Jump to content

Talk:Selena Gomez/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The many requests for a new image to be used in the infobox

better picture

70.114.248.114 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There have been a gazillion requests to change the picture since August last year,[1] and the image has been changed numerous times. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

well who changed it to that? just saying, not the best pic. 70.114.248.114 (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The picture of selena Gomez is from 2012 and it is 2013 So i think you should change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.226.245 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to upload a 2013 image and do it yourself. Really, how many times do we need to change this image? It's beyond ridiculous. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
We need to change it for the better as many times as the opportunity to do so presents itself. As is, the picture in the infobox is a crying shame: too close a crop that cuts off the head, while she looks like on Qualudes. What I particularly object to is the ridiculous notion that the latest picture, chronologically, is the picture to lead the article with. Bollocks. Take a look at Audrey Hepburn or Liv Tyler, particularly talk:Liv Tyler#New Image. Meanwhile, I will look for a better picture to do justice both Selena and Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 03:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Audrey Hepburn uses an image taken 36 years before the actress' death because it's a good image. The preference here, based on previous discussions, is simply to update to the latest, but not necessarily the greatest, image; that's why it gets changed so often. We should pick a good image and stick with it, then replace it eventually with a better image, but that's not what people want, as the IP's post demonstrates. There have been much better images in the article in the past, but they were removed simply because they were too old, and by too old, I mean months, not years. The image in the article is only 5 months old. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeded, that was the issue at Liv Tyler. Well, let us not cave in to ignorance. --Mareklug talk 18:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
And so I have put in our best Commons picture in the infobox. --Mareklug talk 18:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the image I was looking at shortly after my last post. Great minds think alike. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
She is younger in this picture, this picture was taken about 6 years ago. This does not make sense. I hope you will change picture to 2012. Regards. --Oz Steps (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem unable to understand English, despite your claims on your user page that you are a native speaker. What part of "we use the best image we have to lead the article" don't you understand? This was laid out for you both in this discussion and on the Liv Tyler talk page. Despite that, you AGAIN went to forcibly inserting the latest Liv Tyler picture you are pushing, despite its bad quality and the comments by 3 other users. Your ANI review is underway, and if you do not start editing in a collaborative, consensus-obiding fashion, I will be forced to recommend your global indefinite block. --Mareklug talk 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Oz Steps is just Chace Watson back again. He's blocked now.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Image

The infobox image being used right now should probably be changed. It's not of the best quality and is from 5 years ago which is quite a long time. I'd recommend changing it to:

Even though this image is old as well, it isn't as old and is of much better quality.

Jjj1238 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it really? The image has very poor contrast, especially with her dark hair against a dark background. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with C.Fred ,but a new image is in order.--88.111.123.67 (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the 2011 and 2013 images have microphones in front of her face, I'd definitely go with this photo and not the closeup from 2008 (too zoomed in if you ask me). The contrast isn't so bad..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The contrast isn't just bad, it's awful. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some 2012 photos

My suggestions: file:Selena Gomez UNICEF 2012 (Straighten Colors).jpg file:Selena Gomez UNICEF 3, 2012.jpg Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

These have already tried and rejected last year, or early this year. There have been so many changes it's hard to keep up. We go for the "best" image, which is not necessarily the most recent. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

New Picture

This article needs a better picture. Why are we using a bad picture from 5 years ago? Somebody please update to a 2013 picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordSosa (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We use the best image, which is not necessarily the newest, which we've discussed previously. If you have a good quality, free image please upload it. --AussieLegend (✉)

New Picture

We're using a not-so-great quality image from 2008, however there is a good quality image from 2009 being used in the article.

Why are we not using that image? Jjj1238 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the discussion. Your questions have been answered. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This would definitely be a better photo to use for infobox because it gives a clear view of the face, has contrast, and isn't too zoomed in (unlike the current one) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This photo has been discussed, tried and rejected. The main identifying feature of most individuals is their face. There is nothing wrong with an infobox photo that shows the face of the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture

There have been many requests to change the title box picture but no progress has been made , this is just a reminder so that it may be change as the current one is very Old and not really a good one ! I recommend any of these two pics : Selena Gomez during a photo shoot in 2013 Selena Gomez in 2013 39.32.196.36 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't change pictures just simply because they are "old" – a more justifiable reason is required; most importantly, however, Wikipedia requires free images (for living people) in articles – rather than copyrighted images (as you've suggested.) —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm can you please define "free" in detail so that I may look upto a Selena Gomez photo in that category , thanks ! 39.32.0.116 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Copyright_and_licensing. You must have taken the photo or the copyright holder must have released the image under an "anyone can do whatever they want with this" license. --NeilN talk to me 12:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay so these two photos are from her twitter account and instagram account respectively , are they free of copyright ? If so then switch the current photo with one of these please ! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDlT-GyCUAAAcLm.png http://distilleryimage7.s3.amazonaws.com/dd7882f6ff1511e2bbd822000a9f15da_7.jpg 39.32.0.116 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that either of those images is free. If there's no clear license, the presumption is all-rights-reserved, which is as non-free as a license gets. So, no, neither image is free or can be used in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why such a weird and old photo in the info box ???

The info box is the first impression that goes to whosoever opens up a page on wikipedia and Selena Gomez has a very old and weird photo of herself over there which doesn't really show how beatifull and Grown up she is ! Please change that picture , I have recommendations aswell = http://www.onsecrethunt.com/wallpaper/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Selena-Gomez-2013-in-Car.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GgkwtFFJqBQ/UQrY07qZEpI/AAAAAAAAss0/YFUJUCCFMwU/s1600/Selena-Gomez-2013-Dream-Out-Loud-05.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbrahimAlavi (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Try one of her instagram photos.--88.111.123.67 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked, but I'd guess we don't have permission for those either. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Are instagram photos free from copyright though?--88.111.123.67 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No, no exemption there. Hence the rule of thumb: if you found it on the web, it's probably copyrighted, and we can't use it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The photographer retains the copyright and licenses it only to Instagram for use. --NeilN talk to me 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If you took the photo can you upload it?--88.111.123.67 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But you still have all those pictures of Celebrities , even Selena ; on red Carpets or during concerts ... there all professional photographs !!! Where di you get permission for those ??? Can't you just take permission from the sources for these photos aswell ! I mean please change that picture in the info box ; it's very very irritating ! 39.32.196.36 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Newer and Better Picture Should Be Used

Please use this picture as the infobox image: File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg. It is newer, clearer and better than the one being used right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPGirlAJ (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 November 2013‎ (UTC)

new picture

the pic right now is kinda old, so a newer one is better. this is a good option tbh http://ist2-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/1/J/F/Y/1JFYT/96000_006_122_17lo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.186.216 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the site name alone, I'm thinking no. Also, there's no license information attached to the image. Unless we can know who took the photo and what rights they've granted, we can't use it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

Like, for example, in the section above called "jingle bell 2013 concert", Selena Gomez did something controversial so there should be a section there about that. Or at least put it in "Personal Life". Also, her on-and-off relationship with Justin Bieber seems pretty controversial too. CPGirlAJ (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life and New Picture

Why doesn't Selena Gomez have a "Personal Life" section in her article? There should be lots of information about her relationship with Justin Bieber since that is a very big topic. Plus, who thinks that a picture from 2008 if a good infobox pic because honestly it is not. You could at least put a more recent and better pic there. Consider using the following images instead:

1. File:Watch Selena Gomez Bring New Album "Stars Dance" to Walmart Soundcheck Concert, 2.jpg

2. File:Selena Gomez UNICEF 2012 (Straighten Colors).jpg

3. File:Selena Gomez 2011, 2.jpg --CPGirlAJ (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The infobox picture has been discussed at length a gazillion times. Image 1 appears to be a copyvio which I've nominated for deletion, Image 2 has been suggested and rejected several times and image 3 has her face blocked by the microphone. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
If any of those pics, I would definitely go with #2. The current one is too zoomed in and this would make a suitable replacement. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

A change in her photo would be reasonable. Perhaps a photo that is more recent and more accurately visualizes her facial features. 98.109.5.28 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have a specific photo in mind, please state which one. However, it must be a free image and not just a random image you found on the internet somewhere. The requirement that it be a free image is why we're stuck with older or lower-quality pictures so often. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why this was turned down, but it definitely gives a better view of her face than the 2008 one currently used:

As much as I am aware of photo policies restricting copyrighted images and how all images taken/published after January 1, 1923 are copyrighted unless their source specifically indicates otherwise, what I'm not sure of is this: If non-free images of deceased people can be used, why are non-free images not allowed for living persons if they provide source, information, and how it is not free? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1, "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The assumption with a living person is that free images could be created of the subject at a public event. Non-free images of living people are allowable under a few limited situations, such as incarcerated people, where it's not reasonably likely that somebody could take a free image of them. By contrast, there are no opportunities to take a new free photograph of a dead person. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2014

i want to change her picture http://healthyceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Selena-Gomez-2014.jpg Katherine67 (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This is on an external website. If you are, and can prove you are, the copyright holder, you can upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons using this link - Arjayay (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Catholicism

None of the references to her religion are linked. Why not?38.109.92.197 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In this interview, she stated she "do[es] everything that's Catholic", which is referenced in the article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

Millerc2000 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to specify what to change in your request. Make sure you include the reliable source that supports the change. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

selena born in new york city?

there seems to be many sources saying she was born in new york but moved to texas when she was really young and I think there is an interview of her saying that somewhere http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrities/selena-gomez/biography 80.1.219.140 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Us Weekly (as well as its website Us Magazine) isn't a reliable source. Try something else. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

that was just one example of many what about this book? page 57 paragraph 2 http://books.google.com/books?id=tCdmGBNMUW0C&pg=PA57 an editorial review of the book says "The information included in this resource is accurate, interesting, and certainly worthwhile to a certain audience . . . public libraries, in particular, could be well served to provide this resource to its patrons." 80.1.219.140 (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

is this a reliable source in showing birth index in texas? if not where else is it accessible https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VDKY-H9W i found the interview she gave for J-14 magazine http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4XIFbF4KnwA/SUGwsbZ9_6I/AAAAAAAAAF8/fbYYR23QzGM/s1600-h/1.jpg but she is not quoted in it saying she was born in new york then moved as a baby to texas it just says it so that was my original thinking because it is in other sources such as that book above and on her bio on http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1411125/ etc 80.1.219.140 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The familysearch.org link is definitely more reliable than the other ones you provided. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Records

Selena Gomez is not anymore at Hollywood Records (Label) -28. April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.176.231 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Little picture

Why the main picture is so little? you should make it bigger, it's the main picture of an importante person. In addition, it would be good if you could put a most recent picture. AleD (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@AleD: The size of the image is to fit in the infobox; it shouldn't be any bigger per infobox guidelines. As for a more recent picture, that's probably the most recent free picture out there. Wikipedia can only use images under a free license; we can't use just any image found on the internet. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The infobox image size is supposed to default to frameless (220px) but for some reason the image in this article has suddenly shrunk to about 150px. I've fixed it for now by forcing it back to 220px. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The main wiki picture.

Here are some better approved pictures, and there was one from the 2013 VMAs as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephhh999 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

All of these images have been nominated for deletion as copyright violations. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The images have now been deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Education

The article says nothing about education. Has she completed high school? College? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing nothing has been mentioned in a reliable source that addresses those points. (Compare with Emma Watson's college career, which got a fair bit of news coverage.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

Other celebrity pages have a section labeled "personal life" or "relationships." Why doesn't she have one? Her relationships (both romantic and familial) seem to be huge entertainment type news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.229.29 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

They have been incorporated into her "life and career" section. Many celebs have "personal life" section for dating and such while others have their relationships contained within "life and career". Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture Change

I think you should really change the picture because the ones at the Snowflake Ball seems a little outdated. Yaysters (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If we changed images every time someone asked ......... --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Time for an image change, it is 2 years old, plus is a very un flattering shot of Selena. Added an image of Selena accepting an award at the 2014 Kids Choice Awards. B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the change because it replaced a free image with a non-free image, which is a violation of WP:NFCC#1. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Updated image using an existing image of Gomez. B.Davis2003 (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Had you bothered to wait for my response on your talk page you would have found that you need to discuss changing the image before changing it. The image is now used twice in the article. Please fix this. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Trip to Nepal with UNICEF

Can someone include her recent trip to Nepal in the section of "Work with Unicef" Why is nobody updating this?

http://www.unicefusa.org/press/unicef-ambassador-selena-gomez-visits-nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.90.215 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian supporter ?

Dance-pop songstress Selena Gomez meanwhile caused a stir with an image on her Instagram account that began: "It's About Humanity. Pray for Gaza."

http://news.yahoo.com/celebrities-stir-passions-gaza-views-015242627.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Birthday wrong?

E! online is claiming today is her birthday.Julzes (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it on the home page, nor do any of the stories obviously mention her. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither do I Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, am wrong. I think I must have clicked on an older link or something. Her website is clear this article is correct.Julzes (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Following this ...

How many times are we going to have "followng this ..." in the intro? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Discography

After signing with Intescope, Selena is clearly to still releasing music so i think we should put the discography section on her Wikipedia again. What do you think? Thanks. Justasaddream (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your rationale. There was consensus to split the discography to Selena Gomez discography and there is now too much content to merge it all back here. If she's releasing music then it can be added to that article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The discography section should have a summary overview but I don't support a merge back to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure why we cannot list the albums in the overview as such:

*Selena Gomez and the Scene:

  • Kiss and Tell (2009)
  • A Year Without Rain (2010)
  • When the Sun Goes Down (2011)


*Selena Gomez:

  • Stars Dance (2013)
  • For You (2014)

I feel this is okay to be displayed on the main page... B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's redundant to do so. The specific information is included in the discography article. All that is needed here is a summary of the articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think its redundant.. It's more consistent and practical to have the albums listed on the main page, than rather clicking the link to the discovery page of Selena circa 2011 and later 2013. So again, I don't see the harm in listing the albums... B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
When an artist or group has a separate page for discography, standard is to list studio albums under a "discography" section of page with a referral to discography page. In the case of Gomez, this would be a referral to her solo discography as "main" article, a referral to "Selena Gomez & The Scene discography" as a "see also", and her album Stars Dance. Any further solo studio albums from her would also be added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Duplicating information that exists elsewhere is the very essence of redundancy. The discography was split to another article because there was too much content for this article. If you're going to list the same content that is listed in the discography, what's the point of having a separate article? WP:SPLIT says to leave a summary when an article is split and we have a summary in this article. There's no need to pad it out by listing the same albums that are listed in the discography. They're mentioned in the summary, which was created from the leads of the discography articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Some duplication in a summary section is expected as a summary will iterate some of the most important info. The existing summary already includes some info from the discography articles. We probably should avoid making lists when possible but adding key projects (an editorial choice) to the summary paragraph itself as prose would get the important info to a reader without requiring going to a linked article. This should be limited to the most important projects. If it included everything it is an effect a remerge of the discography articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it not more redundant to have information already listed in the article also included under the discography section? There is no need to treat this page any different than other pages of artists who have went from a band to a solo career. Studio albums, and studio albums only, should be listed under the discography section. This is the wiki guidelines and this is how it should remain. -- Sethjohnson95 19:57 ET 26 October 2014
Can you point to the specific guideline? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Sethjohnson95 and Geraldo Perez! I have found it "redundant" to click onto a link just to go to her albums, when it should be listed in the main article. B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be changing the discovery page to detail the album's as a consensus of 3 against 1 in this argument wins. B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the summary. Seemed to be agreement to include the albums. I edited the article to both include the summary and the albums. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Need we include examples of standard artist page setups? Discovery sections on main pages ONLY INCLUDE the album lists, not a summery of the discovery of "said" artist, that is already covered in the individual discovery article.... B.Davis2003 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I made a compromise edit to include everything that was discussed here. After splits the standard is to leave a summary behind - see WP:SPLIT as discussed above. There is absolutely no reason to remove the summary as long as the info about the albums is included in it as discussed in this section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@B.Davis2003: "a consensus of 3 against 1 in this argument wins" goes against the way we do things. We edit based on the strength of arguments, not on numbers and there is no winning or losing. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. For now, there is no established consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why things would be different for Gomez, but when a separate page for solo discography exists, standard is to simply list studio albums under "Discography" section and give a referral link to discography page. If person has been part of a group, a "see also" referral to the group's discography page (if a separate one exists) is also included. See Justin Timberlake and Fergie (singer) for examples. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Wikipedia standard is, per WP:SPLIT, simply to leave a summary. The best place to get such a summary is the lead of the article being summarised, since the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. On 26 October Sethjohnson95 claimed there was a "wiki guideline" suggesting what you've said but, eleven days later I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, "can you point to the specific guideline?" Just because some editors have been listing albums doesn't mean it's a standard. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Technically, listing studio albums is a form of summary in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not really summarizing much, just an out-of-context partial listing of selected info without explanation. In my opinion that is much too little information and context for readers who would really just like an overview of what is in the main linked-to articles without having any interest in getting the full story. That is the main reason we leave summaries behind when articles are split. Concensus so far as I can tell is that the albums are key info that should be part of this overview. That is the way I left the article, it can be reworked to present the info better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a limit as to what you can call summarising and you have to use some common sense when determining that. The prose summaries already mention the albums, providing additional information. Simply listing the albums, or listing them in addition to mentioning them in the prose, doesn't help readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
If it is in fact "out-of-context", explain why so many singer articles use it rather than prose. In fact, I've seen little to no other articles that use prose form for discography section (when discography has separate article). I could list more examples if needed, though the only potential reason I can think of for why it wouldn't be summarized in list form yet is because she has so far released only one solo studio album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sections in an any article shouldn't consist of just a lists of links unless it is a "See also" or "External links" section. There should be some "meat" there for the casual reader who is not interested in more than an overview. The reason why other musical artist articles with discographies are not providing proper summaries is because nobody added one as they should have. It is easy to extract info for a split, adding a proper summary as the split process requires needs some additional work which Wiki editor volunteers are not obliged to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Quite simply, a lot of editors, even experienced editors, make mistakes and don't understand guidelines and policy. That it happens in so many articles is, at best, unfortunate. A lot of editors see something and just duplicate it, thinking it's the right way to do things. I see it happening all the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It technically wouldn't be exclusively links, it would be links to albums plus the year they were released. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples have been provided! I don't see why you must insist that a summary must be used when there is clear evidence that other artists that were in bands also layout the discovery page with a list of albums ect. AussieLegend and Geraldo Perez why must you make this into such a big issue. B.Davis2003 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained WP:SPLIT says do a summary. The fact that other artist pages don't do it correctly is no justification for doing it wrong here. Mostly summaries are not provided after splits as people just don't bother. One was created for this article - there is no reason to remove it - all the info you wish to have in the section is in the summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just found where it says to do what B.Davis and I have been suggesting. See WP:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Good to get a project link. Project Musicians, and exemplar featured articles linked, do support listing albums in the main articles discography section as the summary. This talk page is not the appropriate venue as to whether or not that is correct as that is a project-wide issue and until that is changed this article should conform. Listing albums looks to be sufficient from the project perspective. I don't see anything there, though, in that guideline that precludes adding a bit more to the summary as long as the albums are listed. I updated the article to reflect this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

I think the whole section could possibly be improved by listing for every movie whether the movie was for the big screen, television, or direct to dvd, and if it is a cameo, or bit part, or voice for an animated film. That is listed from some, but by no means all. It is very hard to read it right now and see what her major roles have been. So for instance Ramona and Beezus, Monte Carlo, Spring Breakers, Getaway were all released to theaters, Behaving Badly was direct to dvd, and Rudderless was a limited release. Right now it is very hard to see what her major cinema roles, television roles, and bit parts are in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.47.38 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

She is currently working with Zedd, Dreamlab and the LA-based producer Ruffian on her second studio album.[1][2] She is also filming her part in the motion picture adaption of Jonathan Evison′s novel, The Revised Fundaments of Caregiving. The movie will be directed by Rob Burnett, who is also working alongside the book′s author to write the screenplay. The movie will also star Paul Rudd, Ashley White, and Megan Ferguson.[3] Jtg1234 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6436396/selena-gomez-zedd-hit-the-studio
  2. ^ http://www.inquisitr.com/1641369/selena-gomez-s-new-album-collaborators-zedd-dreamlab-ruffian-maejor-ali-interscope/
  3. ^ http:www.imdb.com/title/tt2452386/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt
IMDb is not a reliable source, and Inquisitr is questionable. However, the Billboard reference is good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles related to Selena Gomez >> Delete Justin Bieber ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.27.187.144 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
He's mentioned once, as being in a relationship with Selena Gomez. Seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hilary Duff is Selena's main influence

Selena Gomez states in many interviews on and off of YouTube that Hilary Duff was her main influence and musical influence when growing up yet it is failed to be mentioned on this page, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.76.102 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably because editors never came across such references. If citations to reliable sources are provided (best not to use YouTube for potential copyright concerns and/or user-generated videos), then it can be included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

some of these things here is too old i think this text is better

(Redacted)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).biography.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.esfan (talk • contribs) 10:33, 20 April 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done - suggested text was a copyright violation. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

Selena had a hard relationship with just bieber, Bieber has cheated on selena with lots of girls, For example Kendall jenner. Bieber also got selena into drugs. Bieber was in jail and is a bad boy. Selena broke up with him and went to zedd. They recently broke up. Biebe misses selena and is sad that he has not seen her. Selena has said that he shouldent have had sex with other people. 108.34.169.211 (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015

Can you please change her picture to a more recent photo? Thanks!! 71.142.51.40 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please be specific with your request (for instance, what image would you like to be used?) --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015

add source:

Hyman, Dan. "ZEDD FEATURING SELENA GOMEZ: "I WANT YOU TO KNOW"." Billboard - The International Newsweekly of Music, Video and Home Entertainment Mar 14 2015: 53. ProQuest. Web. 15 June 2015.

Jacconte1 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Question: For what content? Cannolis (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015

Add new information on most recent song "I Want You to Know". Refer to Hyman, Dan. "ZEDD FEATURING SELENA GOMEZ: "I WANT YOU TO KNOW"." Billboard - The International Newsweekly of Music, Video and Home Entertainment Mar 14 2015: 53. ProQuest. Web. 15 June 2015.

Jacconte1 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is the second request you made regarding same "content" which we don't know about. What content are you talking about? Please be specific about what you think need to be changed or need to be added. If there is something that should be changed please mention it in the form of "please change X to Y". Note that insignificant information about every single of hers will not be added to Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative R&B

Two songs that are alternative R&B does not make her an artist of that genre. Sophiathesinger (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First, be sure to click "New section" when starting a topic.
I checked the sources given for that genre, and I didn't see it in them. In fact, I couldn't even find "R&B". So, I have removed them. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SELENA GOMEZ HAVE LUPUS?

It says on wikipedia that she has lupus but I dont see anywhere that she actually confirmed this. Is this just a rumor????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:101:3892:8EE:FF6F:BE23:1159 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

She hasn't commented on it; I've edited the article to note that her grandfather made the statement. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The grandfather also said she stopped her tour because of her lupus but she said on Ryan Seacrest that she was having some sort of identity disorder and quit her tour to go to rehabilitation treatment. So I just feel this lupus statement is a rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.129.139.31 (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015‎ (UTC)
selena gomez doesn't even have lupus this is a rumor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:101:3892:31EE:458:C0C8:E73 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Lupus

you keep changing whether she has it or not. She hasn't confirmed and these sites are gossip sites your getting your info from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:101:3892:75EB:4AF:764B:87CF (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

58.146.98.187 (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Empty request. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

92.24.221.34 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Done No change requested by IP, no change made. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015

Songwriter Gabesil7 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chamith (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Only five" versus "Five years old"

Someone should really edit the part in Selena's early life. The one that says her parents divorced when she was "only five." I remember visiting this page a long time ago and it said "five years old." As it stands the current wording is not very encyclopedic. Thanks. Lady Galaxy (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Fashion Designer?

The source is horrible, and there is no reason to believe that this is more than a promotional deal. There is probably more reason to call her "Airplane passenger" than this.-87.142.195.61 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The source isn't horrible, it's the problem of it being a one-time thing. Almost all celebrities have merch of some sort. Doesn't seem like a primary career, and she's not called a fashion designer by outside sources. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Utterly biased and no longer available sums up to horrible.
If it's a one-time merch thing, she shouldn't be called "Fashion Designer", much less in the lede.-87.142.195.61 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed that since it was just a one-time thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsure

"She embraced an increasingly mature public image with her star billing in the film Spring Breakers (2013) and her 2013 debut solo studio album, Stars Dance."

But she didn't, she did with her next album. The film was teen-oriented and the album featured club songs. Here Rolling Stone calling Revival instead "It's a new era for Selena Gomez, who has shed her teen-icon skin to become a confident, sultry pop diva in her Revival era. Her sophomore album saw the singer and actress move away from EDM-pop and towards a more R&B-tinged style that showcases her vocals" [2]. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks reliable to me. — Confession0791 talk 02:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

please

can someone fix this messy redaction. I couldn't make it through half the article. the cohesion is bad.--190.233.218.152 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the article definitely does need work, and it's going to take a while to resolve all issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Selena Gomez. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 12:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Selena Gomez. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 04:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Selena Gomez. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 05:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

why is her personal life section so tiny?

she had a long past relationship with another influential singer, she had multiple felony stalkers she surely is involved with different things or hobbies

Qwesar (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

where it says that selena Gomez is american actress and singer is false. she is just an American singer.71.185.47.86 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

71.185.47.86 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done she is indeed an actress with starring roles in shows like Barney and Wizards of Waverly Place as well as the Hotel Transylvania films (among others). Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Why is there no mention of her dating Justin Bieber in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.128.10 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree (and second this need for addition). She has one of the most mediatized(if that's a word) relationships in 21st century pop-music history, including "mutual songwriting" (her and Bieber) that's got much play online, in print, on twitter, etc - and there's not a word about him? Was there some deal cut with WMF that she get's to excise this part of her BLP? Because she's outright admitted their relationship, it's been the topic of most of her interviews, until they broke-up. But even now they are in contact. So why is there nothing about him? It's like there being nothing about Taylor Swift's relationships, which would be ridiculous, i.e. it's ridiculous that there's a ban on her relationships online.DroitInternationale (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Now mentioned him. Not sure why he was left out before, though it certainly wasn't because of a "ban on her relationships online" or anything of the sort. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Selena was inlove in Mark Jheffo Since 2013

Markmelgar (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

In the second paragraph where it mentions the canceling of the Stars Dance Tour makes it sound like she barely went on tour or canceled most of it. She in fact only canceled the last few Oceania dates. The sentence about this should reflect that, rather than implying that its entirety was canceled (she performed 55 shows and only canceled 12 due to the personal struggles). 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzma24 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Selena Gomez

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Selena Gomez's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hot100":

  • From Selena Gomez & the Scene discography: "Billboard Charts > Selena Gomez & The Scene> Billboard Singles". Billboard. Retrieved 2011-09-21.
  • From Selena Gomez discography: "Selena Gomez – Chart History: The Hot 100". Billboard.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Selena Gomez. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 19:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source from E! Online was intended to back the following statement in the article, under Life and career section: Gomez was named after Tejano singer and actress Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, who died in 1995.. The source apparently had this info in video form originally, but video is not included in any archived version at web.archive.org. Another source may be needed to confirm the statement, though I'm not sure of the likelihood of the statement being challenged. I'm thinking Ms. Gomez has stated at one time or another that she was named after the Tejano singer. Still a good idea to have another source just in case. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

supported me sacrificed her life needs a comma after me

has went should be either went or has gone

79.132.90.116 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Where in the article can these be found? It would help if you gave section names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

Shillylover101 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC) ok so i would like to tell you some more acting jobs or movies selena gomez has been in just so you could put those i too.

1.spring breakers 2. the fundamentals of caring 3. neighbors 2 sorority rising 4. monte carlo 5. getaway 6. behaving badly 7. another cinderella story 8. princess protection program 9. romona and beezus 10. ( she voiced both hotel translvanias ) 11. spy kids 3D game over 12. rudderless 13. wizards of waverly place the movie 14. ( she voiced in horton hears a who ) 15. wizards of waverly place alex vs alex 16. in dibious battle 17. ( she voiced in artur and the revenge of mathazard ) 18. fifty shades of blue 19. ( she voiced in arthur 3 the war of two worlds ) 20. walker texas ranger trail by fire 21. arwin! 22. hotel for dogs 23. pilot season

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

CHANGE HER AGE


86.178.91.183 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to; there's a template inserted into the Infobox that automatically does so when it reaches a person's birthday on GMT time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Well she's not British. She was not born in GMT time. Meth-addict (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Under the heading "Life and Career" and under the years 2012-14, they say that Stars Dance was No. 1 on Billboard 200. In addition, you can say that it was Selena Gomez's first No. 1 on the Billboard 200.

[1]

Dkrystie (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Caulfield, Keith. "Selena Gomez Gets First no. 1 Album." Billboard - The International Newsweekly of Music, Video and Home Entertainment, vol. 125, no. 30, 2013., pp. 43
 Done —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 01:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Rehab 2016

@Geraldo Perez: @SNUGGUMS: @Benmite: Considering the amount of sources, I would consider that it merits inclusion. However, as this is a BLP article, we need to tread carefully. Rather than edit warring lets reach some kind of consensus over this please. Karst (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And feel free to chime in here too @Nyuszika7H:.Karst (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
My main issue is that it initially was inserted with subpar sources. As noted, BLPs require caution, and good referencing is crucial for such articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Looking at the sources that were included with this diff it seems to all stem from this article in US Weekly. It speaks of 'multiple sources' without identifying them, not exactly WP:RS. I would be inclined to conclude this is largely gossip and should not be included. Karst (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand why this could be considered mere gossip. However, if it is true, which it appears to be, then, as @Karst said before, it would lead to a hiatus from the singer. Therefore, I would think it less a log of her doctor's visits and more an explanation for the hiatus. And if US Weekly is considered a "subpar" source, then why was there already a reference from it prior to mine? Benmite (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is not US Weekly in itself, but the way their report is constructed. See for instance this where the discussion is not necessarily about National Enquirer but the sourcing of the information and the inclusion of it. As this is a BLP article we need some sort of definite confirmation that she is in rehab, and an unnamed source is not reliable in that sense. Her representative did not reply to enquiries. The reporter did not have much to go on, except for two sightings. I'm sure that in future interviews etc. there will be some discussion about this. Let's include it then, perhaps? Karst (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem actually IS Us Weekly itself as well as the report structure. Giving unnamed sources is suspicious as they could easily be made up, and Us Weekly is a gossip magazine that by no means should be used in articles, especially for big claims on BLPs. Just because it was used before doesn't mean it should be used again. That should be replaced with something better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS I understand the issue with Us Weekly, considering yes, it could very easily be considered a tabloid. However, it is typically accurate and when it isn't, it doesn't seem to be for the sole purpose of fabricating stories. It also seems as though the issue has been resolved, so I'm confused as to why you're still discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Unnamed originating source, picked up by multiple gossip level magazines, talking about a personal private medical issue she may or may not have. At some point we need to make some decisions about what to put in articles and we do not need to put in everything that is in reliable sources. Normally people's medical history is private, we don't need to continue with this level of invasion of personal privacy, celebrity or not. If she herself, or a representative confirms this info, I would have fewer problems with inclusion. Absent that it is still gossip about her personal life. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I agree that it should not be included, especially with this kind of sourcing. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing the Inbox photo 2016

Current photo is from 3 years ago and is not the most pleasant one. I ask that we should change it to something from 2016 or at least 2015. My suggestion is this one from this year. http://www.billboard.com/files/media/selena-gomez-smile-chicago-2016-billboard-1548.jpg it's recent and nice.20:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Rxbirth (talk)(30 October 2016)Rxbirth (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We can only use that image if it is free from copyright. See WP:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Selena Gomez. 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) 07:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New image

The photo currently being used is outdated. https://media.wmagazine.com/photos/589c70dc5b6fbb4e06b8bd0c/master/pass/2016.jpg This is a more recent photo of her at the 2016 Grammys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maskati16 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that image is free to use; we can't have copyrighted images in articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No way is that red carpet photo taken by a professional photographer free-use, which is what is absolutely required for bio articles of living people. Professional photographers need to get paid and don't generally give their work product away for free. Some do and Commons loves them for that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Photo credited to John Shearer/WireImage, per http://idly.craveonline.com/2016/02/selena-gomez-grammys-2016/#/slide/20. I agree, zero chance of this being a free image. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD discussion re: "Sober"

Page watchers are invited to participate in the following discussion about the deletion of "Sober": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sober (Selena Gomez song). ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Composer as occupation

Selena has write many of her songs , the occupation 'Composer' should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.15.62 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Looking thru the albums in her discography, she has writing credits on some songs - the most with Revival, though even there she collaborated with quite a few other writers. Definitely not of the same level of notability on songwriting as, say, Mariah Carey (see her self-titled album, Music Box, and The Emancipation of Mimi as examples). MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Probably had input to the lyrics as is normal for some singers, might get a writing credit which is really just a courtesy as the real songwriter did the bulk of the creative work. Composer means wrote the music, the melody. That is really unlikely and should be well-referenced. Composers usually have significant formal musical training. Actors who take up singing usually don't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding onto Geraldo's comment, writing lyrics isn't the same as writing the music (melody, instrumentation). Even if Selena does compose her songs, she isn't really known as a composer unlike Stewart Copeland or John Williams. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Responding Geraldo , Stewart and MusicBox maybe she is not composer but the credit as a 'Songwriter' is correct , that should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.15.62 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
A songwriter is a person who writes the lyrics, melodies and chord progressions for songs. If she gets sole credit as a writer on one of her songs might support that but what she seems to be getting is a credit as part of a writing team, somewhat common as a courtesy for artists who have input to the songs written for them that they perform. It is not really an occupation separate from her singing. A stronger case could be made if she was the sole writer of songs performed by other people such as Dolly Parton, for example. For Gomez I think the claim is too weak to include. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Piano/Harmonica as instruments

Selena has showed in many shows of her 'Stars Dance Tour' that she plays the harmonica, and in the 'Revival Tour' plays the piano, also in her new song 'Kill em with kindness acoustic'. This instruments should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.15.62 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

They need references. Karst (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
References piano: photo https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/selena-gomez-bikini-lead.jpg?w=578 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo1UUBkZAHM
harmonica photo: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ijqkt7WwB50/maxresdefault.jpg video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CncPVXd63b8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.15.62 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox musical artist § instrument "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used.". Lots of people have learned to play the piano, that is fairly common, but not to the level of a professional pianist or even one like Billy Joel or Elton John who use them as a major part of their performances . Likewise the harmonica. That she is able to use them is interesting but not what she is well-known for. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so, she has published a lot of photos playing the piano, and in many interviews she said that she plays the piano since she was a child, piano is her first instrument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.15.62 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of how long she's played the piano, it's not exactly something she's known for often using in live performances unlike the examples given or even Lady Gaga. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

change where it says that 13 reasons why will be released on march 31, 2016 to "it was released" 65.184.21.1 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Made change in verb tense to indicate the show has already premiered on Netflix. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Selena Gomez. 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) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Selena Gomez. 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) 16:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Large number of edits made by single user

Anon9088 has been making a large number of revisions to the article during the last four hours [3] (it identifies 2 users, but the second user has just 2 of the 90+ edits in this time frame ... this is also an incomplete diff as they keep making edits). It looks like they may be making good faith edits here, but the overwhelming number of them is cause for concern. One thing that I noticed that would warrant intervention (i.e., reverting) is removal or relocation of references, particularly in supporting that Gomez is a fashion designer and philanthropist in the infobox - those were supported by references but were removed, or relocated to create a text-source integrity problem. I am holding off on reverting at this time, especially since they keep making edits, but others may want to look over this user's revisions. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Time stamps of the edits I cited in the diff above go from 4:06 to 7:43 on May 24. (The last one is obvious, but their first edit in this stretch was not shown.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anon9088 and MPFitz1968: I'm inclined to revert back to the version as of May 19, 2017 and treat the 400 so revisions listed in the edit history as one edit. Looking at the original vs the final version I consider the original better and have little interest in sorting through the massive number of changes to pick good from bad. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur. The negative changes sadly outweigh any positive ones. The biggest issue I find aside from inadequately referenced and/or superfluous additions is how acting and music careers are (at least partially) intertwined and it flows better to have them in one section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the article to the version that Geraldo cited. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Occupation

I believe that actress should be put first then singer because that's what she started in and she's well known because of her show from Disney. Helping22 (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Also why isn't Philanthropist listed as a occupation? She is also known for her work with UNICEF and working with multiple charities. Helping22 (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Most known as singer now and most notable work looks to be as a singer. She is not a notable philanthropist and that is not her occupation, it is something she does and leverages off her acting and singing fame. Philanthropist as an occupation is generally listed if that is all the person does and is famous for it. A famous singer and actor doing philanthropy activities is more a part of what is normally expected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Selena_Gomez/Archive_3&oldid=1137179344"