Jump to content

Talk:Fergie (singer)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

No Citations in the entire BEP section

There isn't one citation for the Black Eyed Peas section. Which gives credence to Adam Carolla who interviewed Fergie and found she was incapable of explaining how she ended up in the group. I came here wanting to see a simple answer, and nope, no explanation given, just that she showed up and joined them, and not even a citation for that. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Genres

i see that someone has deleted "hip hop" at the beginnisng , fergie is differnt from all the others stars becauce in her song includes elements of pop r&b but also hip hop otherwise she will similar to other artist such christina aguilera , beyonce ecc...)but she raps and also she has the style of her group the black eyed peas that are a hip hop /pop group! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Someone CONTINUE TO DELETE "AMERICAN POP/HIP POP/R&B SINGER" THIS THING IS PROVED ,IN THE DUTCHESS SHE MIXES THESE 3 GENRES , IF YOU GO ON THE DUCTHESS ALBUM'S PAGE YOU WILL FIND IT...AND THAN SHE IS ALSO AN OCCASIONAL RAPPER , SHE RAPS FREQUENTLY FOR EXAMPLE IN LONDON BRIDGE , FERGALISOUS BUT ALSO IMPACTO REMIX , AINT COOL WITH KUMI KODA AND ABOVE ALL PARTY PEOPLEunsigned comment added by Gio88 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 november 2008 (UTC)

That "someone" would be me. The sentence is cluttered enough as it is. The genre of the music that Fergie specializes in can be seen in the infobox and is mentioned with her involvement in the Black Eyed Peas. It does not need to be implicated into the lead. In addition, Fergie is better known for her singing and acting, not her "occasional" rapping, which can also be found in the infobox. Not to mention that your additions are grammatically incorrect (e.g., "r&b", which should be "R&B").

To attribute the term rapper and R&B to Fergie is to proclaim that she makes her living and sustains her livelihood from actively participating and engaging in rap and R&B. this is simply not true. Based upon your logic above, if any singer were to rap a segment of a "hook", "break", or a chorus in an R&B or Pop song rather than sing it, then that singer would be forever labeled a "rapper". IF this is the case, then the cast of GLEE are rappers.

There must be an established threshold of what a rapper is. The threshold must involve the artist's credibility and sustainability of his/her work in this regard. Fergie is not a rapper...elements of rap within her songs, of course. But, a stand alone rapper she is not. The decision to delete this genre is the only recourse I find as a suitable solution. shiznaw (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC) shiznaw

Against Rules

Bolding "1" on the chart table is against wikipedia rules. User: luxurious.gaurav

Thanks for changing it. Acalamari 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


LGBT?

"I have had lesbian experiences..." doesn't really qualify her as a lesbian or bisexual. I'm removing the cat until/unless she identifies as bisexual - per WP:BLP. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If she had them, it proves she´s also into women. If she was straight, she certainly would ever never done it.85.240.16.207 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If she had lesbian experiences, and was into them, and elected to continue... that might prove she's into women. A lot of people experiment, that doesn't make them all gay or bi. Not all straight people insist on never having any kind of bi-curious experience. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Surgery

Enough about pissing herself, why's there no mention of the extensive plastic surgery to her face, and people arguing and edit-warring over that? -- AvatarMN 10:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been no edit wars over that section for a while. As for the extensive plastic surgery, that sort of information needs reliable sources in accordance with WP:BLP. Acalamari 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Way to take a comment teasing everyone about the urination edit storm like I was actually asking something serious. I was just joking that there's something else people could be fighting over. -- AvatarMN 05:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 She's never had plastic surgery  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.87.167 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox name

The infobox is for the musical artist, so I think the Name field should be Fergie, not Stacy Ferguson. Her birth name is already in the Birth_name field too. Comments? --JYi 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after looking more closely, I think it should be as well. The "birth name" already says Stacy Ferguson. I have rolledback my previous edit. Acalamari 21:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


urination?

Have some class, wikipedians.

Great point...that whole paragraph was unnecessary...oops...where did it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebadscientist (talk • contribs) 04:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

That edit you made to remove it was vandalism. I have restored the section. There was an underlying message above the "urination" part saying to not remove it. Please don't remove that text about the incident again. Not liking something is not a reason to remove it. Acalamari 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is funny, but why is this in the article? What possible relevance does an accidental bodily function have pertaining to information on a person whose career is geared toward music and movies? If she had done it purposefully I can see why it would be there, because there would be motive and some sort of story behind it. And thus there would be meaning, a reason, to include it in the article. This text is just a silly joke and has no place on wikipedia for the same reason why things like President George H.W. Bush fainting and vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister back in the early nineties isn't here either; it has no more historical relevance than sneezing. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with her musical career, the the section in which it resides, other than the fact that it happened while she was performing. No mention is made to whether this is a regular occurrence for her during performances or if she regularly has some sort of bodily mishap while in public.
I must say that I am disappointed with the way the information has been handled. Onebadscientist removed the paragraph even when the note "Consensus agreed to leave this section in. Please discuss any changes you want to make to this section instead of directly removing it." was included in a note. This action by Onebadscientist was considered vandalism by Acalamari. Looking at the archived discussion, the reason for keeping the reference to the "urination incident" looms largely on shunning those who want an "encyclopedic" article being that some say it is a buzz term or an old question, satisfying a bet that user Matt D (not to be confused with Matt Crypto) had with his girlfriend, claims that widely known rumors are reason to include information in a wikipedia article, and the reinforcement of those rumors by citing the Rollingstone and askmen.com. Even with these arguments the debate continued. The archived discussion is a long argument that lacks both consensus and good reason. To tackle the reasons for inclusion, in reverse respective order, askmen.com used the incident to grab reader attention to the true point of its short body copy which was to inform the reader of Fergie's career involvement in acting. Likewise, the Rollingstone uses the incident to get a laugh (or a cringe) out of the reader and to point out the mishaps that are common for the rockstar life. These secondary sources use the incident as a vehicle for their own means to an end, which is grabbing reader attention. Are wikipedia articles aloud to use anecdotes to segue readers into the main idea? If that were even remotely the case, the current wikipedia article does not use the information in this way. But the successful argument for inclusion based on the rumor would take care of that. However, immediately this is covered by wikipedia's neutral point of view and credible source policies that require; no circular arguments and no fluff. Using search engines to gather evidence data on the frequency of a rumor is considered original research, which is not condoned by wikipedia. The sub-clause of this argument was that the lengthy discussion of a topic must mean it is article worthy, but this is nothing more than the previous mention of rumor within the scope of the wikipedia discussion page. This attitude that rumors are notable within the scope of wikipedia is shown to be even further absurd when the public expects certain information based on pride in a personal bet of knowledge. If Matt D's girlfriend had posted instead, it would not make the reasoning to NOT include the information any more relevant to the opposing viewpoint, thus defeating personal feelings about a subject as reason to include a topic (essentially original research, but in the most subjective and individual way). Finally, the common mention that encyclopedic, as a buzzword, is overused (one side of the argument pushing it as an "old question" suggests further lack of consensus among the talk discussion) to promote an argument should be an argument for both sides of whether to include the incident or not; if wikipedia is not encyclopedic (or in the state of becoming so), then wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. This is also covered by Acalamari's pointing out that just because you don't want something in an article does not give grounds to remove it; it is such that just because you want something in an article does not mean it should be added. Discussions like this one are important not necessarily because they weed out some useless knowledge (all of wikipedia, be it useless or not), but because discussions like these are important because they set common decisions that can be applied throughout wikipedia.
And so it is the decision of myself that due to the lack of consensus, to the invalid use of neutral point of view, to the circular arguments for inclusion, to the use of original research, and to the lack of a credible source, that this information regarding Fergie's accidental urination while performing her music be removed from the article until such time that all of the previous discretions have come to be resolved. --Trakon 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just re-read the archived discussion on this, specifically Urination incident III which was the final discussion. It was the conclusion of that disscussion that the sources were valid and that the information was sufficiently notable for it to be kept in. This included the satisfaction of many people who had previously questioned the information. I fail to see how the arguements are circular or how the research was original. This story wasn't unearthed by a single editor who is now attempting to have it added. Please see the previous discussion. I'm going to go ahead and re-add this info since the issue has actually been long resolved and there was a warning not to remove it. If we get into a new disscussion and come to a new consensus to remove it then fine.--Matt D 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Matt D, it is fine that you have your own opinions, as we all have. But the difference is that I have argued directly on many points that clearly raise some eyebrows, whether they are in fact true or false. When you come to understand that NPOV is the primary goal of wikipedia you will then realize that your two main rebuttals against all that I have pointed out do not say anything against them, but more against yourself and the other that you participated with in the archived discussion. Just because you do not understand what I have written is not cause for the inclusion of the information. Actually it is my opinion that you are less fit for editing wikipedia because of it, but that is aside. Secondly, the previous argument was based on a minority of decision makers, which included yourself, who merely had the patience to stick with their argument long enough to frustrate those who had any points to make, myself included. I think it is great that you wasted your time re-reading the archived discussion when it would have served you better to re-read what I wrote (sarcasm, don't be sensitive). But the problem with that is that even though you have reinforced your own beliefs, you have done nothing to directly eliminate the concerns that others and I have brought to the discussion. And so then it becomes a popularity contest where whichever side has the most patient and highest number of people willing to discuss, or rather preach, their own point of view. That was my biggest concern. I honestly do not care about the story, more the principal of the matter. --Trakon 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The event was well-publicized and well-covered, and is perfectly likely to be information sought by Wikipedia readers. The difference between one embarrassing incident in Bush's nearly 30 years of documented political information and a specific, well-known event in a singer's relatively short career is substantial. Likelihood is that eventually the event will lose noteworthiness over time, and eventually be deleted. But for now it remains relevant as an extremely public event with multiple well-known sources in the public career of a public figure. It's not like this is saying "she once stole a bicycle when she was 12"; she covered it in interviews with Rolling Stone and other major periodicals of record in the field. 70.18.8.149 (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
unindented That as may be, I had no idea about the incident and read the article. Coming upon the sentence, I questioned whether the information itself was encyclopedic. The time of noteworthiness for losing bladder control on stage may have already passed. —  X  S  G  06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


In all honesty I don't edit many wikipedia articles mainly due to poor typing / grammer / information / emotion and so on. I have only added some changes to the odd few where it was necessary. However I am a frequent Wikipedia user and while browsing the net on a boring monday evening I stumbled across Fergies embarassing moment and came here to find out more about it. I disagree with people arguing to keep it out of the article. It would be the same as trying to keep movie critisism out of articles just because you liked the movie. You make it painfully obvious that you are either a Fergie fan boy or just sensitive and think you can dictate what people should or shouldn't know. Isn't this supposed to be a source of reliable information? Sure it may not be the most tasteful topic to have a discussion like this over but I came here for information only to find it wasn't here because you are either a fan or too sensitive to be editing pages on this website. You have no right to choose what information other readers should have access to. On a final note if you think it's just embarassing and unfair for Fergie, well such is life as a celebrity - you end up under a microscope. Please repost the information for people like me who would like to find out from a reliable source and please stop editing / deleting information because it doesn't suit you. If the information is correct, fits under the topic and presented in a civilised, intelligent and professional manner then it deserves to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.224.247 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly relevant to anything, so I'd suggest removal for the reasons previously listed by Trakon Gerardw (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2009 discussion

It appears that the most recent addition to this topic of discussion was made in June of 2008, so I'd like to add my vote now, since there seems to have been a thread throughout this history suggesting that there might come a time when a moment of urination would cease to have relevance/weight in the context of The Life of Fergie/ Information About a Singer/ Music in General, etc. I propose that this time has definitely come. I only recently heard Fergie's music for the first time, and came to the Wikipedia page today to find out more about her. I am not a Fergie or Black-Eyed Peas fan, having only heard a couple of Fergie's songs just this week, so I am not biased in her favor. What motivated me to add my .02 to the discussion was the fact that when I read the paragraph that mentioned this "urination incident", I was surprised and even a little disgusted -- not by the incident itself, but by the fact that someone had included it in a profile of a singer, as though it was relevant to her music or her formative years, or anything at all important to her life or my inquiry. I thought this must be a recent addition to the page by some juvenile troll, because it certainly didn't seem to be typical or characteristic of Wikipedia entries, but rather a sensationalist little bit of titillation for the amusement of prepubescent adolescents who like to look up anatomical terms in the dictionary for a thrill and a giggle. My impulse was to delete the entire reference. It seemed to me to be completely beneath the high standard I find throughout Wikipedia, uncharacteristic of the general tone of articles which are carefully written and edited by thoughtful pepole whose intention is to inform and educate. Even the cheesiest, vilest tabloids wouldn't consider such a thing news for more than a week, so why should it be worthy of mention in an *encyclopedia* article ages after it happened? Let it die already! Given all that, I was absolutely flabbergasted when I saw the note warning people not to delete it! It reminded me of a "clubhouse" made of scrap boards nailed haphazardly into a hut with a badly painted sign on the door saying "N0 GURLZ ALOUD! This meenz U! KIEP OUT!" One person has said that they heard it as a rumor, so they came here to verify it. Gee, well, so what if it's a rumor? There are always rumors that The Beatles are touring again, or email forwards saying that "13-year-old Wilma has cancer, but it can be cured if you forward this email to 100 people". Those may be rumors, but are they worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia articles about the Beatles or cancer? NO, they are NOT. So can we please cease to consider the fact that someone didn't make it to the bathroom in time to be news as well? It never was anything other than tittilation for ten-year-olds, and those ten-year-olds have long outgrown it.[I can't figure out about the four tildes(where??)because I am so incredibly tired, but feel free to edit my edit!] 24.21.107.126 (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Gizmology

I've had time to think over this since I was originally in favor of keeping the material. However, with all the BLP concerns lately, I support removing it; plus, as said above, it's not really relevant to her music career: I don't see why we should keep it anymore. Acalamari 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DELETE I can not imagine why the urination incident is in the article.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Album Has Been Certerficated DOUBLE Platinum

On Billboard.com It states that her album is Certificated by RIAA 2X Platinum not just platinum. Please Fix That! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mali93 (talk • contribs).

Do you have the source itself? Acalamari 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Career???

Quote deleted in accordance to WP:LIVING - What does THIS mean??? where is the SOURCE? Haters? Seems like it got deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.162.3.147 (talk)

It was vandalism and utter nonsense. One user removed part of it, and I removed the rest. Acalamari 01:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Guest Contributions

I think you should add "Guest Contributions" section, she was featured in many album: Diddy's Press Play, 50 first Dates Soundtrack, Daddy Yankee's El Cartel: The Big Boss, Macy Gray's Big, Shrek The Third Soundtrack, Poseidon Soundtrack. That's enough for a new section.$ą|εɱ 08:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Product placement brouhaha

Is there sufficient resolution of the 'product placement' accusations and denials to include something here? Or is more in the category of silly season storm in teacup, anyway? Alai 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apperances

What about: - *Too $hort will.i.am Snoop Dogg and Fergie - Keep Bouchin'* - *Golden Feat Fergie - Elevator Music* - *Bucky Johnson Feat Fergie - Vapours*

Serious Advice

As Wikipedia tells us to be bold, here is what i have to say. This article ain't matching the Biography standards. Too many tables are not preferred in a biography article. I would seriously suggest this article to follow Gwen Stefani article. Thank you to those who accept this advice with a positive mind and not insult. Thank You!. Luxurious.gaurav 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

feat. Kumi Koda?

I know Fergie and Kumi Koda are doing a song together, but Fergie's page has nothing about it (Kumi Koda's page says that they have an upcoming single; Fergie = nada) Artistthatneverwas 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Artistthatneverwas

Videography

I have deleted the videography section because this [so called] artist has not released any DVD's or VHS's of live concerts, music videos, etc. and the music videos have only been aired on tv stations. Nearly all artists [sic] produce music videos for their singles, and they are also mentioned. There was no need for the Videography section as it was repeating the singles section. mattytay 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I'm a little new to Wikipedia, but is it possible to semi-protect this article? I've seen a lot of vandalism here and not only is it annoying, it seems unfair to the administrators to have to keep editing and warning the vandals. I've seen semi-protected articles (e.g., Rachel McAdams) and was just curious as to whether this article would be justified in being protected in some way. Miss Sara G (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fashion Designer & Model

Fergie is also really a fashion designer and a model more than others celebrity che has done a lot of mode lines and also she has modeled for a lot of campaign so , why there is someone that continue to delete this part that i've written?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio88 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for why the information has been removed by different users. Your material currently doesn't have any sources to reference it, and as such, has been removed. Until there's sources, it'll keep getting removed. Thanks. Acalamari 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What must i do to reference it ? i have to put the sources or other?? 20:08 , 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i've put some links that proves what i've written .under section "referenmces" 20.14 14 August 2008 (UTC) by gio88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio88 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you can also find a reference that says that she eats fruits and vegetables, but does that mean it needs to go into the lead sentence that summarizes the reasons why she has an article written about her? Nothing else in the article mentions that she is a model. If you want to write a small section about her being a fashion model, go for it. But it does not belong in the lead sentence. DFS (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Discography

I am asking here for an agreement of whether or not to create a seperate page for her discography. I created this page a few weeks ago, but User:Acalamari deleted it per "re-creation of deleted material". So I am asking for concencus here first before creating it again. JayJ47 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I deleted it under WP:CSD#G4, and the deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fergie discography. Thanks. Acalamari 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just strongly feel that she needs a discography page. JayJ47 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have created the Fergie discography page. Please do not delete it for the same reason before, as I noticed that was an old discussion. Instead please improve it.
It doesn't matter how old the deletion discussion: the page still falls under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of deleted material. Plus, as was stated in the deletion discussion, Fergie only has one album released, and discography pages are not needed for someone who only has one album. Acalamari 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I understand, but Leona Lewis has also released one album, and yet she has her own discography page. She has also released fewer singles, and yet she has her own discography. That is why I believe that Fergie shoud have her own page also. Another good example would be The Pussycat Dolls discography page. They to have released one album and a few singles. JayJ47 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it may be a good idea to read this guide. In addition, if there are other artists that have only released one album, yet have their own discography pages, and there is consensus that artists who only have one album shouldn't have discography pages, it's a better idea to deal with those articles, or even try to change the consensus using discussion. However, since I speedy deleted the Fergie discography the last time, I will not speedy it again. Acalamari 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a need for all the pictures?

Is there really a need for three of essentially the same picture (albeit a slightly different pose)? The one in the info box should suffice, the rest really do need to go. Padillah (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance of discussion here? Any chance someone could address the need for three of the same picture? Or are we just going to revert each other over and over again? Padillah (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: no, I don't see the need for all 3.
    • The one in the infobox clearly needs to be kept.
    • The second image is not appropriate for that section as it does not illustrate her acting career, or her early work, and is adding nothing to the article - a picture from that era or no image would be preferable. I'd suggest removing it for now.
    • The third photo is debatable, since it is actually illustrating her current music career; however, a different image would be preferable. I had a look on flickr to see if there were any more appropriately-licensed works; [1] these are good, and are under what I understand to be a free-enough CC license. I'd suggest using one of those to replace the third image.
Bazzargh (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with what Bazzargh said. 3 pics might be questionable anyways... but these are 3 pics from the same time and place, very odd indeed. It makes me wonder "what is so important about that event" which readers shouldn't be doing in this case. The repeating of similar pics doesn't really add anything to the article, and possibly hurts its legitimacy. I think it would be safe to go ahead an remove 2 of them, doesn't look like a controversial removal. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing RfC. I think three viewpoints is enough. Thanks for the help everyone. Padillah (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep one pic, preferably the nipple one.  :) DFS (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Most websites say that she was the voice of "Lucy" in a "PEANUTS" special(s). This has to be sourced on when she voiced Lucy. 1Yes1960 49:2, 12 April 2008, (UTC)

As noted in the article, Ferguson voiced Sally Brown in two Peanuts specials. None of the cast listings for Peanuts specials produced when Ferguson was a child actress list her as playing Lucy. On a related note, this article credits Ferguson as the voice of Sally on The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show, which is incorrect[2]; it was Stacy Heather Tolkin, who also voiced Sally for What Have We Learned, Charlie Brown? and Is This Goodbye, Charlie Brown?.[3] The confusion may come from the similar first names and the fact that Ferguson's sister Dana has an acting credit as an unidentified voice for The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show.[4] I am altering the article accordingly. -- Pennyforth (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heart Performance

I consider her performance with Heart on the 2008 edition of American Idol gives back to be relevant to her music career. It shows a foray into hard rock that she really hasn't gotten into extensively, from what I've seen (save for her cover of Barracuda on the Shrek album). Discuss. 128.205.225.155 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was in support of an album with more Hard Rock music then I'd say yes. If it turns out to be in support of more Hard Rock efforts then we can call back to this "entry" into the genre. If this were a different song and showed an expansion into the Hard Rock genre, then yes. But as it stands I feel it's simply her performing a cover she already did for Idol Gives Back. Padillah (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the big deal with "Dance-Pop"?

Why is this such a bone of contention? The list of genres is not complete nor is it exhaustive. Nor is it concrete, anyone that knows about music genres knows they are not concrete entities and asking three critics to define a genre will result in five different definitions. Can someone on either side give a concrete reason the genre should either be listed or not? Let's discuss this, not edit war over it. Padillah (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be a big deal. I could make a good argument for "Fergilicious" being a "dance pop" record, if nothing else. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fergalicous if first of all a pop rap song that has dance-pop elements gio88 17:39 , 16 august 2008 (UTC)

Addiction NPOV?

The statement "Her disappointment with Wild Orchid led to an addiction to crystal methamphetamine." isn't obviously sourced and doesn't seem to be NPOV. I'm leaving in place because it's possible it's sourced in the dead link reference. Gerardw (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and removed it in accordance with WP:BLP. Something like that should have a working source (or more preferable, sources), and if one can be found, it can be re-added. Acalamari 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the "drug addiction" part from the hypnotherapy. Unless someone has a source that says "Fergie was ADDICTED to meth" then any implications are purely POV. People can use drugs, even abuse drugs, without becoming an addict. DFS (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

Maybe this is an opinion shared only by me, but the introductory sentence seems a bit cluttered. "Singer-songwriter, rapper, fashion designer, model, philantropist, and actress"? Yes, she has done or is doing all of these types of things, but she is not known for all of them. She is known as a singer, first and foremost. If anything, I would narrow it down to "singer-songwriter and actress." Thoughts? Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Last Name Question

since she's married to Josh Duhamel, should her named be changed to "Stacy Ferguson Duhamel"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghoi (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If it can be accurately sourced that this is now her name, then yes, it can be changed, but the title of the page will remain "Fergie (singer)", as she's more commonly known as "Fergie". Acalamari 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Artists often keep unmarried or special names after they're married to maximize the "recognizability factor". If her legal name has changed this probably does not impact her singing name. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Exploits

The section "Personal life" contains a paragraph that talks about her sexual encounters. IMNSHO, this information is very un-encyclopedic, and so does not belong on a Wikipedia page. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this editing malarkey but Fergie has been married and divorced, this hasn't been mentioned on the page. I don't know names, but i believe it was a bank executive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.27.134 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

More Images

Can someone put more Images on the article.

Fergie at the MMVA, 2007
Fergie in a VIP Room in Paris
Fergie with A.P.L two of Black Eyed Peas

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.128.198 (talk)

I've added the image of Fergie with apl.de.ap into the section on BEP and the image of the MMVA's into the awards section. I left the Paris image because it's similar to the current infobox image, and the other one because it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the article at present. Sorry about the slow response, and thank you for your suggestions. Acalamari 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

longest stay at the top of 2009. The two hit singles back to back kept the Black Eyed Peas on the top for 26 conecutive weeks, from April 18 through October 16. The word consecutive should have at least one "s"... Davecparsons (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Acalamari 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The first word of the second paragraph is misspelled: "Havin"[sic] should read "Having", of course. -Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.232.150 (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2010‎ (UTC)

There is no "t" in Duchess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.25.53 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Send an email to A&M Records. Maybe they'll recall and reissue the album. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Slash's Debut Album

There needs to be some additions and changes to the paragraph concerning Slash, the album has now been released. The song Beautiful Dangerous was released on 26th March 2010, and peaked at Number 11 on the Heatseekers Songs. Nojwerdna 14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Appearance for Princess Diana?

The page includes the quote: 'In addition to promoting her albums and singles, Ferguson appeared at Wembley Stadium on July 1, 2007, performing "Glamorous" and "Big Girls Don't Cry" in a concert for the late Princess Diana.' As Princess Diana died 10 years earlier, this is at best confusing, and probably simply erroneous. :)

I've just realised that perhaps it was a concert to raise money for Princess Diana's charity; this is (obviously) unclear! Suggest changing wording to "concert to raise money for the late Princess Diana's charity". ;) Ozperp (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a concert to honor Princess Diana? There was one I think. It was for her, even if she was dead. Sort of to remember her.

hey so i gotta a couple of Questions if any body knows what was the name of the first guy fergie dated?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.101.211 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2010) 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to Fergie (entertainer). Discussion appears to have moved in the direction of Fergie (singer) → Fergie, which would mean first moving Fergie → Fergie (disambiguation). Those moves may still be proposed and discussed -- this closure is neutral on those possible moves, but they would need to be announced on the affected pages' Talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Fergie (singer) → Fergie (entertainer) — Not only a singer, but a songwriter (co-wrote all songs on The E.N.D. and others on previous albums), a rapper and an actress (Kids Incorporated especially), as well. Yves (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Move to Fergie. Just because other people are nicknamed Fergie, that doesn't mean many readers are going to be searching for them under that name. This article seems to be eaasily the primary topic for "Fergie". (But if it has to be disambiguated, then I see nothing wrong with "(singer)", so I oppose the original proposal.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Among most people older than 30 or 35, the Duchess of York is the only "Fergie" out there. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Stacy Ferguson is the Dutchess :) - And I'm 33 and never really knew who that other Fergie was. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's the 40+ crowd and I'm precocious. ;) I know that throughout my youth, the tabloids were constantly going on about "Fergie", and it wasn't a singer. The dominance of the singer (about whom I've heard very little) is a case of "recentism", or so it seems to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If you've heard very little of the singer, that's a case of "fogeyism" :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I sense some tongue in cheek here. Surely nobody thinks that there are only 2 types of people: those who keep up with hip-hop and related areas of pop music, and "Fogies". What if I mostly follow jazz, or country? Is this Hip-ipedia, the encyclopedia for top-40 victimslisteners? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought "Fergie" was usually Alex Ferguson, but anyway, it's only a nickname for these people, we're an encyclopedia, and readers aren't generally expected to expect our articles to be titled with nicknames. If they type in "Fergie", they're expected to be looking for this Fergie (unless they're just saving themselves typing, in which case they must surely be expecting to make a couple more clicks to get where they want).--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This may be true. I suspect one could gather empirical evidence relating to this point. Such evidence might persuade me to support the suggested move (to Fergie, as primary topic, that is). -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This has already been done. Read Station1's comments above - Fergie the singer is number 240 on Wikipedia, recieves 5-7 the pageviews of the Duchess, and Google searches show nothing about Sarah until the third page (even Alex appears before her). I think that's pretty unbeatable evidence there. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There's the possible objection that the great interest in the singer will prove to be only a temporary phenomenon, but then, none of the other Fergies are likely to engender eternal interest either (at least, not under the name "Fergie", which is what matters). --Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the logic above is based on a misreading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To determine primary topic we are supposed to consider the likelihood that a person entering the term in question ("Fergie", in this case) is looking for any one particular topic. If there is a topic for which that likelihood is so high above the others as to be "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be the one being sought by someone entering "Fergie" in the Search box, then that is the primary topic. There is no discount to be applied to those who enter "Fergie" as the nickname of the person they're looking for in order to "save on typing", as compared to those who are entering "Fergie" because that is the most common name of the subject they are seeking. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support' move to Fergie as primary topic. Upon consideration of the arguments presented here, I'm convinced, and no longer oppose said move. I guess this means I won't be closing this one... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This Fergie is most commonly known as a singer, so that seems to be the most appropriate qualifier. I would Weak Oppose a move to Fergie. It's employed frequently enough in reference to Sarah, Duchess of York and Alex Ferguson for there to be enough ambiguity in usage.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Important Note The hip hop star and the DJ are the only one of these Fergies to use Fergie as their primary identities. Her album and music credits don't say Stacy Ferguson, they say Fergie. Ditto for the DJ. The rest all prefer their real names and should have their articles there. Since the hip hop star is way more famous than the DJ, that makes her the primary Fergie. The Duchess of York is the primary Sarah Ferguson, but Stacy is the primary Fergie. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This comment is also based on flawed understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The fact that some article (like the duchess article at Sarah, Duchess of York) would not be at Fergie even if it could be is irrelevant when determining primary topic. The only consideration that matters is how likely it is that people who enter "Fergie" in the Search box are looking for the topic in question, relative to the other topics they might be looking for. That said, as noted below, based on page counts, it is quite clear that the singer is the primary topic (but would not be if the article about the duchess got sufficient traffic). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Fergie (entertainer). Support move to Fergie. I was going to also oppose the second proposal on the grounds that this singer is not the primary topic due to common use of "Fergie" to refer to Sarah, Duchess of York, but then I compared page view statistics. Fergie (singer) regularly gets about 300,000 views per month, while the duchess gets 20 to 30 thousand, about 10%. The other subjects listed at Fergie (disambiguation) are relatively insignificant. Clearly, this singer is the primary topic for "Fergie", so I support the proposed move to Fergie.

    As to the original proposal, no, because she's primarily known for her singing. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (November 2010) 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fergie (singer) → Fergie — The reasons have been discussed ad nauseum above, but Fergie (aka Stacy Ferguson of the Black Eyed Peas) is definitely the primary topic for this name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong support – she is definitely a primary topic. ΣПD!ПG–STΛЯT | TΛLK | 06:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as above - in fact I don't see why we need a new discussion, the last one showed strong support for this.--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the idea that Fergie (singer) is the primary topic is quite limited in scope and time perspective, though that it would appear so for a limited age group bracket is understandable. Still, there is no reason to have a naming policy that shifts with the current trend for a specific demographic. A serious measurement of a 'primary topic Fergie' would take into account the vast amount of ink of British tabloid theatre front pages and back pages over decades. Stacy Ann Ferguson is one of several widely notable Fergies (she just isn't the Elvis or Einstein) and is that so terrible? deMURGH talk 11:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sarah's status as primary topic is the limited in time and scope one. I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows who Diana Ross is, but I doubt most of you could name who the Duchess of York was in 1965. If she was named Diana Ross, the singer would be the primary topic, no question about it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And arguing tabloid exposure is pretty weak. Tabloids alone don't establish notability and aren't considered very reliable sources and tabloid coverage is unencyclopedic. I think real awards for real accomplishments trumps birthright/marrying well any day. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Comments appear borne of not understanding what I intented to communicate, as the example is moot and off mark. Are you arguing for primary topic of "Dutchess of York"? Regardless of your low estimation of British tabloid press and unsuitability as WP:RS, its role in inventing and popularising these nicknames through fat boldface types frontpages for the scandal era involving the royal Fergie during the 80s and 90s (typical examples), and the backpages from the late 80s to present involving football Fergie (typical examples), the influence on British culture (and subsequently western European culture though to a much lesser degree U.S. culture where royalty and soccer is largely ignored) can't be underestimated. These terms have been judged lucrative for sales, shock headlines, and bombardment by a multi million pound industry since Stacy Ann Ferguson was in kindergarten, and regardless of a moderate upswing in latecoming Fergie solo career exposure, notability isn't temporary. deMURGH talk 19:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion above - firm evidence was indeed provided (not that it's not ambiguous, which of course it is, but that's this is the primary topic for it).--Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That evidence is suggestive, but hardly conclusive, IMO. Try using Google Books to search less ephemeral sources. The singer fairs significantly less well. Even Google News shows markedly more variety of uses. older ≠ wiser 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sarah, Duchess of York is probably the best candidate for the primary topic, but as it's contentious let's keep it as it is for now. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • From above:

      Fergie (singer) is ranked 240 on WP, getting 5-7 times the pageviews of Sarah, Duchess of York (not all of which come through the Fergie dab page, obviously). A quick Google search for Fergie doesn't show anything about the duchess until the third page; even the DJ shows up on the second page.

      - By User:Station1. I think this definitively shows Stacy to be the primary topic, and it definitively shows that Sarah is not the primary topic. Just cause you don't pay any attention to pop music doesn't mean she isn't primary. (And I do mean that, you have to pay no attention at all to pop music to think Sarah is more significant) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment – does she go by the name of Fergie? Ending-start (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point there's no rule that the most significant topic should have the un-disambiguated article title. It's only appropriate in the cases where the term is exclusively associated with the topic in the public mind, has been for a long time, and is unlikely to change. For example, see Elvis, and compare to Clinton. That one must "pay attention" to pop music to even know who this person is would seem to indicate that she doesn't meet that criteria. Also note that no one is proposing to move Sarah, Duchess of York to Fergie, just that it should stay the way it is now.
It's also not appropriate for you to repeat your argument in response to every editor who opposes the move. You've had you chance to make your case, let others make theirs. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have to pay attention to British royalty to know who Sarah is, and I'd say, worldwide, way more people pay attention to pop music than British royalty. Not to mention that Stacy's position in pop music is much more significant than Sarah's position in British royalty (which, BTW, is composed entirely of figureheads) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Britney redirects to Britney Spears and she isn't credited mononymously. Yves (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is generally not considered to be a compelling argument. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I was commenting in response to your aforementioned mononymous examples. And I think the fact no one is proposing moving Sara, Duchess of York to Fergie supports that Sara is not the primary topic. Yves (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, "primary topic" would only be a compelling argument if it was widely accepted as being unambiguous. The fact that it's necessary to have this discussion shows that that is not true in this case. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of people named George Harrison, so that name is ambiguous, therefore the name shouldn't link to the Beatle, right? That sounds like your logic. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, other stuff exists isn't a good argument. These things have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If you asked 100 random people in the English-speaking world who "George Harrison" is, how many people would say he's one of the Beatles? If you did the same for "Britney", how many would mention Britney Spears? If you did the same for "Fergie", how many would mention this singer? If you answer depends on whether those 100 people "pay any attention to pop music" then you have your answer. Whether more people would mention this singer v. the Duchess of York is, as has been mentioned several times already, completely irrelevant, and the fact that you're so focused on that particular facet to the exclusion of all other factors shows you don't understand wikipedia naming conventions, and your continuous, non-constructive responses to editors opposing the move is borderline disruptive. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as before. The singer is the primary topic for the single word "Fergie"; see the above move discussion for statistics on this. As a side point, I oppose having move discussions sit unclosed for over a month and and then being closed as "start over". That's just plain nonsense. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a backlog. If that bothers you, apply for adminship and work to close discussions more promptly. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as clear example of WP:RECENTISM and US-centrism (see WP:BIAS). I have never heard of the singer, and she does not appear to be a hugely important figure even in the US. Sarah, Duchess of York may not have been in the headlines as much as she was in the past, but many British people will still regard her as the primary meaning of "Fergie". If nobody has proposed treating her as such on Wikipedia it may be that British Wikipedians are slightly more sensitive about systemic bias than US Wikipedians. Many more British people will have heard of Alex Ferguson than the singer. The Duchess has a number of possible names and it may not be obvious which she is known by on Wikipedia some people will search for her as "Fergie". "Britney" is an invalid analogy, she is sometimes known by this name, and there is no other person approaching Ms. Spears in notability. Statistics aren't everything. PatGallacher (talk)
    • Not recentism. Read my Diana Ross example above, which clearly shows that 40 years from now, Stacy will remain well known and Sarah will be mostly forgotten. Google search results pretty definitively put Stacy as the most common Fergie. Your opposition sounds like an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe obsolescence to the Duchess, but it's also irrelevant; what's important is the situation now, not the situation in 40 years. Stacy Ferguson is no Diana Ross, after all. Powers T 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Donde, hi. I'm inclined to lean slightly in support of this proposed move, but the idea that you've "clearly shown" anything about what will be true in 40 years is utterly ridiculous. I suggest that you step away from the discussion and get a good strong dose of perspective.

          We're not comparing arbitrary members of royalty with top-flight pop singers. We're comparing one particular currently successful pop singer with a member of the royal family who received a huge proportion of tabloid press for a couple of decades. Who are you familiar with, Prince Albert, or any popular singer of the Victorian era?

          We do not know how today's celebrities will go down in history, and claiming that we do is just a fancy way of saying that your train is in danger of flying off the rails. Let the discussion run its course, you know? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Reluctant support. As much as I hate to admit it, I think it's bordering on irrationality to ignore that the singer is what most people think of first when they hear "Fergie". The Duchess has been out of the public eye for too long at this point. Powers T 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply "Sarah's status as primary topic is the limited in time and scope one. I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows who Diana Ross is, but I doubt most of you could name who the Duchess of York was in 1965." I doubt if they could, since there was no Duchess of York in 1965. Diana Ross has been a major international superstar for many years, Stacy Ferguson is not quite in the same class. Nobody is proposing to treat her as the primary meaning of "Diana" or "Ross". PatGallacher (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lacking any evedience to the contrary it's far from clear to me that the singer meets the "it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" requirement (from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). A google news search suggests, that in the UK at least, Fergie is more often used to refer to Alex Ferguson or Sarah, Duchess of York then this singer (only 1 out of the first 30 hits referred to the singer). Therefore I can not see how the singer is more likely to be likely target of a search than all the other articles combined. Dpmuk (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Following Born2cycle's comment I thought I'd clarify that I still oppose. In my opinion the page view statistics are inconclusive - largely because Alex Ferguson gets about 100,000 views a month, which taken together with the other possible options gives a total of about 140,000, which in my view does not meet the "much more likely" standard. I also note that plan "Fergie" only gets about 25,000 views so it would seem a sigificant amount of people reaching all these articles reach it other than via Fergie. As it's impossible to know what percentage of those 25,000 go to each article it is my opinion that the page view stats are inconclusive. In light of the google news search I mention and given the fears of a US bias, I must still oppose. Dpmuk (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Primarily due to recentism. Stacey Ferguson is one of the people I associated with "Fergie", but only one of them. Certainly if I heard a British person refer to "Fergie" I would not think of the singer.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I had never heard of the Blackeyed Peas singer until I spotted this debate. Any assertion of a primary topic would seem to me to be recentism—I recall seeing a tabloid headline about Fergie hurling a boot at David Beckham and thinking, ‘How did she get into the dressing room?’ But I don’t think that the toe-sucker can count as primary: it’s just a nickname that gets temporarily assigned to some celebrity or another. Keep it a DAB. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I've looked into it a bit more and concluded than rather than an issue of present vs past on this, it's more an issue of US versus Britain. Fergie is much better known in the US than in the UK, while the UK has several other Fergies that are not well known in the US (such as the Duchess of York, the DJ, and apparently a soccer player). However, even in Britain, Fergie is the first result for that Google search, and I suspect those interested in the duchess and soccer player would probably use their legal names. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not quite. Closer to an issue of U.S. vs elsewhere earth, as the first association to the concept of "Fergie" is highly subjective, and Google will give you no realistic indication of the global share. Your suspicion is off too as any conversation involving the "soccer player" (retired 1974, later renown as manager (head coach) and embodiment of Manchester United, prompting a global obsessive fan devotion and equal adversarial loathing) may well involve "Fergie" interchangably with the given notion of being the Ferguson. I can attest to the ease of moving only in circles (not UK but worldwide) where the mention of "Fergie" would exclusively be taken to refer to Sir Alex Ferguson. deMURGH talk 09:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm American through and through, and I consider it an example of recentism. Maybe it's more about people who care about a certain area of pop music versus those who don't. The only reason I know about Fergie the pop singer is because of debates such as this one on Wikipedia. Oh, and she was in the "We Are the World" remake, just like whatshisname from that other band. That's all. This is from someone who was a member of an indie pop band gigging around Seattle in '06 and '07. The Black Eyed Peas are simply not on everyone's radar.

      When I hear "Fergie", the Duchess of York comes to mind, then the singer. I'm young (33) and American. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Ferguson is not an uncommon surname, "Fergie" is a nickname which has attached itself to a number of people and will continue to do so, who you regard as primary is too dependent on when it is, your country, age and interests. Elvis and Britney, as well as being bigger international figures than any of these Fergies, also have the advantage of having unusual first names. An example of the issues is a joke going the rounds a few years ago. Two men were walking up to a newpaper stall. One said "Oh well, I suppose I'll see how Fergie's tits are getting on". The other said "Oh, not bad, they only lost 2-1 to Liverpool". PatGallacher (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I think we need to distinguish between people who has Fergie as a nickname and those who use Fergie as a stage name. The first category contains amongst others Sarah, Duchess of York, and in my opinion, having Fergie as nickname (possibly invented by the British tabloid press) does not qualify as rationale for being the primary subject of that name. The second category contains only two people: Fergie (singer) and Fergie (DJ), and amongst those two other editors have proved enough evidence that the former is without any doubt the most prominent. Opposing this change is that same as saying that Beck can not be primary subject because other notable people has Beck as nickname. I should add that I am a music fan, I am not American, I know who the Black Eyed Peas are, but before reading this thread I didn't know the name of the girl. Still, I feel that more than enough evidence has been provided to qualify her as primary subject. – IbLeo(talk) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that is a terrible idea to insert that convenient distinction. It is utterly irrelevant, though feel free to try having it applied to any other primary topic debates, perhaps the upcoming ones of Madonna (entertainer), Sting (musician) and/or Prince (musician). Whatever role tabloid journalism had in conceiving the tags it can't justify any high-brow right to ignore an established place in popular culture. A swift test search through a non-tabloid Brit newspaper site such as the The Guardian[5] bears very interesting results of some 4,300 "Fergie" hits, and please do note behind abundant occurrences of the Fergies of football and ex-royalty (ah, those Brits), how surprisingly difficult it is to find the sparse appearances of Stacy Ferguson, described delicately as "Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas". For all the rather uninformed talk of "obvious primary topic" and "slam dunk", just saying it doesn't make it so, and really only describes the limit of exposure of the proponents of this proposal. deMURGH talk 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think what IbLeo is getting at is that there are only two articles on WP that could reasonably bear the title "Fergie", those of the singer and the DJ. Few would expect the Duchess of York's or Alex Ferguson's articles to be titled simply "Fergie" (because they are nicknames), even if some might search for them that way, while many would be surprised to find the singer at "Stacy Ann Ferguson" (because she is almost never referrred to as that in reliable sources). Since no one claims the DJ is close to a primary topic, Fergie should be at the most natural title, with hatnotes for the minority who might search for other articles under a nickname but not expect to get there directly. Parenthetical qualifiers should be used only to disambiguate two otherwise identical article titles, not all possible searches. Station1 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, for uses of disambiguation, there are frequently major entries that are found under other article names, which gives no cause to "promote" the remaining entries (for example, such a line of reasoning would shake up things at Madonna where many might expect to find Mary (mother of Jesus)). For dictionary use, a user will look up a term and be informed of the options, not presumptuously served a limited demographic popular choice. Unless there is a clear primary topic, the DAB is the reasonable choice. deMURGH talk 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Fergie (singer) regularly gets about 300,000 views per month, while the duchess gets 20 to 30 thousand, about 10% of what the singer gets. The other subjects listed at Fergie (disambiguation) are relatively insignificant. Clearly, the singer is "highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters ["Fergie"] in the Search box". That is, literally, the definition of primary topic. This is a slam dunk. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nomination argument here clearly referenced the discussion above, yet many of the oppose votes are citing "lack of evidence". Are these people reading the discussion this nomination is based on? I can't imagine anyone saying there is no evidence of the singer being the primary topic for "Fergie" after reading that discussion, for plenty of evidence was presented there.

    In determining consensus here, I suggest that the oppose comments essentially based on nothing more than the declaration of "no evidence of primary topic" be given as much consideration as they showed to the referenced discussion... none. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    • I have read the discussion above, I remain to be convinced. Statistics aren't everything, there are no rigid rules to decide primary topic, people are entitled to exercise a degree of subjective judgement taking various factors into account. There is no Wikipedia convention which says that stage names necessarily take priority over nicknames. Alex Ferguson is hardly "relatively insignificant", US readers may not be aware of this but he has been manager for 14 years of Manchester United, a very famous team followed internationally, winning many trophies, try reading his biography. One problem with saying that people will search for the Duchess of York using her legal name is that I am genuinely unsure what her legal name is at present. I think "Fergie" was her nickname before she hit the headlines. Some people will search for the singer using her legal name as well. This proposed move would mean adopting a degree of bias in favour of the US, not just against Britain, but against all countries where soccer is widely played and followed, and all countries where the Duchess's ex-mother-in-law is monarch. PatGallacher (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No I hadn't fully read the first discussion but I think it's wrong to blame people for not doing so. The first discussion was about a different move and although this move surfaced as an option anyone new to this would not have realised how much discussion it would have had in the first move. From this nomination I'd inferred that it had much less discussion than it actually had - I'd have thought it sensible to include a fuller rationale in the move argument for this move as well - "clearly primary topic" didn't give any reason at all. Anyway have now read the above evidence and still oppose as I explain by my vote above. Dpmuk (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've read both discussions in their entirety and don't see any compelling reason why this person ought to be made the primary topic for Fergie. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Generally not good practice to go back to old discussions, but if you look at http://uk.yahoo.com at present, you will see clear evidence that in the context of UK headlines at present the primary meaning of Fergie is the soccer manager. PatGallacher (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Trucksavage, 4 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The correct spelling is Duchess (not Dutchess)

Trucksavage (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

All spellings with the "t" in it refer to her album, which is indeed spelled with a "t". Request denied. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

The article says "She is of Irish, Scottish, Mexican (from a great-grandmother), and Native American descent". I removed the "(from a great-grandmother)" thing as it is irrelevant and sounds a little racist as the other ancestries are not clarified. Probably the writer/editor didn't feel comfortable with her having Mexican genes. --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

she is lela kvaratskhelia's first fathers doughtgod .they are like a sisters,best friends shes name is alessandra corokki...nickname is sandrakki. she is so funny .when was in georgia fight with russia she go went with her family in mexico shes father is from mexico, chiudado — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.104.230 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Believing in "Mexican genes" is actually far more racist. 69.171.160.207 (talk)

File:Fergie ai.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fergie ai.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link; proposed change

"All that time, she was a cheerleader, straight-A student, and spelling bee champion,[3] as well as a Girl Scout.[10]" -- I wanted to check that, but the linked reference is no longer avalable. Do we mean she won a spelling bee every year? I propose removing "all that time". -- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

She is so "Cute". :D Spectra999: See my discussion or my contributions —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

Philanthropy

Can someone please write sth about the donations that fergie has done..I don't know many things..But I know that she and her hsuband have gone to maany philanthropy organizations and have helped...Please find anything

Voice?

fergies range: two octaves She's a real powerhouse. Should we include some info on her vocal ability? Iggy Ax (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Work with Slash

I wonder why there isn't any mention of her work with Slash anymore. She did some studio work with him, and both performed live together several times. She was praised as a hard rock singer, and she stated in interviews easily founds on youtube that she utterly enjoyed that experience.

Any thoughts ? 2A01:E35:2EE8:5040:C4FC:3FBD:A7E4:CB73 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fergie_(singer)/Archive_2&oldid=1150875274"