Talk:Ariana Grande discography/Archive 2

Good As Hell
User:Fan4Life You are REALLY getting on my nerves right now. The single cover literally credits Ariana as a lead artist, that is FAR more important than a few streaming services. Please stop editing Ariana Grande related articles as a fan. And by that I mean editing every Ariana Grande article the way you want it while completely ignoring facts and making up your own. Especially because now you are ignoring hidden notes instead of starting a discussion. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lizzo herself said it's featuring Ariana. There's plenty of instances where the cover doesn't say "featuring", that doesn't make the featured artist a lead artist. Fan4Life (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A tweet from an artist that says "feat" does not override the literal cover art which should match the artist. Don't rely on other stuff, and the cover explicitly says "Lizzo & Ariana Grande", because that is the artist. They wouldn't put that on the cover art if Ariana Grande was featured on the track. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The 7 Rings remix cover only has 2 Chainz credited, does that make it 2 Chainz's song with Ariana uncredited? No. You're saying that the cover overrides literally everything else, including the artist themself, which isn't true and is just ridiculous. Also, there's no policy or guideline backing up your assertion that covers dictate credits. Fan4Life (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there ain't no guideline backing up your assertion that streaming services "dictate credits" either. And the "7 Rings" remix is a very poor example, unlike "Call You Mine". "Call You Mine" credits Rexha as a lead artist on almost all services, but we credit her as featured per the cover art. The cover art comes directly from the artist, unlike whatever streaming services feel like putting as the artist. The streaming service could credit the artist or song as whatever they want, despite what it actual is. And now I see User:Gagaluv1 has reverted this as well with the incorrect summary "Covers do not determine how artists are credited". They basically do. Why the hell would they not? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't justify using the cover by saying it comes directly from the artist (which it doesn't necessarily) and then dismiss what the artist themself said. Your assertion that cover comes directly from the artist is WP:OR, as is your argument that streaming services can do the credits however they want. Fan4Life (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why claim with no proof that something comes directly from the artist when the artist has literally weighed in on the situation herself?Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit conflict. Anyway, can either of you just use your common sense? (If you have any..) The cover art comes from the artist and/or the label, the label literally published it as the cover. And as far as I'm concerned, Lizzo was not the person who published her song to streaming services. Many artists tweet "ft" or "with" referring to the artist and Wikipedia says otherwise. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making personal attacks against your fellow editors. Just because people disagree with you (because you have no evidence to support your claims) doesn't mean we don't have common sense. If anything, insulting the people you are debating just weakens your arguments.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't "personal[ly] attack" you. Stop being so easily offended. And I never said you didn't have common sense, I just asked you to use it. And I do have evidence, but sense you refuse to use that common sense of yours, you ignore it. The cover art comes from the label, they "freaking" published it. The label knows more about whose credited as what than some streaming services published by random people do. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The track is billed as Lizzo - Good As Hell (feat. Ariana Grande) on Lizzo's Youtube channel. KyleJoan talk  15:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Listings on streaming services, both official YouTube uploads, multiple Lizzo tweets promoting the song , and the promotional links themselves (deprecated) all support Ariana being featured. The cover art is nowhere close to being enough to override this, in my opinion. Pre  fall  21:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariana Grande is featured. Even though the cover art doesn't credit Grande as a featured artist, social media posts, YouTube videos, etc. (sources above) that are from Lizzo credit Grande as featured. I agree that this should override what the cover art says because there are way more sources from the artist that says that Ariana Grande is featured. There is clearly consensus to label Grande as a featured artist.CountyCountry (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like no one understands that the artist does not choose what the streaming services do. Ss112 talked about this in a similar situation before.. care to give your opinion? 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖 𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕 𝕗𝕒𝕟  💬 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do prefer to go with cover art if I start an article, if Lizzo and Ariana themselves have used the word "featuring" to describe Ariana's role on the song and sources have used it consistently, I suppose we should go with that. I mean, "with" or "featuring" is not that big of a deal to me anymore.  Ss  112   22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you're saying, but where did Ariana talk about her role on the song? 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖 𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕 𝕗𝕒𝕟  💬 22:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Ariana has talked about her role on the song, I said "if" she (or Lizzo) has, we should go with that.  Ss  112   22:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Actually if you look at the revision history, you’d see that “featuring” was used first". Ok, I guess most have agreed Ariana is featured, but (coming from the one who literally created the section about the remix) "and" was certainly used first. 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖 𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕 𝕗𝕒𝕟 💬 22:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m referring to the first time it was mentioned, which was in the track listing section.Gagaluv1 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Time By Childish Gambino (feat. Ariana Grande) to Guest Appearances.
Childish Gambino has recently released his album Donald Glover Presents (2020), and it has a song featuring Ariana Grande called "Time." I know this will have slipped under a lot of people's radars since it was not formally released on any streaming service. Could someone please add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shl13132 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit, but then I undid it because I am unsure. Grande is uncredited in the song and not technically a 'featured' guest. Does this still count as a guest appearance? I tried to look at other artist discography (Big Sean's uncredited vocals in Grande's "Problem" for example) but it doesn't look like songs are usually added if they are not credited. Can someone give their input here? Thank you. -- Divine618 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of guest appearances
Per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: the removal of songs citing "Only songs that she's a credited artist on should be listed." in this edit is incorrect. For example, she was a guest in the song I Want You Back cover by Victorious cast per. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please do not edit war and discuss here. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Records sold
In the riaa article clearly says she was certified for 52.5M digital singles not 63M, and she has now 19.5M in the U.K. which calculates 79M records sold, stop editing it and changing the sources Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

More recent picture
Is it possible to put a new image that's more recent? For example, from her 2019 Sweetener Tour or at the 2020 Grammys. The image used here is 4 years old already DriesTaeymans (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead image change
Both of you have recently received uw-3rr warnings on your talk pages for behaviour on other pages, so I don't know why you are now continuing to edit war on other pages. Express your concerns about both images used at Ariana Grande discography and Ariana Grande videography, talk it out here and come to an agreement, and for the love of God, stop reverting. I have removed both the images, and I would like them to stay unused on the two pages until both of you can come to an agreement. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User keeps edit warring at various articles regarding Ariana Grande, including this one, even after being told repeatedly by many other users that they are being disruptive with their edits. They have been given multiple warnings in the past, and were recently blocked from editing just two weeks ago, yet they continue to proceed with such behavior. The picture I am providing is higher resolution and less darker than the current one, something that goes by MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. User does not agree and instead of discussing on talk page, keeps reverting to what they personally prefer, simply because "she looks awkward and the image isn't even recent." Film Enthusiast (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's weird, because, from the diffs, you two seem to be switching between which article uses File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped).jpg and which article uses File:Sweetener_Tour_Ariana_Grande_O2_Arena.jpg. Before the edit war, the first one was used in the discography article and the second one was used in the videography article, but I now see them being switched back and forth, so I don't get why you're bringing up image quality when both images were in use before the edit war started. Now, I'm pretty sure you're getting this confused with whether we should use File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped).jpg or File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg, which is a whole other discussion. Personally, I am neutral on both issues (which image is used where and whether to use the original one or the retouched one). D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right about that and for that fault I apologize. That said, File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg should in my opinion be the one used for lead, as I've already mentioned, is less darker and has a higher resolution than the original one, which follows MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. I'd also like your input on this as I recall just last week you disagreed to use this image. As for the videography article, I also believe this image is the better one for the same reason. Film Enthusiast (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I also recall me having an opinion last week, but after you reverted me and explained why, I decided to go neutral, considering your thoughts but also the fact that the edited one still looks a bit off in my opinion (it looks like someone heavily FaceTuned her face, but maybe that's just my eyes). It's also a picture, as long as it's clear that the picture is of Grande, I don't have an opinion. But, I think it is necessary to have different pictures for different articles, like what is done at Justin Bieber and Justin Bieber discography. Even though Bieber is wearing the same outfit and both pictures were taken on the same night, the images are different enough that, if I just looked at the image, I would be able to tell which article it is used in. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do feel the same way a bit, and I'd use a different image if there was any better one, but unfortunately, there aren't many other better images of Grande in Commons, which is why I settled for the edited version. So since we're debating about the original or retouched image, the retouched would be better, unless of course, a better alternative were to be suggested. Though I wholeheartedly agree that we should use different images for different articles, so as long as we use the retouched image over the original, I really don't have a preference for using File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg or File:Sweetener_Tour_Ariana_Grande_O2_Arena.jpg on either article. Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I don't know why the pictures were swapped in the first place, so, unless Mirrored presents a good reason for switching them, I think 32426962484 (either version as I have no preference) should be used in this article and Sweetener_Tour should be used in the videography article. Majority seems to be to use the retouched version, but I would still like to hear Mirrored's perspective on this, as well as any other editors who pass by, before I add the pictures back. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Thank you for being so courteous about this. Film Enthusiast (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg for the discography article as she is more recognizable. The tour one looks a bit creepy. Heartfox (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason I keep changing it is because I think she looks weird in the image. It's also four years old. It's ironic that there is exact the same subject about it, right above this one. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because she looks "weird" is not a good enough excuse. And as I mentioned earlier, we can't just change images because they're not recent enough. You say that, yet you moved that same image to the videography article, when it was perfectly fine how it was before. Older images are just as acceptable, as long as they are of better quality and adequately address the article or section. 2017 isn't even that old. Countless articles on Wikipedia use much older images. Film Enthusiast (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The newer the better. The old image would be somewhat acceptable, if you would use the original, and not the one with the unnecessary filter. And like I stated before, it seems like that I'm not the only who's not a fan of the image. I honestly don't understand your problem, it still will be used as the image for the videography article. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it do you? The problem here is that the original is not better, the retouched version is 5mb whereas the original is 3mb. The retouched has a higher resolution. And as I've already pointed out to you, per MOS:HOTLINK, which you clearly don't care about following, states that sometimes it's okay to use edited images, because it improves the image. The original is too pink, whereas the retouched version has a more natural shade. The user you speak of doesn't even seem to be an active user. Besides, I would tell that same user what I'm telling you, you can't just change images because they're a few years older. Another user has already stated here that they prefer the retouched version anyways. There was nothing wrong with these images, no one had an issue with it until you came in and switched them for no apparent reason other than your personal preference. Film Enthusiast (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, neither of these images are particularly beneficial. We can thank the particular artist who apparently likes to perform on tour without much light. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Do any of these look better in terms of lighting? If so, please let me know which ones. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well we have to settle for one, so I'd choose either 2 or 3, though 2 is still pretty dark, and 3 is already used at List of Ariana Grande live performances, so for that reason I still believe File:Ariana Grande (32426962484) (cropped, retouched).jpg would be a better fit than all the others, with the exception of 3, but to avoid using the same image on two different articles, I don't think we should use than one either. Film Enthusiast (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with both sides, the swt image provided is extremely dark and hard to see, and at the same time I agree that we should use a more updated image for this page. I suggest https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/01f/096/90a2392ae93674a0598a70c8a699bddc86-ariana-grande.rsquare.w1200.jpg as a good replacement, but that's just my opinion. 4 definitely not. They all are not really favorable, because they have been used for years already. 1, would be the closest, because it's from her most recent tour. Can't we get the one that I submitted retouched or something? I agree, that's a bit too dark, but I still prefer that one. If you all don't agree, then definitely 2, from the ones that were suggested. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be a bad image, unfortunately though that image isn't available on the Commons, unless of course you own it, in that case you should upload it for use. How about this one: File:Ariana Grande (33269921925) (cropped).jpg ? It has a more natural lighting and higher resolution than the other ones. Film Enthusiast (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Decided to go with File:Sweetener Leg 2 Uniondale.jpg, as suggested we use it and  agreed. I also agree since there really is no better alternative at the moment. Film Enthusiast (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Yay, we did it! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
the song “POV” has surpassed 1 million units in the US. So there should be a platinum text next to the single. Xavierworley (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, the RIAA database does not show that "POV" was certified at all, Gold or Platinum. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021♥️
41.114.54.159 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No change requested, and no change made. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Holiday singles
Grande seems to release a number of Christmas singles every year, and because it always seems unclear what an actual single is, and what a promotional single, I thought of creating a 'Holiday singles' section. It would look less random and more orderly. What do you think guys? Mirrored7 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Just Look Up
Can some editor create an article about Grande's promotional single “Just Look Up”? The song is nominated for various film critic awards, and has been shortlisted for an Academy Award nomination. It also has a music video and was performed once. 2A00:6020:B49F:3D00:FD9C:4B44:285E:4C05 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User block
Can someone block LaFuerzaReina from editing this page. He's spreading false information, without any relaible source. His edits have been reverted multiple times by various editors. Thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sweetener Leg 2 Uniondale.jpg

My Favorite Part
Mac Miller's song "My Favorite Part" ft. Ariana Grande is certified Gold in Portugal. Could someone add it in it's certifications on this page? AnthonyFG (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sales in 2020s
Hi, I'm wondering why sales are not included for the 2020s decade. From what I can tell, there were sources for sales of most of the 2020s songs. The article listing all of Ariana Grande's sales in 2020 says at that point Stuck with You received 137K and Rain on Me received 98K sales, both of which seem significant. Flabshoe1 (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)