This is an archive of past discussions about Ariana Grande. 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.
I don't think the latest picture is suitable at all. She looks very awkward in it, like she's about to cry. Also, this pic is taken from a YouTube short, that shows her doing a tutorial for the Vogue channel. It doesn't even look like her, as her hair and eyebrows are bleached. Not appropriate at all. You would think, she's an influencer, not a musical artist.
I would replace it, with an older image, that shows her performing on of her tours. She has her cat-ears one, which is one of her signature looks, and it shows her as a performer. I don't think, that just because an image is recent, it automatically has to be the lead image.
I'm kinda stumped, that there are no other recent images of hers. Grande hasn't been doing much since 2020, but not even an image of on of her last tour in 2019?
It would be great if someone could come with alternatives, at best from the timeline 2020-2023, so it could also be included in the Positions/Wicked section. Still thanks, for PHShanghai for at least making an effort. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for being cordial about the whole image change. I do agree though that its not.. a comfortable looking image. But it's recent and the current lede image is objectively far worse imo because she looks way different now than she did in 2014. Like, different hair, different look, etc. Maybe something from the Sweetener/TUN era makes far more sense as a lead image. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The 2020 Grammy picture was probably the best she's ever had. It's a shame it was deleted. It was perfect, especially because it shows her for the period between 2019 and this decade. What strikes me is that the selection of photos of her is very limited, especially compared to her contemporaries. There isn't even a good quality one of her last tour. It's strange because she's one of the leading contemporary artists right now. I hope there is someone who can upload some recent pictures, preferably one of her at an event like an awards ceremony or photo shoot. Another problem is that Grande hasn't been active in recent years. Her last red carpet appearance was at the 2020 Grammys. That makes it even harder.
I've already explained why I chose the 2015 image, but yes, I agree that's not appropriate either. It's just a placeholder until there's a better option. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This may be a stretch, but could we get a screenshot of one of her Yours Truly 10th anniversary performances and use a non-free rationale and state how her face has changed since, and no free alternatives (from the 2020s) is available? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I searched through Wikipedia commons, and there are tons of 2017 photos of Grande from her Dangerous Woman Tour, some dark, however some bright also. I was thinking of [file] Asknaffffwiki (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
My fault, the file's name is
File:Ariana Grande (33269922295) (cropped) (cropped).jpg
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024: Blurry Image
The info box images is blurry, (and no, it's not because of my vision), I request that someone changes the image, either to one that is more clear, or to one that is more recent as this image is from 2015, 9 years have passed since then. 174.94.54.119 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@174.94.54.119 We would change it, but a problem is that no images of Grande after 2018 are available for use. We could use images from the Dangerous Woman Tour, but I would ask Mirrored7 about that. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Although I am not a main English language contributor, nevertheless could you grant me to wright onto this page plz ? You can check my User contributions in french language. I contrib over 2,500 edit counts.
Krimuk2.0, if you think the lead section is too long, please suggest ways to shorten it. I don't think it's too long myself, nor does Livelikemusic, apparently. The response from Mirrored7 was somewhat more amenable to shortening the lead, so let's talk about it. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately, per WP:LEAD, lead paragraphs should be should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. If it were me, to consolidate, I would remove fluff information, such as song titles and the names of her collaborators, and the listing of individual awards for albums and / or songs. It seems like a lot of non-neutral point of view from fans. livelikemusic(TALK!)14:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I also think that the lead is too long and should be shortened. However, the content should remain the same. I disagree that the lead has non-neutral point of view too. The content is supported by reliable sources, which are included in the body of the article. I also don't understand the warning on my talk page, Livelikemusic.
My intentions aren't bad at all, I'm just not as familiar with the rules like you are. Also, Discussions about Her occupations being a businesswoman and a record producer I find pointless, as there are enough sources for it to include it in the lead. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I saw this discussion open and wanted to share my thoughts. I agree with Likelikemusic that the lead is way too long, as per WP:LEAD. The bulk of the information is good, but there is way too much fluff information that can make reading it difficult for users. For example, we don't have to list every record Grande has broken in her career with whatever album is being discussed. Simply saying "broke several records" is sufficient. Since all of Grande's albums are rooted in pop and R&B, we don't have to constantly point that out. I like how Yours Truly, My Everything, Sweetener, and Thank U, Next describes its influences instead.
Also, Mirrored7, when discussing what occupations to include in the lead, Wikipedia prefers if we only list a subject's primary occupations in the lead. You can happily add record producer and businesswoman in her infobox, because these are a part of her occupation and there are plenty of sources to prove it, but they are not her primary occupations. "Singer, songwriter and actress" are fine as is. Lady Gaga, for example, has also ventured into business and has her own cosmetics line. But "businesswoman" is not in her lead section. It would be in her infobox, while her primary occupations, which are the same as Grande's, are featured. DiaMali (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. I just made slight lead changes. If you don't agree with them, it would be great to discuss them here with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
No problem! I'm more than happy to discuss them here with you.
There are a couple of things that I suggest we update or take out and add to the body, if it wasn't added already. The line "Grande is one of the most streamed artists of all time and the most streamed female artist, as of 2021" could be removed to just reflect her being the most streamed woman from the 2010s decade on Spotify. The most streamed woman, currently, is Taylor Swift. Also, according to the accompanying article, Grande is currently the seventh-most-followed person on Instagram. DiaMali (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
When I think about it, the lenght is actually very standard. The Justin Bieber and Rihanna leads have around the same, former even has five paragraphs. Like I said, maybe some sentences should be shortened and better summarized, but at the end, it's not really that big of a deal. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
As previously noted — per {{Infobox person}} and the hidden note within the lead, it states: Occupation(s) as given in the lead, so including anything outside of singer, songwriter, and actress is inappropriate. Infoboxes are meant to provide overviews, much like leads, and are not meant to be a fan-driven POV of jobs. livelikemusic(TALK!)14:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Stop the peacocking
A die hard fan of Ariana Grande keep making the edit wars with too many peacocking.
“Regarded as a pop culture icon, she is noted as an influential figure in popular music and as one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation for her four-octave vocal range and signature whistle register.”
really? There is no source was citied. And even if trustworthy sources say she is , there is no reason for a “WIKIPEDIA” page to have this much of glorification. Hundreds of sources say Michael Jackson is the greatest entertainer of all time. Does that mean it should be all included in the lead sentence? Keep it neutral Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
If you read the article precisely, you would see that it's supported by reliable sources. Why it shouldn't be in the lead, if there are multiple sources stating it? It should be removed, because you personally don't agree with it? I always try my best to stay objective, that's why I'm also trying to have a discussion with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Apologies
I made a bad call when reviewing this article. I am very sorry. Please know that your article has not failed. Please feel free to re-nominate this article. Sorry, PhotoEditor123 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
AGF, WP:PUFFERY, It is not necessary to indicate several times that Grande has broken the same records such as "broke many Billboard records as artist or albums" for the reduction of information in the lead section, mentioning 35 "Guinness" world records in the accolades section is enough, the fact that the records are indicated three times in the lead section looks very puffed. I suggest you write that "Grande is one of the most-streamed artists of all time, and holds several records on Spotify, Apple Music, and Vevo", and also in the awards section indicate that "she holds 35 Guinness World Records", this will be enough and people will able to study her records for themselves.
It is enough to write "She has been featured in listicles" and people liking on the listicles can get learned with all listicles where Grande was featured, it is enough to write only the most important one to shorten the lead section leaving only the Billboard as "the most successful female artist to debut in the 2010s" and "Woman of the Year in 2018".
It makes no sense to point out that Grande was once most followed female on Instagram, these records have been broken by other people for a long time, it is enough to write that Grande is now the fourth-most-followed person on Instagram, we specified 35 "Guinness" world records, therefore, this record is not necessary to write in the lead section for this old record there is a section of achievement, plus it is included in the Guinness World Records.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: If you are referring to the infobox at the beginning of the article, the text already has dates that indicate when the marriage began and ended. If you're not referring to the infobox, please indicate where within the article the text that you want changed is. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done for now: Looks like there was just a discussion about changing the photo, directly above this section, so this request is unlikely to be uncontroversial. I have no objection to an image change personally. Tollens (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Occupations
Livelikemusic, you have already warned me a few times on my talk page. You have to know that I have no bad intentions with my changes. I'm just very confused because other artists like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift also have occupations in their infoboxes listed, which aren't in their lead. DiaMali has already agreed for including businesswoman and record producer to her occupations. For both are also reliable sources, so I don't really understand what speaks against it. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
After this edit, which indicated that there was "consensus on the talk page" for including additional fields beyond what is in the lead, I took a look here to see what consensus there was. I don't see a consensus for this in this thread. I'll note here, as I did in my edit summary: per Template:Infobox person/doc, [the infobox] field is supposed to match what is in the lead. I looked (waaaaay) back through the edit history to see when this was undone previously and see that Livelikemusic removed this for the exact same reason. Again, I don't see any consensus to include this in the infobox. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As to whether additional occupations should be added to the lead, this has been discussed multiple times of the years (did a quick search of the archives), most recently in this thread, and there doesn't ever seem to have been consensus for including more than what is currently there. I'm open to adding additional occupations if consensus has changed, but this consensus (or lack of consensus) should be gauged first. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
DiaMali agreed with the change, however the topic already has been archieved. There are clear and reliable sources, for this to be added. Other artists, most notably Beyoncé, have their (many) occupations in their info boxes, even if they are not included in the lead. And even then, they also should be included in the lead, because like already stated, there are reliable sources to include them. It seems to me, that there is some kind of bias against Grande, because I opened the discussion months ago, and no one took any notice of it. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, at this point this is getting silly. I have sources that support my changes. There's no one who wants to take part in this discussion, even when it's very clear Grande is a record producer and businesswoman. I find it extremely biased that certain artists get a free pass of how much occupations they have on their lead or info box. The only editor who seems to have have an issue with it is Livelikemusic, but he's barely taking part in this discussion either. I'll wait until Monday. If they are no replies until then, I'm going to re-add them with sources on her info box and lead again. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
As I stated in a previous discussion—which was ignored, as well as [ignored] edit summaries—{{Infobox person}} states: Occupation(s) as given in the lead. And per the hidden note () this alludes to the fact anything beyond the three main occupations fail this. Just because someone ventures into another occupation does not equate it to being automatically notable or noteworthy. Just because X page does things does not mean Y page should, too. That would be as if stating "Josie robbed a bank, so I should, too!" livelikemusic(TALK!)17:08, 29 March 2024 (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.
Hi! After a couple of failed GA reviews of this article, I will be taking it on and promise to stick with it and give the article a thorough review. Brachy0008, can you confirm that you are around and able to implement changes based on the GA review? I know it's a high-profile article, so other editors may also comment and respond to GA concerns, but just wanted to ensure that we have a primary nominator. Thank you for your patience. Look for my first pass in the next couple of days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Brachy0008, please promptly deal with the copyvio below and confirm that you will be available to address the other comments throughout the GA process. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Brachy0008 before we continue on to the rest of the review, I think it's important to address the issues at 2b, 3b, and 5 below. Let me know when you will have time to work on these. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I am slowly working on 2b and 3b. I am not sure if I can handle 5 though but I can try. (I do not have admin powers lol) Brachy08(Talk)01:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok! For #5, you don't need admin powers, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the issue. If there are any regular points of dispute, you could try organizing RfCs to garner formal consensus on them on the talk page. In general, a page this prominent that is a GA will need a regular level of upkeep to maintain that status. Otherwise, it will probably end up at GAR (good article reassessment) within a year. For example, Barack Obama was a featured article for many years, but eventually was delisted. I don't want to intimidate you away from improving the article - it's very possible to get this article to GA and keep it there, and I believe we can do it - I just want to make sure you are aware that this is a particularly tricky article to do that for given its high profile and popularity. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing a lot of this! Could you mark, in the table below, any 2b comments that you weren't able to get to? I'm not sure what you meant by "that is in my control" is all. Let me know about 3b as well! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
About 3b, I am adressing the examples that you have addressed. Might read the article again to check for some unrelated stuff. Brachy08(Talk)22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for checking. Yes, please go through the whole article with a fine-toothed comb to deal with dead sources, unreliable sources, and instances of overdetail - let me know when you are ready for me to take another look! I can also do some trimming of detail myself, if you would prefer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Brachy0008, it's been a few days and the comments below have not yet all been addressed, and the issues described don't seem to have been checked for in the remainder of the article. Do you think you have time to get to them soon? Otherwise, eventually the review will have to be closed. Let me know - thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Brachy0008, given the number of sourcing issues and amount of trivial detail included, I would say the article is a long way off from meeting Good Article Criteria #2 and #3. I also have ongoing concerns about #5 (stability). The review has been open for 2 weeks and the comments I've made have not been fully addressed in that time. Usually, this would be grounds for a quickfail.
However, I want to give you a chance to address these issues, given our work so far, your obvious good faith, and the previous failed GA reviews. If you can substantially address the sourcing problems and level of detail (as described in 2b and 3b below) throughout the entire article in the next 72 hours, I think we'll be in a good place to continue. Otherwise, I'll have to close the review as unsuccessful. If these seems like too much in too little time, remember that that's ok! This is a volunteer site and not every article has to be a GA to be valuable or useful. Thanks for your improvements thus far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Checking the WP:RSN discussions about Uproxx, it seems to be reliable, however it is a bit more opinion-based. Any thoughts about the source? Brachy08(Talk)00:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, 72 hours have passed, and significant issues remain with sourcing and level of detail throughout large parts of the article. As I said above, that means I will have to close this review as unsuccessful. However, please don't be too discouraged by this - your changes have made a big difference already and the article is in much-improved shape from where it was two weeks ago. Getting an article this big and this visible to GA is a remarkably difficult task. In the future, the issues below are fully addressed, and you feel confident the article is ready for another review, please feel free to ping me if you renominate. Thank you for your hard work and happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
What are the sources for the claim that Grande is "one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation"? How about the sources for "pop icon"? Per WP:LEADCITE, it's ok if these sources are not in the lead directly, but they should be in a relevant passage in the body of the article somewhere.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Citations with multiple references, like #4 (on Hose-McCann communications), probably don't need so many. Pick the most reliable source or couple of sources that include the relevant information and the rest can be removed.
Is M Magazine a reliable source?
Entertainment Tonight is probably not reliable enough to be included (#10, Nonna)
Some citations are inconsistently formatted - for instance, #s 12 and 13 give the publication as South Florida Sun-Sentinel, unlinked, while #14 gives it as Sun-Sentinel, linked. The first two are in in cite-website format which should be changed to cite-news. Please check for this issue elsewhere as well.
The MTV biography (#16) links to a generic page, though the archive works. Please update the link or mark it as a deadlink (there's a line for that in the template).
Entertainment Cheat Sheet is not a reliable source.
Is Girl2watch.com a reliable source?
#22 (her own official website) is probably not independent enough to be used for that kind of information. Please find a different source or remove the info.
TVByTheNumbers no longer exists - please mark the link as dead. Is it a reliable source? Used at least twice (#26, #31).
The Winx club Nickelodeon source doesn't actually support the sentence, it just states that she was cast, not that she voiced the role for two subsequent years. New source needed.
Stephen Thomas Erlewine should be given as the author of the AllMusic bio
marrsattacks.com does not appear to be a reliable source and the original link is dead. Please replace with a more suitable source.
#41 (Popular Song) - we don't need a direct youtube link if there's a reliable secondary source which addresses the song.
The Pasadenaplayhouse citation is a bit of a mess - if possible, please track down the original article on broadwayworld.com and cite that.
Fanlala, the original link is dead. Is this a reliable source? Doesn't appear to be on first spec.
Is Rap-Up a reliable source?
Was Teen.com a reliable source at the time of the article used (2013)?
TheSlanted.com - the original link is dead. Is this a reliable source?
Entertainmentwise does not appear to be a reliable source
Queerty.com doesn't appear to be super-reliable - though it's part of a larger network, I can't find an editorial policy and they blur the lines between influencers and journalists according to Q Digital's site.
HiddenRemote link is dead - also, Fansided does not appear to be a reliable source. Please replace
#116 is missing a publisher (Huffington Post) ("Incredibly imitates whitney...")
Ditto for #117 by D'Addario
Is Self (Lanquist) a reliable source?
Stopping at 130 for now. There are over 500 citations in the article! Please do a thorough check for some of the broader issues mentioned above (use of cite-news vs cite-website where appropriate, missing author names, links that no longer work, unreliable sources used repeatedly).
Not every comment above has been addressed, and there are still many unreliable or potentially unreliable sources cited throughout the remainder of the article, including but not limited to: Eonline.com, The Fader (PR), E! News Australia, TicketNews, Forbes blogspam, Buzzfeed (not Buzzfeed News), iheartradio.com, meaww.com (MEA Worldwide), E!, The Face, Uproxx (marginal), neonlimelight.com (Limelight Spotlight Q&A), Hollywoodlife, Footwear News, US Weekly, cambio.com, Gay Times, Visual Capitalist, celebdirtylaundry.com
In addition, there are formatting issues and missing information, such as missing authors, publishers, capitalization (seeing a lot of lowercasing - jezebel, npr, pitchfork, Vh1...)
The 104.3 myFM Lana Del Rey interview doesn't appear to contain the information it's being used to support.
^ This takes us up through #292. The article has serious sourcing issues and will require a lot of work to get it to GA standard. All these unreliable sources should be removed, and the information they support should be removed as well, unless a reliable source is found with the same details. Please also go through sources #293-492 and remove other unreliable sources (you can always check at WP:RSP and WP:RSN.
More unreliable or poor sources; Rappler (content is an ad, not actual news), Hits Daily Double, Capital FM, Soompi, TigerBeat, RCN Radio, Febre Teen, Create & Cultivate (PR, also misspelled), Ask Anything Chat, Epic Media Labs, Inquisitr, Routenote, Nickutopia (misspelled as Nikutopia), Refinery29 (marginal), TMZ, TheNational.ae (PR), Alist (PR), LaunchMetrics, Product Placement Blog, I-Spot, PR Newswire (PR), The Zoe Report, PR Newswire again, Cohan (Shelley, Forbes contributor), WetPaint, Mirror, CathNewsUSA, Yahoo Celebrity (marginal), Cosmopolitan (marginal), Business Insider (marginal),
Is Zonales reliable?
The Yahoo YDE source is a copy of a Billboard article - swap in the Billboard original.
Missing details on #323 (signs with new management) from Billboard.
#360, OfficialArianaGrande, about her charity, is insufficiently independent to be used a source for a flattering claim like that. Need a source that's not her website.
Ditto for PIX morning news, not independent enough since it's just her saying it.
In contrast to some of the overdetail below, I find the Manchester bombing a little undercovered and wouldn't mind a couple more sentences on its impact on her personally. As I recall there was a lot of sympathy and it was just an all-around horrific thing for everybody.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
This article definitely has an issue with "going into unnecessary detail." As a famous pop star and celebrity, there is a whole industry, including many reliable sources, dedicated to reporting on just about everything Ariana Grande does in public. However, not all of these details need to be included here. This article is packed with unnecessary details about very minor appearances, ranking listings, or incidents. I will list some examples below, but a thorough pass of the whole article should be made to remove trivial detail. That will help the article become a proper summary of her life and career, rather than appearing to be written for fans of Grande.
On October 9, 1998, during the inaugural regular-season hockey game of the Florida Panthers at National Car Rental Center, Grande became the first child to ever ride a Zamboni in the brand-new arena during the first intermission, the result of her parents' $200 winning bid at an auction.
Is this relevant in some way? Strikes me as trivial detail.
The following month, Billboard magazine ranked Grande at number four on their list of "Music's Hottest Minors 2013", an annual ranking of the most popular musicians under the age of 21.
Rolling Stone placed this song at number 40 on its list of The 50 Most Inspirational LGBTQ Songs of All Time
premiered at the 2014 Radio Disney Music Awards on April 26, 2014
Billboard listed the single among the greatest Holiday songs of all time, while Official Charts Company ranked it the best biggest female Christmas song of the 21st century
Grande made a cameo appearance in the comedy film Zoolander 2 starring Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson
Grande won an online voting poll on Entertainment Weekly as the "best host of the season". In May 2016, Grande appeared on The Voice season 10 finale, performing the second single from the album, "Into You", which peaked at number 13 in the United States, and duetted with Christina Aguilera on "Dangerous Woman".
"Singer makes guest appearance on singing show" is very run-of-the-mill.
In August 2016, Grande performed a tribute to the late Whitney Houston on the season finale of the ABC television series Greatest Hits and headlined the opening night of the second annual Billboard Hot 100 Music Festival, performing a nearly hour-long set of her own songs.
Similarly, "singer performs tribute to another singer" and "singer sings at music festival for an hour" are very normal things for a pop star to do and not really worth including. Summarized information about her own tours and *major* other performances is good - this sort of detail is probably too much.
Aside from music, Grande filmed a commercial for T-Mobile that premiered in October 2016
The same month, Grande and Stevie Wonder appeared on the season finale of the US competition TV series The Voice, performing their collaboration "Faith" from the soundtrack of the 2016 animated film Sing. "Faith" was nominated for Best Original Song at the 74th Golden Globe Awards. At the end of the year, Grande participated in the Jingle Ball Tour 2016.
On March 31, 2017, Calvin Harris released a song titled "Heatstroke" from his album Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1, which featured Grande, Young Thug, and Pharrell Williams. On April 27, 2017, Norwegian DJ Cashmere Cat released the fifth song "Quit" from his debut album 9 featuring Grande.
In general, unless they were particularly impactful, or relevant to her initial rise to fame, guest appearances on other people's songs are probably not important enough to be mentioned here.
In August 2017, Grande appeared in an Apple Music Carpool Karaoke episode, singing musical theatre songs with American entertainer Seth MacFarlane.
Stopping before the 2018–2019 subsection. Using the above comments as a guide, please go through the remainder of the 'Career' section and remove this kind of trivial detail where you find it. Happy to provide further guidance if requested. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Things like "debuted seven live performances on Vevo" and "headlined a Fortnite concert" is another good example of the sort of overdetail that simply doesn't need to be included here. This isn't supposed to be an exhaustive reference of everything Grande has done - it's a *summary* of her life and career.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Other comments to come, but this quote is just too egregious as flattery and should be significantly shortened:
Composer and playwright Jason Robert Brown wrote in a 2016 Time magazine article, "[N]o matter how much you are underestimated ... you are going to open your mouth and that unbelievable sound is going to come out. That extraordinary, versatile, limitless instrument that allows you to shut down every objection and every obstacle.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
There have been significant expansions in the last week in several sections, and a number of recent discussions on the the talk page about neutrality, changes to the lead, and other issues are not fully resolved. This makes it difficult to expect that if it reaches GA standard during this review, that it will remain there without significant ongoing effort. What are your thoughts on this issue?
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
File:Ariana Grande interview 2016.png - the Commons page is not very clear on why this image is not under copyright / public domain. Could you clarify or improve the Commons description?
Issue addressed - provisional pass but will have to recheck at end of review.
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.
Can someone please change her picture?
The picture is almost an decade old. Can someone please update the picture? Grande went to Oscars this years, I am sure there must be licensed pictures of her from the red carpet JabSaiyaan (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
While I have seen no photos from the Oscars that have licenses that can be used here, personally, I don't know what rational argument anyone has against using the only recent photo of her available that checks all the boxes of what a lead image should have. This isn't a case of Billie Eilish, where people want to go frequently changing the photo for no good reason.
For whatever reason, that one makes her head look squashed. So much so that I found it positively distracting when I happened to visit the article while it was in place. YMMV.
@Trillfendi The photo always gets reverted because it "isn't appropriate". However, Elizabeth Gilles (Ariana Grande's long-time friend) posted a candid of her on Instagram, which I believe can be used. Here is the link (slide 7):
We cannot use Instagram photos without the permission or request of the celebrity or if they add the photo to the Commons themselves (which are rare instances but have happened). Though that would be much more convenient if we could. Trillfendi (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand you believe the picture used may be outdated. Why does it matter? First of all, Wikipedia pages are meant to give information about the topic, in which it does so. Second of all, even if the picture may be "almost a decade old," she still looks great in it. I think the picture is good for the article because it shows Ariana at a concert, singing, which is what she is famous for. The point: The picture is not the primary part of the Wikipedia page, and I don't think it's so bad that it should be reported on. 72.85.199.109 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I have been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know what the expected criteria for lead images are. I made articles like Harry Styles and Rihanna into good articles, so at this point I know what popular articles require. It doesn't matter how "great" she looks in it or not (that's purely subjective and we can all agree that she looks great all the time), it is not representative of her current appearance being that this photo is the only photo available since the 2020s decade even started. In fact this is the only available to use photo of her face since 2016! That photo should be in the 2013–2015: Yours Truly and My Everything section and replace the zoomed out one. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Just disambiguating that when I say appearance I don't mean anything related to beauty but how she actually currently looks. A 30 year old woman isn't going to look the same as she did as a 22 year old woman and that's why I believe the article ought to reflect that. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cwater1 Should comply with Wikimedia Commons' requirements for an image to be allowed. If its licensed for use it should be good (I searched on flickr and did not find anything its always "all rights reserved") 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺,05:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with the photo change. The most recent one comes from a YouTube tutorial. Grande is an artist and performer. In the previous picture, she is seen with doing exactly that, while wearing cat ears, one of her signature looks. The blonde hair she currently wears is temporary, and her eyebrows are also bleached. She doesn't look like herself, she looks like the character she plays in the Wicked films. The photo is strangely close, she appears emotional. It just an unflattering photo. Why do you all care if the 2015 picture is older? It's still better than her latest, which doesn't do her any favors. I would definitely agree to add a picture from this year's Oscars. I think this is more appropriate than a random screenshot of her doing a tutorial on YouTube. Furthermore, I see that only one editor agrees, while most just want a more recent image, meaning they don't specifically agree with the latest image. So I'm going to change it back to the one that has been the main image since November until there are better photos of her in 2024. Grande will be on a lot of red carpets promoting her film this year, and there's a chance she'll be touring again. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Still, there's no reason to use that image. You seem to be very hostile and biased. I already said, that the image should be changed to something recent at some point, when there is an appropriate one from this year. The main image is good as it is for now, it shows her as an entertainer on the stage, that's what her occupation says, it's much better than whatever that 2023 image is. She doesn't look like herself, it's screenshot, she looks emotional/sad in it. You can't tell me any good reasons why it should be the main, besides that it's the most recent and follows the protocol. I'm always trying to stay objective, and imagine someone else searching after “Ariana Grande” on Wikipedia, and the first he sees is a random image of her doing a YouTube tutorial, while her occupations clearly says that she's a singer /actress. Why that most recent image of hers should be the main, if it's clearly one of her worst and has no quality at all? Mirrored7 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know that there's anyone at all who doesn't agree that the image "should be changed", as such. That's not the issue. The issue is that there's currently no available alternative able to generate consensus that it would be, on balance, an improvement on the established one. In that situation, my understanding is that leaving it alone until a better alternative does become available is the proper and only thing to do. That individual editors have more vested motivations than that is likely true, but also neither here nor there.
@Mirrored7, the removal was done here. The edit summary was: GA4: Removed unnecessary detail. The removal was done in response to Item 3B of the review, which you can view above.
Hours of work was put into the review by Brachy0008 and the reviewer. If you want to try to undo the edits made in the GA review, I personally would appreciate it if you would discuss it here first, out of respect for the hard work that was put into the review. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't even understand what's there to discuss. Those are Grande's most recent achievements, and should be included in the career section. @Brachy0008 Please explain to me why you removed this. It's well sourced content and has nothing to do with the discussed topic itself. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The reason for the removal is pretty self-explanatory if you read the GA review, and I agree with the reasoning behind the edit, even though I don't agree completely with the edit itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: There's a lot of stuff that might be reliably sourced but may not be due for inclusion.
While I would support re-adding the statement about 1) the album and second single debuting on the Billboard 200/Hot 100, and 2) Grande topping the songwriter/producer charts, the rest of it (rankings compared to other artists, x-number artist to top certain charts simultaneously) is the type of overly detailed material flagged for attention in the GA review. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, then I would re-add it and take those parts out. It's really not that big of a deal. However, removing the whole content, isn't right either. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I felt that those kinds of information delved into unnecessary detail that are best shown in the respective article of whatever this article mentions, even though they were well sourced. Brachy08(Talk)08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Branchy08--sorry, I did a partial self-revert before I saw your comment here. Please feel free to revert me if you think the info I added was too much detail for this article. I do want to see this article meet GA status one day and I don't want to jeopardize that. Thank you again for all the work you put in on the GA review, you did a great job with it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
▪︎ According to GV Review, it was criticized that too many unnecessary details are included on the career section, among them are promotion appearances like SNL, Fallon. However, recently there were included Grande's SNL and Met Gala appearances. I would say, the SNL info should be removed, and the Met Gala info should be shortened only with the opening song and closing song remaining, it's just too much unnecessary info otherwise.
▪︎ Sources to Grande's 98 billion streams, which are from reliable outlets like Variety and Deadline, were removed, because of “too many sources”. It should be re-added as the info is included in her achievement section and in the lead, and is one of Grande's biggest accomplishments.
@Aoi Isn't this your topic? I would appreciate if you can reply to me. You seem to only care about removing content from the lead, but not adding something to the article. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is a thread that I originally created. However:
your post here is in not directly related to the thread that I created (this should probably be an edit request in a new thread),
even if it was directly related, it's a stale thread that hasn't been replied to in more than a month (if you want to bring someone's attention to a stale thread, you should ping them),
it's not clear from the text that you were expecting me, specifically, to reply to this,
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I really just to try to bring attention to some issues on the talk page, as I'm blocked right now, and can't do anything. Things are removed without any explanation, and it's frustrating to see. I brought it to this topic, because some parts are about the GA review. The same things that were criticized are being done again, with adding her promo appearances to the career section. It thought It might interest you, because you, yourself said, you want the article to reach GA status someday. In the review, reliable sources were removed, which are about Grande's streaming units. I would say the user made a mistake, because he thought multiple sources were about one achievement. Also, the "songwriter" removal from the lead, without any explanation, even when there were multiple discussions on the talk page, to have it stay that way.
I just would like you to add some things, when it's possible for you. I would appreciate it. And next time I would do an edit request. Sorry for my tone. But I hope you can understand, from where I come from. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Lead, again
Following up on a bunch of prior discussions, but most recently this one, which I did not participate in: per MOS:LEADLENGTH, Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words. The present lead is more than 600 words long spread through 22 often very long sentences. While I don't think that's necessarily a problem in of itself, I do think we need to be judicious about when and how the lead is expanded, especially since Grande herself is still young and the lead will likely continue to grow as her career progresses.
I appreciate the intent behind trying to expand the lead to make her notability more evident, but I think the article lead already makes clear that Grande is [a]n influential figure in popular music, [a]mong the world's best-selling music artists, and described as one of the greatest vocalists of all time by an influential music publication. How much does it really add to the article to also say that she is a triple threat entertainer, which is repeating a phrase buried in the third paragraph of the public image section of the article, and is doing so really WP:DUE? Not everything that is in the article needs to be repeated in the lead, and I think the lead already more than adequately indicates who Grande is and why she is notable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In addition, Escape Orbit's edit here seemed entirely appropriate and was an improvement, IMO. It conveyed the same information in six fewer words. The edit was reverted with the edit summary "no improvement." I disagree: directness (and NPOV) is a plus.
Similarly, the clause {{tq|she is noted for her four-octave vocal range and whistle register conveys the information adequately. Saying, she is noted for her four-octave vocal range and her signature use of the whistle register, as was reverted to here doesn't add very much meaning. It's also not clear who is calling her use of the whistle register a "signature" of hers--there's nothing in the article body to support this and it's not NPOV for Wikipedia to say this in its own words. Further, it's another bloating addition to the lead.
I too would like to know the thinking behind "numerous accolades". "Numerous" here tells the reader nothing (is it 5, 50, 500, 5000?), except to put forward the opinion that the writer thinks that it is a lot. I'm also not clear what the phrase "throughout her career" conveys? Again, it is advancing an opinion that the reader should be impressed not only by the number, but the distribution of her awards. Or is it to distinguish these awards from those she received outside her career? Does she have any of these? So why say it? --Escape Orbit(Talk)15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
For those counting, this is the fifth time @Mirrored7: has been asked to discuss their reverting of improvements to the article. So far they have ignored requests to contribute to the discussion. If they cannot, or will not, explain their position, then they cannot contribute to this article in a collaborative manner, and their edits are just disruptive edit warring.--Escape Orbit(Talk)16:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Since I reverted again, I just want to note that I stand by my comments above. I also read the IP's comments below and while I appreciate what they have to say about lead lengths, I don't think their comment addresses the specific issues that Escape Orbit or myself have raised (including, not limited to, specificity, directness, NPOV). I also understand that many editors just read the lead and skip the article body. That's fine and all, but that doesn't mean we need to load everything in the body into the lead. I don't think the specific edits being discussed here take away any critical content away from the lead, and readers of the lead will still understand who Grande is and why she is such a notable person. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm now the second one in here, saying, that the length of the lead is in the normal range and should stay the way it is. The lead was much more bloated months ago, and already has been shortened drastically. However, I understand your concerns, and will try my best to keep the lead clear and objective. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The length of the lead is one issue, but it leaves the other issues (NPOV, directness, specificity, etc.) unaddressed. (It's also worth noting that the IP's comment below dealt with only lead lengths in general. The IP did not comment on the specific language being discussed here.)
On the specificity issue: I considered staying neutral on the use of the word "numerous," but on further thought, I think Escape Orbit has a good point: "numerous" is so vague that, in this context, the term is almost meaningless. Numerous could mean 5+ awards (like Victoria Justice), 100+ awards awards (like Dua Lipa), or 700+ awards (like Taylor Swift). It's not clear what realm of "numerous" this "numerous" refers to. When you consider the information that follows, which summarizes Grande's various Grammys, Billboard Music Awards, AMAs, world records, etc. (53 in total), I don't think removing the word "numerous" takes away anything critical. Further, the use of the word "includes" neutrally conveys that those 53 awards are just a subset of the accolades that Grande has earned (i.e., there are more awards beyond the 53 described in the lead).
Finally, your response to Escape Orbit below is, again, inappropriate (and I say "again" because you've been called out on this before). Stop thinking that every single editor who disagrees with you on an edit has a "problem" or is being "nitpicky". Oh, and saying "no one seems to have an issue with it, except you"? That is obviously not the case. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm here now, and I honestly don't understand your problem. First, I'm not the one who added this, however, I also don't really see why it should be removed. It has been like this since forever, and no one seems to have an issue with it, except you. Is there a rule, to not use the word “numerous”? If not, it shouldn't be removed. The rest, is just nitpicking and your personal opinion. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
"I honestly don't understand your problem" - you don't see the problem with reverting an edit, saying it must be discussed, when you have been ignoring for weeks requests to discuss it?
"I'm not the one who added this" - you are the one reverting it.
"It has been like this since forever" - this may be a reason for it being a change requiring discussion, but it is not any kind of reason for it not being changed.
"no one seems to have an issue with it, except you" - no-one seems set on including it, except you. Head-counts do not establish whether something is an improvement or not.
"Is there a rule, to not use the word “numerous”?" - This rule here that says text should be expressed neutrally. As I explained; "numerous" is vague and not neutral. It is only good at expressing the opinion that the writer thinks it is a lot, and wishes the reader to know this.
"and your personal opinion." - as is your insistence that it should remain
All you've addressed above is largely irrelevant and simply about personalising disagreement. Could you please address the issue and explain why the article without these words is not an improvement? What are these words adding to the article, that it loses when they are removed?
Firstly, I would like to apologize to you. I understand that I cannot take ownership of an article. It's important that you know that I mean no harm with my revisions and that I truly want to work with you. I saw your responses, just didn't reply to it directly and saved it for later, but then lost sight of it. I was also wondering, as I didn't see it as that big of an issue. I know that “numerous” can mean anything and is not specific enough. I understand your concerns. To reach a final consensus, how we add "various" instead, because in my opinion that says much more than "numerous". Mirrored7 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
IMO "various" has the same pitfalls as "numerous." Can you help me understand why you think the word "various" works better? Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
By "various", I mean not the quantity but the variety, from music and film to beauty awards, and organizations that award them like Billboard and MTV. It definitely says more than "numerous". Mirrored7 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Meh, I would be open to this if we mentioned other types of awards in the lead, but all the awards noted in the lead appear to be music-related (and it seems undue to list non-music awards). Referring to "various" awards in that context but only listing music awards would likely just confuse readers. I still prefer Escape Orbit's version. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
But even then, not all music awards are the same. Billboard is about charts, American Music Awards is fan voted, VMAs are about music videos, Guinness is about world records. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a pretty weak argument. Those awards are all (or, excepting specific world records for social media following or "favorite Eevee tattoo", almost all) still music-related. Of course each award will have different selection criteria. I don't see how that justifies the use of the word "various". My point is that it won't be clear to readers from the context what the word "various" refers to. It would be much more straightforward to simply say that her awards include Grammys, AMAs, etc., and then let them look at her awards page to see the details if they want to learn more. I continue to believe that Escape Orbit's version is preferable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need to add any kind of description, quantifying or evaluation of the awards? It's difficult to do this without the suggestion of an opinion being voiced. Why can't the article just say she has won awards, with link, then list a selection of the most significant? That's the job of a lead and gets across, neutrally, the important facts. I also still don't see what "throughout her career" adds. Either it is pointless verbiage (which is bad), or it is suggesting it is remarkable she's won awards at different times (which is worse). But "various" is certainly better than "numerous". --Escape Orbit(Talk)08:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Escape Orbit I would strike the "various" tbh, and I also would replace "Grande's awards" with " Her accolades". While we're at it, can you add, "she is "recognized" instead of "noted" for her four-octave vocal range, so we can include "with Rolling Stone naming her one of the greatest vocalists of all time" in between. The senstence looks very random at the end. Mirrored7 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
General observation: I looked at a bunch of articles about musicians with comparable notability just now. Not a single one of those ledes clocked in below 400 words, and a couple were even longer than this one.
Personally, I think they're all excessively detailed and would indeed be better at half their current length, just as the MOS section you quoted suggests. My SOP for articles with lengthy ledes is to read the first paragraph and then skip straight to the body, otherwise I tend to end up feeling like I wasted my time by reading a bunch of stuff twice over.
Objectively, it's probably fair to say that this represents something of a consensus among the editors of this type of article that it's more important for ledes to be comprehensive than to be concise. This one's lede does not seem excessively long to me by that standard.
I was fixing a small typo (the letter "a" in between the two sentences), and didn't notice that they were previously two separate paragraphs. Fixed now. Isthmus55 (t • c) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Grande is a songwriter, and has been recognized as that. It has been discussed in here multiple times. Why it was removed from the lead and without any explanation or a discussion? Mirrored7 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Most followers on Instagram for a musician and a female musician
Would like to update to reflect that Selena Gomez now has most followers. Have already mentioned it on the talk page of List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande:
Yes. As i haven't had any feedback as yet, i was hoping to alert editors here to the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande. It needs updating as we now have conflicting pages within Wikipedia...as i've already pointed out, Selena Gomez's pages cite Selena Gomez as having most followers for a musician and a female musician while Grande's relevant page also cites that Grande has most for a musician and a female musician. It can't be both Gomez and Grande, so it needs updating.
Can someone please reply to this? It's been three days, and there has been no edits or discussions made. I'm blocked from the article, and can't do the changes myself. What's point of this talk page? @Prefall @Trillfendi
@Aoi Can you please reply to this thread. Your one of the most active editors on this article, and I don't appreciate how you replying to anyone but ignoring my edit request. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
RFC: LEAD IMAGE
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm closing as an uninvolved editor requested at WP:RFCL. On the substance of this discussion, editors generally agreed on qualities the photos had, but disagreed on what qualities are most important. As an example, editors agreed that Option A showed Ariana Grande performing and was subjectively a good pose, but acknowledged it was low quality and old. Option B, on the other hand is new and high-resolution, but is "posed almost as though for a driver's license photo!" B2 suffers the same issues but to a lesser extent. Option C is new and high-resolution, but the lighting is horrible.
This makes it difficult to establish a consensus on the best image, since editors more or less agree the proposed options weren't that good and there's not much weighing to tell me how important good lighting is versus having an "action shot" of Ariana Grande singing. I would say there is no consensus on a choice between those particular images, but editors did gain some consensus on what makes an image "good", which is resolution, recency, depicting the subject in a way related to their notability, and lighting. Editors disagreed on the priority assigned to these different points, and that appeared to be the source of the disagreements. As a sidenote to my evaluation of the RfC itself, many editors rejected the premise of the RfC and proposed focusing on finding a new & better photo. Even editors that didn't !vote for the status quo/against the RfC wished that there was a better photo.
Since the RfC ended, editors have discovered a new image from a Met Gala video. This image meets the criteria of being well-lit, new, high-resolution, and an action shot of her singing. As far as I can tell, commenters prefer versions of that image (the specific version of such there isn't much consensus on) to any of the ones proposed in this RfC. While that image did not appear during this RfC, it would be silly not to use it for procedural reasons if editors don't have concerns about the image itself.
I was asked for guidance at WP:RFCL on finding a way forwards, and I would recommend continuing discussion on the Met Gala photo. If consensus can be achieved, I don't think it's necessary to have another RfC. In terms of improving discussion quality, I would suggest that editors explain why they believe one aspect of an image is more important than another, instead of just saying that an image is blurry, clear or new. This will help focus the discussion on what editors appear to disagree on. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors. The conversation about changing Ariana's photo seems to be going nowhere. From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be any decisions being made but constant edit warring, so I thought starting an RFC would be the best course of action. There are so many images available so I am unsure why this has become a problem but hopefully this speeds things along. Comment below which photo you think the article should to change to and feel free to comment on why! Maxwell King12332101:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment (Summoned by bot): this isn't going to be super helpful to resolving any existing impasse, but honestly, despite the fact that I've been RfC'd to/stumbled upon more than a dozen of these 'pick the BLP lead image' RfCs over the years, and always try to find some encyclopedically relevant criteria by which to provide feedback, this time I just can't see much difference between the options: all would be appropriate choices for the lead image: A and C arguably do a better job of representing the subject within the context that defines her notability, but B is more typical of BLP lead images and is arguably just a little more neutral and encyclopedically objective by just the slightest of degrees as a result. I would not have been shocked to find any of them as the lead image had I arrived at this article as a reader. SnowRise let's rap12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Status quo or RFC withdrawn These images are bad. B is horrible. C isn't really an improvement. This could all be avoided if there was a better image available, this RFC is basically just forcing the issue. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Status quo or RFC withdrawn Essentially what Nemov said. Between these three, I would choose C, due to it combining the aspect of her performing as in picture A and the (relative) recency of picture B. Overall, I would let this topic be until we get a clear answer over whether she's touring this year or manage to get a photo that's in the public domain. Isthmus55 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Status quoor RFC withdrawn, i.e., A (current image) (Summoned by bot): A is the only good image of the three, and shows her doing what made her notable in the first place. B is an unusual angle and zoom/crop for a bio photo. She's posed almost as though for a driver's license photo! Shot from below eye level is an unusual angle to see a not-very-tall musician photographed from. C is just a bad photo, with harsh shadows and the subject being underlit. Neither proposed change will improve the article. Vadder (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
B I don’t care about “doing what makes her notable” more than I care about the reading audience having an unobstructed, clear, modern, quality image of her face that isn’t from 2 presidents ago. It’s a perfectly fine image of her in her current age group. No other photos are available of the 2020s and that’s the problem. The fact that this is available and properly licensed (no copyright violations) is a no-brainer. Trillfendi (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Status quo or RFC withdrawn per Nemov. If people want an image of her face from yesterday I am sure they can find one through their favourite image search. This RfC is just a waste of everyone's time; if the RfCer really wants to "speed things along" they should withdraw this now—but that's not what they mean by "make a decision", is it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
If people want to know why this article continues to fail Good Article nominations while her peers have them, this is a prime example of why. Trillfendi (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
These comments, both AirshipJungleman's and your own, are not terribly appropriate or helpful. Airship, if you're going to make oblique implications that the OP is acting in bad faith, then you should probably speak more plainly about what that behaviour is, rather than making vague, passive-aggressive suggestions. That, or better yet, take any behavioural concerns to an appropriate community forum and confine your comments here to the content issue or valid and clear procedural objections, as the TPGs direct. As far as I can tell, having read the preceding discussion, this is a procedurally and contextually valid RfC. There was an editorial dispute, and as the previous discussion (and the RfC itself) demonstrates, there was a wide span of perspectives on the best way forward that was resulting in a deadlock among involved editors. That's exactly what RfCs are for, and though I personally often feel that it can be a bit silly when a group of editors on some celebrity's BLP can't reasonably agree on a picture and have to RfC rather than one side or the other just giving way, it's still better than wasting community time on a slow moving edit war, and RfCs for determining the lead image are thus not uncommon. Frankly, these repeated "Status quo or withdraw RfC" !votes (being unaccompanied by a valid policy reason for retraction) feel like an effort to pressure one side to back down when the OP appears to be doing nothing more than following our typical and recommended dispute resolution process. Just let people have their say and we'll hopefully have a valid consensus at the end. Either way, implying bad faith conduct or a problematic approach without actually identifying policy non-complaint behaviour or process is not helpful in the least. Meanwhile, Trillfendi, piling one vague broadside about another editor being a problem on top of the first is also non-productive. SnowRise let's rap13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t say the editor was being problematic. I said it was indicative of one of the very reasons this article consistently fails Good Article nominations while her peers (Miley Cyrus and Harry Styles as two examples) succeed. That’s not the same thing. Trillfendi (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I was a "Status quo or withdraw RfC" !voter, and I don't want to pressure anybody. I, for one, am not really arguing policy either, just editorial judgement.
The main underlying thesis of this RFC is something like "We need to change the photo, so change it to what?", which has a bad predicate. This is not a case of "We need to change the photo" as in the photo is bad, useless, or added in error. It should be "We have a good photo, but is this one better? How about this one instead?"
Another underlying thesis of this RFC is that living persons still active in their careers should be represented by current photos. There's no policy to that effect (nor should there be), but it's good to strive for that. I commend striving for that.
Find a good current photo we can use, or take one, and I would probably support the change. But "that's so last decade" (so to speak) is not a good argument in policy or in editing. Vadder (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Those are fine arguments (or rather counter-arguments) about suggested options/approaches. But there certainly was (and is) an active editorial dispute. And if anything, the approach the OP supported had marginally greater support in the original thread, as I read it as a respondent, after the fact--but definitely there was an impasse all the same. So implications that the RfC is in some way problematic, bad faith, or an abuse of function do not appear to add up to me. So while I certainly give full trust and AGF to your assertion that you don't want to pressure anyone, I'd suggest that "Status quo" would have sufficed in the circumstances, and certain other comments above definitely were heavy with the suggestion that the OP was pressing forward with an RfC that was inappropriate. And as an uninvolved community respondent looking at the previous discussion, I just don't see how that's so. Regardless, anyone suggesting a RfC be withdrawn ought to be citing to policy and specific facts showing why there is abuse of process. Failing that, they should just focus their comments on the content issue. SnowRise let's rap07:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I take your point, and have struck the "RFC withdrawn" portion of my !vote, as I do not want to be interpreted as suggesting bad faith. The discussion above was a debate among people who want to change the image, but hadn't agreed to what. Then an RFC was opened, and naturally, though incorrectly, the starting position of the RFC was where the debate ended: "We're changing the photo, but to what?" You shouldn't limit an RFC like that. An RFC was perfectly appropriate here. This RFC assumes that change will be its outcome ("Comment below which photo you think the article should to change to..."), and that is not a good framing. Ultimately I don't think it matters. A number of respondents are ignoring the actual question and opining for the status quo, as I did. I'm sure those will be considered duly by the closer. Vadder (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This dispute is silly, that's why it should be withdrawn. The reason there's a dispute is because there's not a good alternative presented. This RFC is a waste of valuable resource time. If there was as good recent image then a RFC wouldn't be required. Instead, this is going to be a long drawn out process that will be pointless as soon a good, recent image is found. I wrote the original withdraw case for a good reason. It's a waste of time. Nemov (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I vote for C as it is a lot clearer than A and far more representative of her artistic persona (the very reason this page exists in the first place) than B. Monsterofain (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
A > B > C, but as Snow Rise points out, they’re all fine. I see no issue with the RfC, assuming there has been genuine discussion though; remember, a vote for status quo is different to a vote for an invalid RfC, and although we might think this is a trivial topic, that’s not enough to say it is not valid. At this point I would rather see a quick straw poll of an RfC than a protracted discussion on whether the RfC should be held. — HTGS (talk)03:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
C. It is more representative of her as a singer and does not look too outdated. The lighting is not the best, but neither is A or B. Senorangel (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
None that are available in Commons. If someone finds one that is suitable per copyright law, this whole debate can be settled. Trillfendi (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The 2020 image could be used if the 2023 image was erased from the Wikipedia, that's if it isn't erased from Wikipedia use. Cwater1 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
A (preferred) or C. Really, they're all awful to one extent or another, be it blurry, out of focus, low resolution, or some combination of all three. It's no wonder that aggregators of our content replace our image with fair-use images (only showing the main image when explicitly listing Wikipedia as a search result). —Locke Cole • t • c20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Preferably, there should be an entirely new picture uploaded and used (I'd recommend from the oscars, if possible), given that there don't seem to be any high-quality pictures from after 2015. That said, B is the best option (though commons has a slightly better version, I think). C has poor lighting, and A is extremely low-resolution. Ships & Space(Edits)01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
A is the perfect lead image for now. It shows her siganture look, which are her cat ears and her ponytail. B isn't really doing her any favors. It doesn't show as a performer or artist, but more as an influencer doing tutorials on YouTube. This isn't Grande's main occupation, it looks random and doesn't stand for what Grande is known for. Plus, she looks unrecognizable in it. I can't see why anyone would think it's a good lead image, even if it's the most recent. C looks very awkward, it looks like someone is making a joke, and she's cracking about it. However, I could see it, working as the main image for her discography article, just because it's more recent. But not as the lead image, A is simply the better image, when you compare them both.
At this point, it's really time for a new image, I'm tired of having the same discussion about the same subject, even when it's clear, that there's no better option at this moment. Grande has started doing press for Wicked, it must be a matter of time until we a good recent image of hers from this year. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded other frames from the video that B is from, though all (obviously) have the video screenshot quality that tends to look worse than a photograph. Supporters of B might want to consider the photo to the right (B2) as a better candidate, though. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
B or B2 I vote for Image B2 or at least B—it's crystal clear and up-to-date, giving the real scoop on the subject's current look. And let's be honest, Image C is just as blurry and outdated as Image A. So, B is a better choice, in my opinion. Plus, who really cares if the picture highlights "what makes her notable"? I believe it's all about the image quality and relevance to the present. Lililolol (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Mmh. It's definitely better, than the first one of 2023, but still it's taken from a tutorial. Also, her mouth is awkwardly open. @Lililolol why was the 2015 image changed, there has been no consensus yet? Mirrored7 (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Status quo or RFC withdrawn - Don't people get bored of these idiotic RFCs ?, Why does the image need updating?, What does images B and C do that A doesn't (they all show her face). Anyway A works fine, If you wanna see a recent image of her go search recent images on Google. –Davey2010Talk21:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Davey2010: while I agree that this RfC has some issues, it was put out by an editor in good faith in response to contentious edit warring over the lead image that took place over several months. If given a choice between continued edit warring and an RfC, I think starting an RfC was definitely the better choice. Calling it "idiotic" is not helpful. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I've only just seen the shit show that is the history, So as such I apologise for my comment - Editor did indeed do the right thing, Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the edit warring prior to the comment so my apologies, Thanks –Davey2010Talk21:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
While I agree with you, he also has a point. I mean, the discussion has been dragging on for too long, when it's clear, that B is only in conversation because it's the most recent of Grande and C is much worse than both. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I just want to say that Image C in the lede looks like a great choice. I remember the cat outfits from 2014, but that was a decade ago. I think the new image gives an updated version of her career is at. Starlighsky (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. This RFC has been dragging on for nearly 40 days, and we're still at the same problem as we were then: no consensus, users unaware of this RFC changing the photo, and a lack of any good photos for an A-lister. Maybe we should stick with the 2015 photo for now and add an invisible comment telling users not to change it, and then someone could look into finding a public domain or attributive photo. There's likely tons of material on social media that could be used with permission and known authors, like this one. Isthmus55 (t • c) 03:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Keep the 2015 image and add a comment, not to remove this until there is a consensus on the talk page or there is a better option. This would be the best for now. B2 could be an alternative, but as I said, I don't think the 2023 images represent her well as an artist. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why the 2015 image was changed to the 2023 photo? There has been no consensus yet. And even then, you clearly cannot tell me that the current one is better. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
C is the 2019 photo. That can work though, thought it was the 2023 one but 2019 still works.. The 2023 photo is really more the lastest update, that would be the most effective. Cwater1 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
C is from 2017, so a bit worse than a 2019 pic would be. However, I did find this photo on Commons (using the Vogue Taiwan license), which I find to be a strong improvement over the four photos we have in the RFC rn. Isthmus55 (t • c) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (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.
Ariana Grande is a songwriter
For some reason, the occupation “Songwriter” has been removed without any explanation from Grande's info box and lead. Grande has songwriter credits on all of her albums and has been regard as such in the media. I'm tired of things getting removed on this article, just because someone personally doesn't agree with it.
@Davey2010Talk Can you please re-add it? It has been discussed multiple times in here. The last time, it was three years ago, with consensus to have it stay on both, info box and the lead. It has been unexplained removed today from her info box and last month from her lead. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Mirrored7, Done - Readded songwriter to shortdesc, lead and infobox.
Great. I think we have finally found a great lead photo. Thanks for @Flabshoe1 for adding it! However, I just saw that his version was replaced with an edited one. I think the original isn't dark at all and looks more natural. You can clearly tell that the current one has been heavily enhanced. Instead of you using it for the main article, I would add that to the awards article. Mirrored7 (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it matters much. The only thing that makes the new version of the photo look edited is her dress, which probably should have gone unedited. Isthmus55 (t • c) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1. There was no issue with the image in the first place. It looks more natural, has good lightning, and you can clearly tell it's her. So another version was needed, in my opinion. A lead image has no to be super bright to be a good one.
2. Grande looks much whiter in it, and she has been accused of "Asian and black-fishing" in the past. You can clearly tell that it's edited, especially when you look up the original image. Not a good look.
3. It's not the world, but there was no need to replace it with the "enhanced" one. It has no purpose, besides the visual aspect. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Met photo versions
Unedited
Edited
Between the edited and unedited versions, I think the edited version is better, mostly because of the better contrast between Grande and the background. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Besides all the points I stated before, it's the fact that is an edited photo. A lead photo should convey how the person really looks like. An edited photo is misleading and doesn't do it all. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Editing is not inherently bad or misleading. Sometimes it's simple corrections to exposure or enhancing poor lighting conditions. In this case, the edited version is actually closer to her genuine appearance than the original version is. (I prefer the edited version as well.) Prefall22:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree (per Prefall) due to how much more accurate the edited photo is when it comes to her skin tone and the prominence of her features.
"A lead photo should convey how the person really looks like." - When I say "how a person really looks like," I'm referring to how they look in natural lighting (or in this case, faux-natural). If someone is photographed in a pretty dark environment, is that "what they really look like"? If anything, a more edited photo to question would be this file. Isthmus55 (t • c) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You said in "natural lighting". This isn't natural lighting. I stand by it and don't think that there was an edited version needed. At all. However, majority wins and it's not the end of the world. At least there is a current photo of her now. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
And as I said right afterwards, "faux-natural", which implies a type of lighting that portrays a person in a similar fashion as if it was actually natural. You're right on that it isn't the end of the world, but we still just finished the several months-long RFC a week ago and don't need to debate over a quite frankly minor part of the photo. Isthmus55 (t • c) 00:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I’m in favor of either version (though maybe slight preference for unedited) as these are by far the best available options for a current available image of Grande. Trillfendi (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy, I'm not the only one who prefers the unedited one. So, 2-3.
The photo was just restored to the 2015 version due to the RFC technically not being closed and this new section over its editing being opened up. Right now, there's 3 votes for the edited version and 1 vote for the unedited version (plus Trillfendi stating she doesn't mind either, though prefers unedited). @Trillfendi: Counting your mention of not minding either, this would be a 4–1 vote and might constitute consensus to close this RFC. Isthmus55 (t • c) 14:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly split off the new discussion. The connection to the RfC was entirely incidental. Suggest the following:
First and asap get the RfC closed as "no consensus" or some such.
Then provisionally replace the old lead image with the original (unedited) version, which looks to be an uncontroversial improvement at this point.
Then replace that with the (or an) edited version if and when there is consensus for that in turn.
No need to let process get in the way of progress!
Consensus could still be made quickly on the discussion of the edited image. I wouldn't really consider the unedited pic to be the status quo, and closing the first RFC with no consensus will only leave the less desired 9-year-old image up if the second RFC doesn't lead anywhere. I agree with your last statement, but this really just seems like extra steps when we could just have 2 or 3 more users clarify their position and come to a consensus. Isthmus55 (t • c) 16:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind the 2015 image at all. It's literally everything, people think about, when they think about Ariana Grande as an artist/performer. I wouldn't mind the Met Gala photo, if it was the unedited version. The edited makes her look juvenile, and Grande is about to become 31. You also can clearly see, that's an edited photo. There was no reason to replace it in the first place. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind the 2015 image either, but if there's a clearer and more recent photo of someone that accurately and fully shows their face, that should be the preferred option. On the "juvenile" part...is that not just what she looks like nowadays (and a way to describe her looks in most of her years in the public eye)? I'm not talking about paparazzi photos, but her promotional photos for Wicked, the Met Gala, and her album cycle make her appear pretty similar to here. There needs to be more discussion if the editing is that important, however. Isthmus55 (t • c) 19:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Anecdotal but let it be known that some of her fans have complained about how outdated the lead image is on her article and have requested for a 2024 Met Gala photo to be used instead. Trillfendi (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Trillfendi, Isthmus55, Prefall, and Mirrored7:, page watchers, and others, would anyone object to changing the current image to File:Ariana Grande at the Met Gala 2024 (1).jpg (and thus avoiding another RFC, per Chess's closing statement)? I agree with Isthmus55 that this image has several benefits over the 2015 image: it's clearer, it's of higher resolution, and it more clearly shows her face. I don't think continuing to use the 2015 image in this article is the end of the world (one of the reasons why I did not opine in the RfC above), but I do think that using a clearer, more recent photo of the biography subject, if one is available, would be preferable. Also pinging @Davey2010 and Samuelloveslennonstella, who were the last couple of people to change the profile photo. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
No objections for me for the same reasons. As for the lighting, the majority of readers don't click and zoom in onto the photo's finest details (of which I don't feel contain any problems), thus the image fits well for a casual viewer scrolling by. Isthmus55 (t • c) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
My apologies I was unaware of this RFC existing and I'll be honest I had only read up to half of the closing RFC - Now that I'm now aware of these I'm happy for the image to stay and have reverted my original revert. Given the RFC close mentions lighting and singing which this image ticks and given the image was also mentioned at the very end of the RFC I guess there's no valid reason for the previous image to stay so yeah reverted, apologies again, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk09:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm kinda irritated. I haven't agreed to the change yet and as far as I know Trillfendi was pretty indifferent which version of the Met Gala photo should be used. I still stay by it. The version right now, is too bright, has an unnecessary close-up, her eyes look glassy. There's no reason to use the edited one, if the original had no issues to begin with it. If there would be consensus, I would also consider to keep the 2015 photo, as it's pretty much infamous, and shows her as a performing artist. There is nothing bad about using a much older photo. Justin Bieber's current one is from 2015 also, even if he has much newer ones. Plus, Isthmus55 doesn't mind of it use either. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, my vote for the 2015 photo was prior to either 2024 version being uploaded. The edited version has also had a major tone-down to the point where the non-edited version looks identical with higher screen-brightness. With Trillfendi saying she didn't mind either version, I don't think it should be counted as a vote for the non-edited version, as your comment is the only comment for it in a month after we finally came to a settled decision. Isthmus55 (t • c) 13:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 image was used way before you you made that comment. What do you mean with "we". Only Aoi and you agreed to keep it. I haven't even replied, and yes, Trillfendi's opinion should be considered too, even if it was a month ago. Mirrored7 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realize you were talking about my June 1st comment. But right afterwards, I mention that "if there's a clearer and more recent photo of someone that accurately and fully shows their face, that should be the preferred option," which I still stand by. There's still some opposition to the 2015 photo, and you seem to be the only user continuing this conversation, thus I doubt that the 2015 photo constitutes as consensus. Isthmus55 (t • c) 15:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
To be too exact, it doesn't fully show her face. This is another issue, the “butterflies?” that she has on. I don't know if this appropriate at all, not that I have an issue with it, I'm just wondering. Also, not everything that is recent has to be the main image. The 2024 image isn't the issue itself, it's the edited version, that was unnecessary. The 2015 would be another option, if there will be no consensus, and should be the current lead image, as discussion hasn't closed yet, even if you say otherwise. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I personally think the photo is high quality enough to be her lead image. You're right that discussion is still open, I was just doubting whether anyone is going to be for changing back the picture, as it had been a month of no one disagreeing. I very well could be wrong, though. Isthmus55 (t • c) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
“Grande's various awards include two Grammy Awards, one Brit Award, two Billboard Music Awards, three American Music Awards, nine MTV Video Music Awards, and 36 Guinness World Records. Rolling Stone named her one of the greatest vocalists of all time.”
- Move this paragraph in the opening of the page to the lowest paragraph in the opening of the page before Early Life citing Grande’s various achievements in her career span. It makes the page look instantly messy with too many links upon first glance 2A00:23EE:14C8:12A9:614D:2402:9ADC:522C (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi IP user, exactly where in the last paragraph do you think this sentence should go? Should this be the first sentence of the last paragraph, or are you proposing to move it someplace else within that paragraph? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: I'm closing this since it doesn't seem the IP will be able to respond to my inquiry, though I do think the IP's reasoning makes sense, and moving the sentence to the final paragraph dealing with Grande's achievements would be consistent with the leads for other popular artists such as Taylor Swift. If another editor wants to WP:be bold and make the change, I would say to go for it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2024
Why is he not in her article? She is in his. Seems lacking. If I try to add him to the personal section with a good cite will it be reverted? Timan123 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2024
This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "selling one bottle every eleven minutes" to "selling one bottle every eleven seconds".
In the fragrances section, it says that her "cloud" fragrance is sold 'every eleven minutes' in Ultra whilst it should actually be 'every eleven seconds'. The website cited also claims it is every eleven seconds, so it is just a matter of wronly typed. Elapiedra (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I made a request a while ago but completely forgot about it; I request that this paragraph “Grande's various awards include two Grammy Awards, one Brit Award, two Billboard Music Awards, three American Music Awards, nine MTV Video Music Awards, and 36 Guinness World Records. Rolling Stone named her one of the greatest vocalists of all time.”
- Be moved from the opening of the page to the lowest paragraph in the opening of the page before Early Life citing Grande’s various achievements in her career span. It makes the page look instantly messy with too many links upon first glance.
I think adding it after “… was the most-streamed female act of the 2010s and has the second most songs with over a billion streams for a woman on Spotify, with 14.” would be better. Like the person who responded to my original request said, it would be consistent with other pages of popular artists such as Taylor. Thanks in advance !!! Olivergrandeee (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a minor thing I noticed, but in the 'Awards and Recognition' section, Giselle of Aespa is noted to have said Ariana Grande is an influence. While Aespa is hyperlinked, Giselle is not. She has a page, however, so I was wondering if someone could link it?Theskyisindeedindigo (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm kinda irritated. Since when, do you need sources for followers from Forbes etc., when you have literal access to that artists accounts, where can you see the most accurate number. Isn't it the biggest source you can get? Every artist has it sourced that way.
@LililololMirrored7 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mirrored7 Artist accounts fall under primary sources (WP:PSTS), which is why they were tagged, also primary sources aren’t always reliable, and I don't think we should include follower counts unless the amount is significant (per WP:SIGCOV). By significant, I mean platforms like her Instagram and Spotify, which have a notable number of followers that received coverage—unlike her Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok, which don’t need to be included due to the lack of notability, i.e., coverage. Lililolol (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Prefall There are sources for the numbers outside follower counts. I would agree, for TikTok and Facebook, as there is really not enough coverage. However, I would add them on "external links".
Grande is known for her strong social media following, which heavily counts in her Instagram. Her having 380 million is worth mentioning, as it's a high number and therefore impressive. Her being "the sixth most followed individual and third female", is worth being mentiond too, as many celebrities are losing followers right now, with Instagram removing bots and fake accounts, the placements will not change any time soon. Stating "that she one of the most followed", would not make the reader think, that she is among the top ten most followed. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Lililolol Sources about her Instagram followers and deleted Twitter are available.
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
.png)
.png)
A (current image)
B
C
_(cropped,_retouched).jpg)
.png)
Done - Readded songwriter to shortdesc, lead and infobox.
Unedited
Edited
.jpg)
_(cropped)_(cropped).jpg%7Cthis){kind=link}
