Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Edit her sales records and information/voice type/professions

Ariana is a producer/vocal arranger/editor/engineer like she said, she's a songwriter, and she has sold 52.2M records in the USA confirmed by RIAA Her voice type is also a light lyric soprano This is poorly edited Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources were not provided for these claims, and those professions aren’t notable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Those professions are notable so you can put that she's a record producer in the zach sang show, just like how every important vocal page out there says she's a light lyric soprano, and the recording industry of America(RIAA) already confirmed that she sold that You keep being blind Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

She said it on the zach sang show Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Provide actual sources or nothing will be implemented into the article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

https://vocalview.tumblr.com/post/149475803919/ariana-grande-voice-type

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAS#search_section Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tumblr is not a source. BawinV (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not tumblr, it's a vocal professional page and she's sold 76M records, 52.2M singles, 7M albums and 17 million in the U.K. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it’s Tumblr. “vocalview.tumblr.com”. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Here by business time https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/129261/20200327/camila-cabello-ariana-grande-different-speaking-and-singing-voices-explained.htm @D🐶ggy54321 Moonlight Entm (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Already implemented into the article under the voice section (Grande is a light lyric soprano). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please put she's a producer, cause she is, she also has her production credits in her live album, K Bye for Now (SWT Live) which she produced/vocal produced/engineered/mixed Moonlight Entm (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, not without sources calling Grande as an act a producer. Once again I am bringing up Taylor Swift. On her past two albums, Folklore and Evermore, she has production credits on 11/33 songs from the two albums combined. She has songwriting credits on 33/33. That is why she is a songwriter, not a producer. Just like how Grande produced some of her own songs, it doesn’t make her a producer. I can’t explain this in 1826 different ways. What do you not get? For a profession to be notable, the profession must be significant in the person's career, significant enough that when they die, they will be remembered as a blank. When Grande dies, she will be remembered for her singing and her acting, as those are notable professions she has demonstrated throughout her career and that are present enough to make a lasting impact on her legacy. When Swift dies, she will be remembered for her singing and songwriting, as those are notable professions she has demonstrated time and time again throughout her career and that are present enough to make a lasting impact on her legacy. I have gone through my statements with boldface to make the important words stand out to you, so that you understand. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So you won't put she's a record producer just because she's known for singing, that's totally ridiculous, if it's like that you have to remove that she's a songwriter too, your statement doesn't make any sense at all, "just because she has produced some of her songs" "doesn't make her a producer" noo then what she is? A person who gave herself production credits without producing nothing? This about how many professions an artist is, it doesn't matter if they are known for that or not, is in what they are specialized for, not if people recognize them as those professions, swift is recognized as a fashion designer when she hasn't really done something relevant there, for you professions are what artists are known for, but that's just discrediting the artist, cause an artist can be a lot of professions like Michael Jackson was never known as a writer/producer but he was in all of his music, he is only known for being an a entertainer and singer who didn't write or produce his music, it's sad cause ariana has always wanted to be recognized as that, as a vocal producer/producer, specially the first one she hasn't stopped vocal producing her music since her debut so is relevant, I've already gave you sources like the zach sang show which she said she's a producer same as the credits of her live album, when she wasn't famous she had a studio in her home where she produced all her music when she was 15 too Moonlight Entm (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You won't put she's a record producer just because she's known for singing, that's totally ridiculous – It’s not a matter of me putting what I want in the article, but rather it’s about making sure that professions are notable and, if asked, can be presented in many different formats. For example, Swift directed a couple of her music videos. Does that make her a director? Nope. She doesn’t have the longevity. To put it into perspective, professions should be what that artist is known for. If people are asked "What does Ariana Grande do?", most people would answer with "she sings" or "she acts", because those are notable professions.

If it's like that you have to remove that she's a songwriter too – I’ve been removing the fact that she is a songwriter time and time again and will continue to do that, because no one provided sources.

That's just discrediting the artist, [be]cause an artist can be a lot of professions – Grande has a YouTube channel, yet she is not a YouTuber. She has social media, yet she is not an Internet personality. She was on Broadway, yet is not a Broadway actor. She created a perfume, yet she is not known for said perfume. She created a documentary, she isn’t a movie star. So on and so forth.

It's sad [be]cause [A]riana has always wanted to be recognized as [a] vocal producer/producer – Vocal producer =/= producer. A vocal producer is someone who produces the vocals. An executive producer is someone who pays the money. An assistant producer is someone who assists in producing. A producer does all of these. Please have a neutral mindset while conversing over talk pages. Saying it's sad is biased.

She hasn't stopped vocal producing her music since her debut [album]
[She produced] her live album
When she wasn't famous she had a studio in her home where she produced all her music when she was 15 too

Is there a source for any of this?

Then what [is she]? A person who gave herself production credits without producing [anything]? – No, her notability as a producer is just unproven by sources.

She said she's a producer – ... Grande can say she is a producer til' the cows come home, but no one will include it on Wikipedia unless backed up by several reliable sources, independent from the subject. Several meaning more than 5 sources saying she is a producer. Reliable sources meaning not YouTube or Tumblr. As a general rule of thumb, anything that is green on this list can be used as a reliable source, unless stated otherwise. Independent from the subject meaning someone other than Grande or someone who knows her takes time out of their day to recognize, write and publish a source saying that Grande is a producer. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A vocal producer is a vocal arranger and vocal editor, a producer is the one that coaches everything and makes it perfect, a executive producer is the one who commercializes the promotion and pays the money, if you want to see sources go to tidal and Spotify credits which are all reliable ones which she has been credited for 6 of her albums in vocal producing, here's another source too https://www.nylon.com/entertainment/ariana-grande-vocal-lesson

However I think useless to convince you that all artists deserved their credit for what they do not only in what they are famous at, okay them watch the credits for sources Moonlight Entm (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: Ok, I’m going to ask you a question. Would it make sense for the lead sentence to say "Ariana Grande-Butera (/ˌɑːriˈɑːnə ˈɡrɑːndeɪ/, born June 26, 1993) is an American singer, songwriter, actress, producer, vocal producer, perfumer, social media personality, model, dancer, philanthropist and activist"? No, it wouldn’t. Yet, she is credited for all of those. She dances on her tours. She models pieces of clothing from time to time. She posts on her social media. She created two perfumes. She has an active passion for philanthropy and activism. She produced her live album. She has songwritten for herself as well as artists like Blackpink and Normani. She has vocal produced some of her songs. Yet, we cannot include everything, only the most prominent ones in her career (the notable ones). As well, please note that "singer" and "actress" are detailed in the body of the article. Songwriter isn’t, producer isn’t, vocal producer isn’t, etc. As well, that source that you gave referred to Grande as a singer: Ariana Grande knows better than most singers how to make a make a pop hit. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You can put the most notable which are singer/songwriter/vocal producer/actress and that's it, ariana has more than 2 perfumes actually, and her brand made 500M, but that's not we are discussing about, she has not vocal produced some of her songs, she has vocal produced almost her entire discography, however she indeed is also very notable as an philanthropist, why you can't put she's a producer cause she is she mixes/engines her songs and also vocal produces her songs Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think a more viable option would be to include these in the Infobox. I believe that the information covered in the article should be in the first sentence. The article goes in-depth about her singing career and her acting career, so those should be in the lead sentence. Stuff such as songwriter, vocal producer, etc that are not detailed in the article can be added in the occupation section of the Infobox. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And also why can't i edit the page anymore Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The page is indefinitely extended confirmed protected because of sock puppetry, so until you hit 500 edits, you can’t edit the page. You will need to use {{edit extended-protected}} on the talk page until then. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC - Ariana Grande's notability as a songwriter

There has been an ongoing debate between editors since October 2020, and probably even before then. The debate is about if Ariana Grande should be listed as a songwriter. Generally, editors who support this idea cite that she has written almost all of her songs since her debut album Yours Truly (2013), while editors who oppose this idea cite that no sources have been given establishing/proving Grande's notability as a songwriter. I have decided to start an RfC as consensus isn’t forming yet. Please keep comments short, staying on topic, and be mindful of Wikipedia policies such as the synthesis of material policy, the biographies of living persons policy, the no original research policy and the neutral point-of-view policy. Thank you! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've said enough about it already. This is going for months now. Grande is credited as writer for most of her songs, she co-written songs for other artists. Her songwriter and producers all confirmed it too. There are sources who mention her as her songwriter, I included one of them here. And it seems like I'm not the only who sees it that way. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide those sources, then? Wikipedia’s policy on biographies of living persons states that all sources used in the article need to be reliable. I just debunked why the source you already provided was unreliable per WP:HEADLINE. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You make it more complex than it is. There's always something new, just because YOU don't think so. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there is always something new. What about it? I’m reading the different policies and finding out more and more every day. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: there has been no evidence provided that Grande is a notable songwriter like she is an actress or a singer. Therefore, the claim that Grande is a notable songwriter is WP:NOR otherwise, and in turn, is violating WP:BLP. It’s like saying Grande is a vocal producer because she vocal produced some of her songs. Unless Grande is a notable vocal producer, that information should not be added to the article. I don’t understand why no one can provide sources. If the sky is blue, then cite it. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if it's like that than Taylor Swift is no actress, and she's also no producer. Maybe I will remove that too. Mhh. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

...Okay, just be sure to justify your reasoning through edit summary, and stick to WP:BRD (if someone reverts it, don’t revert back). I can’t stop you from editing. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you don't need to worry. No one will add this back. If you really think I will let it go, then you don't know me very well. This debate will end today. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

1: One of her writers who confirmed her strong involvement in songwriting:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-thank-u-next-savan-kotecha-interview-791280/amp/

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/09/691376280/thank-u-text-ariana-grandes-collaborators-break-down-the-artist-s-latest-album?t=1606565259043

2. There's described how SHE wrote three versions of the same song:

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ariana-grande-wrote-three-versions-thank-u-next-pete-davidson/amp

3: She's described as singer-SONGWRITER:

https://get.theappreciationengine.com/2019/03/19/ariana-grande-digital-marketing-campaign/

https://www.browndailyherald.com/2020/11/01/ariana-grande-expresses-love-language-goes-backward-new-album-positions/

https://www.bet.com/topics/a/ariana-grande.html&ved=2ahUKEwjO9fy-naXtAhXF_qQKHWxKCXE4ChAWMAd6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw16fNQfUokFR4oGEV0q7g8q

https://www.popbuzz.com/music/artists/ariana-grande/news/songwriter-breathin-break-up-unreleased-demos/

https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/67737/ariana-grande-is-part-of-ice-cream-blackpinks-song-with-selena-gomez/story

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ariana-grande-track-list-positions-album/amp

https://www.pride.com/music/2020/11/05/definitive-ranking-ariana-grandes-six-studio-albums

https://www.billboard.com/music/ariana-grande

You say one of your favorite artist is Ariana Grande, but do you really think she wasn't really involved as a songwriter in albums like Sweetener and Thank U, Next? Albums that have very personal and intimate songs about her personal life? Do you really think her songwriters alone came up with that? Mirrored7 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As per the Feedback Request Service, here are my two cents' worth:

Mirrored7, you are dancing precariously close to incivility; stop taking this personally. If you find you cannot respond without attacking others, you need to step away and re-approach this article some other time. You need to edit collaboratively with others to build any lasting change in an article, and you are - to be blunt - shooting yourself in the foot here. Stop.
Secondly, we appear to have multiple links to reliable sources that call her a singer-songwriter. The litmus for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If she so much as adds a glissando to a lyric, she legally has writing credit. That's cut and dried.
Lastly, I am wondering if the term 'notable' is what has everyone up in arms. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm really trying to work on my temper, you are definitely speaking some truth. As for your final sentences, we're not in the room with the artists to see who writes how much in a song. We don't even know if Taylor Swift really writes all of her songs alone or if she might have a co-writer as well. The fact is, there are sources that refer to her as a songwriter, sources that also say she is more involved in her songwriting. Also, all of her credits should be sufficient to confirm that she is the author of most of her songs. There are artists who are not even considered to be 'real' artists, but who are still included in their lead as songwriter. Some of them don't even have a 'source' or a credit to their name. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: @Mirrored7: You're repeatedly fixated on Swift; I hope you know that none of your "points" on Swift help adding "songwriter" to Grande's article. It only shows us that you're incapable of proving your point about Grande, and thus you resort to comments on other topics. You, with your own words, also admitted that you would violate WP:POINT, by making disruptive edits to other articles to prove your point. Making a mistake is different. Violating a rule on purpose would not be tolerated. Please abstain from that. Regards. BawinV (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If I may offer a bit more advice, I would suggest that everyone take a knee for a moment. There is zero reason to get upset about this. Look, this might be easier to resolve. We don't have to sort out what happens in the studio or production booth. Do we have even one source that credits her with the writing or co-writing of a song? If so, then >p00f!< she's a songwriter.

As well, its extremely important to keep in mind that this is a real live person's biography; we aren't going to add any negative information or take away anything she may very well have earned without a truckload of references to support any negative info. We need to tread very carefully here, moreso than with most articles.

If we have a reliable source that calls her a songwriter, that's all we need. Add it and let's move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I wasn't commenting on whether Grande is a songwriter or not. I do not wish to take part in that discussion. My comment was merely to highlight Mirrored's WP:POINT-violating behavior, and that they should stick to the topic instead of uncivil whataboutist wavering. Regards. BawinV (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

BawinV, I get that (and I agree), but sometimes its better to address civility issues on a user's talk page; that way, interpersonal conflicts don't bleed into article discussions (as much). As well, Mirrored7's behavior was already called out; does repeatedly addressing someone's mistakes make them more willing to pull back and re-evaluate their approach, or less? Give the user a chance to pull back, reassess and then re-engage without feeling they have to run the gauntlet to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You might wanna go check the user's talk page, and see all my initiated discussions unanswered. Also, you're branching away from the core of this discussion. I'm talking about THIS talk discussion here. I'm talking about the fact that editors debating on Grande's article should stick to Grande, and do not encourage WP:POINT by irrelevantly inserting unnecessary topics. BawinV (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

{{BawinV}}, the sound you are hearing is the whooshing of the point missing you. I've said my piece. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: First off, you didn’t ping BawinV in your chat message, so I did it now. Second, thank you for calling out Mirrored's incivility. As much as I appreciate you contributing to the discussion, Bawin and I have worked with Mirrored for about five months now. From previous behaviour, they don’t seem to respond to discussions on their talk page, so I think it’s become a bit of a habit to detail these things we are trying to discuss everywhere, in hopes that they finally see it. I know this isn’t ideal, but trust me, we’ve tried everything else. Anyways - this is about Grande, so let’s try to stick to that, and not problems we might have outside of this discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

--

@Mirrored7 and Jack Sebastian: I think a more viable option would be the following: singer and actress in the lead sentence (Ariana Grande-Butera (/ˌɑːriˈɑːnə ˈɡrɑːndeɪ/, born June 26, 1993) is an American singer and actress.), singer and actress in the short description ( {{short description|American singer and actress}}), singer, actress, songwriter, vocal producer in Infobox (|occupation={{hlist|Singer|actress|songwriter|vocal producer}}). I’m going to pose a question to you two. What is the career section of the article about? It’s about Grande, but what does it detail? The correct answer would be her singing career and her acting career. This is why it makes sense to have singer and actress in the first sentence/short description.

But, along with Moonlight Entm, you have all convinced me that both songwriter and vocal producer shouldn't be ignored and that they both warrant mentions, since she does songwrite and she does vocal produce. This is why I am proposing inclusion in the Infobox. They aren’t occupations that warrant a mention in the SD/lead sentence, because the purpose of those two are both to preface the article for the viewers, and listing four professions isn't exactly fair to the viewer when only two are prominent in the article. But, the purpose of the Infobox is to provide a general background on the subject, so I don’t see why these couldn’t be added (they would just need to be reliably sourced, but there are almost a dozen sources above, so I’m not worried). If everyone could please reply back with their thoughts, that would be awesome. (As well, other users besides these three are most definitely allowed to comment). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I've said my bit. Do what thou will. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Agreed. Songwriting is not her main forte, and she's not known as songwriter, like she's as an actress or singer, so fair enough. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Thank you for your comment. I’d implement the changes but I’d like to wait a couple more days, just in case anyone else wants to voice support or oppose this idea before I close the RfC as the editor who opened the discussion. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 February 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Change ... and revealed that Mac Miller thought her how to work with Pro Tools to ... and revealed that Mac Miller taught her how to work with Pro Tools ("thought" should be "taught"). — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Ari (singer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ari (singer). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Ari (singer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Voice

Hello. I recently found evidence of Grande being able to hit notes past the fourth octave all the way up to the seventh. Was hoping to get some additional insight on this from others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOQTRXPvwTk Do any of you believe this is accurate and reliable to include? If so, it would be beneficial to update this information. Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: WP:SELFPUB on a WP:BLP is not allowed. That YouTube account is not verified. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ariana-grande-john-legend-record-beauty-beast-duet-disney-film-963725 Grande recorded the title track of the soundtrack for the 2017 live-action remake of Disney's 1991 animated film Beauty and the Beast. The recording was released as a duet with American singer John Legend in February 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desa scholar (talk • contribs) 05:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Mirrored7 ^(talk) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to add image

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I would like to add an image to the Endorsements subheading under Other Ventures that specifically relates to this content.

File:Ariana Grande Lipsy London 2016 Photoshoot.jpg Film Enthusiast (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Film Enthusiast that file looks to me to be likely Commons:License laundering. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ariana went on 3 world tours and two mini ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.170.137 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Ari has been cast on The Voice Season 21 as a judge. Please add it to her current career achievements. https://pagesix.com/2021/03/30/ariana-grande-joins-the-voice-as-a-coach-replaces-nick-jonas/ https://tvline.com/2021/03/30/the-voice-ariana-grande-season-21-nick-jonas-leaving/ Redandvidya (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Done WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ariana Grande known for "fashion" in lead

@Mirrored7: Regarding this revert here, please add your source in first before changing the article lead. Or better yet, since it was challenged and removed at least once before, you should discuss it here first before starting an edit war.

I still stand behind my statement that your edit is directly contradicted by prose that's already in the article (...Grande received less attention "for how little she wears or how graphically she moves than for how she sings." and Anne T. Donahue of MTV News noted that her "iconic" high ponytail has received more attention than her fashion choices.). If Grande is known for fashion, that's fine, but this discrepancy needs to be fixed with the addition of reliable sources before the statement is added to the lead. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: I'm a little more than annoyed that you went ahead and reverted again without answering any of my concerns here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Since you are editing again and still ignoring the talk page, can you at least point out what source you are talking about in this edit? Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aoi: In my experience, Mirrored7 is a fancruft-motivated editor who never respects talk page discussions or any guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia. This article is in a very tarnished state. I don't know what else to say. BawinV (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Change ˈɡrɑːndiː to ˈɡɹændiː as per https://genius.com/a/the-real-way-to-pronounce-ariana-grande (which does not, in fact, contradict the current source) – KovacsUr (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Genius is unreliable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Um... it's a video of her explaining how her name is actually pronounced. Are you suggesting it's a deepfake? – KovacsUr (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the source currently provided is fine, it is the IPA transcription that is wrong (and is not supported by the current source). – KovacsUr (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Ariana Grande are not pronounced with the same sound. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

I believe we should consider the addition of a "legacy" section for this page. She has been known since the beginning of her career as a music and fashion icon, her ponytail alone is a pop culture phenomenon. She is regularly praised by music critics and the public for her music, vocals and clothing styles. All her albums are critically acclaimed, commercially successful and have broken a lot of records. In 2019, she was highly praised by critics for the execution of the Sweetener and Thank U, Next album cycles. After the release of Sweetener, Rolling Stone posted an article dedicated to how she "proved trap was the new pop", she is often credited with redefining the pop landscape with the release of the two albums as well. Her signature five-octave vocal range and whistle register have left a huge mark in musical culture & she is often said to be this generation's "Princess of Pop" and the "Vocalist of the Generation" by critics as well. Her catsuit-like outfits have attracted a massive and active global fanbase. She regularly produces hits and has broken an uncountable amount of massive records. She is a commercial and critical titan. Blowscalls (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to stop calling "legacies" legacies [1][2][3]. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but this is besides the point, I'm talking about her impact in the entertainment industry and how it needs to be recognized and acknowledged more seriously. Blowscalls (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s up to the consensous of editors if a full blown “legacy” section is warranted, but I definitely concur that her impact is extensive and apparent within the music industry, although some monikers such as “Princess of Pop” perhaps align more with her public image. A great chunk of the claims your making regarding the effect of her artistry do require reliable sources. Bettydaisies (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree to this. The sources are there too. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Associated acts

Shes collabed with Justin Bieber on a song, remix and theve performed live together multiple times. She's also collaborated with the Weekend twice and theve performed live together. Why were they removed? Randomperson7893457 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Randomperson7893457: Please see Talk:Ariana Grande#Doja Cat. Feel free to participate in the ongoing discussion! dylxtalk 14:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Songwriter be added in short description. Source https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9550338/demi-lovato-ariana-grande-collab-reactions/ Randomperson7893457 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: One source which says she's a songwriter is not enough. Is she notable for it, or has she just written one song at some point and that's it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I want to edit the page with her records sold, Ariana has sold 80M records, 54.5M singles, 7M albums(5M pure), and 20M sold in ths UK, sources:

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=Ariana+Grande&ti=#search_section

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAS#search_section

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?advance_search=1&tab_active=awards_by_artist&format_option=album-ep&type_option=ST#search_section

https://www.bpi.co.uk/brit-certified/ Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: Where are you getting those sales figures? I don't see those numbers at the cited pages. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are, you probably have to enter to the sources and search where it is, first source say Ariana Grande 54.5M, other says 7M albums but i think only 5M of those units are pure and then it's all her certifications in the usa which calculates 20M Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean in the uk not usa Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Those 20M sales are from the uk, not usa my bad, the 60.5M are from usa Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moonlight Entm: There's no tally of sales on the RIAA pages, and summing the award levels borders on synthesis with the way that units are calculated. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: discussion should be continued and a new edit request can be made if multiple people agree on what specific changes are needed. — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Main page

1. Please change the "Grande's first five full-length albums have been certified platinum or multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)" to "All six of Grande's full-length albums have been certified platinum or multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)".

2. I don't why her being a fashion icon was removed, her ponytail and clothing styles have had an extensive influence on modern day fashion and her ponytail is her signature symbol in the music industry and pop culture. Several publications have posted entire articles dedicated to it, including:

Insider: https://www.insider.com/why-ariana-grande-wears-ponytail-2018-7 Allure: https://www.allure.com/story/ariana-grande-evolution-ponytail W-Magazine: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/ariana-grande-hair-ponytail Teen Vogue: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ariana-grande-everyday-glam-ponytail Teen Vogue (another one): https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ariana-grande-shows-off-real-hair

Note: Just copy and paste the links on your search bars. Blowscalls (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ariana Grande albums sales

https://www.diversityinc.com/opinion-why-did-ariana-grande-get-paid-twice-as-much-as-beyonce-to-perform-at-coachella/. It is okay to be use in her bio? Politsi (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

People's Choice Awards

In the achievements section, it says that Grande has one People's Choice Award, but that is not true, as she has three. I am unable to edit. Alex5675 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Done @Alex5675: Thank you for catching that. I brought it in sync with her awards article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Songwriter

Ariana is a songwriter. She wrote all of the songs on TUN and Positions, as well as most of the songs on Dangerous Woman and Sweetener, and she's written songs for other artists too. Not including songwriter in her professions is inaccurate and dishonest, artists who write less than her have songwriter included. Modern184 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You got sources? Yeah, Grande has written loads of songs. No, she is not notable as a songwriter. Unless multiple reliable sources say she is a songwriter, she is not a songwriter. Remember that Wikipedia is based off of sources. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Grande still writes her own songs, and is also credited as a writer. See Beyoncé, she's not known as a songwriter but still has songwriting as an occupation. If you don't agree, then we have to remove Taylor Swift as an actress too. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one page does something, it doesn’t mean every other page has to do that. Yeah, Grande writes songs. That’s obvious. But: in order for her to establish notability as a songwriter, there must be sources. Literally all I’m asking for are some sources that say "Ariana Grande: Singer, songwriter and actress", sources that establish her notability as a songwriter. Honestly, there has been discussion on this for months, and I have not gotten a single source saying she’s a songwriter, so I’m gonna assume that notability as a songwriter for Grande can not be proven. WP:DTS. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's your point of view. She's credited as a songwriter. What's difference if a gossip or music site is claiming her as songwriter? Also having her as songwriter in the lead, and having her occupied are two different things. Taylor Swift is literally occupied as an actress. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if Ari is credited as a songwriter, WP largely operates by notable and reliable sources, which are required to refer to her as a songwriter on the article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

But she's literally is credited for most of her songs, and has co written songs for other artists. How she can not be at least occupied as songwriter? Almost any artist on Wikipedia has songwriting as occuption, even Britney Spears and Selena Gomez. I don't understand why Grande needs a source for this just because one user who's also a Swiftie, disagrees about that. I'm not the only one who's against it, it seems. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that I’m as much of an Arianator as I am a Swiftie, Mixer and Little Monster????? Anyways, I’m gonna start an RFC on this. When you respond to it, please back up your claims with sources, otherwise it will violate WP:BLP. Thanks! x D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Added a source now. You just need a source that simply claims that she's a songwriter? There you have it. I added a source now. But I guess, now you need at least ten sources from media portals that claim that she's a songwriter, do you? Mirrored7 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That link is broken, so I have tagged it with {{dead link}}. It just shows a 404 error message. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it! Mirrored7 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I can now determine the source is unusable. WP:HEADLINE states that we shouldn’t use info that’s stated in the headline of the article, but isn’t supported in the body. The claim that Grande is a singer-songwriter is part of the headline, yet not supported in the body of the article, so per WP:HEADLINE, it doesn’t count. Thanks for trying, though! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, at this point you're a trolling.

And what's with this: https://www.pride.com/music/2020/11/05/definitive-ranking-ariana-grandes-six-studio-albums Mirrored7 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not a troll, what? Even if I was, don’t call a spade a spade. Per WP:RSPSOURCES, Pride.com is yellow, so not completely reliable but not completely unreliable. As well, the source calls Grande a singer-songwriter, which is something completely different. Please find sources for songwriter only, since that is what you keep adding to the article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

She's still mentioned as a SONGWRITER too.

Here's one more: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ariana-grande-track-list-positions-album/amp Mirrored7 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind adding these sources below in the RfC section, under your !vote? That would help as everyone who participates in the RfC can see it. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And she recently wrote met him last night. She is a songwriter Jelvayra (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is appropriate to share here, but this discussion seems to have attracted some off-wiki attention.--N Ø 06:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"What the **** is this?

I thought twitter was worse but these Wikipedia bitches outderanged omg" versacespace leave a message! 11:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

😂😂😂 that was fun to read! Anyways, let's not let that discussion reminiscent of a Twitter reply section affect us, as we're not fighting, we're having a civil discussion. Although, I can see why someone on the outside looking in would think this is fighting. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: tanked! versacespace leave a message! 11:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify for any ALTR accounts that read this again, we are not and were never fighting. This is not an immature stan war between a couple of bored 15 year olds who have nothing better to do. This is a discussion between editors with a neutral point-of-view to decide on what occupations should be included where. In particular, I saw my name getting mentioned a lot, which I'm fine with, but just know that I'm not policing Wikipedia, I'm not coming for blood, I don't need to touch some grass, this discussion has nothing to do with Kanye West or Scooter Braun, this is not a stan war, and even though I did not come to play, that does not give you the right to call me an immature idiot. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Demi Lovato "Met Him Last Night" in the career section

So I was minding my business until in my watchlist, I saw that Mirrored7 reverted something. Knowing that this is never a good sign, I checked the diff and, low and behold, another controversial edit. This one remarking that Demi Lovato and Ariana Grande's new collaboration does not merit inclusion because "the song is not a single". Never having seen a policy that says all additions to the career section are limited to singles, I asked them if their reversions were rooted in policy, to which they sent me to the talk page. Hilariously enough, the same person who referred me to the talk page is notorious for never ever using said talk page, so now I'm here forced to wait for some type of response from them or someone else. Mind you, this addition was sourced. versacespace talk to me 08:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm in here, so how I never use the talk page? Maybe I'm not in here all the time, but I still use it? For now, the song is an album track, therefore I don't think it's relevant enough to be included. If it's going to be a single, and have a video, well then it can be included for sure. Grande appeared on a song with Childish Gambino in 2020, but is it mentioned in the article? Nope. This is nothing personal against the artist or the song. But not everything what's sourced has to be on here. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: Those collaborations aren't here because the article lacks broad coverage. They should also be added. These are also part of Grande's career. versacespace talk to me 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Not everything that is a part of her career should be added. This aren't noteworthy information about her. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone reported on it.^[1] Billboard reported on it. ^[2] Pitchfork reported on it.^[3] Those sources demonstrate notability, not your personal opinion. versacespace talk to me 03:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

pinging Mirrored7. versacespace talk to me 03:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I know about the sources, but shouldn't we wait until it's at least a single? For now it's seems like a brief guest apparence, that isn't noteworthy at all. Mirrored7 (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mirrored7 when has it ever worked this way? versacespace talk to me 03:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO, we should add this into the article as, even though it’s not a single, it has been covered by multiple reliable sources given above, so it warrants inclusion. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe we should add all of Grande's guest appearances in there as well. Mirrored7 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: if there's a source to attach to the addition then we probably should! versacespace talk to me 03:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely should, if there are reliable sources, of course. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Blistein, Jon; Blistein, Jon (2021-04-02). "Demi Lovato Talks Collaborating With Ariana Grande on 'Met Him Last Night'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2021-04-03.
^ "Fans Are 'Literally Shaking' Over Demi Lovato and Ariana Grande's 'Met Him Last Night'". Billboard. Retrieved 2021-04-03.
^ Bloom, Madison. "Demi Lovato Enlists Ariana Grande for New Song". Pitchfork. Retrieved 2021-04-03.

Yeah, but for that there's the Discography article - there who it really belong, you know. Are you really thinking that people who aren't familiar with Grande, but want to know about her, would be interested in something like this? Mirrored7 (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: yes, they absolutely would. Demi and Ariana are both major A-list celebrities so them collaborating is a pretty big deal. And regardless, we don't edit these pages only for the general public. versacespace talk to me 04:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That logic is flawed. We have a page dedicated to her achievements, should we remove all mentions of her achievements in this article? No. We have a page dedicated to Thank U, Next, should we remove that part in this article? No. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 04:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Your interpretation of an A-List is something. It's not like she did an high profile collab, that's gonna make any impact outside of gossip news. It's like I said multiple times before, an album-track, and that will probably remain that way. If there's any news about this being a single, with an actual music video, or any sort of promotion, you can WITH PLEASURE add this on here.

@Doggy54321: Do you ever agree with me on something? Her achievements are important to that topic, this collab is not. Your logic seems to be flawed too. Mirrored7 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mirrored7! I noticed that you intended to ping me but did not. The usernames are case-sensitive and you need to sign in the same edit u ping. Demi Lovato

's wiki article gets nearly 750,000 views per month, nearly 250,000 more than Grande's. They are both A-Listers. versacespace talk to me 04:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, due to the amount of reporting, it absolutely should be included.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: April 19

@VersaceSpace, Bettydaisies, and Mirrored7: Versace and Betty, you both already think this should be added into the article, regardless of single status. Mirrored, in the two weeks since this discussion was last active, "Met Him Last Night" was pushed to radio as a single, was released independently on Spotify, and Lovato confirmed that a music video is coming on an Instagram Live. Since that was your only condition, do you now agree that the song should be included in the article? Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I still don't think it should be included. It's a single, but it doesn't seem to make any impact on the charts, or seems to be anything relevant to her career. For now it's seems to be one of her many underperforming features, so yeah. I really don't care tbh. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Grande's height is not listed

Wikipedia is not Google, and we can't control their search results. Nothing further to do here, doubly after the editor making the original request was globally locked. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2021 (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.

When you search google for ariana grande height, you will only see a featured snippet showing the height, but her height is not listed in Wikipedia. In some sources I find Grande to be 5' 1", however in some other sources, such as [4], they say that Grande is 5' 3". I believe that Grande is 5 feet 1 inch tall. How do I list her height in Wikipedia? Shannon Esparza (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that states the height. The source you linked wouldn't be considered reliable as it is a blog. It is a trivial piece of information, so it isn't really needed to be listed and unless a RS states it. The tweet that blog posts, is from over 10 years ago when apparently she was still growing, so even that wouldn't be useful. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll give you more sources for this (Grande's heights stated in the site are in parentheses):

I don't know which of these are reliable sources, so I decided to provide many citations for her height so that I am more likely to have reliable sources in my citation. Then you are welcome to list Ariana Grande's height in Wikipedia by looking at one of these reliable sources that I have provided in this section. Shannon Esparza (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't heard of the majority of those site, so I don't know if any full under WP:RS. Celeberitynetworth was mentioned on this talk page previously as unreliable. Also the fact that there are 3 different heights reported, makes it likely their are some that are just estimating. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I just want to list Ariana Grande's height because many other celebrity's heights are listed. For example, Rihanna's height is listed as 5' 8", Justin Bieber's height is listed as 5' 9", Lady Gaga's height is listed as 5' 1", Taylor Swift's height is listed as 5' 11" (formerly 5' 10"), Donald Trump's height is listed as 6' 3", and Barack Obama's height is listed as 6' 2" (formerly 6' 1"). Also, Ariana Grande's shoe size is listed as 6 US. Why not list Grande's height? You can list Ariana Grande's height as either 5' 1" or 5' 2", whichever one you like. Just don't worry about the citations that I have provided and go list her height. Shannon Esparza (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If you want to add something into an article (especially a biography of a living person), it needs to be reliably sourced. Since you haven't provided any reliable sources, we can't add it. We especially can't add heights willy-nilly, as these are biographies of living people. Just because other biographies have heights listed doesn't mean we need to add a height to every biography. As well, what height would we add? You provided sources for four different heights, which automatically tells me that sources can't even decide on her height, so why should Wikipedia? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I need Grande's height listed, so why not list it? Feel free to list Ariana Grande's height as 5' 1". Please go ahead and do it. Shannon Esparza (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If you need it listed so bad, then find a reliable source stating it, post it here and I will add it. "Why not?" isn't the type of approach Wikipedia likes to take, instead, we like to take a "Why?" approach, so only the important things get added into articles. See WP:ONUS for more info. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Where are any of those articles are you seeing heights? I assumed infobox but am not seeing it there, nor anywhere else at first glance. Nothing is going to be added to this article without a reliable source. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How exactly are those heights listed if they are not in infobox person? For example, how is Rihanna's height listed as 5' 8", etc.? I want to know a way that editors can list celebrity heights in Wikipedia and when you search Google for their height you will show a box that lists the height, but I'm not seeing it to happen with Ariana Grande. You can find reliable sources by searching "Ariana Grande height" in Google. Then you can find some reliable sources among the thousands of websites in the results. Then when you find a reliable source, you may list her height. Shannon Esparza (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Rihanna's height is not listed in her Wikipedia article. I don't know how Google gets Rihanna's height, and to be blunt, I don't care. :) What I mean is, trivia like celebrities' height is generally outside the scope of the encyclopedic information that Wikipedia contains. (If Grande played basketball or Rihanna played netball, then things would be different.) The exceptions for singers are very few and far between. Kristin Chenoweth is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and even then, her height came up in the context of a song she sang with a line about height, and it's in the prose of the article, not the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So could we add Grande's height somewhere else that is not Wikipedia or any Wikimedia wiki? How about Google Books or Google Scholar? We might be able to list Ariana Grande's height there. Maybe there is somewhere else that we can list her height. I claim Grande to be 5' 1", so we might have to look in Google Books or Google Scholar for any citations. I am pretty sure that both Google Books and Google Scholar are reliable sources. Maybe we can list her height there instead of on Wikipedia. Shannon Esparza (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What you are seeing when you search on google is the google knowledge panel and while it often gets the bio from Wikipedia, it contains other elements that are generated from other source, and we don't control any of that. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this is when I search a person's name on Google, I often see a Wikipedia panel showing the biography of the person and oftentimes the panel states the height of the person when the height is listed. For example, as I search donald trump in Google, a Wikipedia panel appears, and the height is given as 6' 3". However, I don't see to find his height in the infobox when I go to edit the page. Then how would the height be listed? Using Google perhaps? Shannon Esparza (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2021 (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.

Accusations of cultural appropriation

Opening up this section since there seems to be some disagreement about whether this section should be added to the article or not. Looking at the edit history of the page, it seems like this is new material added within the last twelve hours. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the section that was removed:

Grande is of "100 percent Italian" heritage.^[1] She has been accused of darkening her skin tone over time to create a more exotic look through the use of tanning and makeup.^[2] Sara Hussain at The Tempest claims "Contrary to popular belief and what she may have us believe through coded behavior, Ariana is Italian. This comes as a shock to many, who often assume she’s Latina or mixed. Ariana is, by lack of a better definition, white. Caucasian. She’s not racially ambiguous, she just uses a lot of fake tan and make-up."^[2]

Diyora Shadijanova from The Tab accused Grande in 2019 of blackfishing, writing, "Ariana has been looking darker and darker in her music videos like 'Breathin', '7 Rings' and 'Thank U, Next'. To the point where people are genuinely confused when they find out she's actually white. Most fans think she's mixed raced."^[3] Alex Zaragoza of VICE wrote Grande "pretend[s] to be black"; when Madame Toussads released a wax figure of Grande, Zaragoza wrote, "It can be easy to forget that Grande has worked overtime to remove all signs of her Caucasian heritage, until you see a version of her with those modifications omitted."^[4] Spencer Kornhaber of The Atlantic wrote that "7 Rings" "takes from Black artists" and "fell off the cultural-appropriation tightrope."^[5] She has also been accused of speaking in a "blaccent", a slang term for African-American English.^[6]

References

^ Smith, Camilo (March 17, 2015). "Ariana Grande and 10 other celebrities you thought were Hispanic". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
^ ^a ^b Hussain, Sara (March 7, 2019). "Ariana Grande's excessive use of fake tan is 'blackfishing,' and that's a real problem". The Tempest. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
^ Shadijanova, Diyora (2019). "Ariana Grande is a blackfish and these are the receipts". The Tab. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
^ Zaragoza, Alex (May 28, 2019). "Ariana Grande's Wax Figure Is Her, Minus Pretending to Be Black". VICE. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
^ Kornhaber, Spencer (January 23, 2019). "How Ariana Grande Fell Off the Cultural-Appropriation Tightrope". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
^ Barr, Sabrina (December 10, 2018). "Ariana Grande Accused of Cultural Appropriation By Speaking with a 'Blaccent'". The Independent. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

Include it. I was shocked to find this information was not covered previously on the page. It should absolutely be included, as its been part of the discussion of Grande's image. --Kbabej (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why this was removed. Literally what valid reason is there to remove this. It's not being a "tabloid" to inform the reader of a high-profile controversy. Also not sure why Tbhotch chose to warn me for edit warring? It's very clearly not. versacespace leave a message! 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If it is to be included, at least it must be written correctly and not with tabloid editorializations: "She has been accused", "Diyora Shadijanova from The Tab accused Grande". Ariana Grande, the criminal. Yet, it is questioned why I removed this by saying this is tabloidesque. 02:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: so what you're saying is that this information should be included provided it is re-written? versacespace leave a message! 02:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you are going to be bold and get reverted in the process look for consensus instead of edit-warring. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

High-profile controversy is a stretch. The donut controversy was covered way more than this has been. If the information gets added back in, it doesn't needs it's own subsection, it should just be in the public image section, and balanced based on WP:WEIGHT. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Both were undoubtedly high-profile. And even if this weren't the case both are still widely reported in the media. versacespace leave a message! 02:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another edit war. Come on, we know better than this. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This page is ECP-500, and they behave like they were newbies. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"they"??? you performed two reverts as well versacespace leave a message! 02:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tbhotch: Not to be rude, but you're a ~~pot calling the kettle black~~ hypocrite in this situation. You and Versace are both at three reverts, and Kbebej and Batud are at two, so I think it's a pretty even tie as to who was behaving like newbies. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons". And "the pot calling the kettle black" is a very racist idiom, according to our current standards. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: first of all if you believe you're exempt from the three-revert rule (which you were not, in this case), you have to disclose that, at minimum in your edit summary. The content was not libelious, biased, or badly sourced so this really is a flawed argument. Second, are you seriously accusing a good faith editor (and one of the kindest on this website, in my opinion) of being racist because they called you out on being hypocritical? Don't do that. versacespace leave a message! 02:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, I struck my comment and replaced it with one that is not racist (it's also the root of the idiom). That was never my intention, I always thought the black part was associated with heat, but I'll stop using it immediately as it seems to mean something else. It's pointless anyways, a six word idiom with racist undertones v.s. one word that gets straight to the point. With regard to 3RRNO, I'm not gonna argue semantics here, I was never going to report anyone anyways, it seems like a pointless argument to make anyways ("I don't think you are exempt from 3RR, and even though nothing is going to happen, here is a list of things..." seems like a fish outside of water, flopping away even though it knows it's not going anywhere). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: I didn't revert a fourth time, and if I had I'd say that. "The content was not libelious, biased" is merely your opinion and I said it above, the section starts with a header that claims Grande has performed alleged cultural appropriations. Instead the section directly "accuses" Grande of being "100% Italian" and that she is an Italian-American pretending to be a black person. Then moves to include every sentence Kbabej could find that accuses Grande of this ("7 Rings" "takes from Black artists" and "fell off the cultural-appropriation tightrope.") This is not neutrality and is giving an undue weight to something that was never problematic. And no, it's because it's racist and outdated, and Doggy can do better than using a 17th-century idiom. If he wants to call me a hypocrite, then better call me a hypocrite instead of using an attempted politically correct "I don't want to be rude but you both are black". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: you warned me on my talk page for "edit warring" despite the fact that I never broke the three-revert rule. Hold yourself to the same standards that you are holding other people to. If I broke the edit warring policy then so did you, and trying to hide behind WP:3RRNO is not going to work when you never disclosed your will to use this exemption. If you feel that the section is poorly written, that should be reflected in your edit summary (which it wasn't...). Saying that "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" implies that you believe the content does not belong, and you never suggested otherwise. accusing users of being racist doesn't change any of this, which you should also stop doing versacespace leave a message! 03:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

45 minutes and you still don't understand the phrase "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule". Unlike you, I assume the consequences of my actions in the event of getting blocked. Comprehend that sentence and move on. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: are you implying that you broke this rule as well? versacespace leave a message! 03:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody broke the 3RR. This is given as a courtesy before taking it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in the event a 4th revert occurs. Can you stop pinging me. It's clear I watch this page. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

sure. i'll stop pinging you. anyway, you're literally contradicting yourself. is it an edit war, or is it not an edit war? the answer can't be both. you warned me for engaging in an edit war quite bold to call it an edit war. so were you or were you not committing the same behavior you accused me of? versacespace leave a message! 03:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point out where I said I was not edit-warring? All I said was this, yet you keep writing as if I had to warn myself for being in the borderline of violating a policy I'm aware of. I was edit-warring by removing poorly written biased text added recently, while you were edit-warring because, quote, "Doja Cat's article would like to have a word." At least Kbabej found a better argument than "If X has Y, then Z should have Y as well". If you think Cat's article "would like to have a word", then use the talk page to discuss what constitues the negative biased libellous content you claim it has. And lastly, this section is about discussing the proposed paragraph. Instead of focusing too much on my hypocrisy, you should focus on what you keep insisting is correctly written when is not. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your first edit to this section was "the page is ECP-500, and they behave like newbies". You made this about yourself, not me. Why remove information when you can just change some words to make it in your opinion more neutral? I was actually doing this before. When you said "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" that could've meant literally anything, so I assumed you meant that the content doesn't belong there. And it is valid to ask why controversies should be implemented in one article and not another. Lastly, WP:3RRNO, which you cited as the reason for your reverts says and you read this, so you already know that "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The policy specifically says that you should rarely use this exemption, and this was (certainly) not the right time to use it. versacespace leave a message! 11:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN relies on Kbabej and you as you both were the ones that kept adding a contested paragraph that is poorly written and badly investigated into a BLP. This is not fixed with a simple "~~accuse~~→said" as you believe, as Kbabej cherrypicked sources to create controversy when there was none and used inflamatory language where was not needed. This is an example of how you talk about alleged cultural appropriations, where the writer did not cherrypick sources that were talking about different things; where there is no WP:UNDUE weight given to those involved; that is written in a neutral non-libellous point of view. This? This sounds like a vendetta because my favorite artist has alleged racism claims in her page and I found it unfair that this one doesn't. "When you said "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" that could've meant literally anything", yet you never stop and asked yourself? "What this guy meant with that, maybe I should stop and ask in a talk page about it, because maybe this paragraph is incorrect". What you did was to continue edit-warring, and get offended when you where asked to stop edit-warring. Instead of taking it personal and making this section about me, fix the problem that you were creating and don't go to the WP:IDHT borderline. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, edit conflicts are the worst. I write a reply, it tells me there is an edit conflict, I read the reply and decide my original reply is no longer appropriate, write a new reply, you see where this is going. Long story short: Tbhotch: I'm sorry I used a racist idiom, it's much easier to use one word that is not racist than six words that are racist anyways. I have already put steps in place as a white person to dismantle a tendency I have to say the idiom rather than the word. Versace: thank you for calling me one of the kindest Wikipedia editors. But, sometimes I slip up, and I'm grateful to have Tbhotch and anyone else, both on and off wiki, who is ready to clock my behaviour and say "woah, that's not right, please stop saying that". I would rather we stop this conversation here, and if anyone has any further thoughts on this matter, my talk page is always open. Continue with your 3RRNO thing now, please. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) I specifically oppose inclusion of the Tempest source -- it's an opinion piece of one writer and it would be WP:UNDUE to include. I have not yet had a chance to evaluate the other sources (will get to that when I have some time), though it should be noted that this is a WP:BLP and the sources therefore must be of high quality. I also believe that for any material for which there is consensus to include, the prose should probably be moved to the "public image" section rather than the "personal life" section. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a chance to look at the other sources. The first source is a blog and is being used to support a factual statement about Grande, and therefore likely fails BLP sourcing requirements. Grande's heritage is described elsewhere in the article with a different source anyway, so I don't think it needs to be repeated again. I already noted my opposition to the Tempest source above. I also oppose using The Tab as a source; it is an opinion piece that looks like pure WP:BLPGOSSIP to me. For example, the author says, "Most fans think she's mixed race" and cites a single tweet (from a now-suspended account) as a source. The entire piece, in fact, relies on Tweets from fans to make its points, which is not great from a BLP standpoint (remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog). Bolded, purely subjective statements like "Her fake tan is so dark, she looks darker than Nicki Minaj who is actually black" are not helpful either. The remaining sources from The Atlantic, Vice, and Independent are also opinion pieces but at least they read less BLPGOSSIPy. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If you’re going to include the “blaccent” you’ve got to include sexy baby voice too. Trillfendi (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

if there's a citation for that i wouldn't be opposed to it versacespace leave a message! 13:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To say there was no controversy is misleading at best. RS have covered this multiple times over a period of years. These articles were not written/created by me. They were written in mostly mainstream sources to cover an ongoing part of Grande's image. --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's analyze your paragraph[5] step by step:

"Accusations of cultural appropriation" → It was until now that I realize that you don't even use the term "allegations", you directly went on to use the legal-related "accusation"
"Grande is of "100 percent Italian" heritage" → Camilo Smith got this conclusion from? Did he take a DNA sample and the results demonstrated "her background is 100 percent Italian"? All Italians have 100 percent Italian heritage and have never been influenced by Africa and Asia?
"She has been accused" → ^{[according to whom?]}
"of darkening her skin tone over time to create a more exotic look through the use of tanning and makeup" → is that a crime or why she "was accused"?
[6] This link is an opinion source, "I think this and that and that's why it's incorrect and Grande should stop doing it". Hussain even doubled down with "It is also worth mentioning that Ariana has exploited the LGBTQ+ community too." Why is it worthy? You're bashing a person, let's bash it completely at once? This is not a high-quality RS source as you claim.
"Diyora Shadijanova from The Tab accused Grande in 2019 of blackfishing" → I'm going to assume, once again, that "blackfishing" is a crime and Diyora Shadijanova is a prosecutor.
"Most fans think she's mixed raced", said Shadijanova. Here Shadijanova is trying to justify her comment by saying that Grande is "guilty" of "blackfishing" because fans have never attempted to investigate Grande's heritage. Instead, they see an obscured person last named "wikt:grande" and assume she is a mixed-race person, the same fans that have been following Grande since Victorious.
"Alex Zaragoza of VICE wrote Grande "pretend[s] to be black"" → Another opinion piece that you're taking as a high-quality professional journalist investigation.
"Spencer Kornhaber of The Atlantic wrote the song "7 Rings" "takes from Black artists" and "fell off the cultural-appropriation tightrope."" → Another opinion piece that you're taking as a high-quality professional journalist investigation.
"She has also been accused of speaking in a "blaccent"" → Who accused her? Let me tell you who accused her: random online accounts. What makes random online accounts reliable sources?
"The website ethnicelebs.com, a site for covering celebrities' ethnicities, has Grande listed as one of their top searched for celebrities." → This was so irrelevant here but was removed as an unreliable source.

So, what we have here:

a) A whole section dedicated to a, as you say, an "existent controversy" concerning Grande's cultural appropriation of black culture, or

b) A whole section with cherrypicked opinion pieces on how Grande has culturally appropriated the black culture created to start a controversy when there was none.

Because all these opinion pieces have only one thing in common: That they are "accusing" Grande of cultural appropriation, but none demonstrates that Grande is indeed culturally appropriating something. The first one is about how Grande darkens her skin, the second is about how she is blackfishing, the third one is about how her wax figure is not darkened and the fourth one is about how she was darkened in a music video. So, where is the controversy? There is none, you are creating one from different opinion pieces. This article does have an example of what is a controversy: "In July 2015, Grande was seen on surveillance video in a doughnut shop licking doughnuts that were on display and saying "I hate Americans. I hate America. This is disgusting", referring to a tray of doughnuts". The sources discuss the controversy and don't attempt to create one, the sources go to the point, the sources use evidence of Grande's wrongdoing. This paragraph is the opposite. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

so make your own then? i never objected to the paragraph being rewritten versacespace leave a message! 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do I have to? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's fascinating to me that you think I'm creating the controversy, when RS and opinion pieces already cover this in depth. I'm not creating it; it's a valid point of Grande's reception and ongoing development as a public artist. I think most of your arguments are based off an "I don't like it" attitude rather than trying to work with editors with whom you disagree to try and build a more comprehensive article. As for the language, sources actually use the word "accused" (see here, here, here, here, etc.) --Kbabej (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If you believe my assessment is invalid and a I-don't-like-it statement on a subject I detest, request an independent assessment at WP:BLPN, WP:RSN or WP:ECN, but will most likely get the same conclusion.[7][8] I have nothing to work with you in order to "build a more comprehensive article" because the two editors that yesterday insisted on this paragraph have not proposed any alternative, yet they want me to create one as if I were the proposer of this section and it was my job (WP:BURDEN). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If you remove an entire sub-section because you do not like how it was written, you should be able to provide a good idea of what it should look like. We cannot read your mind. And we're not going to keep guessing until you like it. versacespace leave a message! 01:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop making this about me. I was not the only person that contested this.[9][10] It's called WP:consensus and at this moment there is no consensus to restore it because, instead of performing a rewritting or following the steps of WP:DR, you both keep talking about me (WP:FOC). Here's an advice, start with that. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Focus on content" specifically refers to editor conduct, and this discussion is not about your conduct. If you object to the sub-section the way it was written at the time of its removal, then you should be able to establish how you want the information to be presented. I'm not mentioning you because I want this to be about you, i'm mentioning you because I won't attempt to write a section for which I have no idea how the most critical party wants it to look. As an aside, have you considered that there was no consensus to remove the content either? versacespace leave a message! 01:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you crossed the WP:IDHT borderline. Because of that I won't reply to newer comments from you unless they are about a new proposal. As a matter of fact I did propose an alternative Hello Kitty (song)#Reception and criticism.[11] You are reading solely what you want to read and pointlessly going in circles because you can't move on. That's why you think this is a reliable source. You read "The Independent" and think is reliable solely because of that. But you never read it at all, because the accusers in the source are: "one person tweeted in response to the video", "another person wrote", "One person wrote in a tweet that's garnered more than 3,000 likes" violating WP:RSPTWITTER. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

so you're saying i'm not competent enough for your attention, basically? Unless I missed some link, you never mentioned that Hello Kitty song ever, anywhere here. Not to mention its irrelevant, that song has nothing to do with this discussion. I never said nor implied that you had never provided feedback and reached consensus, nor does it matter, nor do I care. More importantly, the fact that you warned me on my talk page for something you had also done (and admitted to doing), then expected me to simply drop the topic is dumb even though we've been past this, so i'm not sure why you brought it up again. I never said the Independent article was reliable, I never said anything about any of the sources at all. Looking up "Ariana grande blackfishing" (without the quotes) gets 902 hits. There was no good reason to delete an entire section when you could've simply replaced some sources and removed some NPOV phrasings. This would take a few minutes at most. versacespace leave a message! 02:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Also: I literally do not know who you are. It's not "not listening" to not know you've reached consensus before. versacespace leave a message! 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Unless I missed some link, you never mentioned that Hello Kitty song ever". Literally, I gave you the link (currently marked as #12). And the reason I gave the link is that I expected this kind of answer, which once again proves my point that you are not reading, like at all. You just read what you want to read. You said I was calling Doggy a racist when I solely said that the idiom phrase was racist; you are saying "Not to mention [Hello Kitty is] irrelevant, that song has nothing to do with this discussion" yet you wanted an example of how to handle cultural appropriations in an article. I gave you an example, and you trash it away! You say "there was no consensus to remove the content either" demonstrating that you have not read WP:Consensus; "you're saying i'm not competent enough for your attention", no, your actions demonstrate that you are not competent enough to discuss things, because you don't read, because you overreact, because instead of understanding what you're been told, you keep repeating yourself over and over again while you refuse to get the point. Yes it's true, you "never said anything about any of the sources at all", and that's because you have never read the sources at all, you didn't read the sources here, nor here nor here nor in the last 24 hours. But that doesn't exempt you at all ("the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"). You want it restored, something so "simple" that would take a few minutes at most" to repair, yet you are not doing it while claiming "There was no good reason to delete an entire section" based upon opinions taken from random Twitter accounts. Please, just WP:DROP it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You're just saying things for the sake of saying them at this point. a link that you just posted two messages ago does not indicate that WP:IDHT has any prevalence here. I never said you accused Doggy of "being a racist", I said you accused him of "being racist". Those two quoted phrases mean different things. I used the second one. I never asked for an example on how consensus works, I asked you how you wanted the sub-section to look, outlining specifically that I didn't have the will to draft it up without knowing how you felt first. You cited possible issues with the sub-section, which wasn't worth anything further than a maintenance tag. The content was not libelious as it was sourced to VICE. Nowhere did I mention the Independent source yet you continue to mention it to me. versacespace leave a message! 03:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

buyer Coolxboy728 (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pahunkat (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Net worth

I removed a update to net worth that used a questionable source I never heard of, that used CelebrityNetWorth as their reference. Celebrithnetoworth is listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. Regardless of that, the prior number from Forbes article/profile[12] doesn't even look like a net worth it looks like it is just what she made in 2020. We should find a better source with a number for net worth or remove it from infobar completely. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included. These sites are not reliable and are just speculation. Forbes can be discussed, until they publish at least an article about her entire fortune. Mirrored7 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ariana Grande's net worth is 150million dollars. Jokerkick (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jokerkick: As of when and per what reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Forbes Jokerkick (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The link to Forbes given above says $72 million. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

$72 million earned in 2020 WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Then we're back where we were: no source to back up the claim for her net worth. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

May I ask what's an RFC?? Siyolisile (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Siyolisile: An RfC (short for request for comment) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh really thanks doggy54321 Siyolisile (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Clean up

Hi! Can someone clean up the talk page? I've tried, but it got reversed because I didn't archive the topics. It would be great, if someone could do it. Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This page is already configured for automatic archiving. Any thread with no responses in the last 90 days are automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. If you look at the page history, the bot is quietly doing its job in the background. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that. Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Marriage to Dalton

Hey guys how exciting is it that Ariana got married to dalton!! it’s real cute, does anyone know if you would put her married name on here or anything like “she just got married” in a little sentence/paragraph? Like in her about me or personal life section? Jamesjjohnson18 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m just curious I don’t mean to make something “not important by Wikipedia standards” to be implemented I’m just simply relaying the question/idea! Thank you for ur time Jamesjjohnson18 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jamesjjohnson18: Everything is already updated. We wouldn't put it in the "Career" section as that is about her professional career (and her getting married is not a part of that), so we put it in the "Personal life" section, which is for her personal life. As far as married names (Ariana Grande-Gomez, Ariana Gomez, etc), no sources have reported that she is changing her name, and we don't add anything if it doesn't have a reliable source to back it up, so that cannot be added. If sources do confirm that she is changing her name, we would reassess based off of WP:NAMECHANGES. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Not all women change their surname upon marriage, most do but you need proof because that’s a matter of legal identity. Best to just wait. Trillfendi (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well someone changed her name at the beginning of the page so what's going on TahaGhassemi (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That was removed, and a note was given. What's going on is people are changing her name without a source, which goes against basic policies like WP:V and WP:BLP. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Change this please

Change this: "All of Grande's first six full-length albums have been certified platinum or multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and she has sold more than 85 million units (Studio albums, singles, and collaborations)."

To this: "All of Grande's first six full-length albums have been certified platinum or multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and she has sold more than 85 million units across studio albums, singles and collaborations." Blowscalls (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

This edit request to Ariana Grande has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

In a change to Ariana Grande-Butera put Ariana Grande-Butera-Gomez 122.54.60.2 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Inside Ariana Grande’s Intimate At-Home Wedding

The most important day of her life so far and we have to act like her dress shouldn’t go into the conversation about her wedding when that’s all people are talking about? When in Thank U, Next (song) she talked about walking down the aisle with her mom? Trillfendi (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any request here, or is this a WP:FORUM comment? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: The title of this is via Vogue. It’s not a request if I already made the edit, it was removed, and I readded it. As one can see in the article’s history. Taking it to the talk page is the natural next step. Trillfendi (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

[1] Blistein, Jon; Blistein, Jon (2021-04-02). "Demi Lovato Talks Collaborating With Ariana Grande on 'Met Him Last Night'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2021-04-03.

[2] "Fans Are 'Literally Shaking' Over Demi Lovato and Ariana Grande's 'Met Him Last Night'". Billboard. Retrieved 2021-04-03.

[3] Bloom, Madison. "Demi Lovato Enlists Ariana Grande for New Song". Pitchfork. Retrieved 2021-04-03.

[HoustonChron-4] Smith, Camilo (March 17, 2015). "Ariana Grande and 10 other celebrities you thought were Hispanic". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

[the_tempest-5] Hussain, Sara (March 7, 2019). "Ariana Grande's excessive use of fake tan is 'blackfishing,' and that's a real problem". The Tempest. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

[Blackfishing-6] Shadijanova, Diyora (2019). "Ariana Grande is a blackfish and these are the receipts". The Tab. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

[Zaragoza-7] Zaragoza, Alex (May 28, 2019). "Ariana Grande's Wax Figure Is Her, Minus Pretending to Be Black". VICE. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

[Kornhaber-8] Kornhaber, Spencer (January 23, 2019). "How Ariana Grande Fell Off the Cultural-Appropriation Tightrope". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

[Blaccent-9] Barr, Sabrina (December 10, 2018). "Ariana Grande Accused of Cultural Appropriation By Speaking with a 'Blaccent'". The Independent. Retrieved April 21, 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]