This is an archive of past discussions about Billie Eilish. 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.
A sentence like "she became the subject of cancel culture" (Personal Life section) doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is inherently biased and politically charged. Whether "cancel culture" exists at all is controversial; it is not a fact.
50.68.40.160 (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, is there going to be any discussion about her fragrance and vegan chocolate bar? Those were products that she endorsed so idk if they’re going to the brand endorsements section? Joyasaxena21 (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Products and Endorsements? Seriously?
What is this doing in here? Is this a fan page for Billie Eilish? Further, WP is not a vehicle for free advertising for pop products or any other kind. This seems totally out of place, or at least completely beside the point for a WP bio page.
Also the *Controversies* section reads like a gossip column in a fan magazine or something. It's just gossipy level material and isn't worthy of mention about a public figure unless the cases are in some way defining elements of her life (and they aren't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4380:5FA0:3476:C6FA:E8F:E022 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Saturday Night Live is not a "talk show". In the U.S., hosting Saturday Night Live is considered a unique and pretty notable thing. For example, Simu Liu just hosted SNL, and his appearance is mentioned here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Billie's comments on pornography should be readded
I saw that the edit by Isi96 was reverted recently, I have to disagree with the editor that reverted it who said it isn't "encyclopedic"; she said she was traumatized by it and its been covered by pretty big news sites (CNN, Yahoo, Fox, BBC, LA Times...). Infact it's the first thing that comes up when you search Billie Eilish right now on Google, atleast on my end. In any case, the relevance is less that she said she's seen it it's rather that she was traumatized by it. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Billie Eilish on SNL
I went through the page, and it seems that there's nothing mentioned about Eilish hosting Saturday Night Live, which is quite significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.192.43 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I am very new to the Wiki, so I don't know exactly how this works, but it seems like this is a pretty good contender. I would like to get others' opinions, though.
While I agree with that, we also have an obligation to reflect a current, updated image of the person we are writing about. We don't necessarily have to present great photography, but...you know. The one that I found may not be the one we choose, but we should probably get looking.
Thanks,
Bluebird492 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bluebird492: While we should present an image that is either reasonable or is representative of the subject, our true obligation is to respect copyright and not improperly use a non-free image. Thus, the Getty image is unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCCP: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Where there are free photos of a person, we do not have a basis to claim fair use. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk19:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
That is true, but I tend to agree with Bluebird. We don't have to choose the image that she proposed, of course(it's not free!) but we should probably find a free alternative to that photo, because we should present a current/updated image. It doesn't even have to be good quality.
Billiestan123 (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
There is this image from September 2019, which isn't as recent as might like, but it is still an improvement. It has her signature green hair, and it also shows her performing without obstructing her face. It's also high quality, so we don't have to worry about that. The only thing is that we would have to replace its usage in the 2018–2020 section. There is also this image from December 2019, around the same time period, where she is facing towards the camera and has her hair down if we are worried about that. However, I suspect it's copyright infringement on Vimeo of a Spotify ad. This image from November 2019 is confirmed to be public domain, and I can't see much wrong with it. What do you think? ~BappleBusiness[talk]03:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm failing to see the reason why this article's image can't be replaced with the suggested one, assuming the rights are cleared, of course. No reason to change it every few months, but young people grow fast, and the suggested photo would be a more appropriate presentation of the subject in current years. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the abundance of discussions to change the lead image is evidence that the current image is inadequate. The image is prior to her major break with her debut album, and it doesn't demonstrate what she is known for (being a musician, singing, performing). I propose this image from September 2019, which isn't as recent as we might like, but it is still an improvement. It has her signature green hair, and it also shows her performing without obstructing her face. And yes, it is public domain, unlike from the "Change Cover Image?" discussion a few months ago. What do you all think? ~BappleBusiness[talk]04:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
As I've said here before, I'm failing to see the reason why this article's image can't be replaced. Young people grow fast, and the suggested photo would be a more appropriate presentation of the subject in current years. I think a lot of the resistance to updating the image is a bit stubborn. Happy to hear alternative viewpoints, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Jesus Fitzgerald Christ III, I got called a "cunt" just for saying we should stop constantly bringing this up. Just leave it alone. Trillfendi (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hair color is not a reason to change the lead image so frequently. The article itself already depicts 4 different hair colors, one isn’t more special than the other. She has not gone through any extreme change in facial appearance. The current image is of decent quality and shows her face clearly, staring directly at the camera. What more do we need. Trillfendi (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Those are all good points. But I also understand the arguments above, that an image of an artist when they were 17 is not a suitable representation of an artist now, as an adult. I'm more convinced by the latter argument than I am of the argument that "meh, it's fine". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I brought up reasons for why the image should be changed in my proposal: namely, the proposed image demonstrates what she is notable for (performing, singing) and it portrays her image after her debut (with bad guy, the album brought her into the mainstream). The proposed image also happens to display her wearing her logo as a necklace, which is just an added bonus. Yes, the proposed image may have her face at a slight angle, but her face is still abundantly clear. For changing the image, the positives outweigh the negatives here. ~BappleBusiness[talk]09:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If you say Billie is most recognizable in the music video for "bad guy", then this is another reason to leave the current image be. Yes, in "bad guy" her hair was greenish, but otherwise she looked exactly the same as in the lead photo. By August, which is when the other photo was taken, she had changed already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I am firmly against the proposed change. The current lead image is of much better quality and I fail to see why anyone would think it is "inadequate". It is very very adequate for encyclopedic needs cause it dates from the time of Billie Eilish's major break with When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, which is still her most successful album by some margin. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Coachella
Can we talk about Billie’s Coachella headline? She’s the youngest headliner in history. No pressure, just hoping that’s included in the article at some point. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This should be added to the personal life section of the article
Billie has been dating Matthew Tyler Vorce [1] since early 2021, which has caused some controversy due to screenshots of him being racist and homophobic resurfacing dating back from 2012 to 2019. Vorce aged 30, later apologised for the offences on his private Instagram account. Nfrboss8 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: I'm afraid that the source goes out of it's way to say such comments by him are alleged and Billie claims that such comments were not his. Why Vorce would apologize for such comments when Billie claims they were never said is certainly confusing (and is probably a contributing factor for why the publication posted the story), but because of this I don't think the requested addition is appropriate. I would also comment that I don't see a need to mention that Vorce is 30, nor does the source verify that he is 30. —Sirdog(talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Billie has been dating Matthew Tyler Vorce since early 2021, which has caused some controversy due to screenshots of him being racist and homophobic resurfacing dating back from 2012 to 2019. Vorce aged 30, later apologised for the offences on his private Instagram account. Nfrboss8 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article states that Billie is the second and youngest to win all of the big four Grammy awards in one year. It needs to be corrected to “she is the third to win all 4”. Christopher Cross in 1981 and Nora Jones in 2003 came before. 2600:6C55:6B00:7314:C527:42D7:7419:8A4B (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
"Singer-songwriter" as a term hasn't really been strictly associated with folk (or folk rock) since the early 70s. Carole King and John Lennon were not folk musicians. Billie Eilish is a singer-songwriter in the same pop tradition as, say, Fiona Apple. Drij (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There are more than four sources corroborating the story that Eilish and Oggy are dating. Even though these sources are less than scholarly, as most celebrity news sources are, the corroboration between them is enough to make a definitive claim that a relationship does in fact exist.
The difficulty with adding to a personal life page is the fact that the sources documenting these are largely tabloid in nature. What I like to do is corroborate these accounts so that even if they come from less than scholarly sources if enough say the same thing then we can conclude that the claim carries some bit of truth. I found multiple sources that say the relationship is "rumored" however enough sources make the claim albeit with the implied language. Eilish herself when pressed the boyfriend question says yes but refuses to elaborate. It's very highly likely she is in a relationship with Vorce however I have not been able to find a source that reliably makes the claim though I will keep looking.
It's sourced in early life section, so I added mention of his name in infobox. there was a comment there that said notable parents only, but I don't see any reason to exclude it in her bio when it is covereed in RS. Her mother and brother's article already include mention of his name as well in infoboxes. WikiVirusC(talk)14:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Additional note, previous discussion, general consensus was the restrictions should be removed, but last comment said they had to be notable and particularly relevant. Not that that was from a guideline, but simply from {{Infobox person}}. Current versions and versions in 2020 says "or" for parents, and "and" for other relatives. Unless a parent was just a birth parent that had no other involvement in their life, a parent that raised someone is always going to be particularly relevant to that child imo. WikiVirusC(talk)15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I was recently perusing the Brian Baird page, which claims he is Billie Eilish's uncle. I took it out because I figured it was just vandalism (the IP who added it has long been blocked), but I noticed it's on this page too, and has been for a while. So... any Billie Eilish fans want to chime in on this one? Fake or not? Nohomersryan (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
He is indeed her uncle. The first source on his page links to an ancestry page, which shows his parents. Now I don't have any source showing they're Maggie's parents too. I do know for they're siblings, but only from interviews though. Jonasl91 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Addition to previous reply: there's a link to an article too (source 9) in which they mention he's their uncle Jonasl91 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Instruments
The page describes Billie Eilish’s only instrument as vocals. While this may be her main instrumentation, she also plays the ukulele and piano. 96.241.153.178 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Billie VMAS
Billie has six, not three(as the article states), VMA (video music awards)
They include:
• Best New Artist (2019)
• Push Artist of the Year(2019)
• Best Editing — bad guy (2019)
• Best Latin — Lo Vas a Olvidar (2021)
• Video for Good — Your Power(2021)
Not done: When creating edit requests you must present desired changes in the form of please change X to Y. Asking editors to generate prose based on sources is outside the scope of an edit request. Feel free to create a new edit request or reopen this one once you have done so. —Sirdog(talk) 21:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Billie turned 21 the 18th, so please edit this if you have a time. (After the date of birth comes the "age 20", that's what I meant.
We would need to get an image with a free license but I think it's something to do, the current one is massively outdated Amr96234 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the current photo is outdated and is no longer representative of Eilish's look and style. But I also agree that we need a freely-licensed one, and that's held us back in the past. Where is @Gage Skidmore when you need him? Elizium23 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Coming from a person who would be thrilled to see the infobox photo changed: I disagree about this suggested photo being good-quality enough to replace the current one. When discussing whether to change such images, we must defer to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. The lighting and contrast for this photo are all weird, I can barely make out Eilish's eyes, her face is "a little blurry", and there is way too much blue that this might well be in an article about The Smurfs. Don't get me wrong, we can still use tour photos like this in articles, but relegating it to infobox status does not feel worthy.
Regarding changing the infobox picture so that it "reflects her current style", I am a bit conflicted about that. She has changed her hair style and hair colour within the past six years that trying to keep the infobox image updated wrt that poses a Herculean task. The thumbnail for the sixth Vanity Fair interview alone encapsulates how often she switches up her looks. The fact that she also looks different in the world tour photos further solidifies my point.
@BappleBusiness: you are free to start a request for comment, though keep in mind we have had many other RFCs in the past about this exact issue (first, second, third). Strongly recommend reading through each one thoroughly before potentially starting another one - recurring arguments to keep in mind in each one is that the infobox photo must present Eilish's face mostly if not completely unobstructed and must also best represent consistent elements in her style over the years. Elias 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..."05:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Now hang on - nobody's stonewalling, we're just following standard processes. Popular infobox images also require WP:CONSENSUS before changing them, to prevent edit wars. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
She has been using the same improper arguments for years now. Obviously consensus is needed to change infobox images; I'm totally good with having a discussion; I'm even ok with having a discussion that leads to a consensus to keep the current image! But she just keeps saying, with little to no justification, "it's fine the way it is" over and over again to shut down discussion, and that's not conducive to improving the article. BappleBusiness[talk]21:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree and have agreed for some time that it's time for a new photo. It has been discussed numerous times. I have not heard any good argument yet against updating it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
With there being a sizable degree of support for a new image as shown in the above section, I am starting an RfC to ask the following question: Should the lead image be replaced?Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment Should it be changed to what? It looks like there was some discussion above, but no real clear outcome on which one might be a suitable replacement. So at present, this is like an RfC that asks "Should the article be edited?". Well...you've got to specify what edit you're proposing, or in this case what replacement you're proposing. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. In that case, my answer is no. The first image actually appears as if her eyes are closed in the thumbnail. It's clear they're not if you click through to the larger version, but still not great. The second one is poorly lit and far too blue. The third shows her only in profile and with her face partially blocked by a microphone. None of these are of even equivalent quality to the current infobox image which is a pretty high-quality closeup of her face, let alone superior quality. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment The relevant policies re: images are flagged at the discussion on this above. A reasonable number of editors have contributed. This is essentially an editorial discussion which requires consensus in the usual way. I'd encourage you to bold edit as per WP:BRD then, if the edit is reverted, discuss and reach consensus. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. The one with the blue background was already swapped in a while back and no one complained. I reverted it because there was no discussion, but since these discussions are becoming like a committee that never get anything done, I agree with Emmentalist that someone should just do it at this point. I will not revert it this time. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: I believe Image B is the best alternative. The previous image is too old to properly represent the present subject and Image B is of sufficient quality. Not to mention, many other languages of Wikipedia use this image. BappleBusiness[talk]18:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
No. Current image shows her face more clearly than any of the other pictures and doesn't include any distracting elements. Scapulustakk20:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes – Go with Image B. It is more recent and she looks more her current age of 21. (I have placed all four of the images on the side as they would appear in the article for ease of comparison.) --Guest2625 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Strong noNot this again… The image in which she is looking directly at the camera with a neutral expression, with high quality, her eyes and face unobstructed by objects to the reader, is the best image to use. It doesn’t matter how old she is or what her hair color is, none of that is relevant. Trillfendi (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, B. Guidance for lead images is that all things being equal we should prefer more recent images. Absent one of those reasons, B is an equally good image that's more recent. With a person as young as she is, the four years result in a fairly noticeable change in appearance, and as such B is also of more encyclopedic value as a lead image. The current image would still be useful to illustrate the phase of her career its from. --(loopback)ping/whereis12:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, image A or rather a cropped version of image A, as it has much more natural lighting (as opposed to the blueish lighting in image B) and shows her face pretty well. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk15:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
No. The current image is an unobstructed, direct view of her face, and none of the other proposed images are preferable to it. Seraphimblade's comment above succinctly highlights the problems with Images B and C in particular. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No, the current image is a perfectly fine close-up portrait. While a cropped version of image A could be an equivalent alternative, there is no particular reason to change it. Coconutyou3 (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
No, the lighting and pose of the original make it a much clearer image.
No, the current image is good quality, not very old, and clearly shows who she is. The others don't show her face as clearly as the current one does. HeyElliott (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the old image is outdated and doesn't represent the singer. My first choice would be image A cropped closer to her face, and my second choice would be image B. Amr96234 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Never mind, first choice is image B as you can't zoom in on her face in image A without seriously harming the quality of the photo. Amr96234 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
"Parent"
Should Maggie Baird be listed under "Relatives" instead of the singular category "Parent" or add Patrick O'Connell and change category to "Parents". The singular noun parent is odd and implies that her father is not known. Patrick may still be listed as a parent even if not notable otherwise 65.25.90.169 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Per the documentation for the {{Infobox person}} on the parents, mother, and father fields: "Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant." How is Patrick O'Connell particularly relevant? —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
debut single discrepancy
The article says Ocean Eyes is debut song in 2015, yet the article for the single says it was 2016 and lead song in EP. The article for 6ft Under says it is her debut song. Please resolve. 49.183.105.131 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elannalee, Logangorlando (article contribs).
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
so i want to be accepted to edit some photos when theyre old plus i can add some news about billie like oscars etc. i can add in the future too Elvissqxa (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding Golden Globe awards to list text under "Public image and recognitions"
While her 2 Golden Globe wins are listed elsewhere, they do not appear in the existing list of accolades that is right under the heading "Public image and recognitions". SlpwChi (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please hyperlink Los Angeles, California in the infobox section. It makes absolutely no sense that The birth cities of her mother and brother are hyperlinked in their infoboxes, but the birth city isn't linked in her's isn't. Please if somebody can, hyperlink Los Angeles, California in Billie's infobox. 142.112.200.38 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done for now: Good information, but please mention where you want this change to be made and a source that supports it. Then we can make the change. — Urro[talk][edits]13:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024 (2)
This edit request to Billie Eilish has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This page claims that Billie Eiliah is the first woman to win all four general Grammy awards. This is incorrect. Norah Jones won all four general awards in 2003. NZ Ry (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
In section "2015–2017: Don't Smile at Me", in the second paragraph, it states that "Diaz could access and download it".
Who is Diaz and why is it relevant they could access it? Benito (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
"She is the second artist in Grammy history to win all four general field categories—Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Song of the Year, as well as Best New Artist—in the same year."
If the first was Christopher Cross in 1981, what about Norah Jones in 2003? See Big_Four_(Grammy_Awards).
Why do we call her by her middle name?
Hi, sorry if someone already asked this, but why does the article keep referring to her as "Eilish"? That's her middle name, not her surname. It might confuse the readers even more, as many people already believe Eilish to be her surname (I was one of them, some years ago). This applies to the magic word "defaultsort:" as well. Why is this article sorted by "Eilish, Billie"? DreamIndigo19:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are entitled using the most common English-language name of the subject. For this individual, that common name is overwhelmingly "Billie Eilish". The article does, of course, clarify what her full name is, indeed as its very first words, but the article title is correct. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself well. The article title is 100% correct, but I am talking about the article content and (my main concern) {{DEFAULTSORT:Eilish, Billie}} which is usually done with surnames. I would at least sort this article by "Billie Eilish". I hope this doesn't sound rude in any way, I am genuinely confused, not mad at all. DreamIndigo20:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Dream Indigo and was in fact going to ask the same question. Billie Eilish are two given names – Billie isn't Ms Eilish, but rather Ms O'Connell (although she does not use this name professionally). Therefore the DEFAULTSORT, as it is, should definitely be amended. As for the body text, it might help to know whether or not Billie Eilish prefers or accepts to be called Eilish only – after all she appears to sign so. For this reason it may be correct to speak of her as Eilish, but probably better to use her complete stage name. —Jochen64 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jochen64: You read my mind and explained it so much better than me. Thanks! I still do not know what to do about the way we are referring to her in the article. O'Connel would be more appropriate, in my opinion. About the defaultsort, I am going to be bold and change it myself. ✩ DreamIndigo ✩17:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It's also not WP:SYNTH, because eating honey while claiming to be vegan is a logical fallacy. If Ted Bundy claimed not to be a serial killer, would we suddenly remove all instances of the phrase from his page? Bens dream (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources
You are using a primary source, a YouTube video, of Billie Eilish saying she consumes honey, to come to your own conclusion that she is not vegan; that is not in the source material. There are numerous reliable sources cited that states she is vegan. If Ted Bundy claimed not to be a serial killer, would we suddenly remove all instances of the phrase from his page If we had numerous reliable sources that said Ted Bundy was not a serial killer, then yes, that's how it would reflect in his Wikipedia article. -- MacAddct1984(talk | contribs)17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not how it works. If there's a "primary source" of a video of her eating a beef steak, does the article still list her as vegan? Use your brain please. Bens dream (talk) 17:21, 25 June 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. Cannolis (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic appearance (WP:IINFO). Celebrities go on talk shows all the time. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit. The matter seeking consensus is the use of TopHit.ru as a source for song release dates. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done: I'm afraid that the source goes out of it's way to say such comments by him are alleged and Billie claims that such comments were not his. Why Vorce would apologize for such comments when Billie claims they were never said is certainly confusing (and is probably a contributing factor for why the publication posted the story), but because of this I don't think the requested addition is appropriate. I would also comment that I don't see a need to mention that Vorce is 30, nor does the source verify that he is 30. —Sirdog (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. Changed second to third. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
_2.jpg)
_(52152972296)_(cropped).jpg)
_(52153214339)_(cropped_3).jpg)
_(52153469410)_(cropped).jpg)
Already done M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elannalee, Logangorlando (article contribs).
Already done Babysharkboss2 was here!! Ex-Mørtis 16:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_(52153214339)_(cropped_3).jpg){kind=link}
_(52152972296)_(cropped_2).jpg){kind=link}