Talk:Anitta (singer)

Anitta
I am a Brazilian guy. I know more about Anitta than you guys. Predofarofa (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one was claiming to know more about her than you. However, you should familiarize yourself with WP:OWN, which states that all Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. This means that no one single person has the authority to decide what goes into the article. The community here operates on consensus. As to why I reverted the article back to a prior version, you had edited the infobox to link to a picture, which was uploaded to commons, and then deleted for being a non-free file. All I did was simply revert back to a version of the article that had a functional photo. If you can provide a different or better freely-licensed photo for the article, please feel free to upload it to Commons and edit the article again. Phuzion (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

– Singer Anitta is clearly the primary topic in "Anitta" as per |Anitta|Anitta_(album)|Anitta_M%C3%BCller-Cohen page views. The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anitta (singer) → Anitta
 * Anitta → Anitta (king)
 * Strong oppose per "Anitta is" test and "Anitta was" test. Nom has failed to mention the second part of Primary Topic. The earliest known ruler to compose a text in the Hittite language is more long-term notable in the history of mankind, sorry. At the very most move Anitta (disambiguation) in and the king out. This is still an encyclopedia not a pop blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anitta at Met Gala 2021.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anitta 2022 (cropped).jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anitta - Degusta Music Lounge 2012.jpg
 * Anitta - Villa Mix 2013.jpg
 * Anitta in Rock in Rio Lisbon 2022.jpg
 * Ensaios da Anitta - São Paulo 2023.jpg

Proposed merge from Anitta's anal tattoo
As the author of, I think, the only article on an individual tattoo or set of tattoos, I was excited to see a new article of that type. However, reading that article, it is not about a tattoo—which would be a clearly distinct thing from a person. In fact, the article says almost nothing about the tattoo, as no one knows for sure what it says. The article is, rather, about a single controversy in Anitta's life. Per,. And WP:NOPAGE, the main guideline for merge/split considerations, asks us to consider whether content will make more sense in the context of the larger article. This article, about a single minor controversy in Anitta's life, would absolutely make more sense in our biography on Anitta, and there are WP:NPOV and WP:BLP implications in having them separate.

This article could probably be reduced to: Anitta has a tattoo on her anus, reported to read "love" or "I luv u". Video of her receiving the tattoo, which she had posted on her OnlyFans account, was leaked in February 2021. In May 2022, sertanejo singer Zé Neto, part of, said in a speech he did not need funds from the Rouanet Law, nor did he need to get a tattoo on his "toba" (slang for anus) to show he is doing well, leading to conflict with Anitta's fans. In April 2023, rappers and Nog released a song titled "* da Anitta". Despite the provocative title, the singer herself embraced the song, expressing amusement rather than offense.

Which could be added to the end of. Some or all of the two paragraphs about Gusttavo Lima, which are only tangential to the rest of this article, could be merged to his article. Basically everything else is extraneous detail, contributing to an article that gives undue focus to an intimate and sexualized aspect of someone's life, all while tying her to a poorly-explained political scandal involving other people. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . I acknowledge the proposition presented by the nominator, although I hold a different viewpoint. Anitta’s tattoo and its consequences are an episode of significant repercussion in Brazilian media and popular culture and, as I noted a few days ago, even garnered attention in academic circles of another Lusophone country, namely, Portugal. Considering this, I would support a potential renaming of the page to underscore the profound impact the tattoo has had on Brazilian society. It’s important to clarify that there exists a plethora of additional sources that can be referenced in the article. When the nominator mentions tangential sources (probably this one), they overlook the fact that these sources often include hyperlinks leading to more in-depth information on the subject (here, here, here, here, here, here, and certainly elsewhere). Furthermore, individuals involved in the episode, such as the tattoo artist, received extensive coverage in the media (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on). The same applies to the creators of the song that references the tattoo (here, here, here, here, and so on). Therefore, I believe that merging the articles would either create undue weight or make the content overly sparse for the reader. I emphasize that this is not a minor controversy in the singer’s life, but an episode that received significant attention at the initial time and still persists in the collective memory of the Brazilian people today (here for example), considering that Anitta still makes references to the tattoo and to the entire related episode. Despite creating the article during a period of personal hardship, I remain committed to expanding it further. Skyshifter reviewed the nomination for the WP:DYK, creates many articles about internet phenomena, so perhaps he might be interested in the subject, possibly aiding in the construction of the article. Best regards and thanks for the interest in the subject, RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly short article already, so I think a merge is a good option here per the caution guideline. If this merge doesn't go through, I wonder if "Anitta anal tattoo controversy" would be a better title to describe the subject of the article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose it has enough content to be its own article, and clearly meets GNG. Not opposed to changing the title to "Anitta anal tattoo controversy". Skyshifter   talk  11:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge it. is correct, of course. That something could stand by itself is no reason to make it so, and this is more than a bit undue, sensational, and hyped. No, adding "controversy" makes it even worse. Merging, with some pruning to leave only high-quality sources (there are some, I assume) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Tamzin. Having an article about a tattoo on someone's arsehole is exceedingly WP:UNDUE. Just because it can stand alone, doesn't mean it should. It should be merged. TarnishedPathtalk 13:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's a debated and ratiocinated subject that influenced and motivated many incidents. A renaming would contemplate WP:COATRACK and reasonate with me. -- MikutoH talk! 02:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated an image for deletion
I nominated the image used on Anitta's anal tattoo for deletion. The discussion is at. Kk.urban (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)