Jump to content

Talk:Christina Aguilera/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Article revamping

In order to bring the Christina Aguilera article to GA, a revamping of the article has begun. In October 2013, User:WikiRedactor started a revamping process, however it was not done. Thus I wanted to re-start the process.

The article is quite large, which means that a team effort from several editors will be helpful in meeting the final goal. Below is a "checklist" of sorts, where you will find the current status of the various sections of the article. Feel free to "adopt" a section and help the cause!

Participants

(Note: Add your name by adding ~~~ under this list)

Closed for another discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Infobox and introduction

  • Issue #1: Genres seem to be unsourced
A possible contender if it was cropped
  • Issue #2: The picture in the infobox isn't a great picture of Christina; she doesn't even really look like herself there. There are some nice pictures of her from 2006 available on Commons, and even though they're a bit older, in my opinion they represent Christina better than the 2010 picture does.
@WikiRedactor: I don't think so. She has reinvented her look from her career beginning. In my opinion, Aguilera didn't even look like her natural white person "persona" during the Stripped era. Simon (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@HĐ: How would you feel about swapping the infobox picture with the picture in the 2010 section? They're both about the same age, and I think the latter picture is a nicer angle and view of her face. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@WikiRedactor: I do think so. Simon (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Issue #3: What exactly makes Justin Timberlake an associated act? Aside from being on The Mickey Mouse Club together (which with that reasoning would make Britney Spears an associated act too?), they've only toured together once and that seems to be it. I think that this parameter should be left blank. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Issue #5: I think it's worth (briefly) noting the under-performances of Bionic and Lotus, since their minimal commercial impact is a fairly notable part of her more recent career.

Life and career

  • Early life
Resolved. Simon (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • 1999–2001: Christina Aguilera, Mi Reflejo, and new management
  • Issue: the headline is not-so-suitable (in this era, Aguilera released three studio albums, but the headline lists only two)
  • Possible solution: How about just titling the section "1999–2001: Christina Aguilera" because it is undeniably the most prominent of the three records? (Although Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas are technically studio albums by definition, they don't appear to be particularly noteworthy that general readers would suffer from their exclusions in the title.)
  • @HĐ: My only concern is that all of the other sections list specific projects, I just feel like Christina Aguilera should be directly mentioned in the heading for clarity. Maybe a combination like "Early success (or breakthrough?) with Christina Aguilera"? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 2002–05: Stripped, new image, and marriage
  • Issue: I believe another editor in another discussion raised the point that the title "new image" isn't really accurate since Xtina has embraced new images with each record she has released. For that reason, I think it would be best to rename this section "2002–05: Stripped and marriage".
  • Another issue: I think that this section of Stripped should only lists events from 02-03, because in 04 Aguilera dyed her hair blonde, which (in my opinion) is the early stage of Back to Basics. Simon (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @HĐ: That's a good point, since the last single from Stripped was released in 2003. So maybe the middle sections could be restructured like "2002–03: Stripped", "2004–08: Marriage and Back to Basics", "2009–10: Motherhood, Burlesque, Bionic, and divorce", and "2011–12: The Voice and Lotus", and "2013–present: Current endeavors and eighth studio album"? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 2006–09: Back to Basics, motherhood, and hiatus
  • Issue: I don't think that Aguilera took a hiatus in this era
  • Possible solution: I would recommend renaming the section "2006–09: Back to Basics and motherhood", since the hiatus described in the article doesn't even seem like an actual break since she spent much of her time working on Bionic, only out of the public eye.
Agree. Simon (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 1991–2000: Career beginnings, Christina Aguilera, Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas
  • 2000–03: New management and Stripped
  • 2004–08: Marriage, Back to Basics and motherhood
  • 2010–11: Bionic, Burlesque, divorce, and The Voice
  • Issue: I always thought it would be best to chunk Bionic, Burlesque, and her divorce in one section and The Voice and Lotus in another. As it is right now, we start (very briefly) talking about The Voice in the 2010 section, and then randomly pick back up with her hiatuses in the fourth and sixth seasons in the 2012 section.
  • 2012–present: Lotus, eighth studio album and other projects

WikiRedactor and 11JORN I have cleaned up the whole "Life and career" section (except for the "Early life"). What do you think? Simon (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: Nicely done! I'll start going through and formatting references. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Artistry

  • Voice
  • Themes and musical style
  • Influences
  •  Done
  • Public image

Legacy

Other ventures

  • Philanthropy
  • Issue #1: This section seems unnecessarily large, and could benefit from some trimming.
  • Issue #2: Is the promotional poster needed for this section? As far as I can tell it doesn't add additional extra value to the proset
  • Product and endorsements

Overall

  • Resolved WP:URS
  • WikiRedactor Let's talk about sections reordering. For me, the sections should be:
  1. 1999-00: C. Aguilera, Mi Reflejo, My Kind of Christmas and early success
  2. 2000-03: New management and Stripped (In 2001, Aguilera appeared on "Lady Marmalade", which marked Aguilera's image departure from the "teen pop" star image.)
  3. 2004-09: Marriage and Back to Basics
  4. 2009-11: Motherhood, Bionic, Burlesque, divorce and The Voice
  5. 2012-13: Lotus and continuing with The Voice
  6. 2014-present: Eighth studio album
@HĐ: Nice work, I've made a couple tiny adjustments in the article that you can change back if you're not a fan of. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So let's just do it, follow the above arrangement. Simon (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@HĐ: I think that we should retain the original "Life and career" organization; I think it reads less fragmented than if we were to discuss her earlier career to her current endeavors, and then jump back to things that happened to her in the early 2000s. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. Simon (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
DeadSend4 Okay, again, really? You are really messing up things that have been already discussed. The order of the article is discussed here, so please, if you want to try it, say a thing first! Simon (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes really, cannot none of you see that she departed ways with her management and the entire turmoil, wanting to change image, events leading up to her firing Steve Kurtz was happening well before 2001? Or all you all going to come to a consensus to leave it as is because it's me who is editing it? It's not even in the proper place and none of you care. DeadSend4 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with DeadSend4 on this point. There's no clear 'cut-off' here, so we shouldn't have the year 2000 in two sections. Be consistent. The whole year should be in one section, just like the rest of the article (other sections) and most of other biographies. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@DeadSend4: Since I moved the new management information back into the 2001 section a couple days ago, I just wanted to chime in here real quick and clarify that it did not occur to me that that had happened in 2000 (although at closer examination I see that the paragraph specifically mentions October 2000). This was not done to target your edits in any way, and I wanted to apologize if I gave you that impression. I have moved that information back into the 2000 section, I hope that you are alright with this current organization. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from participants

First discussion
  • As I'm not too familiar with her work/background etc. my main focus will be copy-editing/trimming/ref formatting etc. which I already started. If there's any important info I remove in which you Aguilera veterans feel is necessary, feel free to re-place. I'm more than willing to try and get this to GA. I recently helped out a lot in getting Katy Perry to GA through my review c/e etc so let's give it a go ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to help bring this article to GA! For now, I've taken a quick scan through the article and left some initial suggestions, although I plan to come back and get more into editing the article itself. WikiRedactor (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Second discussion
Third discussion
  • WikiRedactor I have noted your recent edits on refs formatting. The publishers can be removed because they are repetitive and redundant, and also, "archivedates" do not need "accessdates". Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Fourth discussion
  • Just wanted to say that I formatted this "Article revamping" section to hopefully keep it tidy as the process moves forward; I haven't touched any of the actual content/discussion, just organized it a little bit! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Fifth discussion
  • As of now, the article seems to be nearly completed. There are four sections need more work than the others: "Early life and career beginnings", "Legacy", "Philanthropy", and "Product and endorsements". Simon (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated: July 28, 2014

As of today (July 28, 2014), the article is now seems to be in better shape. However, there are still four sections need more work, as reported:

Lead and infobox
  •  Done
Career beginnings
  •  Not done There are still {{cn}} remained
C. Aguilera, Stripped, Back to Basics, Bionic, and Lotus
  • All  Done
Influences
  •  Done
Voice
  •  Done
Music and theme
Public image
  •  Doing... This may needs more bit trimming
Legacy and philanthropy
  •  Not done

To the participants With the current status, I think that we'll get this to GA very soon. WikiRedactor 11JORN And Petergriffin9901, would you mind helping in anymore? Simon (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: I'll take care of the "Early life and career beginnings" section within the next couple of days. Also, I've expanded the introduction to mention some of her more notable songs and chart successes, since I found it odd that the only songs specifically mentioned in earlier revisions were the singles from her debut record. What do you think of the introduction now? WikiRedactor (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@WikiRedactor: Excellent! Now there are three sections left. I'll take care the "Legacy" section, you can adapt one, and the last one we'll do together! Simon (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@HĐ: I'll take care of the trimming that you requested for "Public image" and finish that section off, so we can tackle the largest section "Philanthropy" together and wrap this baby up! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@WikiRedactor: I think I've done. Simon (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@HĐ: "Legacy" looks great! I'll start working on "Philanthropy" with you shortly and this article will be good to go! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: Have you begun yet? These days I feel quite lazy because the article is so long. Ugh... Simon (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: I'm so sorry, I've been getting so sidetracked by outside things that I haven't been able to do much editing at all these last few days. I'll try to get things going soon. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki campaign

Given this and especially this, I thought I would draw everyone's attention to a supposed off-wiki campaign to "improve" Aguilera's articles. Usually I would dismiss a threat on my talk page like that but since there has been an increase of new editors editing this article today (and most of those edits have been to introduce POV-pushing/unsourced content), I thought I would mention it here. I haven't yet been able to locate the (fan)site from where this is being orchestrated. Acalamari 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank my fellow Aguilera #Fighters in helping improve this once sterling article. If you look at my previous edits, you'll see I was suspicious of one particular person. It's funny how this one person has Mariah Carey's legacy page reaching several paragraphs, but out of no where comes in to remove information (without bothering to find other proper citations) all in their excuse to remove "fan fluff". Since my edits on here cause controversy for some and an entire talk page headline dedicated to me. I'll refrain from editing here, as I've stated before, at least for now. I'm glad others see the mess that was made. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You can say what you want, but your "once sterling" article would never be qualified enough. And your "fellow #Fighters" are messing this article with lots of fan biases. If you want to edit the "sterling" article, you can start a Chrstina Wiki instead. Simon (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I always seem to pay little attention anytime you chime in :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@DeadSend4: As it just so happens, your once "sterling" article was full of ridiculous fluff/unreliable sources/bias NPOV/and just flat out fancruft that would be classified as C-level at best. Another point to note, since your exile (thankfully) we have all worked together in perfect harmony and have really upgraded this article into something soon worthy of GA. I think we can all agree this page (and probably everything else) is far better without you and your unnecessary fucking drama. Good day, and Ps. stop talking smack, at least learn to throw proper shade. Hope not to see you again Dahhling!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

Simon (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If needed

Simon (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolute Mess

This articles is honestly an absolute mess and reads like a hate page. Even Lily Ellen and Jessie J page look better than this.I am kind of dissapointed the Christina WikiProject group members for this. The page needs serious revamping and ALOT more neutrality, its not suppose to read like a hate or fanpage. CJBXT720 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@CJBXT720: Please clarify more about the "hate" page. Simon (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@HĐ: this is one of the users from that forum. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
While that might be the case, I don't think that's a reason to ignore CJBXT720; at least they've made an attempt to discuss and have made some useful contributions to Aguilera-related articles, which is preferable to another edit war that gets this page semi-protected. I said to CJBXT720 on my talk page that they should expand upon their concerns. Acalamari 11:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, Acalamari. I think people should remember to assume good faith here. There was some kind of off-Wikipedia campaign, but that does not mean that new contributors have some kind of agenda or are acting disruptively because they believe the article is a "mess". In my opinion, CJBXT720 has made a number of useful and neutral edits, from what I've seen, and I'm happy more people are contributing to the article. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do assume good faith edits. But the thing here is to clarify why CJBXT720 think that this article is a "mess". Simon (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article is a mess, I don't agree it reads like a "hate page". It definitely needs better structure. A "Personal life" section would be a good start. As it is, personal life content is mixed in throughout the article, making it difficult to follow. That alone causes it to read more like a fan site than an encyclopedia article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "personal life" is often blended, so to speak, within "life and career" section of bio's (i.e. Madonna, Michael Jackson, Yoko Ono, Britney Spears, and Charlie Chaplin). Sometimes one's high-profile partners are involved in his/her professional career, or perhaps there is so little detail on dating life and such that it could just be included in main bio section. For one or both reasons, one's relationships don't necessarily warrant a separate section. This article does indeed need work, but it's made lots of progress over the last couple of months. See the above discussion on revamping this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

Please change "The couple has one child together, a daughter, born in August 2014." to "The couple have one daughter together, Summer Rain Rutler, born on August 16, 2014." This is more specific than the previous description.

[1] Legendxtina (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Legendxtina :)

 Not done we try to avoid giving over-specific details of Minors. - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Voice of a generation

Never heard of her being referred to as "The voice of a generation" and there's no citation for this assertion. 2601:603:4F81:70C0:603C:4ADA:36FE:3ED1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"With the recognition of her vocal ability and influence in the music industry, she has been referred in media with the titles of "Princess of Pop"[256][327] and "Voice of a Generation".[328][329]" (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this a joke? There are many certifications for this. It was even a title awarded to her. See: [2][3] Maxwell King123321 06:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added a tag to this dubious claim that she's referred to as "Voice of a Generation", as if it's some generally agreed upon fact. Please see WP: Weasel Words. We should rephrase to give attribution ("New York Times referred to her as the Voice of a generation" etc). I reviewed the sources, and one states that she seemed on track to become the voice of her pop generation. The second source said that she won an American Latino Media Arts Award with that title. Nowhere does it state that she's referred to in the media as the voice of a generation. Journalist . talk 17:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to rephrasing to: Referred to by Rolling Stone as one of the greatest singers of all time, the American Latino Media Arts Award described her as "the voice of a generation". Or something similar? Article could really use a copyedit for tone and clarity. Journalist . talk 17:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, she received an award with the same name, but it is ridiculous to say that she is not referred to as "Voice of a Generation" in the media, as there are several sources in the body of the article that attest to the information, and these others: The Irish Times,[4] Health,[5] Entertainment Weekly,[6] The Times of India,[7] Fuse TV,[8] Daily Express,[9] Gay Times,[10] Idolator,[11] ¡Hola!,[12] PR Newswire,[13] US Weekly,[14] as well as non-English language medias: SAPO,[15] Universo Online,[16] El Colombiano,[17] TeleHit.[18] Furthermore, in this Billboard article, it is clearly reported that she was honored with the Music Icon Award by the People's Choice Awards for, among other reasons, being "referred to as the 'voice of our generation'".[19] It looks like a "generally agreed upon fact".
In your first edit, you objected to the title and said that "not everyone considers her a good singer", but in the introduction there is a paragraph focusing on other sources who referred to her as one of the greatest singers of all time, and the greatest in history among the vocalists of Latin origin. I agree that not everyone can thinks she is a good singer, but these lists is from a group of editors/professionals at renowned pop music magazines - which supports the claims throughout the article that she is a singer of remarkable vocal ability, regardless of the reader's opinion. Nyvak (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
No, you are right. the sources that you included do say that she's the voice of a generation. To be honest though, despite the many sources that you listed here, there's only 3 that are used as inline citations in the actual body of the article (2 when I last checked), and the most robust ones (e.g Billboard) were added after I challenged the statement. Anyway, if you all changed it back, I'm fine. I do, however, encourage you to include at least the Billboard or Entertainment Weekly citations in the intro. The lead doesn't need inline citations (usually) when you're making general statements (eg. "she's one of the best-selling" or "most successful" etc.) But I'd argue that for direct quotations and titles and such, inline citations would really help. Thanks! Journalist . talk 14:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/christina-aguilera-names-daughter-summer-rain-rutler-2014188
  2. ^ Chuck Arnold (15 June 2018). "Christina Aguilera Has Officially Made Her Comeback". New York Post. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  3. ^ Geoff Herbert (1 October 2012). "Christina Aguilera Fights 'Fat Girl' Reports". The Post-Standard. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  4. ^ Tony Clayton-Lea (3 November 2019). "Christina Aguilera at 3Arena, Dublin: Everything You Need to Know". The Irish Times. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  5. ^ Bethany Heitman (13 April 2021). "Christina Aguilera Talks Confidence and Working Through Insecurities in the Public Eye". Health. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  6. ^ Melissa Maerz (3 August 2020). "The Voice Season Premiere Recap: Week One of Auditions". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  7. ^ "#ETimesCelebTracker: From Sania Mirza to Christina Aguilera - Here Are Today's 20 Best Celeb Moments!". The Times of India. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  8. ^ "Christina Aguilera & Joe Maye 'Put a Spell on You' with Killer 'Voice' Duet". Fuse TV. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  9. ^ Hollie Beale (21 December 2021). "Christina Aguilera Poses Naked Wearing ONLY Gloves as She Celebrates Her 41st Birthday". Daily Express. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  10. ^ Sam Damshenas (1 March 2018). "Yaaas! Christina Aguilera Will Be The First Guest Judge on RuPaul's Drag Race Season 10". Gay Times. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  11. ^ Bianca Gracie (25 August 2015). "Christina Aguilera's Debut Album Turns 15: Backtracking". Idolator. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  12. ^ Shirtley Gómez (23 November 2021). "Proof That Christina Aguilera Has Always Been a Proud Latina". ¡Hola!. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  13. ^ "Multi-Platinum Superstar Christina Aguilera Confirms 2010 Global Tour". PR Newswire. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  14. ^ Rachel McRady (10 October 2013). "Skinny Christina Aguilera Flaunts Cleavage in New Voice Promo: Picture". US Weekly. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  15. ^ Vera Milheirão (18 December 2021). "Christina Aguilera: Os looks de Beleza mais icónicos no seu aniversário" (in Portuguese). SAPO. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  16. ^ Luís Gusttavo (4 September 2021). "Aos 40 anos, Christina Aguilera posa de topless e sensualiza" (in Portuguese). Universo Online. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  17. ^ "5 Enseñanzas de Christina Aguilera A Través de Sus Canciones" (in Spanish). El Colombiano. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  18. ^ Jean G. Fowler (1 December 2021). "People's Choice Awards 2021: Christina Aguilera Recibirá El Premio Music Icon" (in Spanish). TeleHit. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  19. ^ Paul Grein (1 December 2021). "Christina Aguilera to Receive Music Icon Award at 2021 People's Choice Awards". Billboard. Retrieved 30 December 2021.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit

 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) 04:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Other activities edits

This section should include mention of a 2021 Nintendo Switch commercial featuring her children that extended into a further recurring promotion with variation of commercials airing. Sources: • https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a38191227/christina-aguilera-nintendo-switch-interview/ • https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/christina-aguilera-nintendo-mario-kart-1235135083/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:7:84A7:AC32:DAE6:692:5689 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Pa Mis Muchachas (album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pa Mis Muchachas (album) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Pa Mis Muchachas (album) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Christina net worth is $160 million as of 2010 it's about over $300 Million by now plus Wikipedia u guys take long to update stuff Sony recently updated Christina sales to OVER a 100 million records making Christina one of the best selling female singers in the world !!!!!! Christina Aguilera is the voice of HER generation and collecting DISNEY LEGENDDDDD and MUSIC ICONNNNN AWARDS at least get her records and net worth updated and accurate thanks ! 190.83.130.92 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera Updated Records and Net Worth 2022 !!!!!

Christina net worth is $160 million as of 2010 it's about over $300 Million by now plus Wikipedia u guys take long to update stuff Sony recently updated Christina sales to OVER a 100 million records making Christina one of the best selling female singers in the world !!!!!! Christina Aguilera is the voice of HER generation and collecting DISNEY LEGENDDDDD and MUSIC ICONNNNN AWARDS at least get her records and net worth updated and accurate thanks ! 190.83.130.92 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sony Music is not a reliable source to certify her sales. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Change "Aguilera said he was physically and emotionally abusive." to "Aguilera said she was physically and emotionally abusive. 199.231.28.240 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The subject of the sentence is her father. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this considered a residency?

Is Christina Aguilera with the LA Phil considered a residency? Only 2 shows and none of the sources even refer to it as a residency. Seems more wiser to be listed on her List of Christina Aguilera concerts page under Stand-alone concerts, as well as, changing it from a “residency” to a “two show concert” on its page. Any thoughts? Pillowdelight (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. No sources call it a residency.[1] (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

Kindly please add a proper more stunning profile pic of CHRISTINA ON HER WIKIPEDIA PROFILE.

and also edit her bio. She is one of the greatest singers of all time. A pop Superstar icon that has made a huge contribution and played a major role in changing the pop revolution. Christina is hilly respected in the industry and she has a lasting life Long legacy in the form of her music, music videos and her humanitarian work.

Richlee Richlee2809 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

Please update Christina Aguilera information: Net Worth as of 2023=$300Million Sales = Over 100M-150M Jordanroopnarine (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Jordanroopnarine Please change her net worth which is now $300M and her sales is 100M-150M thank you! Jordanroopnarine (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Update needed.

The "2002–2003: Stripped" section states, "The album peaked at number two on the Billboard 200 and has sold over 4.3 million copies in the US as of 2014". Sources, and the Wikipedia article Stripped (Christina Aguilera album), agree with the article stated, "According to the RIAA, Stripped sold over 12 million copies worldwide." -- Otr500 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Would someone look at the "External links" section for trimming? I have not looked at why this is a "delisted good article" but:
There are five entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four or more. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
It seems that there is an unofficial collaboration between Wikipedia, AllMusic, Discogs, and IMDb to put these sites on as many articles as they can possibly get away with. Gives flashbacks to Find a Grave and the well-intentioned project to list the site on every dearly departed with an article on Wikipedia. While a noble endeavor these "External links" are only supposed to be added when they are "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". The second paragraph of the External links lead states, Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Many times these links are added just because it has become the "norm".
This subject has had so much written about her it could probably fill two large presidential libraries so it seems dubious these sites would have information not overly covered in reliable sources. Adding the sites without consideration of relevance (and article benefit) is just giving them prominence, even if there is a "nofollow" on search engines, Wikipedia is inadvertently, or maybe not, advertising for these companies on a large chunk of Wikipedia articles. Alright, I have aired my grief. On the other side of the coin:
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • Links on a BLP (WP:ELBLP) must be of high quality as they are held to higher standards.
I threw the ELCITE in the bundle, not because it is relevant here, but because so many articles are treating links in the section as references. I don't think five links become a link farm but thousands of articles seem to be a parking garage for sites that can be upward of 30 links in some cases. Over time, without due diligence, they seem to grow---and grow.
On a less popular article I might have just deleted one or more and the result should have been a discussion per WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them., however, having had 5,645 editors, with 1,020 watchers, and 282,973 pageviews in 30 days, this is a VERY popular article, so there is likely a multitude of article "protectors".
If a site is added, just to be added, with no article benefit, it effectively becomes a link to be avoided (#4) and can be considered [[Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming|]].
The above is provided as the result of "External links cleanup". I am sure this will be considered from an article improvement point of view. Consensus may decide (or has decided) whether these links are acceptable in this article. Have a great day, Otr500 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC:Lead Image

Three possible portrait images for Christina Aguilera

Hello! Just wondering, what does everyone think about changing Aguilera's lead to this? Assuming it passes all criteria - so far it looks good - I think it is slightly more appealing than the one on the left which shows her in a more slouched position. I think creating a RFC would be helpful in coming towards a consensus. Maxwell King123321 06:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Both photos aren't that good. The current image she has sunglasses on, and the alternative her eyes are closed. Aaron106 (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the alternative image is much better. I understand that her eyes are closed in that image, but the sunglasses in the current one cover half her face. Unless someone has a better image, I think changing it to the alternative is the right decision. 204060baby (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

How about using this photo which shows a recent modern look and her full on portrait https://parade.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200/MTk1NTQxMTIwNzI4NDQxOTA3/gettyimages-1352590772.jpg

Article changes

As seen the past few days, I've made some changes trying to make the article more fluid, more encyclopedic, highlighting only the most notable events in Aguilera's career, as well as her achievements and legacy. I adapted the whole article and its sections inspired by those of Cher and Madonna. Here some points:

  • Particularly I don't see the need for a whole section about The Voice's back and forth, an album that didn't produce hits (Lotus) and participation in soundtracks that don't have any notable importance in her career. I tried to make it more fluid by grouping as "Bionic, acting debut in Burlesque, and Lotus". Not every album needs its own section. In Mariah's and Madonna's page (a feature article and a good article, respectively), it has section to two - and even three albums.
  • Excessive sources and details for certain events. Example: "The album was promoted through the EU / UK Summer Series promotional tour, which consisted of five festival shows throughout Europe and three arena concerts in the United Kingdom.[222][223][224][225] The promotional tour received critical praise.[226][227][228][229][230]". In fact, I think this only occurs in this article. Like, I want this to be promoted to a good article too, or even a featured article. But as it is, maybe it can be difficult.
  • The 'Public Image' section is full of information that is already covered throughout the article. In my edit, I tried to mention only the notable and emphasized 'Fashion' - which she has been known for since the beginning of her career.
  • About 'Public image' again. Is a section really needed to cover how she dressed and dyed her hair for each album release? It makes no sense.
  • All my edits were supported by reliable sources, mostly in the 'Fashion' section which is supported by leading fashion magazines. In changes to 100 million records sold I used a source from NME - the former was claiming sales of 90 million and supported by "AppleTV" (I opened it and it not even mentions 90 million or her worldwide sales) and NFTEvening (I don't think this is reliable). And even so, you all returned to the stats of 90 million with both uncertain sources. I don't understand it. Both sources were even removed in List of best-selling music artists due its unreliable.
  • None of my edits removed notable events in Aguilera's career. I only removed excessive details to make it fluid and encyclopedic. Note: The current article is longer than several other featured ones.

I'm not wanting - and I don't want to - that only my edits prevail, so I opened this discussion to point it. The article's final result - with the parts I added to the main article - is in my sandbox. I was excited about the possibility of helping to promote the article to feature here in the future, as I was able to do on Wikipedia in Portuguese. I will not make new edits in the article due my poor grammar. Unfortunately my English is not good - as you've noticed - but I think some changes could be fixed than just deleting everything and going back to the previous version with other of its notable problems. Anyway, feel free to use and adapt any part of the article in my sandbox, if you want to and get interested. Thanks and good luck! Melketon (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Actually a lot of what you wrote was really insightful - I think the main issue or problem was the delivery. Some of the wording was good but a lot of it wasn't grammatically correct. So rather than going through the whole page, 204060baby and I went through most of what you wrote and added back in / removed unnecessary details. I know they have been trying to cut down the lead / some of the other sections for a while now so thank you for your work. No work is ever wasted after all. We will take what you wrote into consideration! Maxwell King123321 07:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Marriage date and divorce month is wrong.

The InStyle source used for the marriage date says November 19, not November 18. Please correct and the divorce month in the People Magazine source says "It will be final in April 2011" February 2011 was just the date of the article. Please correct them both. 2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

Typo: In ‘Personal Life’ section, 3rd para, “(DIU)” should be “(DUI)”. Kevuu (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: ended up removing it as we never use the acronym or mention the event again Cannolis (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected typo fix request

Reference 27 has a typo. It is "Wexford," not "Wextford." Could someone with access kindly update? Quillseek (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Maxwell King123321 02:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

Christina moved to Wexford, PA, a suburb of Pittsburgh not Rochester 2601:985:900:7C00:79D6:2FD7:78E6:A8CD (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (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) 13:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Endorsements

I think it’s a big oversight not to mention Christina’s endorsement and commercial ads with Nintendo. There are also many articles to support it https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/christina-aguilera-nintendo-mario-kart-1235135083/amp/ 107.145.228.1 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Aguilera/Archive_11&oldid=1255263260"