Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Doughnut shop vs pastry shop

There seems to be some dispute about the labeling of Wolfee Donuts, with an editor repeatedly and immediately changing the string used in multiple edits of this article. While both terms have been used in sources, it appears that "doughnut shop" is being utilized more consistently by reputable media outlets, rather than "pastry shop" which is being used less frequently, within opinion articles or by celebrity news sites. The following is obviously an incomplete list, but a sampling offered in good-faith.

"doughnut shop"

"pastry shop"

WP:V and WP:NOR lead me to "doughnut shop." UW Dawgs (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

They describe themselves on Facebook as "Donut shop, selling Tamales, Dodger Dogs, Blended Drinks, Beverages, etc." So, I guess it should be changed to "doughnut shop". When the news first hit, it was described as a pastry shop. Thanks. Can you comment on the MLB question raised above? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Doughnut shop controversy

I don't understand why the doughnut shop controversy section never mentions the fact that she was licking the doughnuts and then saying she hates Americans. Can anyone explain why the doughnut licking part was never mentioned? Paul Badillo (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Because Wiki is letting her publicist write this article from the way it reads. She's under criminal investigation for licking and spitting on food that was then unknowingly sold to the public. Her defense of her statements are completely illogical. If she was upset about obesity, then why was she buying donuts in the first place? She was fired from a major public appearance and the backlash is far from over, but this puff piece reads straight from a PR flack's spin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.126.7 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD and then do it. If someone removes your content, review WP:BRD (not a WP policy, but helpful).
In my view, there are multiple elements of the story so far:
  1. Licking donuts
  2. "What the fuck is that? I hate Americans. I hate America. That's disgusting."
  3. Police and health department investigations launched
  4. Backing out of the MLB All-Star game
  5. An inital apology which mentions the language, but not the licking
  6. A second apology
  7. Branding as Donutgate (or Doughnutgate, etc)
1, 2, and 4 seem the most relevant to me. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a fast-moving story, and many of the sources are repeating each other without checking facts. Since this article is a WP:BLP we must be careful not to assume anything that is not very solidly supported. It appears that the police are investigating the pastry shop, not Grande. We should move slowly here. Someone has now re-added the alleged licking, but I don't think the video is crystal clear as to what licking actually occurred, and moreover if a celebrity merely licked some doughnuts, I don't think it would be encyclopedic news. It's what she said that is of encyclopedic interest here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an odd story. The video is included in this article from The Guardian (UK). It appears to have gotten the story from the TMZ website. If this is the case then I'm not sure how good a source that is, and the mention of it perhaps should be considerably reduced. Karst (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't just the licking, it was what Grande said that caused attention. Also, the way the doughnuts were handled is the cause of the investigation. Paul Badillo (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean about the handling, exactly? What is your source about the handling? To overcome WP:BLP, it must be a good source. I agree that what she said is the issue, not the doughnuts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
According to this source, the doughnut shop was downgraded from an "A" rating to a "B" rating because several violations were found after an inspection was made, including not protecting food from the public: "Donut Shop Visited by Ariana Grande Downgraded by Department of Health Following Licking Incident". Yahoo!. July 9, 2015. Retrieved July 10, 2015. Paul Badillo (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
All that shows is that the investigation is tangential to Grande's article. If there were an article about the pastry shop, it might be relevant to mention it there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The licking part has been mentioned along with the police investigation but both have been subsequently deleted as there seems to be editors who don't want any negative stories posted about this young lady despite the fact that the story has been carried internationally and by some very respected media outlets, e.g., The Washington Post.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Look again. The alleged licking is there in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Post-protect wording

After the protect expires, I plan to return the article to this state (except deleting the tag). As I noted above, this edit is what is causing the current problem here, and reverting to the previous state will solve the problem and return us to a state of the article that reflects the de facto compromise that had been reached by the contributors to this page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support -- This is the best state of the article and reflects the concerns and compromises of the editors who worked on the article since the RfC was originally filed. CassiantoTalk 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Ssilvers proposal seems the most suitable weighing up all the options. Jack1956 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is a current RfC open, which is leaning towards a different conclusion. Any changes to the article, per Wikipedia guidelines, should be based on the conclusion of that RfC. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Onel5969|. The RfC is irrelevant, because the language being discussed there was rejected long ago (also, the RfC did not result in any consensus). This state of the article was reached through various edits and compromises after the language being discussed in the RfC was abandoned. It represents a compromise that does not use the word "Diva" and says only that: "Although Grande drew criticism for interactions with some reporters and fans in 2014 ... she was praised...". Note that the current language in the relevant section, added by an inexperienced editor, Bistymings, represents the worst of all possible worlds. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ssilvers - not sure I agree with that assessment, but perhaps we should ask the admin who originally closed the RfC (and then re-opened it), AlbinoFerret? When the RfC was closed, the consensus seemed to be to not include the entire episode. I'm not sure that most of the points which were against including the entire passage are addressed by the compromise. But then again, I'm pretty cautious about potential blp issues.Onel5969 TT me 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Onel5969 Would you please point me to the section that the compromise was worked out on the talk page? AlbinoFerret 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret, This state of the article was reached through various edits in June and early July. No express compromise was made, but if you work through the edits in that period, you will see the various editors on the page closing in on this de facto compromise to say merely: "Although Grande drew criticism for interactions with some reporters and fans in 2014 ... she was praised...". The refs include the Washington Post, The Sydney Herald and the New York Daily News. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- never mind, Ssilvers already did, although I don't necessarily agree with the compromise, for the same reasons I stated in the RfC. Onel5969 TT me 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Onel. On top of the fact that the RfC is leaning towards not including this material at all, it's really not a matter of wording. It's a matter of the fact that the reports on her behavior only show one side (completely ignoring Grande's dismissal of these claims), and that this is too trivial for an encyclopedia. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, As per my recent posting in the RfC, most of the opinions raised in the RfC are based on a flawed reading of the situation, and an erroneous reading of BLP. BLP does not mean we censor "bad things" about people, it means we ensure there are cast iron sources: there are a stack of them in the RfC. The large number of sources also makes a mockery of the claim that it's trivial. The fact that the "Diva" news also appears in a very wide range and number of publications, including very reliable and heavyweight publications shows that the this doesn't come close to GOSSIP; the fact that the news reports are spread over two years is also highly indicative that this isn't something that we ignore for the sake of the fanboys. Articles are supposed to reflect the weight of the sources to hand. If we remove the claims of her behaviour, this fails that very basic requirement. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as actually better not to use the word 'diva' and describe in more neutral language. Will this be remembered in 10 years? I reckon a biography written in 10 years would mention it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ssilvers: I don't think you should have changed this with this discussion only open a day or so, and with the RfC involving whether or not to include the material, period, still ongoing. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
All I did was take out the "diva" wording. Then someone else added new material about a new incident, and I made their wording more neutral. I really can't imagine what you're complaining about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Ssilvers's suggestion about the wording of this paragraph strikes me as eminently sensible. Tim riley talk 08:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove mention of MLB event?

MLB never explicitly stated that they replaced Grande with Lovato as their performer BECAUSE of the doughnut incident. That is an alleged rumour. The confirmed story is that Grande had emergency oral surgery (extraction of three wisdom teeth) and needs time to recover before she begins her third leg of her tour on July 16th, 2015. [1][2] As for the validity of the statement, the video apology she posted on July 9th, 2015 shows she is amid recovery. The paragraph on her scandal overall should be revised and reworded. Journalismqueen (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Explicitly agree on attribution of withdrawl from MLB concert. It's part of the story, but neither side has characterized it as a firing or similar. This language should be very precise around the chronology. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I would vote for removing all mention of the MLB withdrawal. I don't think that, in the long run, it will be a very significant part of the story and, in any case, its link to the pastry shop incident is circumstantial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I vote for removing all too. just write about pastry shop incident. the connection between them was a rumor. Mariabrink (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Since it was picked up by major national and international media outlets, leave it in the story.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
But (1) the MLB singing appearance is mentioned in only a minority of the press coverage of the incident and was dropped from the story in nearly all later reports; and (2) the cancellation of the singing appearance is really tangential to the main point of the national and international coverage about the affect of this incident on Grande's public image. The main point is that she was widely criticized for her behavior and what she said, and she felt it necessary to make two public apologies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment - You have made multiple edits which placed the MLB concert as the first element within this topic and repeatedly added relevant citations for this. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Why the change in thinking? I am unaware of any new facts on this topic (neither Grande or MLB said anything about firing or such). My view remains the section reads awkwardly from being told in reverse chronology. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires citing refs. But I am arguing that we remove the MLB component and the refs that concern that. See my comment above. The purpose of my edits has been to remove tangential matters, like the brief police investigation. But I'm not sure what you are suggesting we do. Do you agree with deleting the MLB clause or not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree, it's worded in reverse chronological order. I personally rewrote the section such that it made more sense, at least from the chronological perspective. But those changes were undone by others and we're back to the awkwardly worded passage.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please post in order. TJ, your edit was to add in information about the police investigation. If either of you have a suggestion for how to *concisely* rewrite the passage in a way that you prefer, I have not seen it. Please suggest it here, so that we can all discuss it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers - because of the way the story has evolved, the mention of the MLB concert is no longer of encyclopedic interest and should be cut out of the Public image section. Jack1956 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the above entry: the mention of the MLB event has proved unimportant to the article and should be removed. Tim riley talk 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Now removed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved from SchroCat's talk page..."Diva" criticism

Hi there!. About this (see). That is gossip and isn't encyclopedic, and i explained why removed it.

The rumours was rejected from Grande to partners who worked with her, as Jessie J, and show producers, also, the rumours was rejected from the same sources days after. (link) We can't take it gossip in a encyclodia. There are no proof about it. The sources in it took the rumours from anonymous sources and bloggers, and still without proof! (i mean audio or video). The first two sources are based in the rumours. And this source is a blog (see) like the others, without proof, and Grande rejected all of this, so this is named a gossip story.

Now, about this sources (this and this). She explained her pics in her instagram about her "rumored behavior", and said the guy is her friend and this was in the street, when they are leaving. The guy is named Jones Crew, her best friend according to all her instagram pics.(link and link). According to Grande, she said "her friend carrying" when they were in the street leaving cause she was very "tired", and this is cause she is hypoglucemic, a condition characterized by abnormally low blood glucose, so she gets tired more than usual. (link) (link). About the photo below, she took a selfie with another best friends (her dancers too), Brian and Scott. (link, link, link, link, link. Again, the press was interpreting exaggerated her pics from her instagram, cause she herself posted that pics in her account. Also, there is a "If this is true" in the same article, soooo. All this is gossip and isn't encyclopedic. I explained why i removed. This gossip needs a consensuos to be add, and i don't see where is the consensuos in the talk page when it was added.

Finally, the section Public image is just to "Public Image", not about her rumoured personality. Also, the section is irrelevant, cause Grande isn't has a extravant public image as, for example Lady Gaga, but well, the section isn't in discuss. So, again, the gossip story needs a consensuos, Best regards!. Eliluu (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't the place for this: Grande's talk page is the best place, so that those who know the subject best can chip in. There was a lot of information you removed, and it was from reliable sources (newspapers, etc), not blog sites; we also do not need audio or video confirmation if the stories appear in reliable news sources. I suggest you copy your above statement (and this reply, if you wish) and paste it onto Grande's talk page for further discussion there. – SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed a part and explained why, cause it's gossip. I explained that news was based in a blogger and anonymous sources that claimed it. And i am talking to you cause you was who reverted. Best regards! :)!. Eliluu (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC) PS: i will copy and past this tomorrow, cause i have 9% battery in my mobile.... Have a nice day! :).
Yes, this page is the correct place to discuss this article. The article contains well-cited opinions of multiple mainstream sources that accused her of acting like a "diva". Do you dispute that this is their opinion? It is part of a persistent discussion about this person's reputation and public image, and so it appears to be encyclopedic. Some articles used the photo of her being carried as an example. She disagrees with this characterization, so we have given both sides of the controversy. That this is the opinion published by mainstream sources is a fact, not a rumor. Rumors are misinformation that are spread without foundation. In this case, the information is about opinions given by various reporters and outlets, not about mistakes of fact. It seems to me that our paragraph about this is fairly well balanced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This should not be included and this is why. I have looked at the sources the statements were referenced to and a lot of the so-called news sources are not reliable at all and contravenes the WP:BLPSOURCES policy. WP:BLPSOURCES clearly states that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Also, a lot of these "sources" themselves are based upon insider information or anonymous sources, which should not be relied on, contravening the WP:BLPGOSSIP policy which states: "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." -- AYTK 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The sources are People magazine, In Touch Weekly, Mail Online and two well-known entertainment sources, Perez Hilton and Buzzfeed. These sources are acceptable and, as I noted, they are merely stating their opinions based on well-documented reports of Grande's behavior. I think the paragraph strengthens the article, because without it, the article appears rather promotional and one-sided. We should not whitewash the bio. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [Edit: later added The Washington Post]
Fair points. I have however removed Perez Hilton as one of the sources since it is an unreliable source. He does not currently have a neutral point of view on this matter as he previously has an altercation with Grande. This can be seen from this news article by Yahoo News. As can be seen from the article, this started of with, quote Perez Hilton saying he "heard someone saw" her do cocaine, which also immediately puts his reliability as a source into question. -- AYTK 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[left]. OK. I added The Sydney Morning Herald instead, which gives concrete examples of Grande's interaction with some Australian press. The Washington Post wrote: "Grande has had a flood of negative headlines in the press, with stories all that claim virtually the same thing: She’s already very high-maintenance and exhibiting diva-esque behavior". I didn't cite this New York Daily News report and several other reports because of their tone, but a "news"-only search for "Ariana Grande" and "diva" comes up with 67,000 hits, so two sentences about it in her article seem warranted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think having some balance in the article is essential, or we run the risk of this being a puff piece for fans only. There are enough references about these aspects of her behaviour for the article to need to reflect this, and the referencing on this seems to be strong enough to justify whTbwe say. – SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat above. The information must stay in order to give a proper balance in the article otherwise it reads like a fan site. Jack1956 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi!. @SchroCat:, @Jack1956:, @Ssilvers:, @Aytk:
1. It is about the "Image" section. There is a part that talks about the behavior of the artist, it's a gossip and I think it isn't encyclopedic. There are many artists are accused of having a diva behavior. As an example, Christina Aguilera, she has been accused of having a diva behavior since she started, and still is accused of having a diva behavior in the day, Aguilera is even accused of "having conflicts", I mean, to be very "problematic".[9] [10] Another examples, diva behavior: Niki Minaj (example, example) , Angelina Jolie (example), Justin Bieber example , etc, It was just an examples. It's usual that artists are accused of having a diva behavior. And I think talking about the behavior of someone (it hasn't relation to the career: singer career or acting career), is not encyclopedic and should be removed.
2. It should improve the image section. The similarities she has with Mariah carey should be in the "Image" section, like here for example. Regards. Eliluu (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The information is well-supported by the sources and without it we have an unbalanced fluff fanpiece, not something that reflects what the sources have to offer. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(User Ssilvers removed my comment [11])
Sorry, an inadvertent WP:Edit conflict. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, SchroCat Im not talking about the sources. I said that isn't encyclopedic cause be accused of having a diva behavior is usual in the industry. Christina has 700.000 searchs when you search "Christina Aguilera diva". Regards. Eliluu (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to say SchroCat, but talk about the behavior of an artist has nothing to do with her career, and saying "...without it we have an unbalanced fluff fanpiece..." isn't agood argument to me. Best regards!. Eliluu (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
But the sources are key to the whole point. Our articles are supposed to broadly reflect what those sources say. In reflecting the criticism of her behaviour we are doing just that. I'm afraid your last point just isn't true. This is an encyclopaedia which reflects the reliable sources as best we can: we do not, and should not, be writing fan puff articles about people we like. We have to write the articles to reflect a neutral point of view. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I understand you, but that sources, as i said before and user Aytk said too, themselves are based upon insider information or anonymous sources. No one of us is writing a "fan puff articles". The artists are usual accused of having a diva behavior, there are many and i gave you some examples. One of them is Aguilera has +700.000 and counting about her diva behaviour since years and years ago and it isn't in her article cause it has nothing to do with her career singer. That text must be removed by the time because it is discussed, and their incorporation wasn't consensual before. Best regards!!. Eliluu (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC) PS: Oh!, i forgot it. About she carriying according to sources: "her new rule is that she has to be carried" is original research. And the press show a photo that herself posted in her instagram account months ago to support their poor story ,that was rejected too, "and they want you to be the judge".
(edit conflict) Except we are not writing about her singing career: this is a biographic piece covering as much as possible of her life, and that includes the negative as well as the positive. This is common in good articles (as per the already linked WP:NPOV. As for criticism not appearing in other articles, that is a weakness in those articles and, as per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, not a good a good basis for excluding information here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[left] "Ariana Grande diva" gets 5.4 *million* hits on google. It would be an impermissable omission to leave out any mention of these reports in this biography. It is, without any doubt, part of her public image. Reports continue to surface of unbecoming behavior by the young singer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Yes, im agree with you. You are right about the balance. But that is gossip.
But we can replace the gossip and add critics the singer received from The Big Bang Theory's Mayim Bialik and Bette Midler about her "sexual nature"(more info). There are more we can add to replace the gossip with this critics. Eliluu (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
We disagree with the fact that this is gossip. I suggest we wait until others also chip into the conversation, otherwise we will do nothing but go back and forth on this. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Why you can't understand this is gossip?. The sources are based in anonymous sources, and this is called gossip(there are original research too). and is contravening biographies of living persons's policy, and this must be removed. Eliluu (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have said we disagree. It's a matter of opinion, and I am happy to wait for others to voice theirs. This does not contravene our BLP policies - although removing sources from the information, as you have done recently, is against our policy.
I disagree with you on the "sexual nature" point. Both Mayim Bialik and Bette Midler remarked that Grande's most recent album cover is an example of the way young women are marketed. This is not really news. Their comments could be more aptly included in some article about marketing using sex (and maybe it then could be briefly linked here), but would a specific mention of these rather generic, and one-off critiques add anything to the Ariana Grande article? Plus, female pop singers have been dressing this way for decades, and it is practically required in the industry. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not gossip -- it is, as the The Washington Post wrote, "a flood of negative headlines in the press, with stories all that claim virtually the same thing: She’s already very high-maintenance and exhibiting diva-esque behavior." We cite multiple reputable news sources. The reason that The Washington Post is a WP:Reliable source is because it has an editorial policy to check its facts. The fact that *you* may not know the papers' and magazine's sources is not relevant. You also totally misunderstand WP:OR. OR refers to original research by Wikipedia editors, not the research and opinions of reliable sources. As SchroCat noted, you have stated your opinion over and over again, and we simply disagree with you. I also agree with SchroCat regarding your new suggestion that we include instead recent statements by two celebrities that they think Grande is too scantily-clad on her album cover. These brief mentions by these two celebrities are not of encyclopedic interest. Most female pop singers are marketed this way. As he notes, you might include such a discussion in an article about the sexist marketing of young women, if there is one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[Left] Eliluu, please stop removing citations to WP:Reliable sources from the article, while, at the same time, arguing that the statement is not adequately referenced. That is obviously inappropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This is not gossip or rumour but facts which have been documented and recorded in numerous sources. Properly cited and referenced facts should not be removed from the article. Jack1956 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Washintong Post took the a story from other sources (like here) and this is why they (The Washintong Post) took it in a blog style and how they prefer called "this stories" (this amounts to gossip), you himself quoted this: a flood of negative headlines in the press, with stories all that claim virtually.... Another user also explained about this in the same discussion. When the sources take information from anonymous sources, it's a story. The behavior of someone isn't of encyclpedic interest. I disagree with both. And also, @SchroCat: when you told me that removed "newspapers, etc", i removed unrealible sources as BuzzFeed, Perez Hilton and DailyMail, this "sources" that you and the another user claimed are realiable, were removed days ago by another user who said they are not realible sources. Finally, here is another news and they call this a rumour., I explained that this is just stories (gossips), and we can see this is a story in the url and section of the source that is in the article, It's all very clear, it's say "gossip" an it's in the section gossip. Regards. Eliluu (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Just repeating "it's gossip" doesn't make it so. Others are disagreeing with you, so lets just see if others are going to join in the thread too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Eliluu says. I'm going to start a RfC. — AYTK (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aytk: Thank you. So, i am lost. Can you update me, please? Eliluu (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Excessive trivial information

This is basically the root cause of the "diva" debacle seen in the above sections, but there is waaaaay too much excessive, trivial, and frankly unencyclopedic content in this article, particularly the "Public image" section. WP:NOTNEWS, particularly the "news report" and "diary" points of that, exists for a reason. Grande is a public figure and as such, the media will write plenty of articles about her day-to-day activities. The problem, however, is that the editors of this article are constantly sticking anything about her that makes the news into this section. This is not sustainable long-term. The fact that there is currently half of a (very long) paragraph devoted to a doughnut-licking incident that no one will remember in two months' time is a shining example of the bigger issue here. Can we all please just calm down, quit rushing to have this article cover the most breaking news, and think about whether these things will meet the WP:10YT before arbitrarily including them? Chase (talk | contributions) 22:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • And for what it's worth, this doesn't just have to do with negative information regarding her. The "empowering essay" can go as well. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your deletion of the fashion trivia, but I do not agree that the material in the last paragraph of the "Public Image" section is trivia. The "empowering essay" material is important to a reader's understanding of Grande's beliefs and her relationship with, and response to, the press. And deleting the brief reference to Grande's very unfortunate statements caught on video a few days ago ("I hate Americans. I hate America") would be unacceptable whitewashing of the article. Those statements were reported in many news sources including Billboard, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The New York Daily News, CBS News, US magazine, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, The Denver Post, and more than 10,000 other news sources, according to Google. [UPDATE: add The Washington Post, TIME magazine, People, Cosmopolitan, Seventeen, Chicago Tribune, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, all of the Big Three American TV news networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) plus Fox, Vanity Fair, The Independent, U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, New York Times, USA Today, hundreds of foreign papers and magazines ...] BTW, I agree that the WP:10YT is an excellent and helpful thought experiment, but whether something is encyclopedic requires a balancing of factors. Grande's rocky interactions with the press are an ongoing problem for her, as many news sources that are cited in this paragraph have concluded. I hope that Grande will stop treating interviewers badly and will stop making outrageous statements that keep getting her in trouble. She acknowledged today that, as a public figure, she needs to be more careful. If she can control her behavior and statements, these issues will fade from her bio over the years. But at present, these are real and serious problems that are important to her biography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, presently, today, it's all anyone's talking about. When it likely blows over in two weeks, is that lengthy section going to be necessary? As I said previously, this is why NOTNEWS exists. It's not about whitewashing. It's about being selective and only including information that is essential to a reader's understanding of Grande. This is not. Nor is the essay. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, we need to keep these discussions open to gain a wider view on consensus. I felt that the issue with media were longitudinal enough to warrant inclusion as it was not just a one-off thing. However, I am not hugely familiar with the popular press on this. Let's see who else has an opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that 10YT is an essay, nothing more, this is likely to be something that pops up from time to time, much like the "diva" comments that are still appearing in the press over a year after they made their initial splash. Of course this should be included: if a biography of Grande is written in 10 or 20 years time this event would certainly be included. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This information needs to be kept if only because people will be coming to this article for verification. It happened and she said it, and it is important that it is included here. Jack1956 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We do need to make sure that the information in the article is verifiable. I removed information from the article recently because it was not in the cited source. If we're expanding our coverage, we need to make sure the citations keep pace. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! The "diva" criticism are 0n't encyclpedic, and that should be removed. About "Doughnut shop controversy", to me looks like relevant and should be in the article cause this controversy was investigated by the police, so this is a really important issue, to me, but isn't relevant the "diva criticism". Also, the Public Image section is irreoevant to me, should be removed. And finally, i think the "Doughnut shop issue" should be in a section named "Controversy". Best regards. Eliluu (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Link in reference 162 doesn't work

I can't fix it because I cannot find a web page at ABC News specific to a police investigation into the licking incident. Becalmed (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed. BTW, you don't need the exact same ref, you just need a ref that verifies the text that it follows; a google search would find many. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Moonlight in the Introduction

I feel that the sentence regarding Moonlight should be kept in the introduction; though the album has not yet been released, it has been the subject of various non-trivial articles from reputable sources (such as this and this, which were used as sources to the sentence that was recently removed) and has been greatly promoted by Grande. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If and when the album title and release date have been confirmed by the record company, it can be added. Otherwise it would be too much speculation. The section that is there now is largely based on social media statement, which makes it a bit iffy. Karst (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It is premature to tout the album yet, per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's be patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal life and other work

Someone combined the Personal life section with the Philanthropy and other activities section. This does not make sense to me. It places the "personal life" matters too high in the article and obscures the more important information. What do others think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because the personal life info is at the top followed by her philanthropic work does not mean that the former is "too high" and the latter 'obscures the more important information'. Also, what makes you think that her philanthropic work is "more important" than her "personal life". I think that one section is enough for her off-screen life and work that too when there is not much info available. -- Frankie talk 10:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Navbox

Off-topic comments designed to fuel further arguments. I think the point about the Navbox has now been made. CassiantoTalk 00:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I've removed the recently-placed Navbox purporting to show "Saturday Night Live musical guest". Aside from ignoring BRD on it being placed back in, I'm mystified why this one tiny piece of tedious, pointless fluff gets to have a Navbox. Can someone explain what the point of collecting crap at the bottom of the page is all about for one appearance? Should we start introducing NBs for every single appearance artists now make? - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat -- adding a navbox for a single guest appearance on the show does not make sense to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, calm down. Second, a single revert is not edit-warring. Finally, have you not noticed navboxes at the bottom of articles featuring people who have hosted award shows? (Marlon Wayans, Wyclef Jean) I mean, there are even entire templates for award show hosts. Anyway, I could see not having a navbox featuring people making appearances on daily talk shows (for example), but I don't see the problem with listing hosting or musical guest appearances (not merely cameo appearances) on a show like SNL. Frankly, this is the first time I have ever run into anyone having a problem with this; the reason why I added it at all was because of the similar navbox at the bottom of the O. J. Simpson article—which was not added by me; only tweaked—and it has survived for years without dispute. Why should another article in the same vein not receive similar treatment? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I am entirely calm, and yes, you edit warred (one revert does count as edit warring. WP:OSE is no basis for adding pointless rubbish to an article. Should we add NBs for every single performance they make? I can't imagine anything less useful for this article than this box... - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat and Ssilvers above - the navbox is not needed. Jack1956 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I also agree about the navbox - but not with SchroCat on what constitutes edit warring. The very first sentence on WP:EDITWAR is: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." --Musdan77 (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody really cares what you consider edit warring to be. The topic hint for this section is in the section header "Navbox". The title does not read "Navbox and edit warring", so kindly keep your opinions with regard to the latter to yourself. CassiantoTalk 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, it's not my opinion; it's a direct quote. And even if it was my opinion, two others gave their "opinion" on it, so that makes it not off-topic. At least I gave my opinion about the main topic of Navbox, while you didn't. So, please keep your opinion of what I said to yourself. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I haven't commented on it because I have no idea what a Navbox is; nor do I much care. A third opinion is not required from you with regards to what constitutes edit warring; that's been discussed now so move on. CassiantoTalk 18:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

[Left] Ok, everyone, let's calm down. SchroCat first noted only that Erpert had not followed the guideline WP:BRD -- after he Boldly inserted the navbox, I Reverted, and instead of instead of bringing the issue to the Talk page to Discuss, he made a added the navbox back in. After SchroCat initiated this discussion, it was Erpert who, like Br'er Rabbit, protested that he was not edit warring. In any case, it appears that everyone here, except for Erpert, opposes the Navbox, so can we please return to our regularly scheduled civility and collaborative bliss? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Tedious, pointless fluff", "collecting crap" and "pointless rubbish" don't seem very calm to me. Anyway, I'm not even going to try to figure out where the Br'er Rabbit reference comes from; at any rate, WP:OSE seems like it would be valid only if we were discussing a brand new article on the verge of deletion. In addition, the very first line of WP:EW says:
I reverted once, not repeatedly. Finally, this discussion seems like the users who frequently contribute to this article are just getting together and saying, "Who cares; we don't want it here, and that's that." Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:13, 16 September 2015 (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.

Report Ariana Grande lick donut + hate American

Clip viedo: http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_5zg73g31

Ariana Grande Apologizes After “I Hate America” Doughnut-Licking Controversy: http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/ariana-grande-pulls-out-of-major-leage-baseball-appearance-a#.toZpbvq7rW

Ariana Grande out of ASG concert amid doughnut licking scandal: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ariana-grande-out-mlb-asg-concert-video-doughnut-licking-070915?adbsc=social_20150709_48877706&adbid=10154060962369552&adbpl=fb&adbpr=112638779551

Ariana Grande Loves America, Hates Obesity, Is Silent on Doughnut-Licking: http://time.com/3950083/ariana-grande-donut/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.97.212 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is covered already in the article under the heading "Public image". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Scream Queens

Can her scream queens appearance be updated to 1 epsiode? I watched the episode tonight and she lasted for only 1 episode before she was killed off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndfrspd8622 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

She has already appeared in three episodes, and she has said in interviews that her character will somehow appear in additional episodes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

On adding Ariana Grande's parents in the Infobox

There was a debate whether her parents were notable, but her mom is her manager and she me tions her father quite often so I thought people may want to know who he is. This is in response to edits by User:Ssilvers and User:Cornerstonepicker. Please let me know what you think! Thanks! -- Stephilippou (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention them in the article, but we already do so, under the heading "Life and career", where we mention their names and give a brief description about each of them. It is not helpful, IMO, to mention them again in the Infobox, and we should keep the infobox concise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks for explaining your thinking!
Stephilippou (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

Can I please edit this form, there has been a breakthrough that Ari has another brother. 173.163.112.70 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Thanks. Ari's brother.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination

Is there any problem if I nominate it for GAN? TheFame08 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that it will pass. The page is not stable enough, and editors regularly working on the page disagree on content. One editor just reverted what I think is good content required by WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarify omission relating to doughnut shop incident.

An existing source [3] in the article states:"showed the former Nickelodeon star kissing Alvarez and the duo appearing to lick and spit on doughnuts." Should probably have been assigned to the sentence preceding. The spitting detail has been omitted. This was an attempt to clarify, but it seems other editors find this problematic. Can those who wish to omit these references please offer a rationale for why you think they should they should be excluded? Thank you very much.[4][5][6]

  1. ^ http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/08/demi-lovato-ariana-grande-2015-mlb-all-star-game-concert
  2. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/07/09/ariana-grande-out-mlb-all-star-concert-because-wisdom-teeth-demi-lovato/
  3. ^ Ramisetti, Kirthana. "Ariana Grande apologizes for ‘I hate America’ comments in video: 'I am EXTREMELY proud to be an American'", New York Daily News, July 8, 2015
  4. ^ CBS News, Ariana Grande accused of spitting on, licking doughnuts at shop, CBS Interactive Inc., July 8, 2015.
  5. ^ Yahoo News, Ariana Grande accused of licking and spitting on doughnuts in SoCal, KFSN, Fresno, CA, 2015.
  6. ^ Tanya Diente, Ariana Grande Receives Twitter Backlash Over Her Recent Donut-Licking, Spitting Stunt; Singer Unfollows Fans, International Business Times (IBT), 2015.

Semitransgenic talk. 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of the "news" sources said "lick" but did not mention any spitting (see this). The doughnut shop owner apparently stated that either Grande or her companion also spit on one or more doughnuts, but I don't know that this was verified by the video evidence. In any case, it is questionable whether the entire incident is of encyclopedic interest, so I think we are better off keeping our coverage of it as concise as possible, and, per WP:BLP, staying away from controversial accusations. Also, please note that all of this was discussed at length previously (see Archive 3 of this Talk page), and the language that has been in the article since August was arrived at by compromise and WP:Consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
can you address the WP:RS sources above that actually do say spit? and the video, with a couple of those news items, that shows camera footage of spitting? And, can I just clarify, before we waste anymore time here, are you disputing the usability of these sources? Semitransgenic talk. 23:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
First, I am disputing that the video shows this. The sources you cite merely quote the shop owner as accusing her of this after he reviewed the video. He later decided not to press charges. Moreover, the vast majority of sources that mention licking do NOT mention spitting. So, it would violate our WP:BLP policy to repeat this controversial accusation. Second, it would violate our guidelines of WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE to add more information about this minor incident to the article. Finally, a considerable number of editors looked at this incident and discussed it several months ago (see Archive 3) and arrived at a compromise by WP:CONSENSUS to use the language and sources that are used. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
you don't see her spitting in the footage? I find that difficult to believe. Consensus changes, it's not immutable. Per WP:VNT the sources are usable, even in a BLP. The addition of one word is not WP:UNDUE. I will get a content dispute rolling when I get chance. Semitransgenic talk. 23:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This alleged incident has been discussed before and I was under the impression that because of the lack of definite evidence it should not be included. It is a relatively minor incident and should not receive WP:UNDUE coverage. Jack1956 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Chipping in on the side of avoiding the "spitting". We're almost at the point of angels dacing on the head of a pin arguing over such a minor point, but I think that we should avoid using the term for a few reasons. Firstly no-one doubts or questions the "licking": so that definately has to be covered. The "spitting" is questioned. The omission from the majority of solid RSs raises a red flag to me. As this article is a BLP, we should err on the side of caution I think. With the event fully covered (possibly over-covered) in all other aspects, I think belabouring the point further would tip the balance past the point of WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2015

After it states that in 2015 she started working on her third album 'Moonlight' and her single 'Focus', it should also add that on the 17/12/15 she released a Christmas EP called 'Christmas and Chill" with 6 tracks - 'Intro', 'Wit It This Christmas', 'December', 'Not Just On Christmas', 'True Love and 'Winter Things" -- ArianaGrandeUnicornPegasusPony (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jem and the Holograms

Ariana Grande isn't in "Jem and the Holograms" -- added by User:Jeanpgamo

I agree. I can't find evidence that she was. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Alice Through The Looking Glass

I really can't find any information that supports Grande's appearance in Alice Through the Looking Glass. --GleekRicky98a (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nor can I. I deleted it. What is the deal with people adding performances that don't exist? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEAD; Christmas & Chill

WP:LEAD requires an overview of the most important information from the article to be in the Lead. For example, an EP that charted on the Billboard 200, such as Christmas & Chill should be mentioned briefly in the Lead, especially since Grande only has a few albums that have charted. Maybe in 10 years, if she has several more full length albums that chart, it will become less important and can be replaced by more important info, but currently it is one of the most important things about her career. This Lead is not overly detailed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Given the state of her career to date, the information is pertinent enough for inclusion. I suspect it may well be replaced at a later stage when more albums are released etc, but for the present it is as viable as anything else already included. – SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with above. If she manages to still chart high on the charts in the next couple of years, then yes, it can be removed. But for now, keep it there. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Ssilvers as stated above. Let's keep the info for the time being. Jack1956 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

User:Bigs7 added religion (Kabbalah) to the infobox. I do not believe that Grande's religion is important enough to go in the infobox even if properly referenced. Grande is not a clergyperson. The religion is discussed below adequately in the article. I oppose adding it also to the infobox. I suggest that User:Joseph Prasad comment here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding it to the infobox as long as it's properly sourced. Every reference the editor used, I could not see, so it appeared to be dead links. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the infobox altogether. It contains only redundant information, and if people want to add less important information to it, then I think it will be a detriment to the article. See WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Support removing the infobox. In my opinion they detract from an article and don't add anything that isn't included in the lead in good well-written articles like this one.Jack1956 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Also support the removal of this utterly pointless waste of space. CassiantoTalk 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

I would like to update the photo of Ariana. She is unhappy with that photo and we've requested a current and improved photo! Haylatakele (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2016 (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. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 00:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
To add a photo to Wikipedia article you first need to upload a free or properly licensed image. See our Upload Wizard. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Songwriter?

Ariana Grande writes some of her own songs and therefore is a songwriter, but the article just calls her a singer and actress, it doesn't call her a songwriter. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this before. Our compromise, at the time, was that since only a few of her songs from the first two albums had been written or co-written by Grande, we did not mention it in the infobox or Lead, but mentioned it in the body of the article. If it turns out that she does more of the writing on the third album we could add it. So, feel free to raise this issue again after the next album is released. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
But is wrong, you can't define a songwriter by how many songs they write, all that matters is that she does write songs. The compromise in that discussion wasn't a compromise it was giving in and it was original research as it wasn't based on any source. Just stating her to be a singer and not a songwriter is factually incorrect and slander, as it implies that she doesn't write any of her own songs, which is not the case. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not just numerical. Her songwriting has been incidential to her career. It has not been an important part of her career. Should we also list "perfume designer", "clothing designer", make-up entrepreneur, etc? No, not at this point in her career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I always try and think about a 'balance of notability' in such events. Is she known as a songwriter? No. Is it key or core to her career? No. She in the encyclopaedia for her notability in her singing career, so that's the focus in the lead, and her (so far) minimal songwriting is given an honourable mention in the body. If her songwriting becomes more important as her career progresses, it should, and will, rise up to the lead too. – SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean 'honourable mention'? It seems that you are implying that she didn't write the songs she is credited as writing. Since when does Wikipedia approve of articles being factually incorrect and slanderous? Jessie J only wrote 5 songs from Sweet Talker, yet she is referred to as a songwriter. It doesn't matter how many songs she has written, she still writes songs and therefore is a songwriter. By the definition of songwriter, she is a songwriter, the number of songs is irrelevant, there isn't a quota that has to be met in order to be considered a songwriter, if someone writes songs, they are a songwriter, regardless of how many songs they have written. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:BLPLEAD, the lead states what the individual is notable for, and Grande is not notable for songwriting. Her few co-writing credits (among many others credited) is not a significant part of her career. Two articles linked in the other discussion demonstrate this: [12], [13]. Dozens of pop artists fall in this category. Pop artists that are notable for songwriting include Taylor Swift, Adele, and Lady Gaga. If consensus here is that Grande shouldn't be called a songwriter in the lead/infobox then it won't be included. Like Ssilvers said, the subject can be reevaluated after every album. Lapadite (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Artistry" Section. Suggestion Fixing style/layout errors | Assisted by Citation bot

Okay soo....under the section entitled "artistry" about her musical influences, there is a giant picture of Mariah Carey, as well as a giant box containing a supposed quote made by Ariana about how Mariah Carey is "literally her favorite human being in the universe". It also goes on to insinuate that Ariana has copied Mariah's style by wearing "short dresses". Upon further perusing of this section, it is made quite obvious that Ariana is trying to create her own unique image and be seen as an individual artist rather than being compared to Mariah Carey and being known as a "Mariah Carey Wannabe" or a "Cheap Mariah Knockoff" or be seen as someone who is just trying to copy something that has already been done and emulate the persona of someone besides herself. She is clearly trying to carve out her own identity and I don't think Ariana or Mariah appreciate the constant comparisons stemming from a few similarities between two otherwise completely different and unique people. It devalues both of them as individuals. The way the information is presented makes Ariana seem like a crazed stalker who idolizes and worships Mariah Carey and has a secret shrine devoted to her in her bedroom closet. The reality is Mariah is simply one of several artists who has been and inspiration and an influence to Ariana, (as well as probably almost every other person in the world who has heard Mariah Carey sing...) and to whom her vocal range has been compared to. The implication that Ariana begun wearing "short dresses" in order to be more like Mariah is preposterous. There are many women who enjoy wearing short dresses, especially those who are petite or have short legs. The look is flattering and fashionable and comes in many styles. At the very least, the large picture of Mariah, as well as the box with the highlighted quote alluding to and perpetuating the idea that Ariana may have a shrine dedicated to Mariah in her closet, should both be removed. I know both Mariah and Ariana would really appreciate it if things like that would be removed so that they can disassociate themselves from one another and each continue their own independent legacy as an individual, unique, and one-of-a-kind person, artist, and entertainer. I know both of them would really like to move forward and away from the initial comparisons to each other so that they can continue to develop individually and freely as artists and people in the future. It would be the perfect time for someone to edit/revise/update/clean-up this section with Ariana's new album release coming up. It would be very nice of someone to help fix this section and this page for my new friend Ariana Grande. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristinSasha (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Instagram/twitter followers as part of Career

So Ssilvers insists the following paragraph is part of the Career section instead of Public Image. Other articles Justin_Bieber#Public_image are perfect examples. In a few months this info will be outdated. I don't get the point of writing that information in the middle of "Touring, Scream Queens, and Dangerous Woman", or if it is encyclopedic. Third opinions would be great.


Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

First you tried to delete the information. Then you moved it to the Personal life and philanthropy section. Now you want to move it to Public Image. However, the information is about Grande's success on social media. That is part of her Career. Social media, in addition to promoting an artist's career, is a significant income stream. I undertake to keep the information up to date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: Not sure we are following the same history. Please, as you can see here (my only edit about that) I moved it to Public Image, explaining my reasons. If still confused, check the revision. People like Justin Bieber and Katy Perry have amassed a larger internet following, and that information is perfectly handled on their Public image sections. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that it belongs in the Public Image section, as I already said above. Let's let others comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: Of course. Just wanted to clarify your reply, with edits I've never made. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Career for me, per Ssilvers. – – SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Career also for me, following the points made by Ssilvers above. Jack1956 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

change picture to this : Dangerous Woman album cover

its more recent

Theinfernolibra (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: An album cover is appropriate for the article about the album, but it should not be used here. It cannot, under any circumstances, be used as an illustration of how Grande looks now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

It says that "Dangerous Woman" was released on March 10, but all other pages say March 11. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was released on March 10, according to this, this ("has debuted"), this, among others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It is to do with time zones, from EST onwards it is March 11, which is most places, it is only March 10 for 5 or so time zones, so we should list it as March 11. Also the sentence about "Dangerous Woman" in overview is very badly worded, it only just about makes sense. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, she released at 11pm EST on March 10. This also says that the release date was March 10. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That source works on PST. It is still the minority of time zones where it was March 10, it is that date for less than 10 time zones, it is March 11 for almost 20. The page for the album and the page for the single say March 11, because that was the date in the vast majority of countries. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which time zone the majority were released in: the date it came out was 10 March. – SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
March 10 was only the date in less than 10 time zones, it was March 11 for almost 20, it was at the exact same time but the date was different, it was March 10 21:00 (PST) but March 11 00:00 (EST). I am not disputing when it was released, I am saying that for EST onwards, the date was March 11! What don't you understand? Also, the date was officially announced as March 11 not March 10! The album page, the single page and Ariana Grande discography say March 11, because that was the date for the vast majority of the world. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
We don't ever go with the "vast majority of the world": we go with the date of release in the first territory. In this case it's March 10. The other pages are not something to rely upon (see WP:CIRCULAR for why not). – SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
But the release date was officially announced as March 11, not March 10! Why aren't the other pages something to rely on?! They are all on this website and are about the same thing! The "in the first territory" rule applies when it is separate dates for different countries, not when it is the same time for every country just different local time! 90.192.207.49 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[Left]Dear anonymous poster: Where was it "officially" announced as March 11? Give us the url to the publisher's official announcement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This source [14] states that Ariana herself confirmed the date as March 11 in a live stream. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That source is not helpful. It was published long before the fact. We need a source that says that the song "was released" on the date you say, and which source is more authoritative than the several that I have already cited that state that it was March 10. I imagine that if you are patient, authoritative sources will emerge. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
How's this [15], the source used on the page for the single. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
That source says that the song was released "on Thursday", March 10! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I just assumed since it was used as a source for it being released March 11. How about this[16]? 90.192.207.49 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Fusion.net? Please wait until the Billboard charts come out, when there will be articles about the song by major sources that should clearly state the official release date. We can resolve this discussion then. In the meantime, why don't you register an account on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for the reasons why this will be beneficial. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, lets go with the date it was in the US, which was March 10. Could you change the album and single pages to match as I can't due to them being semi-protected. Also, could you change the sentence about it in the overview as it is very bad wording, it only just about makes sense. 90.192.207.49 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Done here, but I don't have the time to keep arguing with people on all the other pages. I already changed the date elsewhere, but my change was reverted. Eventually, it will all get worked out, or else it will be slightly wrong. If you register an account, you can edit them, and/or you can argue with them on the Talk pages. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Official Release Date

March 11 is the official date, while it was released on iTunes at 23:00 March 10, it's because it always refreshes early, as shown by previous singles being released the day before at 23:00. We also can't go by sources working on any time zone with a larger UTC offset than EST (-5), as they'll be going by local time (which would have been March 10) not the official date. As well as this, the official Global Music Release Day is Friday, meaning that the official release date has to be March 11. It was released on other services (Spotify, Tidal, Amazon Music, Google Play, etc.) on March 11, not March 10, iTunes is the only service where it was released on March 10 (which was because they refreshed early), everywhere else it was released on March 11. 5.65.170.82 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Done —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Reverted. See discussion above. Also, your conversion of the cite to the template format contains several errors and was unnecessary. Moreover, I can't imagine why the date of the album's release was deleted. Please be more careful, Skyllfully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It was released early on one service so that means the official release date doesn't matter? You have clearly ignored what I put above. 5.65.170.82 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You have not persuaded me what the "official" release date was. What is the "official" source? In a couple of days, the Billboard chart will come out listing the song, and then writers will state the accepted release date. As I suggested in the discussion above, if we wait until then, we should have a clear release date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The official Global Music Release Day is Friday, so music has to be released on a Friday, meaning that the official date has to be March 11. As I said, it was released on other services (Spotify, Tidal, Amazon Music, Google Play, etc.) on March 11, it was only released on iTunes on March 10 and that was because it refreshed early like it always does. Why are you insistent of discarding the official date for the iTunes date which was early? 5.65.170.82 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please show us the official source that clearly states what the "official Global Music Release Day" was for this song. See our policy WP:V for more information. Billboard said it was March 10, so unless you can prove that you have an "official" source that is more authoritative, Billboard would seem to be the official source for the date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Official Global Music Release Day is for ALL music, here's a source[17]. 5.65.170.82 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a much better source. If you had linked the article on Global Release Day, I'd have believed you sooner. OK, I'll switch it to March 11. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Marking request as answered. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Could you re-phrase the statement to something like "on March 11, 2016 she released "Dangerous Woman", the lead single from her third album of the same name" it would make a lot more sense. 5.65.170.82 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. The full date is further down in the article. Note, btw, that Billboard's most recent article is still identifying the release date as March 10. You would think that the date given in main music industry magazine would be the right one to cite. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request on 26 March

In the Life and Career section, I think it would be better to have it as "2013–15: Yours Truly, My Everything and The Honeymoon Tour" and then "2016–present: Dangerous Woman" (eventually put the album's tour in the heading as well) because a single from My Everything was released in 2015, The Honeymoon Tour was in support of My Everything and now "Focus" isn't a single from the album, nothing to do with Dangerous Woman was released in 2015, the things that took place in the year were related to My Everything and so should be under the same heading, plus nothing in 2015 was significant enough to warrant putting it at the start of a new section, and it was the end of the My Everything era, not the start of a new one. Dangerous Woman is actually a new era so should be the start of a new section. 90.208.254.174 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The sections are balanced better as is. Dangerous Woman was largely recorded in 2015, so whatever we do, there will be overlap. The headings are for ease of navigation. They might be re-balanced in the future, but at present, 2013–2015 would be too long a section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ariana Grande. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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 11:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Personal life and philanthropy, "Break Your Heart Right Back" and "Break Free" are in italics, when they shouldn't be as they are singles, they should just be in " ". 2A02:C7D:2D07:1900:F914:DF25:93BD:B9D5 (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

Under personal life and philanthropy section, second sentence please remove the "(who is gay)". Her brother's sexual preference and private life has nothing to do with the content. This is Ariana Grande's personal life not her brothers. Change from:She has followed Kabbalah teachings since the age of twelve or earlier, along with her brother Frankie (who is gay) to: She has followed Kabbalah teachings since the age of twelve or earlier, along with her brother Frankie Selinmtn (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Selin Tamer

Done While is sexual orientation was part of her reason of abandoning Catholicism, I agree the way it's written isn't idea and makes it seem like some random fact was just tossed in there with no context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Grande left the church at age 12 entirely because her brother is gay, so it is an essential part of the article. I've rewritten it to clarify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

"Grande was raised a Roman Catholic but abandoned Catholicism during the reign of Pope Benedict,[156] citing opposition to the church's stance on homosexuality,[5][157] noting that her brother, Frankie is gay."

This feels like whitewashing. In the sources given she says, "‘[The church] said Spongebob Squarepants is gay and he’s a sinner and he should burn in hell. And Harry Potter was a sin. And working women. I was like “Enough! First the gays, then Spongebob and now Harry Potter? Get out my house!” I was not having it. And the working woman thing? It was a moment for me. I needed something else to believe in,’ she ranted."

Why be selective? Include all the information, even if she is spouting misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.32.45 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Selective is exactly what we should be doing: this is a summary article that focuses on the important and ignores the trivial. Adding the info you've cited leans too much toward the trivial. – SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Only focusing on the homosexual part is misleading. She said some stupid shit and you're trying to cover it up because you know how idiotic it makes her look. [This comment was added by 95.144.32.45 (talk) on 30 June 2016]
Please sign your Talk page comments by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~ . We do not quote all the random comments that people make on their social media or to the press. This is an encyclopedia, so we only include important, noteworthy information. I agree with SchroCat that the material in the quote that you cite above is not encyclopedic, except with respect to explaining why Grande made the significant decision to leave the religion in which she was raised. Therefore, I Oppose your edit request. Thanks. Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


Occupations

Why wouldn't Grande be considered a songwriter or fashion designer? I've added my edits and they were removed so I'm wondering why she wouldn't be called these things. Also, Nicki Minaj would be an associated act, because Grande is credited as one on Minaj's Wiki page. Thanks. --DangerousWomanAri (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you have finally made it to the talk page. I have removed your edit again on two grounds. Firstly because, as per WP:STATUS QUO, the original version should remain while a change is being discussed, and secondly because this article is a biography of a living person. We have higher standards of referencing on these articles in order to protect both the subjects and Wikipedia. Not all the information you have added is supported by the text as it currently stands, and will need further citations if it is to remain in the future.
The information you added to the IB is more fancruft than anything else, and isn't - in my opinion at least - worth adding; "less is more" is an adage that is also pertinent when dealing with IBs too. (Instrument: Vocals is one example) If an entry in an IB raises more questions than it answers it should probably be left out, and I would think "fashion designer" as an occupation fits that bill. Genre of "Dance-pop" is unsupported by any sources within the text, as is Minaj as an "associated act" (and it matters little what Minaj's article says). Others may well have differing points of view, but that's my thoughts on your additions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DangerousWomanAri. I agree with SchroCat that, with respect to the Infobox, less is more. WP:INFOBOX says: "The less information [an Infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." This is very important: When you ask a question on the Talk page, give other editors a few days to respond. Many people do not work on Wikipedia every day, and Talk page discussions often move slowly. Please be patient on Wikipedia. To answer your questions: First, whether Grande is considered a "songwriter" as one of her *main* occupations is not totally clear at this point. Although she is one of several writers on some of her songs, it is hard to say whether she is a significant contributor to those songs. Per WP:CONSENSUS, lets hear from more users on this topic and see if we can come to an agreement on the issue. As for fashion designer, she is NOT a fashion designer. She has dabbled in fashion design. If she spent a very significant part of her time designing fashion, that would be a different story. Also, associated acts are usually not included in infoboxes. If she and Minaj always toured together, or were a group, like the Spice Girls, then she might be mentioned in the infobox. But in this case, they have merely included each other in a few songs, and this can be mentioned further down in the body of the article. Please read WP:CONSENSUS for a description of how people resolve discussions on Wikipedia Talk pages. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

Ariana Grande's real name is Alhabibi Kula Lumpur I saw it on facebook and some comments said it's true


112.205.223.160 (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - facebook is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled concert Not invited to sing

@Ssilvers: I believe that this does not violate WP:BLP and has encyclopedic value. It shows one of the real-life consequences of the controversy being discussed. I understand that cancelled concerts don't always merit mention, but I think this one is notable in its connection to the controversy. FallingGravity (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing was cancelled; she just was not scheduled to perform on this occasion. In addition to the BLP guideline, I do not think it is of encyclopedic importance: See WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. There is plenty there already about the donut incident; possibly too much. Grande released her third studio album this year, and four of the songs on it charted, and people want to spend more ink in the article to expand the discussion about the donut incident? I don't see how that comports with WP:WEIGHT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:RECENT factors in here since it happened about a year ago, although the information was recently leaked. Regarding, WP:WEIGHT, all I currently read in the section on the scandal is how some people (including Ariana Grande) made fun of it. This incident reveals a real consequence that Ariana faced from the scandal, so I think it adds something new to the section and maintains balance. FallingGravity (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The news of this non-event is out this week. That is why someone tried to change the article today, so it is obviously WP:RECENTism; plus the vetting of Grande happened when the donut incident was Fresh ... er ... Recent. There is no significant consequence: no performance was cancelled; she simply did not perform *again* at the White House on that one occasion. She has performed there previously, and this insignificant incident will fade over time. The only reason that this "news" has been picked up beyond Gawker and the gossip press is because of the interest in the press in the disclosures by wikileaks of hacked DNC emails in an election year; again, WP:RECENT. It would be fine with me if we deleted all the stuff regarding parodies of the incident, but we'd have to get a consensus for that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there is probably enough on the incident. Her not being asked to sing isn't noteworthy enough IMO. – SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky Alvarez

Why Ricky isnt shown as her (ex-)boyfriend? EDigen (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Because he is not a notable, blue-linked person. If they got married, of course, we would mention him, or if they keep dating for a few years, then I guess we would mention him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

Add 'Scream Queens (Season 1)' to the Television credits. -- Barryanoland (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is already there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Several performances in External links?

Seems like a professional résumé where you show the best of you while attempting to apply for a job. Why are Youtube links of her performances in that section? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not? There is nothing to stop us linking to examples of their work, so people unfamiliar with the artiste can see them in action. – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about a performer. We illustrate it with photographs of her in performance, and we include links to a few particularly interesting videos that illustrate the scope and progress of her career, especially ones that are not on her own official YouTube Vevo channel. This seems is basic to me good practice. Obviously, an encyclopedia biography and a resume will contain many of the same things. What Wikipedia should include is information that is interesting to a general reader of this encyclopedia. We do not want to mention every little radio interview or promotional appearance, but we do want to include some links to representative or particularly interesting clips of the performer doing what makes her notable or that vividly illustrate her progress from her early career to more recent work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The point is that wikipedia policy very strongly discourages external links. Please refer to WP:ELNO. If these video are so important to the article, a free version should be uploaded to Wikimedia and then linked to there. Nyth63 11:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Nyth83, Just a few pointers to some errors in what you've written (in AGF, I'm sure). ELNO is a guideline, not a policy; the guideline suggests we should "generally avoid" certain types of links, and in no way "very strongly discourages" them. Just because something is not a copyright infringement, it does not mean we are able to upload to Commons (that's akin to saying something is viewable on television, therefore I can upload it here: it's completely wrong in terms of our policies (and guidelines) and general copyright law). In terms of the links in this article, are you claiming that the links in question fail one or more of the criteria listed at ELNO? - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I did not review it myself, I did not care that much in this case. I was just pointing out that there are GUIDELINES that can be referred to in situations like this and not just rely on POV type statements like "This seems basic to me". (Of course there are yet more GUIDELINES about WP:POV). The GUIDELINES were created to help address issues of copyright and also to help generate some uniformity of style all across Wikipedia. If the original commenter has concerns about the appropriateness of the external links they can review and quote any appropriate GUIDELINE they believe is relevant. I just wanted them and the first responder to be aware that they have other resources available as to what is appropriate and not just guesswork. (PS, What the heck is AGF?) Nyth63 13:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Can I suggest that next time you want to make definitive statements (like "wikipedia policy very strongly discourages external links"), you should make sure that you have read the relevant information beforehand? It's easy to criticise statements like "This seems basic to me", but when you make fundamental errors of fact in your own statements, you do leave yourself wide open both to wholescale corrections, and to it being pointed out that the initial poster has made their judgement based on their own POV. Of course, in this case, the question of copyright is a moot one: the links all point towards official YouTube channels, so there is no infringement here. If either you or the original poster wish to make any comments about the individual links as compared against the list at ELNO, they can be discussed further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
What were the criteria used for choosing these 4 videos? If we expect uniformity of style all accross WP, there's an issue with this. This is the only article (bio) featuring a list of performances (from Youtube) in EL. Editors from FA and GA won't include it in those articles, for a reason. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
As I noted above, I selected clips that are representative or particularly interesting clips of the performer doing what makes her notable or that vividly illustrate her progress from her early career to more recent work. Just like all editorial decisions that we make here on Wikipedia, we include content about a subject that is the most noteworthy and interesting to our users over the long term. We exclude gossip and recentisim, like who a performer is dating. See WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:WEIGHT, as well as our other content policies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Uniformity" is a relative term in WP (and I really wouldn't base your arguments on what Nyth83 has written, given the numerous errors he's come up with!) I also wouldn't make claims like "This is the only article featuring a list of performances (from Youtube) in EL" (are you sure? Have you checked them all? I've seen several articles with similar links in them). Your last sentence makes no sense, I'm afraid: who says editors from FA and GA (whoever they may be) wouldn't include it? - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
In biographies if it wasn't clear enough. FA would never include that, see for youself trying to add it. I'd like to know the criteria used for choosing these 4 videos. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no ban on putting links like this through at FA. Have you taken an article through the FA process and had the link removed? - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I would completely ignore any comment here from SchroCat as they do not seem to be capable of making reasoned augments without making personal attacks. Nyth63 22:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Errrmmm... Could you identify where the supposed personal attack is? I have made absolutely no attacks here whatsoever, and your accusation is a calumny. – SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016

Ariana Grande Is Currently Dating Mac Miller. Volleyball666 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See discussion in Mac Miller section above. 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Dan D. Ric (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Voice

The claim that Ms Grande has a four octave vocal range is ludicrous. Most opera singers would sing over a range of two octaves and a range of three would be exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baroquesmguy (talk • contribs) 03:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources cited state this information. If you have better sources that dispute it, please present them. As a matter of fact, however, Grande's recordings demonstrate an unusually broad range, due to her use of whistle register. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Terry-Thomas, for what it's worth, had a range of four-and-a-half octaves. – SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that Ariana is a legend, that's all. (User talk:RiriNavy4Ever) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

2016 music pop: Ariana Grande is making one new song and one new album, the album is moonlight. Her second is with 1d also known as one direction its "called" together it is by one direction and feats ariana grande it is about how one direction and their band gets along with each other and how they work together like a team.

If you want us to add information to the article, you need to cite your source. See WP:V for more information. In addition, you need to establish why the information is noteworthy. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariana_Grande/Archive_3&oldid=1136529466"