Jump to content

Talk:Girls Aloud/Archive 1

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

Vandalism

Some retard keeps calling it Slags Aloud. Theyre probably really ugly and jealous. Fixed it.

Shouldn't the article's title be Girls Aloud? Rienzo 02:43, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Lee M 02:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

DOBs

Was it my imagination, or did an earlier version of this page give their dates of birth as all in the 1983-1984 range? -- Smjg 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but if it did it was wrong; 1981-1985 is correct.

Page layout

does this page really need all the little headings for each of the singles? the contents look crazy and its going to get longer and longer... Salamander4000 14:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Eras

An 'era' is a long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or characteristic: fair enough for the most part, but the intervening year or so between albums is not long enough to count as an era. If we want to avoid simply using album names as sub-headings we need to use a more appropriate descriptor. Driller thriller 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Girls Aloud template

What's happened to it? Why's it been changed? The old colour scheme was better. Just my two cents worth. JohnJTSmith 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pride of Britain

"In 2006 Girls Aloud, excluding Nadine, presented the award at the Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards, for the GMTV Emergency Service Worker of the Year"

I deleted this and someone has put it back in. it just seems like a gratuitous advert for the Daily Mail. All sorts of people will have presented all sorts of awards, why does this one need to be mentioned on the entry for Girls Aloud? It brings the quality of the article down. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.204.159 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Peer review

Is it worth getting this article peer reviewed? It seems pretty well referenced, a good stock of different media and pretty neutral POV. A bit of work and it could make FAC in a few months... Dick G 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It seems like a pretty good article and it's always good to get some additional feedback. Gasheadsteve 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article only has 9 references, most of them being about either the show that formed the band (Popstars the Rivals) back in 2002 or about Cheryl Tweedy's conviction in 2003. I would suggest that before asking for peer reviewing, we back up more of the stated points, especially those from 2004 onwards, with solid references. Fabricationary 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I went through referencing and rewriting the stuff on Cheryl Tweedy's conviction a long time ago because I thought if anything needed to be properly referenced it was that but nothing else has been done since. I'll have a look at doing a bit. Driller thriller 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Television appearances section

Is this section important? In the long run, this will simply be trivia and unimportant. — hippi ippi++++ 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not important--HW-Barnstar PLS 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, I'll delete it. — hippi ippi++++ 11:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

International Chart positions

go to the french version of the girls aloud page and scroll down to the disogrophy and you'll find that some odd chart posistions like jump and something kinda oooh being realesead in the usa and all the singles charting in the top 3 of the world chart i dont really think that its true but but does anybody know if its true or not if it is it could really help with the girls aloud chart posistions in other countries.Ae12079410 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments and use proper punctuation. — hippi ippi++++ 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SOTU album release date

Bit confused about when "Sound Of The Underground" album was released - Amazon says it was released on Dec 1st (2003), and the first single was released on Dec 16th - this doesn't sound right to me, can anyone confirm this order was right? Oh yeah, anonymous changes to article on Nov 9th 2004 were me, I forgot to sign in. pomegranate 22:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Allmusic.com says 28 January, HMV say 1 December, their official site doesn't seem to have the details. Not much help, sorry! violet/riga (t) 23:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are those dates just for the album's release? 'Cos Jan 28 would make more sense to me. pomegranate 23:43, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Yes they are, odd isn't it? violet/riga (t) 09:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I will take the chance and go with the January. pomegranate 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

ANSWER Sound Of The Underground, the single, was released on December 16th 2002. The album of the same name followed on May 26th 2003. A re-issued version of the album was released on December 1st 2003.

Ah thanks, this sheds more light on some inconsistencies. Could anybody please give me a clue why there's only the 'clean' version on the SOTU album? ("shut your mouth because [.........]it might show") - Usually, even with rap albums, the uncensored versions ARE found on the album. -andy 80.129.75.16 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Because they didn't want a Parental Advisory sticker on the album. The PA version was finally included on the additional CD for the Sound of Girls Aloud, when they were releasing a single CD version without a PA sticker and a two-CD version with one. Richard Gadsden 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting up?! Rubbish

NOTW is a rubbish newspaper, please edit the splitting up article!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.161.237.34 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I removed it!--SuperHotWiki 23:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

I added this third image to the article, initially as the main photo, and i accept it might not have worked as well as I'd hoped in that context but when readding it to the article simply as illustration for the Chemistry section User:Sunfazer reverted my edits. Now I'm going to put the photo back in now because no explanation was given and I'd like other editors' opinions, not because I want to get into some stupid edit war about something so pathetic as a picture. Driller thriller 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This page needs more pics, and I think to be honest the one you added was a very good and current one. Can't see a reason personally why it should be taken down, especially not without an explanation. 82.10.145.130 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
that's a great pic, why did he take it down? Maybe he's a wiki vandal? 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do we always have to have live performance photos? Why not publicity shots or public appearances? We know they're singers, I don't think we need a blurry image of them performing live with some of them obscured and/or unrecognizable.68.7.212.126 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Current image dispute

In response to the current dispute over the use of images on the page I'm starting a discussion here. User:Hotwiki went through the article changing or removing all images but two, and replacing them with screenshots. This change has left an orphaned image, and I feel doesn't look quite as good. I wouldn't argue for keeping things as they were, merely a mixture of sources that represents the opinion of more editors. Driller thriller 16:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I think my version is better if you look at the featured articles like Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue, you will see screenshots and publicity photos and this article have number of album cover and cover of re-release material. Second, I think it's better if we separate the Non-Musical aspects by bullet form not per headline it reduces the size of the article since most of it only contains 1 to 2 sentences. Third, the template looked much better it's more organize and neat and not so big Thank you.--hottie 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and the band picture

This is getting out of hand, every time i look at this page it is completely different because people come up with new single and album titles out of nowhere. Until the title is confirmed on the official Girls Aloud website can people please stop posting these titles.

Also, in regards to 'The Sound Of Girls Aloud', it is certifed 3x platinum because of shipping numbers so please can people stop changing it back to 2x.

Even worse is what's happening to the band's picture. If you look at every other article for both solo singers and bands you will see either a picture from a live show or some kind of professionally photographed promotional image. People should keep the Girls Aloud article in line with this and stop using either album/single covers or even worse; the sunsilk advert poster. Winterspell 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Redundant information

Under "Non-musical issues" is a section called "Curls Aloud". I feel that it is totally unnecessary and unimportant. In the long run, these facts will mainly be trivial. The main purpose of this article is to describe the band's musical endevours, right? Look at Britney Spears and Beyonce. Those articles hardly mention advertising campaigns etc. Perhaps the "Tabloids" section should be under question as well. Just a suggestion. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted all that useless info, and other things such as Cheryl's conviction. That kind of information does not belong in this article. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The band's genre

I think surely it might be time to change the genre to dance-pop? If you look at artists like Britney Spears and the Spice Girls, they are listed as dance. Girls Aloud's music is far more dance orientated than either of them - especially considering songs like The Show, Something Kinda Ooooh and Sexy! No, No, No.... Winterspell 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems correct. --Neon white (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Colours on the template

Howcome Girls Aloud have the colours of their names and the Sugababes don't? It's so unfair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.251.54 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where? I can't see what you are referring to. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Tony Lamezma?

Tony Lamezma has remixed many Girls Aloud tracks however I can never seem to find information on the artist himself (Wikipedia or elsewhere). The only connection I made was rather odd: Tony Lamezma was a character on the second episode of Knowing Me, Knowing You... with Alan Partridge and whether that means something I don't know. So does anyone have information about him? --The NCC Factor 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony Lamezma is a moniker of Brian Higgins, who is basically the leader of Xenomania who produce all of Girls Aloud's music. BambooBanga (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Once again we have editors adding unsourced rumour; this is disruptive and I have semi-protected the page for a week. Anyone wishing to have content added may use the {{editsemiprotected}} template to make requests, but they will not be fulfilled unless a reliable source is also given. --Rodhullandemu 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection again

Once again, we have editors adding unsourced material, specifically the track listing of No Control; for one thing, that information belongs in the article for the album itself, and not here. For another, wherever it is, it requires a reliable source to be cited; this is non-negotiable policy. Accordingly, to avoid further disruption, I've protected the article for another week. Any other amendment to the article can be requested by using the {{editsemiprotected}} template. We are an encyclopedia, not a blog or fansite; please get used to that. --Rodhullandemu 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Out of Control, not No Control :). ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, when I watch these pages, the distinction is unclear. ;) --Rodhullandemu 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL! ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

hey guys,

"They have also received unprecedented (for a pop group) praise from the 'serious' music press" - i would argue with the use of the word unprecedented, since pop groups such as the human league, abc etc. got high praise in the 80s and furthermore groups such as destinys child were widely admired by nme at the turn of the century. whether you call them r'n'b or not. don_quixote 15:45 11 March 2006 (don_quixote)

This page is biased! 150.204.49.17 10:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything appears to be well-referenced to trade publications at this time...it still has a bit of a promotional slant, but IMO not enough to warrant a POV flag per WP:NPOV. Alan 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following POV line, which I believe makes the page a lot cleaner and palatable to an unbiased reader;

For a contemporary pop group manufactured on reality television they have received unprecedented praise from broadsheet newspapers and the rock music press, with publications including the Observer Music Monthly[1][2] and the NME[3] giving their music rave reviews.

While it is referenced, it exactly the sort of reason that this page is flagged as POV. Unnecessary praise, a promotion slant and irrelevance.

Jonnycigarettes (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A classic example of peacock terminology and incapable of substantiation. --Rodhullandemu 16:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Discography

The singles discography is a bit crap isn't it?? Do we really need the chart positions of singles in Greece and Poland?! How about some important music markets, like Australia, France and Germany? Paul75 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Its basically, they charted better there. 86.148.96.77 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Girls Aloud mean very little outside the UK & Ireland. The Spice Girls only released 11 Singles, but they were huge Globally. Girls Aloud are a British Isles 'Phenomenon' really.....At least as far as having regular Top 10 & Top 5 Hits.

Flagged as fan site

flagged to warn readers of bias. I have applied the fan site template to the entire article pending a complete rewrite. "the girls" (as the starry-eyed gushing authors write) are just innocent "tabloid fodder"...which I assume is why, as the history of this article shows, the authors have leapt to the defence of the subjects to provide a biased alternative view of these people as wonder-women.

Specifically, I have the following criticisms:

The paragraph starting "Their British production team Xenomania are well-known for.." "welll-known for" is a judgement statement. Walk down the high street and ask anyone who Xenomania are. I conducted such an experiment and no one had heard of Xenomania. They are not well-known, let-alone well-known for a particular value or attribute as this article suggests. This indicates a naive small-mindedness in authorship which assumes a particular opinion held by the writer is more widely held. This is generally indicative of the closed-shop inward-looking views of fans.

My next criticism is directed specifically at the phrase "unprecedented praise from broadsheet newspapers and the rock music press" taken literally, this means no one else has ever received praise in the rock music press or in any newspaper anywhere...ever. This is patently ridiculous and the sort of sloppy language which a gushing fan produces.

"after the huge success of" is also a judgement phrase. There might have been a huge PERSONAL success in this achievement - but to mankind in general, Girls Aloud are not exactly up there with the Moon landings or the invention of fire. The inability of the authors to provide rational and measured language in this article make it biased.

Repeated removal of content which is critical or not favourable to the record of the subject. See history. The authors are over-protective and not open to critical but accurate content being included, leading to the article being slanted to one particular POV. to enforce this, positive reference is made to positive press ("Received excellent reviews") with no balanced reporting of additional negative reviews which are also on record...either tell the whole story or none of it...don't cherry pick the bits which you like.

Apparently something the subjects did "built up excitement" - perhaps to some people - fans perhaps?...but not to the average rational person wishing to read an unbiased article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.13.92 (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pending a complete rewrite" - by yourself or by other people? ~~ [ジャム][talk] 09:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As this is a wiki site...by anyone who wishes to contribute. You've personally made a great number of contributions to this article JGXenite, Your assistance in continuing to improve it is likely to be valuable. 82.32.13.92 (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - glad to hear my work is appreciated. I've never really done much to try and balance this article - mainly trying to keep the rubbish off it! However, I'd be willing to help out when I get the time. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the entire paragraph on Xenomania it was completely irrelevant to Girls Aloud. I also changed the layout of the albums section. Each activity did not require a new paragraph so i amalgamated them and I think that it reads better now.Mysticmartin (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with the tag. I suggest the editors here have a read of WP:LEAD to begin with. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the "celebrity friends" out of the lead and added it to the bottom of the article. It did not comply with WP:LEAD as was completely inappropriate. Personally I think it should be scrubbed altogether but being BOLD makes more enemies than friends.... — Realist2 01:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing intro sentence regarding consecutive top ten singles

I think it would be better (more impressive and accurate) if we could say that the group's record of consecutive top ten singes by a female group stands at 20, not 15. And I don't feel that Guinness World Records needs to be explicitly mentioned for this record (this is not Guinness's record, it's more comprehensive). I guess the only problem to this change is finding a source. Its obvious this is true, but I guess I need to prove it without doubt. So i'm working on that... Pacers (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

so i found a source and changed the intro to reflect their record of most consecutive top 10 singes by a female group. User:Thedarxide reverted it back. Can i ask why? Pacers (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In what order did they join?

There's been some edit warring over the order in which the members are listed. The latest edit states that it's supposed to be in the order they joined.

I thought all members joined at exactly the same time – the group was formed from the five girls who remained in Popstars: The Rivals after the rest had been eliminated. That said, there's an apparent contradiction at the moment:

"Each week the contestant polling the fewest phone votes was eliminated, until the final line-ups of the groups emerged. The five girls who made it into the group were (in order) Cheryl, Nicola, Nadine, Kimberley and Sarah"

Notice "(in order)". How can there be an order in which five of them weren't voted off?

It may be the case that contestants were eliminated one by one from the final elimination (I saw the programme but can't remember now), but that isn't what either this article or Popstars: The Rivals says. And even if they were, when does the group consider itself to have come into existence – once the final line-up was decided, or built up person by person in the run-up to the final elimination? -- Smjg (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For this particular group (unlike the Sugababes for example, who have had people leave and join), I think the members should just be ordered alphabetically. I believe the previous order (by surname) was sufficient really. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 14:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made the recent edit about how it's wiki rule they be listed in the order they joined, OR were picked (SEE THIS). Therefore the order should be as follows: Cheryl first one picked, Nicola second one picked, Nadine third one picked, Kim fourth one picked, and Sarah last one picked. For GA fans who need their memories to be refreshed, look here for the finale on YouTube. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you find a slightly more reliable source? Copyvio videos on YouTube aren't a reliable source. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Please show me
  • where the instructions you just linked to make any mention whatsoever of order picked
  • your evidence that that's an order in which they were picked, and not just a random order in which Davina (or somebody behind the scenes) decided to read them out (as is common on programmes of this nature)
-- Smjg (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
My source isn't YouTube. It's the actual night. I was just trying to refresh people's memory. Since they are manufactured, joined and picked are the same. Plus if you want to be specific, the joined the band as soon as they were picked. Plus, even if the order was random (it wasn't) they still joined in that order. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel like the order in which they joined is so arbitrary that I'd prefer the names where just listed in alphabetical order. I don't think the original wikipedia provision regarding this was really addressed towards their type of situation. Either way, i don't think it makes that big of a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacers (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
IHWIC, Your last sentence is a non-sequitur. My query was not on whether the order they were picked was random or not, but whether the order in which Davina called them out bears any relation to any order of picking. There are a few possible ways to look at it:
  1. Since they were all in at the beginning and whittled down to those five, they were "picked" in the order that they were registered for the auditions in the first place.
  2. They were all "picked" at the same instant, namely that at which the voting lines were closed, and as such were all in the group from its beginning.
  3. In that piece of the show, Davina was personally inducting the members into the group one by one, and therefore this order is relevant.
But we've no real evidence at the moment that any one of these is the case.... -- Smjg (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's too long ago now for me to remember the details of how the selection procedure worked, but there is no evidence that I can see in the YouTube video that the order in which they were named had any real significance. The words "in order" to me suggest either a voting preference (most votes first) or meaningful time-gaps between the selections. If there's no evidence for either of those things then IMO we should either remove the words "in order" or we should somehow make it clear that this "order" has no (known) significance other than that they happened to be named in that order by the host. 86.161.40.200 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
Specifically, how about we say "The five girls who made it into the group were (in the order announced by the host) Cheryl, Nicola, Nadine, Kimberley and Sarah". That seems very reasonable to me. 86.161.40.200 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
I think, if we had to choose an order (and I really don't think it is entirely relevant), that would be the best way of doing it - adding the "announced by the host" bit. Technically, we'd still need a source for that ordering, but it would make more sense. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me make myself clearer then. Even if Davina made up the order in her head, even if the people backstage changed the order to add suspense, even if they threw the names into a raffle, that's still the order in which they joined. No matter how stupid the rule, it is a rule nonetheless. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't really a rule. It is a styling suggesting for a particular template. WP:NOT and WP:RS are rules (well, more appropriately, guidelines). If you want to consider it a rule, then I'd personally play the common sense card and ignore this particular rule, because on this occasion, it doesn't make sense. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's not that big of a deal. Do what you please. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

the wik article does not discuss record sales- this is a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.154.74 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Obscenity case

The case has been dismissed, and can no longer be considered "landmark". I have tidied it to bring it up to date, but can't see the need to continue including it. Thedarxide (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the acid test is whether it gives our readers any useful information about Girls Aloud. My opinion is that it doesn't. Bizarre fantasies about young women are not notable, IIRC. Rodhullandemu 18:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That it was dismissed doesn't change the fact that the prosecution was brought and concerned the band. Reword it maybe but I wouldn't remove it. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be under the "Non-musical Activities section" as it isn't something they themselves have done is it? This makes it sound like they wrote the piece! --86.136.109.42 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nadine's flag

In the members section of the infobox, people keep swapping the flag. Half the time it is Flag of Northern Ireland, and other times it is Ireland. I think it should be kept as Northern Ireland, as that is where she is from, and she is not from the Republic of Ireland, or change all of them to the flag of Great Britain. Peterwill 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do flags need to be used at all? I don't think they add anything in this case, seeing as they are all from the UK. Anything to do with Northern Ireland always seems to be controversial (see how many times Nadine Coyle's birthplace has been reverted between Derry and Londonderry) and in this case it seems to be an unneccesary problem. Also, see Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Gasheadsteve 10:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the flags after Nadine's was reverted yet again. The nationalities, strictly speaking, are all UK, not English/Northern Irish because they all hold UK passports, not England/NI passports. Gasheadsteve 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There tricolour should be removed as it is offensive. The band is British and was formed on a British TV show. I propose all flags should be the Union Jack or not used at all and the perception they are British should be status quo.

I don't know about the tricolour being offensive, but it's certainly factually incorrect, and should either be changed or the flags removed entirely. In fact, to be consistent with other music articles (eg Led Zeppelin, Sugababes, U2, or Placebo), the flags for the individual members should be removed. There's no real argument for their inclusion as all members are from the UK, so I'll make this edit now. Matthew 12:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been reverted back. All flags should be removed unless it's a single one for the band. This is NOT political.

I agree now, there shouldn't be one used. I never changed the flags at all as ai thought they were useless. The didn't really provide any extra information, as its all in the articles and individual articles. Also I think it was a good idea to put the flag by United Kingdom. Whoever put the unsigned comment 3 above this, the show was a UK based show yeah, but it was shown in ireland and the Irish could vote, so in those respects I think your comment is a bit anti-irish. Peterwill 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The flag thing should be left well alone. Nadine is an Irish catholic from Derry/Londonderry, and as such is just as likely to hold an Irish Republic passport as a British one. The people of her community would also recognise the Irish tricolor above both the Northern Ireland flag and the Union flag. Leave the whole thing well alone imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.191.35 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Coyle is Irish, so her flag should be the Irish Tricolour. Since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to choose their Nationality between british or Irish. There is no longer a rule strictly enforcing all citizens to designate themselves as british. Additionally, to the person above who finds Irelands flag 'offensive', may I suggest a good shrink for you?

Flags haven't existed in the members section for a long time, so conversation about Nadine's flag is irrelevant really. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Coyle self-identifies as Irish. However, Londonderry, where she is from, has never been part of the Republic of Ireland. The Irish flag denotes The Republic. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversial?

I don't get it: why? How? Driller thriller 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not: tag removed; this makes a mockery of the controversial articles facility. 82.71.2.179 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is frequently reverted; hence it fits the criteria of a controversial article. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Record sales

I have done my homework and down to certifications these girls have sold 4.15m records including singles and albums which is a great achivement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.43.216 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tours ?

Why do the Tangled Up Tour and Out Of Control Tour have pages and their other tours do not ? Dylan1993 18:59, 1 Jaunuary 2009 (UTC)

There were no reliable, third party sources provided to establish notability of the other tours, and they were deleted a few months ago. If you can provide these sources, then you can request undeletion of the pages and use those sources to provide notability. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
i found the dates for both the chemistry tour and the greatest hits tour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.100.197 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin

I think that "..British-Irish girl group.." should be changed to just "..girl group.." . It would save alot of arguments arising from Nadine's nationality. Anyways, Londonderry (as it is officially called) is still part of the United Kingdom.. wether you like it or not. Jordan353 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nadine Coyle left the band?

Has Nadine left the band? --SitDownOnIt (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • No, she has not. I can't edit the page since I've literally just joined, but she has not left and the rumours were denied. Someone will need to change this immediately. Mc hammark (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No need she has been telling friends she's no longer in the band.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.202.99 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We still need a reliable source, such as a press announcement from her or the band, to say this. Until we have one, she stays in. Rodhullandemu 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now CDs

Now 77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.106.218 (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Cheryl Cole (Tweedy & Girls Aloud)

I've had my legs smacked and told to stand in the corner, for posting Cheryl Cole's (Tweedie) Court apearance & subsequent punishment on Girls Aloud site(Wiki). The adminstrator has removed it twice saying it is vandalism. Can't understand this when the same information is allowed on Cheyl's site. Are there other forces at work here ??? SC SC SC !! Am I wrong - Simone from Leeds

This information has very little to do with the band and does not belong here; if it beliongs anywhere, it is in the Cheryl Cole article. Even there, because it is about a living person, it must be sourced, which your edits weren't. References to other Wikipedia articles are not good enough for that purpose. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
REPLY - Hi Ronhull , thanks for your reply, and I take it you are not merely a Wikipedia reader, but an admninistrator. !!!I must take issue with your claim that Cheryl Cole' actions had nothing to do with the Band. That's amazing , its like saying Brian Harveys Comments on Drugs does not belong on East 17 site - Of coure it does and it is.. All my information is sourced from court reports, particularly Telgraph.co.uk check out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3598357/You%27re-not-a-racist%2C-but-a-simple-thug-How-groovy%2C-Cheryl.html
Any illegal action by any individual of any band affect the credibility and ethics of the band and the label.It appears to everyone I Have discussed this with beleives the site is being protected. So with my source now acredited can I repost the illegal act of a Girl Aloud Member on the Girl aloud page quoting my Source as The telegraph - reporter Jenny McCartney GMT 01 Nov 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.7.249 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As Rodhullandemu has said, it is already mentioned on her article. I don't believe it needs putting on the main Girls Aloud article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 10:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In 2003, it seemed likely that the assault would have major consequences for the group, but they weren't adversely affected. If it had led to her leaving the band, or to them becoming significantly less popular as a result, then it would be included. As it stands, I'm not sure if it is relevant enough to the band to include. Jim Michael (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Contracted for 3 more albums

Cheryl said in an 4Music interview on set of her music video for The Flood that Girls Aloud are contracted for 3 more albums. I don't think if this is relevant enough for the article so I am writing it her for a second opinion.calvin999 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

FAQ

I think it is time for a FAQ. Draft version below. Add to it please. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reformation of band

April 2012, anything on this? Nadine desperate for cash. Album only sold in Tescos VinDibs (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Girls Aloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

They were a girl group. 96.227.141.184 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

Please change the first sentence of the article to read "Girls Aloud were", since the rest of the article makes it clear they have split up. Despite claims to the contrary in an edit summary I can find nothing in WP:LEAD either now or at the time the edit was made that supports the assertion that present tense should be used. Although only a small sample, featured article The Beatles and good article Black Sabbath suggest otherwise. In the absence of any policy/guideline that says otherwise, I believe past tense clearly applies. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:89E:C528:655D:E1A7 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:TENSE. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@ElHef: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Tense, it specifically states: If a person is living but has retired, use "is a former" or "is a retired" rather than the past tense "was". Given that this is a collective biography, and all five former members are still living, surely, that means the lead should read, if anything, "Girls Aloud are a former English-Irish pop girl group"? livelikemusic talk! 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic: I based the change on the portion of MOS:TENSE which states Generally, do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. (emphasis mine). It also includes the specific example The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool in 1960. The guidelines at MOS:BIO apply to single-subject articles, not groups. I personally think your suggested wording using "former" sounds just fine, but "were" seems to be more in line with my reading of the MOS. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@ElHef: I understand, however, per BLP (which is what this page would be categorically covered by, no?) it states otherwise. It ultimately seems like contradicting MOS guidelines, no? Maybe this is something that should be looked into.... livelikemusic talk! 15:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic: I can see what you're saying, but with the directly applicable example I quoted (and most of the Beatles still being alive, after all) I'm inclined to leave it as is. That said, I'm reopening this edit request to get at least one more pair of eyes looking at this, and if there's a wider consensus to change it then I have no problem with anyone making the change. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I find the statement "I understand, however, per BLP (which is what this page would be categorically covered by, no?)" to be slightly misleading. BLP generally refers to WP:BLP, which obviously does cover this page as it covers information about living people on all pages regardless of subject. However the BLP you are referring to is MOS:BLP#Tense which is the manual of style for biographies including ones on living people. There's nothing on MOS:BLP about it dealing with musical bands, football teams, companies or any other types of group of people. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:C5A0:729D:8D24:17EB (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to close this - BLP refers to biographies of single people, as opposed to groups. The Beatles example is also good. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheryl Tweedy - full name correction

Cheryl's full name is Cheryl Tweedy therefore reference to her being in the band should be the same as other band mates with first and second name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3C9F:3100:BD21:E15A:C0B1:EAC5 (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Changing this article retrospectively to reflect a name styling that she has adopted post her departure from the group (or since her involvement when the group was last active if you prefer) is not helpful and appears to set her apart from the other members of the group which, irrespective of whether she may be considered to be the most well known of the quintet, is misleading as they were all equal members. If no-one has a genuine reason for why this change should be applied retrospectively I will change it back. danno_uk 19:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
No objections so change made. danno_uk 22:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Cheryl vs Cheryl Cole

Although at the beginning she was known as “Cheryl Tweedy” (her maiden name), she was mostly known as Cheryl Cole during her time as a member of Girls Aloud. She did not drop her surname until way after she left the band. In fact, she continued to use “Cheryl Cole” when releasing her own music acter she had split from Ashley Cole. Her decision to drop her surname and become known mononymously as “Cheryl” was after she separated from her last husband. I would argue that most people would still refer to her as “Cheryl Cole” rather than “Cheryl” anyway, but that is a different point altogether.

Wikipedia’s WP:COMMONNAME backs up my position in various sections of the article, especially the name change section. She was never known as just “Cheryl” during her time as a member of Girls Aloud. To try and make out that she should be described as just “Cheryl” in this article is wrong. Obviously it’s different on the article about her, but on this article she should be described as how she was and is commonly known as when she was a member of tbe band - Cheryl Cole.--EsotericJoe (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

“

  • First off, Cheryl was not mostly known as Cheryl Cole during her time as a member of Girls Aloud, as she married Ashley Cole in July 2006, therefore, she would have been part of the group as Cheryl Tweedy for almost four years at that time. In contrast, she would have been part of the group as Cheryl Cole for exactly three years when the group went on hiatus in July 2009. Original research aside, if she was known as both Cheryl Tweedy and Cheryl Cole during her time with the group, which guideline states which of the two names to use? WP:NAMECHANGES directly correlates to the Cheryl (singer) article because it states that if reliable sources continued to use the established name after the name change, then the established name takes priority. If you believe this is the case, raise that point on the Cheryl (singer) talk page and not here. KyleJoantalk 11:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The person who keeps reverting my edit has even accused me of original research, haha! To try and make out that she was only known as “Cheryl” during her time as a member of Girls Aloud is original research! EsotericJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

She is mostly known as “Cheryl Cole” because even after she split from Ashley Cole she still continued to use the name “Cheryl Cole” to promote her music. The combination of “Cheryl Tweedy” at the beginning (when the members were first announced) and her married name “Cheryl Cole” should be included in the article. It’s absurd to try and describe her as just “Cheryl”, a decision she made only a few years ago for her time as a member of Girls Aloud.
Post some sources that she was only described as “Cheryl” during her time as a member of Girls Aloud. EsotericJoe (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You accused me of original research on my talk page. Both the names “Cheryl Tweedy” and “Cheryl Cole” should be used throughout the article, not just “Cheryl”. EsotericJoe (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry KyleJoan, I confused someone else’s message with your message on my talk page. EsotericJoe (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Cheryl Tweedy wanting to be known as “Cheryl” after she split from her last husband a few years ago. My argument is that it’s not right to just use “Cheryl” to describe her when she was a member of Girls Aloud; she was known as Cheryl Tweedy (maiden name) and Cheryl Cole (married name) during her time as a member of Girls Aloud. Both of those names should be mentioned at various times in the article. EsotericJoe (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Girls Aloud were also active between 2012-2013 and she was still using the name “Cheryl Cole” during those years. She was known as Cheryl Tweedy between 2002-2006 and Cheryl Cole between 2006-2016, it is a no-brainier which name she was commonly referred to by people when she was a member of Girls Aloud. Surely “Cheryl Tweedy” should only be mentioned when the article mentions the names of the girls who were named to be part of the group. She was never known as “Cheryl” during her time as a member of the group so it’s misleading to describe her as “Cheryl” when she decided to be known as that after 2016 which is years after her time as a member of the group. As for the person who accused me of original research: where is the original research in any of that? EsotericJoe (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
She divorced Ashley Cole in 2010 and she released her autobiography “Cheryl: My Story“ in 2012 and she was still known as Cheryl Cole then! She was known as Cheryl Cole between 2006-2014. EsotericJoe (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
If she was Cheryl Tweedy from November 2002 to July 2006 (44 months) and Cheryl Cole from July 2006 to July 2009 and November 2012 to February 2013 (40 months), then what makes the latter the name she was commonly referred to by people when she was a member of Girls Aloud? More importantly, none of this changes the fact the article title is Cheryl (singer). KyleJoantalk 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
She was known as Cheryl Cole from 2006 to 2014! The name of the article about her is not relevant to the name she was commonly known by when she was a member of Girls Aloud. She only became known as “Cheryl” after 2016. Plenty of singers or other people have once been known by their full names and then either formally or informally become referred to more commonly by their first names or nicknames, etc, but that is not what is being discussed here. The fact is that she was never known as “Cheryl” when she was a member of Girls Aloud so it is misleading to just call her as “Cheryl” in the article about the band. EsotericJoe (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

Sarah Harding, member, sadly passed away on 5 September 2021 after fighting breast cancer for over a year. 82.43.200.122 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done, see Girls Aloud § 2021: Death of Sarah Harding. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

British

please change ((British)) to ((United Kingdom|British)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Eevee01(talk) 17:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Harding

Is it really necessary to have "(deceased)" after her name in the summary box? I don't see a similar convention for any other bands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.3.207 (talk • contribs)

No, infoboxes are supposed to be clean without additional information. I've removed it. --Shadow (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Peter Robinson (2005-11-20). "Girls Aloud, Chemistry". The Observer. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  2. ^ "Countdown: the OMM top 100 albums". Observer Music Monthly. 2005-12-18. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  3. ^ Caroline Sullivan (2004-09-17). "How I became a Girl Aloud". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Girls_Aloud/Archive_1&oldid=1186560554"