Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 8

Recent image
I don't think the latest picture is suitable at all. She looks very awkward in it, like she's about to cry. Also, this pic is taken from a YouTube short, that shows her doing a tutorial for the Vogue channel. It doesn't even look like her, as her hair and eyebrows are bleached. Not appropriate at all. You would think, she's an influencer, not a musical artist.

I would replace it, with an older image, that shows her performing on of her tours. She has her cat-ears one, which is one of her signature looks, and it shows her as a performer. I don't think, that just because an image is recent, it automatically has to be the lead image.

I'm kinda stumped, that there are no other recent images of hers. Grande hasn't been doing much since 2020, but not even an image of on of her last tour in 2019?

It would be great if someone could come with alternatives, at best from the timeline 2020-2023, so it could also be included in the Positions/Wicked section. Still thanks, for for at least making an effort. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being cordial about the whole image change. I do agree though that its not.. a comfortable looking image. But it's recent and the current lede image is objectively far worse imo because she looks way different now than she did in 2014. Like, different hair, different look, etc. Maybe something from the Sweetener/TUN era makes far more sense as a lead image. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2020 Grammy picture was probably the best she's ever had. It's a shame it was deleted. It was perfect, especially because it shows her for the period between 2019 and this decade. What strikes me is that the selection of photos of her is very limited, especially compared to her contemporaries. There isn't even a good quality one of her last tour. It's strange because she's one of the leading contemporary artists right now. I hope there is someone who can upload some recent pictures, preferably one of her at an event like an awards ceremony or photo shoot. Another problem is that Grande hasn't been active in recent years. Her last red carpet appearance was at the 2020 Grammys. That makes it even harder.
 * I've already explained why I chose the 2015 image, but yes, I agree that's not appropriate either. It's just a placeholder until there's a better option. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This image is the ugliest shit I've seen from her, lol. She deserves better. Andrei Reginatto 18 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This may be a stretch, but could we get a screenshot of one of her Yours Truly 10th anniversary performances and use a non-free rationale and state how her face has changed since, and no free alternatives (from the 2020s) is available? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use a photo of Grande's 2018 God is a Woman live performance at the VMA's? Asknaffffwiki (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Or, this image? (Grande performing Save Your Tears with the Weeknd in May 2021) https://www.vogue.com/article/ariana-grande-iheartradio-music-awards-affordable-fashion Asknaffffwiki (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Backtracking on this, it is not available for use Asknaffffwiki (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Image
Okay, so I searched through Wikipedia commons, and there are tons of 2017 photos of Grande from her Dangerous Woman Tour, some dark, however some bright also. I was thinking of Asknaffffwiki (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My fault, the file's name is
 * File:Ariana Grande (33269922295) (cropped) (cropped).jpg
 * It's a bright photo, has Grande in her signature ponytail, and she looks happy singing. Asknaffffwiki (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024: Blurry Image
The info box images is blurry, (and no, it's not because of my vision), I request that someone changes the image, either to one that is more clear, or to one that is more recent as this image is from 2015, 9 years have passed since then. 174.94.54.119 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @174.94.54.119 We would change it, but a problem is that no images of Grande after 2018 are available for use. We could use images from the Dangerous Woman Tour, but I would ask Mirrored7 about that. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024
Although I am not a main English language contributor, nevertheless could you grant me to wright onto this page plz ? You can check my User contributions in french language. I contrib over 2,500 edit counts.

Best regards. Xuvier (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2024
Why is her image from 2013? It needs to be updated. That was literally 11 years ago. Johnson6502 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead section too long? I think not
, if you think the lead section is too long, please suggest ways to shorten it. I don't think it's too long myself, nor does, apparently. The response from was somewhat more amenable to shortening the lead, so let's talk about it. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, per WP:LEAD, lead paragraphs should be should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. If it were me, to consolidate, I would remove fluff information, such as song titles and the names of her collaborators, and the listing of individual awards for albums and / or songs. It seems like a lot of non-neutral point of view from fans.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga's pages do a perfect job of summing up their careers in the lead without overwhelming the reader. I think the goal should be that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I also think that the lead is too long and should be shortened. However, the content should remain the same. I disagree that the lead has non-neutral point of view too. The content is supported by reliable sources, which are included in the body of the article. I also don't understand the warning on my talk page,.
 * My intentions aren't bad at all, I'm just not as familiar with the rules like you are. Also, Discussions about Her occupations being a businesswoman and a record producer I find pointless, as there are enough sources for it to include it in the lead. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw this discussion open and wanted to share my thoughts. I agree with Likelikemusic that the lead is way too long, as per WP:LEAD. The bulk of the information is good, but there is way too much fluff information that can make reading it difficult for users. For example, we don't have to list every record Grande has broken in her career with whatever album is being discussed. Simply saying "broke several records" is sufficient. Since all of Grande's albums are rooted in pop and R&B, we don't have to constantly point that out. I like how Yours Truly, My Everything, Sweetener, and Thank U, Next describes its influences instead.
 * Also, Mirrored7, when discussing what occupations to include in the lead, Wikipedia prefers if we only list a subject's primary occupations in the lead. You can happily add record producer and businesswoman in her infobox, because these are a part of her occupation and there are plenty of sources to prove it, but they are not her primary occupations. "Singer, songwriter and actress" are fine as is. Lady Gaga, for example, has also ventured into business and has her own cosmetics line. But "businesswoman" is not in her lead section. It would be in her infobox, while her primary occupations, which are the same as Grande's, are featured. DiaMali (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution. I just made slight lead changes. If you don't agree with them, it would be great to discuss them here with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm more than happy to discuss them here with you.
 * There are a couple of things that I suggest we update or take out and add to the body, if it wasn't added already. The line "Grande is one of the most streamed artists of all time and the most streamed female artist, as of 2021" could be removed to just reflect her being the most streamed woman from the 2010s decade on Spotify. The most streamed woman, currently, is Taylor Swift. Also, according to the accompanying article, Grande is currently the seventh-most-followed person on Instagram. DiaMali (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I think about it, the lenght is actually very standard. The Justin Bieber and Rihanna leads have around the same, former even has five paragraphs. Like I said, maybe some sentences should be shortened and better summarized, but at the end, it's not really that big of a deal. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

As previously noted — per Infobox person and the hidden note within the lead, it states: Occupation(s) as given in the lead, so including anything outside of singer, songwriter, and actress is inappropriate. Infoboxes are meant to provide overviews, much like leads, and are not meant to be a fan-driven POV of jobs.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop the peacocking
A die hard fan of Ariana Grande keep making the edit wars with too many peacocking.

“Regarded as a pop culture icon, she is noted as an influential figure in popular music and as one of the most prominent vocalists of her generation for her four-octave vocal range and signature whistle register.”

really? There is no source was citied. And even if trustworthy sources say she is, there is no reason for a “WIKIPEDIA” page to have this much of glorification. Hundreds of sources say Michael Jackson is the greatest entertainer of all time. Does that mean it should be all included in the lead sentence? Keep it neutral Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If you read the article precisely, you would see that it's supported by reliable sources. Why it shouldn't be in the lead, if there are multiple sources stating it? It should be removed, because you personally don't agree with it? I always try my best to stay objective, that's why I'm also trying to have a discussion with you. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies
I made a bad call when reviewing this article. I am very sorry. Please know that your article has not failed. Please feel free to re-nominate this article. Sorry, PhotoEditor123 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
Melaniawagner (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC) In 2023, she began dating fellow actor Ethan Slator, known for his role as Spongebob on Broadway.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

New Version of Lead Section
AGF, WP:PUFFERY, It is not necessary to indicate several times that Grande has broken the same records such as "broke many Billboard records as artist or albums" for the reduction of information in the lead section, mentioning 35 "Guinness" world records in the accolades section is enough, the fact that the records are indicated three times in the lead section looks very puffed. I suggest you write that "Grande is one of the most-streamed artists of all time, and holds several records on Spotify, Apple Music, and Vevo", and also in the awards section indicate that "she holds 35 Guinness World Records", this will be enough and people will able to study her records for themselves.

It is enough to write "She has been featured in listicles" and people liking on the listicles can get learned with all listicles where Grande was featured, it is enough to write only the most important one to shorten the lead section leaving only the Billboard as "the most successful female artist to debut in the 2010s" and "Woman of the Year in 2018".

It makes no sense to point out that Grande was once most followed female on Instagram, these records have been broken by other people for a long time, it is enough to write that Grande is now the fourth-most-followed person on Instagram, we specified 35 "Guinness" world records, therefore, this record is not necessary to write in the lead section for this old record there is a section of achievement, plus it is included in the Guinness World Records.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
Change spouse since she is officially divorced as of 2023. 194.230.147.220 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If you are referring to the infobox at the beginning of the article, the text already has dates that indicate when the marriage began and ended. If you're not referring to the infobox, please indicate where within the article the text that you want changed is. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024
Change her photo an updated one from the 2024 Oscars Red Carpet 2601:46:382:D980:2907:E095:777C:33A5 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Looks like there was just a discussion about changing the photo, directly above this section, so this request is unlikely to be uncontroversial. I have no objection to an image change personally. Tollens (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Occupations
, you have already warned me a few times on my talk page. You have to know that I have no bad intentions with my changes. I'm just very confused because other artists like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift also have occupations in their infoboxes listed, which aren't in their lead. DiaMali has already agreed for including businesswoman and record producer to her occupations. For both are also reliable sources, so I don't really understand what speaks against it. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * After this edit, which indicated that there was "consensus on the talk page" for including additional fields beyond what is in the lead, I took a look here to see what consensus there was. I don't see a consensus for this in this thread. I'll note here, as I did in my edit summary: per Template:Infobox person/doc, [the infobox] field is supposed to match what is in the lead. I looked (waaaaay) back through the edit history to see when this was undone previously and see that removed this for the exact same reason. Again, I don't see any consensus to include this in the infobox. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As to whether additional occupations should be added to the lead, this has been discussed multiple times of the years (did a quick search of the archives), most recently in this thread, and there doesn't ever seem to have been consensus for including more than what is currently there. I'm open to adding additional occupations if consensus has changed, but this consensus (or lack of consensus) should be gauged first. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * DiaMali agreed with the change, however the topic already has been archieved. There are clear and reliable sources, for this to be added. Other artists, most notably Beyoncé, have their (many) occupations in their info boxes, even if they are not included in the lead. And even then, they also should be included in the lead, because like already stated, there are reliable sources to include them. It seems to me, that there is some kind of bias against Grande, because I opened the discussion months ago, and no one took any notice of it. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, at this point this is getting silly. I have sources that support my changes. There's no one who wants to take part in this discussion, even when it's very clear Grande is a record producer and businesswoman. I find it extremely biased that certain artists get a free pass of how much occupations they have on their lead or info box. The only editor who seems to have have an issue with it is, but he's barely taking part in this discussion either. I'll wait until Monday. If they are no replies until then, I'm going to re-add them with sources on her info box and lead again. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in a previous discussion—which was ignored, as well as [ignored] edit summaries—Infobox person states: Occupation(s) as given in the lead. And per the hidden note this alludes to the fact anything beyond the three main occupations fail this. Just because someone ventures into another occupation does not equate it to being automatically notable or noteworthy. Just because X page does things does not mean Y page should, too. That would be as if stating "Josie robbed a bank, so I should, too!"  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

New infobox photo
I suggest we change it to File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg because of higher quality and more recentness than the current one @Mirrored7 keeps switching it back to. Should we take a vote? Monsterofain (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We should do a vote. We should do the 2023 photo. Cwater1 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please change her picture?
The picture is almost an decade old. Can someone please update the picture? Grande went to Oscars this years, I am sure there must be licensed pictures of her from the red carpet JabSaiyaan (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. There appears to be an edit war ongoing over the photo. Huskago (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @JabSaiyaan I'll search and see if I can find one. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Huskago @JabSaiyaan If you two could also assist in searching for some available images, please do. Mostly, images from 2024 SNL / Oscars AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I have seen no photos from the Oscars that have licenses that can be used here, personally, I don't know what rational argument anyone has against using the only recent photo of her available that checks all the boxes of what a lead image should have. This isn't a case of Billie Eilish, where people want to go frequently changing the photo for no good reason.
 * Ariana Grande for Vogue Taiwan (cropped).png Trillfendi (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, that one makes her head look squashed. So much so that I found it positively distracting when I happened to visit the article while it was in place. YMMV.
 * - 2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Trillfendi The photo always gets reverted because it "isn't appropriate". However, Elizabeth Gilles (Ariana Grande's long-time friend) posted a candid of her on Instagram, which I believe can be used. Here is the link (slide 7):
 * https://www.instagram.com/p/C4WDVKiu8ou/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng== AskeeaeWiki (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot use Instagram photos without the permission or request of the celebrity or if they add the photo to the Commons themselves (which are rare instances but have happened). Though that would be much more convenient if we could. Trillfendi (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand you believe the picture used may be outdated. Why does it matter? First of all, Wikipedia pages are meant to give information about the topic, in which it does so. Second of all, even if the picture may be "almost a decade old," she still looks great in it. I think the picture is good for the article because it shows Ariana at a concert, singing, which is what she is famous for. The point: The picture is not the primary part of the Wikipedia page, and I don't think it's so bad that it should be reported on. 72.85.199.109 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know what the expected criteria for lead images are. I made articles like Harry Styles and Rihanna into good articles, so at this point I know what popular articles require. It doesn't matter how "great" she looks in it or not (that's purely subjective and we can all agree that she looks great all the time), it is not representative of her current appearance being that this photo is the only photo available since the 2020s decade even started. In fact this is the only available to use photo of her face since 2016! That photo should be in the 2013–2015: Yours Truly and My Everything section and replace the zoomed out one. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Trillfendi Grande looks good in the Vogue photo. We aren't in any position to judge Grande's looks for an infobox image. I support using the 2023 image. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just disambiguating that when I say appearance I don't mean anything related to beauty but how she actually currently looks. A 30 year old woman isn't going to look the same as she did as a 22 year old woman and that's why I believe the article ought to reflect that. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Trillfendi Yeah, I agree. An image of Grande from 2015 does not reflect how she looks now. I'll let you make the image change. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 22:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like the 2020 photo has been deleted. What is the qualities for a photo to be accepted? Cwater1 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cwater1 Should comply with Wikimedia Commons' requirements for an image to be allowed. If its licensed for use it should be good (I searched on flickr and did not find anything its always "all rights reserved") 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 05:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I like helping with contributing. Cwater1 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't know why the lead photo was changed back to 2015 photo? Cwater1 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that we have consensus, I will change it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree with the photo change. The most recent one comes from a YouTube tutorial. Grande is an artist and performer. In the previous picture, she is seen with doing exactly that, while wearing cat ears, one of her signature looks. The blonde hair she currently wears is temporary, and her eyebrows are also bleached. She doesn't look like herself, she looks like the character she plays in the Wicked films. The photo is strangely close, she appears emotional. It just an unflattering photo. Why do you all care if the 2015 picture is older? It's still better than her latest, which doesn't do her any favors. I would definitely agree to add a picture from this year's Oscars. I think this is more appropriate than a random screenshot of her doing a tutorial on YouTube. Furthermore, I see that only one editor agrees, while most just want a more recent image, meaning they don't specifically agree with the latest image. So I'm going to change it back to the one that has been the main image since November until there are better photos of her in 2024. Grande will be on a lot of red carpets promoting her film this year, and there's a chance she'll be touring again. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the Vogue screen capture (File:Ariana Grande for Vogue Taiwan (cropped).png) even though I am opposed to the use of screen-captured images for living persons' articles. The close-up, non-obstructed image fits in-line with the example set at Infobox person (as well as sub-templated persons' infoboxes). Whether or not her looks are "temporary" are purely a non-neutral, fan-pointed view point. Whether an image does someone favours, as well, is not a valid argument. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site page. Enough of the ownership bullshit happening here. It's become very clear [many] believe the main image should be changed. Enough is enough.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 15:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Still, there's no reason to use that image. You seem to be very hostile and biased. I already said, that the image should be changed to something recent at some point, when there is an appropriate one from this year. The main image is good as it is for now, it shows her as an entertainer on the stage, that's what her occupation says, it's much better than whatever that 2023 image is. She doesn't look like herself, it's screenshot, she looks emotional/sad in it. You can't tell me any good reasons why it should be the main, besides that it's the most recent and follows the protocol. I'm always trying to stay objective, and imagine someone else searching after “Ariana Grande” on Wikipedia, and the first he sees is a random image of her doing a YouTube tutorial, while her occupations clearly says that she's a singer /actress. Why that most recent image of hers should be the main, if it's clearly one of her worst and has no quality at all? Mirrored7 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Not going to respond to the personal attacks being thrown as deflections — what I will say what stated above echoes my feelings entirely.   livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I seem to agree with using the 2023 photo. I refer recent better for lead. Cwater1 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi, Cwater1, Livelikemusic, and I agree to ***change*** the photo to the Vogue 2023 photo. Seems to me consesus is being reached. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe move to the voting phase. Cwater1 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it even needs that. It was changed with consensus, and changed back without. Huskago (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know that there's anyone at all who doesn't agree that the image "should be changed", as such. That's not the issue. The issue is that there's currently no available alternative able to generate consensus that it would be, on balance, an improvement on the established one. In that situation, my understanding is that leaving it alone until a better alternative does become available is the proper and only thing to do. That individual editors have more vested motivations than that is likely true, but also neither here nor there.
 * - 2A02:560:5811:5600:2059:ABFF:D469:8DAF (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2023 photo if it can be used? Cwater1 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff
@Mirrored7, the removal was done here. The edit summary was: GA4: Removed unnecessary detail. The removal was done in response to Item 3B of the review, which you can view above.

Hours of work was put into the review by and the reviewer. If you want to try to undo the edits made in the GA review, I personally would appreciate it if you would discuss it here first, out of respect for the hard work that was put into the review. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't even understand what's there to discuss. Those are Grande's most recent achievements, and should be included in the career section. @Brachy0008 Please explain to me why you removed this. It's well sourced content and has nothing to do with the discussed topic itself. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason for the removal is pretty self-explanatory if you read the GA review, and I agree with the reasoning behind the edit, even though I don't agree completely with the edit itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: There's a lot of stuff that might be reliably sourced but may not be due for inclusion.
 * While I would support re-adding the statement about 1) the album and second single debuting on the Billboard 200/Hot 100, and 2) Grande topping the songwriter/producer charts, the rest of it (rankings compared to other artists, x-number artist to top certain charts simultaneously) is the type of overly detailed material flagged for attention in the GA review. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, then I would re-add it and take those parts out. It's really not that big of a deal. However, removing the whole content, isn't right either. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I felt that those kinds of information delved into unnecessary detail that are best shown in the respective article of whatever this article mentions, even though they were well sourced.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Branchy08--sorry, I did a partial self-revert before I saw your comment here. Please feel free to revert me if you think the info I added was too much detail for this article. I do want to see this article meet GA status one day and I don't want to jeopardize that. Thank you again for all the work you put in on the GA review, you did a great job with it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!  Brachy 08  (Talk) 08:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just some concerns and points for the article:
 * ▪︎ According to GV Review, it was criticized that too many unnecessary details are included on the career section, among them are promotion appearances like SNL, Fallon. However, recently there were included Grande's SNL and Met Gala appearances. I would say, the SNL info should be removed, and the Met Gala info should be shortened only with the opening song and closing song remaining, it's just too much unnecessary info otherwise.
 * ▪︎ Sources to Grande's 98 billion streams, which are from reliable outlets like Variety and Deadline, were removed, because of “too many sources”. It should be re-added as the info is included in her achievement section and in the lead, and is one of Grande's biggest accomplishments.
 * Sources:
 * 1.https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/hybe-merges-ithaca-holdings-scooter-braun-bts-1234943092/
 * 2.https://deadline.com/2021/11/ariana-grande-cynthia-erivo-to-star-in-universals-musical-wicked-1234868595/
 * ▪︎ There is a new image of Grande being interviewed at the Met Gala. It would fit in the public image section as the 2016 one was removed.


 * ▪︎ Grande has recently signed Artists4Ceasefire letter. This information should be included in the Philanthropy section.
 * Source: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2466357/ariana-grande-dua-lipa-and-drake-sign-artists4ceasefire-letter-to-joe-biden Mirrored7 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoi Isn't this your topic? I would appreciate if you can reply to me. You seem to only care about removing content from the lead, but not adding something to the article. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a thread that I originally created. However:
 * your post here is in not directly related to the thread that I created (this should probably be an edit request in a new thread),
 * even if it was directly related, it's a stale thread that hasn't been replied to in more than a month (if you want to bring someone's attention to a stale thread, you should ping them),
 * it's not clear from the text that you were expecting me, specifically, to reply to this,
 * it's been less than 24 hours since you posted this, and
 * you are WP:Casting aspersions with your last sentence, so any desire I had to engage with you here mostly disappeared after reading that sentence.
 * (note the text of the message I'm replying to changed as I was typing this, see []) Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I really just to try to bring attention to some issues on the talk page, as I'm blocked right now, and can't do anything. Things are removed without any explanation, and it's frustrating to see. I brought it to this topic, because some parts are about the GA review. The same things that were criticized are being done again, with adding her promo appearances to the career section. It thought It might interest you, because you, yourself said, you want the article to reach GA status someday. In the review, reliable sources were removed, which are about Grande's streaming units. I would say the user made a mistake, because he thought multiple sources were about one achievement. Also, the "songwriter" removal from the lead, without any explanation, even when there were multiple discussions on the talk page, to have it stay that way.
 * I just would like you to add some things, when it's possible for you. I would appreciate it. And next time I would do an edit request. Sorry for my tone. But I hope you can understand, from where I come from. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead, again
Following up on a bunch of prior discussions, but most recently this one, which I did not participate in: per MOS:LEADLENGTH, Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words. The present lead is more than 600 words long spread through 22 often very long sentences. While I don't think that's necessarily a problem in of itself, I do think we need to be judicious about when and how the lead is expanded, especially since Grande herself is still young and the lead will likely continue to grow as her career progresses.

I appreciate the intent behind trying to expand the lead to make her notability more evident, but I think the article lead already makes clear that Grande is [a]n influential figure in popular music, [a]mong the world's best-selling music artists, and described as one of the greatest vocalists of all time by an influential music publication. How much does it really add to the article to also say that she is a triple threat entertainer, which is repeating a phrase buried in the third paragraph of the public image section of the article, and is doing so really WP:DUE? Not everything that is in the article needs to be repeated in the lead, and I think the lead already more than adequately indicates who Grande is and why she is notable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In addition, 's edit here seemed entirely appropriate and was an improvement, IMO. It conveyed the same information in six fewer words. The edit was reverted with the edit summary "no improvement." I disagree: directness (and NPOV) is a plus.
 * Similarly, the clause {{tq|she is noted for her four-octave vocal range and whistle register conveys the information adequately. Saying, {{tq|she is noted for her four-octave vocal range and her signature use of the whistle register}}, as was reverted to here doesn't add very much meaning. It's also not clear who is calling her use of the whistle register a "signature" of hers--there's nothing in the article body to support this and it's not NPOV for Wikipedia to say this in its own words. Further, it's another bloating addition to the lead.
 * I would appreciate to hear what other editors think. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I too would like to know the thinking behind "numerous accolades". "Numerous" here tells the reader nothing (is it 5, 50, 500, 5000?), except to put forward the opinion that the writer thinks that it is a lot.  I'm also not clear what the phrase "throughout her career" conveys?  Again, it is advancing an opinion that the reader should be impressed not only by the number, but the distribution of her awards. Or is it to distinguish these awards from those she received outside her career?  Does she have any of these?  So why say it? -- Escape Orbit  {{sup|(Talk)}} 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mirrored7}} do you have anything to say that would explain what makes the text you reverted to better? -- Escape Orbit {{sup|(Talk)}} 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since {{ping|Mirrored7}} is declining to discuss the reason they reverted my improvement to the article, I will restore it.-- Escape Orbit {{sup|(Talk)}} 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For those counting, this is the fifth time {{ping|Mirrored7}} has been asked to discuss their reverting of improvements to the article. So far they have ignored requests to contribute to the discussion. If they cannot, or will not, explain their position, then they cannot contribute to this article in a collaborative manner, and their edits are just disruptive edit warring.-- Escape Orbit {{sup|(Talk)}} 16:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I reverted again, I just want to note that I stand by my comments above. I also read the IP's comments below and while I appreciate what they have to say about lead lengths, I don't think their comment addresses the specific issues that or myself have raised (including, not limited to, specificity, directness, NPOV). I also understand that many editors just read the lead and skip the article body. That's fine and all, but that doesn't mean we need to load everything in the body into the lead. I don't think the specific edits being discussed here take away any critical content away from the lead, and readers of the lead will still understand who Grande is and why she is such a notable person. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm now the second one in here, saying, that the length of the lead is in the normal range and should stay the way it is. The lead was much more bloated months ago, and already has been shortened drastically. However, I understand your concerns, and will try my best to keep the lead clear and objective. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The length of the lead is one issue, but it leaves the other issues (NPOV, directness, specificity, etc.) unaddressed. (It's also worth noting that the IP's comment below dealt with only lead lengths in general. The IP did not comment on the specific language being discussed here.)
 * On the specificity issue: I considered staying neutral on the use of the word "numerous," but on further thought, I think Escape Orbit has a good point: "numerous" is so vague that, in this context, the term is almost meaningless. Numerous could mean 5+ awards (like Victoria Justice), 100+ awards awards (like Dua Lipa), or 700+ awards (like Taylor Swift). It's not clear what realm of "numerous" this "numerous" refers to. When you consider the information that follows, which summarizes Grande's various Grammys, Billboard Music Awards, AMAs, world records, etc. (53 in total), I don't think removing the word "numerous" takes away anything critical. Further, the use of the word "includes" neutrally conveys that those 53 awards are just a subset of the accolades that Grande has earned (i.e., there are more awards beyond the 53 described in the lead).
 * Finally, your response to Escape Orbit below is, again, inappropriate (and I say "again" because you've been called out on this before). Stop thinking that every single editor who disagrees with you on an edit has a "{{tq|problem}}" or is being "{{tq|nitpicky}}". Oh, and saying "{{tq|no one seems to have an issue with it, except you}}"? That is obviously not the case. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm here now, and I honestly don't understand your problem. First, I'm not the one who added this, however, I also don't really see why it should be removed. It has been like this since forever, and no one seems to have an issue with it, except you. Is there a rule, to not use the word “numerous”? If not, it shouldn't be removed. The rest, is just nitpicking and your personal opinion. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "I honestly don't understand your problem" - you don't see the problem with reverting an edit, saying it must be discussed, when you have been ignoring for weeks requests to discuss it?
 * "I'm not the one who added this" - you are the one reverting it.
 * "It has been like this since forever" - this may be a reason for it being a change requiring discussion, but it is not any kind of reason for it not being changed.
 * "no one seems to have an issue with it, except you" - no-one seems set on including it, except you. Head-counts do not establish whether something is an improvement or not.
 * "Is there a rule, to not use the word “numerous”?" - This rule here that says text should be expressed neutrally. As I explained; "numerous" is vague and not neutral. It is only good at expressing the opinion that the writer thinks it is a lot, and wishes the reader to know this.
 * "The rest, is just nitpicking" - A great many improvements to articles is about "nit-picking". There is no reason for the lead to contain verbiage that adds nothing.
 * "and your personal opinion." - as is your insistence that it should remain
 * All you've addressed above is largely irrelevant and simply about personalising disagreement. Could you please address the issue and explain why the article without these words is not an improvement? What are these words adding to the article, that it loses when they are removed?
 * -- Escape Orbit {{sup|(Talk)}} 10:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again prompting {{ping|Mirrored7}} to respond to discussion. If you can't address the issue then I'll go ahead and improve the article, "nit picking" or not. -- Escape Orbit  {{sup|(Talk)}} 13:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to apologize to you. I understand that I cannot take ownership of an article. It's important that you know that I mean no harm with my revisions and that I truly want to work with you. I saw your responses, just didn't reply to it directly and saved it for later, but then lost sight of it. I was also wondering, as I didn't see it as that big of an issue. I know that “numerous” can mean anything and is not specific enough. I understand your concerns. To reach a final consensus, how we add "various" instead, because in my opinion that says much more than "numerous". Mirrored7 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO "various" has the same pitfalls as "numerous." Can you help me understand why you think the word "various" works better? Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By "various", I mean not the quantity but the variety, from music and film to beauty awards, and organizations that award them like Billboard and MTV. It definitely says more than "numerous". Mirrored7 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh, I would be open to this if we mentioned other types of awards in the lead, but all the awards noted in the lead appear to be music-related (and it seems undue to list non-music awards). Referring to "various" awards in that context but only listing music awards would likely just confuse readers. I still prefer Escape Orbit's version. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But even then, not all music awards are the same. Billboard is about charts, American Music Awards is fan voted, VMAs are about music videos, Guinness is about world records. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty weak argument. Those awards are all (or, excepting specific world records for social media following or "favorite Eevee tattoo", almost all) still music-related. Of course each award will have different selection criteria. I don't see how that justifies the use of the word "various". My point is that it won't be clear to readers from the context what the word "various" refers to. It would be much more straightforward to simply say that her awards include Grammys, AMAs, etc., and then let them look at her awards page to see the details if they want to learn more. I continue to believe that {{u|Escape Orbit}}'s version is preferable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to add any kind of description, quantifying or evaluation of the awards? It's difficult to do this without the suggestion of an opinion being voiced. Why can't the article just say she has won awards, with link, then list a selection of the most significant? That's the job of a lead and gets across, neutrally, the important facts. I also still don't see what "throughout her career" adds.  Either it is pointless verbiage (which is bad), or it is suggesting it is remarkable she's won awards at different times (which is worse).   But "various" is certainly better than "numerous".  -- Escape Orbit  {{sup|(Talk)}} 08:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Escape Orbit I would strike the "various" tbh, and I also would replace "Grande's awards" with " Her accolades". While we're at it, can you add, "she is "recognized" instead of "noted" for her four-octave vocal range, so we can include "with Rolling Stone naming her one of the greatest vocalists of all time" in between. The senstence looks very random at the end. Mirrored7 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * General observation: I looked at a bunch of articles about musicians with comparable notability just now. Not a single one of those ledes clocked in below 400 words, and a couple were even longer than this one.
 * Personally, I think they're all excessively detailed and would indeed be better at half their current length, just as the MOS section you quoted suggests. My SOP for articles with lengthy ledes is to read the first paragraph and then skip straight to the body, otherwise I tend to end up feeling like I wasted my time by reading a bunch of stuff twice over.
 * Objectively, it's probably fair to say that this represents something of a consensus among the editors of this type of article that it's more important for ledes to be comprehensive than to be concise. This one's lede does not seem excessively long to me by that standard.
 * - 2A02:560:58C3:0:EDE8:7876:C892:D12E (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Isthmus55}} Can I ask why you combined the two paragraphs together? Now it reads too long.
 * Mirrored7 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was fixing a small typo (the letter "a" in between the two sentences), and didn't notice that they were previously two separate paragraphs. Fixed now. Isthmus55  (t • c) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Grande is a songwriter, and has been recognized as that. It has been discussed in here multiple times. Why it was removed from the lead and without any explanation or a discussion? Mirrored7 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Most followers on Instagram for a musician and a female musician
Would like to update to reflect that Selena Gomez now has most followers. Have already mentioned it on the talk page of List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande:

Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande

Other viewpoints/feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify whether you are asking for a specific change in this article? Or do you just want to alert other editors to the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande? I don't think there is a claim anywhere in this article that Grande is the most-followed musician, but I could be wrong. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. As i haven't had any feedback as yet, i was hoping to alert editors here to the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande.  It needs updating as we now have conflicting pages within Wikipedia...as  i've already pointed out, Selena Gomez's pages cite Selena Gomez as having most followers for a musician and a female musician while Grande's relevant page also cites that Grande has most for a musician and a female musician.  It can't be both Gomez and  Grande, so it needs updating.
 * Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
Edit request for the article.

- Add “Songwriter” to the lead, as it has been removed without any explanation.

- Trim extra details in the career section; remove SNL mention, shorten Met Gala info to opening and closing song

- Re-add sources for 98 billion streams from Variety and Deadline on "Achievements" section

Source 1: https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/hybe-merges-ithaca-holdings-scooter-braun-bts-1234943092/ Source 2: https://deadline.com/2021/11/ariana-grande-cynthia-erivo-to-star-in-universals-musical-wicked-1234868595/

- Include new image from Met Gala in public image section

- Add Grande signing Artists4Ceasefire letter to Philanthropy section.

Source: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2466357/ariana-grande-dua-lipa-and-drake-sign-artists4ceasefire-letter-to-joe-biden

I would very much appreciate this. Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Can someone please reply to this? It's been three days, and there has been no edits or discussions made. I'm blocked from the article, and can't do the changes myself. What's point of this talk page? @Prefall @Trillfendi
 * @Isthmus55 Mirrored7 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoi Can you please reply to this thread. Your one of the most active editors on this article, and I don't appreciate how you replying to anyone but ignoring my edit request. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)