'best known for' her expansive four-octave vocal range and whistle register." While she does possess that vocal skills, is she known for that? Is that present in all her most popular songs? Is there reliable sources saying that's the factor why she's popular? Then, it shouldn't be the opening sentence. 18:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, while potentially true, it’s unlikely that she’s widely known for that. Those “best known for” comments are generally best to be avoided altogether unless it’s something extremely obvious and uncontentious, like a “one hit wonder” or something, which is obviously not the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is this all resolved now? Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Add to "Category:American musicians of Italian descent"

Ariana is missing from that category page. This is an edit request.

--Eurotool (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Ariana Grande's "National Youth Theatre" Association Award links to the Wikipedia page for the "National Youth Theatre" of the UK. That organization didn't give her an award and doesn't offer awards. The organization that gave Grande the award doesn't currently have a Wikipedia page (nationalyouththeatre.com), so the link can just be removed rather than changed. Edward fitzer (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed the entire phrase. Grande did win an award, but the organization nor the award ([3]) seems to be notable in any sense. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Grande's Music Genres

Can anybody here please change Ariana Grande's music genres in the infobox to "R&B · pop · trap"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.162.111 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

Under Philanthropy and activism:

Change: In 2017, New York magazine's Vulture section

To: In 2017, New York magazine's Vulture section

The change is in what gets linked. Thank you! YellowSkarmory (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done, I changed [[New York]] magazine to [[New York (magazine)|New York]] magazine as "magazine" is not part of the name of the magazine. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"has used her platform to advocate for gender, racial, and LGBT equality."

Like all Hollywood celebrities and US musicians. Should everybody have that on their lead section? should be removed. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: agreed, it should be removed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Relationships

Why doesn't this section mention Big Sean? --Osh33m (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to, they can mention it but it isn’t that notable of a relationship compared to others. Trillfendi (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Just the fact that they are celebrates who dated makes it notable, so it should be documented. --Osh33m (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: Not all celebrity relationships are notable. Oftentimes it’s in the gossip category. Then again we had to fight tooth and nail to even get Pete Davidson included on here. It’s notable in that he (Sean Anderson) was mentioned in Thank U, Next but realistically... a casual relationship that was shorter than a school year generally isn’t worth inclusion. Trillfendi (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like going off of someone's word is where the decision is made whether a celebrity relationship is notable or not. I didn't realize you had to fight to get Davidson in as well which is especially strange considering she was engaged to him. Anyway, Big Sean has been added by me. --Osh33m (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the talk page archives to see what I’m talking about. Before they were officially engaged, there was a concerted effort on here to remove any mention of him despite the fact that they were living together. It took the man going on national television saying But I did though! for these Wikipedia editors to finally come to their senses. Trillfendi (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: I will take a look at the archives. Where can I find them from here? --Osh33m (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: It's here: Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 4#Engagement Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

what about dalton gomez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.245.95 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quality of this article

I did my best to make this article (Ariana Grande) abide the guidelines of Wikipedia. But no, I can't anymore. This article, especially the lead, is ridden with superfluous content, puffery, and bloated with excessive emphasis on commercial performance than the actual artist/music. I tried to fix this article, but my efforts in making this article encyclopedic has been reverted. Therefore, I quit. I don't wanna edit on this article anymore, because of the entire negative workspace it gives for editors. Not just me, but measures by other editors to make this article achieve encyclopedic quality have also been compromised by a certain fan-motivated user. They don't want to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CRUFT, WP:PUFF and many other. The article doesn't feel encyclopedic anymore, it's a Fandom wikia in its current state. I request admins to look into this article, and do the needful. BawinV (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Pennlivia (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you change it to (edit source)????/?

 Not done It is not clear what you want to be changed. Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 16:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to edit a little bit of the information about the singer, cause this page has a lot of mistakes and lack of content, they're only doing wrong to Ariana

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Maka^{[1][​unreliable source?​]} 05:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Videography

Hi there's supposed to be a link to her videography and/or filmography page under career Randomperson7893457 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I also want to point out the fact that there is no filmography to be found. This should be included. She is an actress after all. 2600:6C52:4380:5F:95D1:D118:BBAE:E8AA (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Grande#Filmography. Also, Ariana Grande filmography redirects to Ariana Grande videography as all the filmography and videography are in one article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but someone keeps removing her filmography from the page. This should not be occurring. She is an actress and this information is significant for this wikipedia page. It should not be getting removed. May I ask for someone to re-add it and make note to not remove it any further in the future please? 2600:6C52:4380:5F:2518:E16C:741B:CF93 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello to all. Why is there no filmography/videography to be found here? I believe there should be a section or link directing users to her work in film, television, music videos, etc. as it is a significant piece of information about her and her career. 192.141.246.232 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There is another page for that. Something like “Ariana Grande videography” Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 00:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

In Ariana Grande#Career, there is a hat note directing to Ariana Grande videography. Hope this helps! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Very odd lead

Why does this have to follow Taylor Swift's so much... the first paragraph is just very odd. "She possesses a four-octave vocal range and whistle register, both of which have earned Grande praise from music critics." And then it ends.

Sorry but I just don't see her as that big of an artist/person to have a two-sentence lead. She's only known for her vocal range? That's all critics have praised her for? This is what establishes her notability? Even Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey which are both featured articles at least say a bit more about the person. I disagree that Grande's vocal range is as notable/critically commented on than Swift's songwriting themes to deserve a place in the second sentence.

Also her birthplace really does not need to be mentioned in the lead... what does Boca Raton have to do with her career? Unlike its mention in the Swift article where it goes on to talk about her transition to Nashville. The lead was okay before... this is just very weird and does a disservice to readers in my opinion. I don't know why it has to essentially copy the Swift format so much... Heartfox (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: agreed. You’re not the first person to express this. The thing is: there are very passionate editors who revert changes they don’t like, and they watch this page like hell. I’ve tried to reason with them, yet they don’t listen. Feel free to make any changes you’d like, no one owns this article. Just don’t be surprised when your edits get reverted. I agree with your statements, though. I’ve just given up. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. User "Mirrored7" has took control of this article, and trying to replicate Swift's article in Grande's. It's just ridiculous, and a clear violation of WP:POINT; they also make disruptive edits on Swift's article. They're so fan-motivated, and simply revert all constructive edits. Admins don't seem to care. BawinV (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course "BawinV" needs to say something about "fan-motivited". Aren't you the one who copies everything from Ariana Grande's lead to Swift's? You literally started it. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? No one copies anything from Grande's article. Taylor Swift is a Featured article (one literally cannot add misleading/false/puffed information or remove sourced), while Ariana Grande is a poorly written article with questionable quality. Why would anyone copy to a well-written article from a poor article? Before your arrival of Wikipedia, Grande had a great article with a different lead structure, you entered and turned it into a wannabe Swift article. Should I pull up the diffs of you doing so? You're literally not aware of ANY Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:POINT or WP:MOS. Haven't seen you contribute anything vital to sections of any article except the puffing up leads of a specific project. You're a fanboy-driven editor who doesn't understand WP:NPOV. I rest my case. Regards. BawinV (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? The Swift article was likely featured before you came, so yes. Also, I have evidence to show you are literally copying and pasting from other pages. Regarding the guidelines, I'm still a bit new here and don't edit that many articles, but I'm always open to new things. It's great that you want to show me that you know EVERYTHING on here. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

BawinV joined five years ago. He’s much more experienced than me, who is more experienced than you. If you need help, we can help you. But you also imply that you don’t want help, so you can’t complain. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: You "don't edit many articles" because you put all your time into this one and Swift's article. You've been blocked twice for disruptive edits, and you've been warned a few more times. Clearly you're not open to new things, since you'e constantly reverting edits that are constructive. VersaceSpace (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, that's why "BawinV" has been warned and blocked multiple times because unconstructive edits of a certain artist. He's literally hanging all day on Taylor Swift articles, adding more puffery into them. But yeah, no one is saying anything to that. Also, trying is not having more experience. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Mirrored7, you don't have a good foot to stand on, you have been warned and blocked before. --Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 18:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't know honey Mirrored7 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar issue

"The singles 'Thank U, Next', '7 Rings', and 'Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored' made Grande artist to hold the top three spots on the Billboard Hot 100 simultaneously" needs to be checked for grammar issues.

This needs to be fixed immediately, there can't be grammar issues in the lead of the article, especially one with this much importance. VersaceSpace (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"made Grande artist to hold the top three spots on the Billboard Hot 100" needs to be changed to "made the grande the (first, second, etc) artist..." VersaceSpace (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's fixed. I hope you can sleep tight now. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

...weirdo behavior VersaceSpace (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

edit warring

I strongly suggest everyone here start discussing proposed changes additions if you think there's even a remote possibility someone else will object. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not, it’s best to have consensus. Here’s my stance: signatures and autographs serve no purpose to the viewer when they can literally Google it if they need to see it. Also: she isn’t a songwriter. That’s not what she’s known for. Taylor Swift? Yes. Bebe Rexha? Yes. Ariana has just dipped her toes into songwriting and producing, that doesn’t make her a songwriter and a producer. If anyone can provide multiple reliable sources, that would be great. But until such time as there are multiple reliable sources stating the two facts, it would be best to keep them out of the article. Doggy54321 (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Grande co-wrote her songs with a songwriting camp (four people or more). Her notability as a songwriter is still unproven (at least not for now). This is not to say she didn't write songs, but MOS:FIRST should cover what makes the person notable. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I edit the singer Ariana Grande? StaceyDebb (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can. You are autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit no problem. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

She just tipped her toes in songwriting? Grande has been a co-writer in most of her songs since 2013. Since then, she was involved on almost in any songs of her last studio albums. I can post you a list of sources that call Grande a songwriter. Even her team of writers say that she's becoming more and more involved in songwriting. You are biased anyway, so your opinion has no value to me really. She's no Taylor Swift, not any artist has to be, I mean Swift isn't a vocalist like Grande, so that makes her less a singer? Mirrored7 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: okay, prove it. Show me sources. Also - how am I biased? Please explain because at this point I’m pretty sure you’re just treating me unfairly (your opinion has no value to me really). Also Swift is a vocalist, she literally sings for a living. Your comment makes no sense. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

D🐶ggy54321, obviously, Mirrored7 was referring to Ariana Grande's vocal capacities. The lead of the article states: "She possesses a four-octave vocal range and whistle register, both of which have earned Grande praise from critics and media.", and also: "Upon release, critics compared Grande to Mariah Carey for her wide vocal range, sound and musical material."

That's what Mirrored7 meant by: "Swift isn't a vocalist like Grande, so that makes her less a singer?" They made total sense. They never said Swift is not a vocalist; they meant that even though Swift is not on Grande's level in terms of vocals, it doesn't make Swift less of a singer. Likewise, Swift may be more known for songwriting than Grande, but it doesn't mean Grande's songwriting is negligible. Israell (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: okay thanks for clarifying. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay @D🐶ggy54321 stop embarrassing yourself, Ariana doesn't write her songs with a bunch of people,you don't know a single thing about music credits, composers and writers go on the same credits that's why there's a lot of people in the credits, the woman basically wrote alone, Breathin/Get well soon/Pete Davidson/ and the majority off the table/pov, she's also a vocal producer/editor/producer and engineer, she's has been credited all in once Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: can you not? If you’re gonna engage in talk conversation, at least make it civil. Don’t say I don’t know anything about music credits, because I do. I also know how Wikipedia works. You need sources to back up statements, especially on a WP:BLP. Professions should be notable professions that are what the artist is known for. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, to quote Bluesatellite's comment, MOS:FIRST should cover what makes the person notable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@D🐶ggy54321 you keep begging for your sources, when the official credits are there, you are just being defensive and a troll you do not deserve to be in Wikipedia, cause you keep denying facts and try to act like you're blind, your education shows and you don't know about music credits, if you would have known about it then you wouldn't be saying she writes her songs with 10 people more, cause that's not true, composers and writers needs to go on the same credits and being a composer/ writer are not the same, even legendary songwriter Max Martin have acclaimed her for that and her team just keeps saying she's a genius, she even herself tweeted how much she's involved writing Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: I’m not begging for sources, I’m simply requesting that you provide sources stating the facts that you want to add to the article. Official credits, for example, require a source. I’m not being defensive, I’m just following WP:NOR. Don’t call me a troll, please WP:AGF. I do deserve to be on Wikipedia, you’re just heated. I don’t deny the facts, I just challenge material when it doesn’t have a source. I’m not blind, I can see perfectly. My education has nothing to do with music credits, that makes no sense. I’ve never said she writes her songs with a camp, as I can’t prove that. Composers and lyricists get lumped into the “songwriters” category, and they are all collectively recognized as songwriters. Please have a WP:NPOV when responding to talk comments, and don’t use WP:PUFFERY to express a point. It’s Max Martin, not legendary Max Martin. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay credits are on tidal or in republic records, as she also produced her live album

https://tidal.com/browse/album/160092705/credits Actually that's not true, composers are basically the producers, they compose the music, while the lyricists write the songs, and they both go in the same credits, cause it's obligatorily, even people who don't write a letter and gives some ideas go there Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: that may be the way Tidal chooses to credit artists, but on Wikipedia, composers and lyricists make up the songwriters category. Producers (without vocal or exec or misc) make up the producers category. That’s what you see in the Infobox and in the track listings of every song article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know that but that's still wrong, credits don't go like this, then people who enters on these pages will see it and think credits works like this, or like 9 people wrote a song, when it's not true, lyricists are the songwriters while composers are the producers Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That may be true for whatever you’re basing that off of, but Wikipedia tends to group those two together into the songwriting category. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 04:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we finally agree that Ariana Grande IS a songwriter like Taylor Swift is a singer, and the other way around? Just because Grande isn't fully involved in songwriting, it doesn't mean that she's not a songwriter. I'm tired of this edit war, and I'm ready to move on at this point. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No. We need a community consensus before any other changes related to this are implemented into the article. That’s how consensus works. We can’t just take one opinion and say “yep”. I now invite other editors to contribute to this discussion. Should Ariana Grande have the title of songwriter in the article lead? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite, Lydïa, Marc Raphael Felix, Batud1991, and Iamcryingbaby: pinging the last five editors who have edited this page (besides Mirrored7 and I) for their opinions. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, this isn't just a Wikipedia argument that she is a songwriter or not, in fact, the internet has been arguing about this back and forth. But if she is, there needs to be solid sources to back this up. --Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

i would like to remove false information apropos,ariana grande, it states that she has a child "al mansur" this is not true al mansur was born in 0714 and ariana was born in 1993, it is obvious this edit was made by someone who was trolling MysteriousEditor678 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not able to see what paragraph you're referring to – Thjarkur (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Ari (singer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ari (singer). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Ari (singer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Add Doja Cat in the infobox for associated acts. Two collaborations and they're friends so it warrants inclusion. versacespace 04:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)