Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Mac Miller

Mac Miller is her new boyfriend, could you add him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDigen (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As Ssilvers told you above regarding Ricky Alvarez, if they get married or keep dating for a number of years, we can add him. At this point, there's simply nothing notable about the relationship. -- Irn (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Irn, is there a requirement to how long the person dates someone in order for it to be added? I'm not 100% sure, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia, but to my knowledge - there is no requirement. As her previous relationships have also been put into her Wikipedia page. In addition, the difference between Ricky Alvarez and Mac Miller is that no one knows who Ricky Alvarez is, he is not as famous as Mac Miller. Thoughts? AjayTO (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that there is no policy or guideline dealing with this specifically, and as far as I can tell, there's no stated consensus or at the very least, it's applied inconsistently (as you aptly pointed out). If that is the case that there's no consensus, we should probably have this conversation at the BLP policy talk page.

That said, the overriding policy here is the living person's policy, which states explicitly, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" and later gives an example: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."" WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are."

Taking all this together, my take away is that if a relationship isn't a significant part of a person's biography, it's best to leave it out. (In other words, if they date for a long time or become engaged, we'll have reason to include it.) This is especially true when we end up with a gossip-y list of all the relationships a person has been in, as we have here (which I hadn't previously noticed, and which I absolutely think should be removed). -- Irn (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Irn. Let's wait for a year, and if Miller and Grande are still dating, we can add it then. Short relationships are trivia that runs afoul of both the BLP guidline and WP:UNDUE. AjayTO, unless and until you can build a consensus for your opinion here, your addition of the material into the article is WP:Edit warring. Irn, what, exactly, do you think should be removed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: if the only thing we have to judge the significance of a relationship is its length, I would personally rather see only relationships of at least 1.5 to 2 years, but I see that you've suggested waiting one year for the current relationship, and I can live with that as an arbitrary standard. Either way, in this case it would leave only her relationship with Graham Phillips. (Unless, of course, we have reason other than the length of the relationship to think that any of the other relationships was particularly important.) -- Irn (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly if the person is not a notable (blue-linked) person, I would agree that 2 years is a minimum, but for notable people, at least for now, I think one year is a reasonable rule of thumb. We say that she dated Jai Brooks for a year and then later dated him for a further three months. And though she dated Big Sean for only eight months, they cut several songs together, so I wonder if that makes the relationship more noteworthy? I agree that we should delete Sykes, and I'll do it now. As Grande gets older, and if she gets married, then I would support dropping most of these youthful relationships from the bio as, basically, superseded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good call, I had confused the rekindling with Brooks for Sykes, so that looks good. And I think differentiating between relationships with notable individuals and with non-notable individuals also makes sense.

I can see how doing songs together makes an 8-month relationship more important. Generally with BLPs, I like to err on the side of privacy, so I would prefer to see it removed, but I recognize that that might be more my own bias against the inclusion of this sort of information in general in BLPs, so if you think that it makes the relationship noteworthy enough for inclusion, I won't argue against that. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave Big Sean in for now, unless others think he ought to come out. But, as I said, as the years go by, if Grande has more major relationships or gets married, then we should revisit these early relationships and trim away the least noteworthy ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, okay, seeing as Ssilvers stated that Big Sean had several songs with her. Won't we talk about the fact that Ariana Grande's debut single was in fact, with Miller? They've had several songs together and remixes. But I can agree on the fact that they haven't been together a significant amount of time. Therefore, we will leave it out for now. AjayTO (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mac and Ariana have two songs now, The Way and My Favorite Part, so I don't get why Big Sean is written, but Mac Miller not? EDigen (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Mac and Ariana have not been together for a significant amount of time. See WP:BLP, WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE for more information. Three factors should be considered: A long relationship or marriage, a blue-linked suitor, and, lots of work together. We do mention Miller above when we mention "The Way". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the relationship between Miller and Grande is not yet a significant point of encyclopedic knowledge. As others stated above, after a year or two, it will be a more significant part of Grande's biography, and we can add it then. UWS Guy (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course I understand that they haven't been married or dating for a few years. But I think, that all the things should be added, because Wikipedia is not just a website that tells what Grande was doing. I think , that all of the Wikipedia pages should have all the information. Please add it. Or if you're stuck just that you can't do it, I don't know, make a page called " Ariana Grande 's Relationships". That's not funny , I'm serious.

Genres listed in Infobox

Seeing as whenever I add the genres that are sourced in the article that states Ariana does R&B, pop, hip hop, funk and dance they get reverted, my suggestion is to include those genres into her info box. Dorabandora (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes should be kept concise and should contain only essential information. WP:INFOBOX says: "The less information [an Infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. Therefore, the genres listed in an infobox should be only the *main* genres that the artist records consistently and continuously. I think that naming 5 genres in an infobox would be far too many, and that the two currently named are Grande's main genres. If we are to add more genres to the infobox, we need a WP:consensus to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be far too many, most artists do different music for their repertoire and it's added see Calvin Harris as an example so why would it hurt to add those other three genres? Dorabandora (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that I don't care what it says. The more we put in Wikipedia, the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Chernyavsky (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the infobox of Calvin Harris is an example of what not to emulate - there's too much info. I agree with the statement from WP:INFOBOX that says: "The less information [an Infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose." Somambulant1 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ssilvers and Somambulant1. One is sufficient; two is acceptable; anything more than that is excessive. Everyone wants to add their favorite genre, but that's not what's best for the article. Sundayclose (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Her prime genres are R&B, pop and dance so those three should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.29.121 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC) — 176.24.29.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is a reminder that registered users should not express opinions in a discussion while signed out. This can be confirmed by a WP:Checkuser and result in a block for sockpuppetry. If this has happened by accident, the registered user should add his/her signature to the edit in order to avoid a block. Sundayclose (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Majority of Grande's albums and songs feature R&B and pop as the bases then she usually adds either dance, dance-pop, or EDM parts to it and as her talk page puts her as a pop, R&B and soul, electronic artist I would say the only other genre to add to her info box is either dance or electronic, I don't really see her as a hip hop artist or a funk artist nor a soul artist so if it was up to me for the sake of ease I'd have as R&B, pop and electronic. Just sayin' 2A02:C7F:DE2E:EB00:F5AA:742F:834A:54A (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

After the well-publicized tweet indicating that she was Italian, Grande tweeted this in 2014, indicating that she had found out that her grandparents were "heavily greek and part north african." I'm not sure how reliable or relevant any of her tweets are about her ethnicity, but I'm leaving this here if anyone wants to look into it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

She was saying that although her grandparents all came from Italy, her DNA chart shows that, like many Sicilians, she has some Greek/North African DNA, as well as Italian. See later tweeted this follow-up to clarify. More recently, she has confirmed that she identifies as Italian here and here. She continues to be identified as Italian in the press, for example in Billboard, the Belfast Telegraph and Contact Music. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone more recently restored the quote that grande is of "half Sicilian and half Abruzzese" descent. This does not add anything important to our more general statement that she is of Italian descent, and it only confuses the issue discussed above. I think it is not helpful to include that quote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree – and it's the reason I took the sentence out. It's also not the clearest quote I've ever seen ("half Abruzzese"?): when a quote raises more questions than it answers, it's probably not worth including. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

she said she hates Americans so she isn't American she must be something less than American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:B94B:F32E:77D7:85F4 (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mac Miller

Mac Miller is her new boyfriend, could you add him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDigen (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As Ssilvers told you above regarding Ricky Alvarez, if they get married or keep dating for a number of years, we can add him. At this point, there's simply nothing notable about the relationship. -- Irn (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Irn, is there a requirement to how long the person dates someone in order for it to be added? I'm not 100% sure, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia, but to my knowledge - there is no requirement. As her previous relationships have also been put into her Wikipedia page. In addition, the difference between Ricky Alvarez and Mac Miller is that no one knows who Ricky Alvarez is, he is not as famous as Mac Miller. Thoughts? AjayTO (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that there is no policy or guideline dealing with this specifically, and as far as I can tell, there's no stated consensus or at the very least, it's applied inconsistently (as you aptly pointed out). If that is the case that there's no consensus, we should probably have this conversation at the BLP policy talk page.

That said, the overriding policy here is the living person's policy, which states explicitly, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" and later gives an example: ""John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."" WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are."

Taking all this together, my take away is that if a relationship isn't a significant part of a person's biography, it's best to leave it out. (In other words, if they date for a long time or become engaged, we'll have reason to include it.) This is especially true when we end up with a gossip-y list of all the relationships a person has been in, as we have here (which I hadn't previously noticed, and which I absolutely think should be removed). -- Irn (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Irn. Let's wait for a year, and if Miller and Grande are still dating, we can add it then. Short relationships are trivia that runs afoul of both the BLP guidline and WP:UNDUE. AjayTO, unless and until you can build a consensus for your opinion here, your addition of the material into the article is WP:Edit warring. Irn, what, exactly, do you think should be removed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: if the only thing we have to judge the significance of a relationship is its length, I would personally rather see only relationships of at least 1.5 to 2 years, but I see that you've suggested waiting one year for the current relationship, and I can live with that as an arbitrary standard. Either way, in this case it would leave only her relationship with Graham Phillips. (Unless, of course, we have reason other than the length of the relationship to think that any of the other relationships was particularly important.) -- Irn (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly if the person is not a notable (blue-linked) person, I would agree that 2 years is a minimum, but for notable people, at least for now, I think one year is a reasonable rule of thumb. We say that she dated Jai Brooks for a year and then later dated him for a further three months. And though she dated Big Sean for only eight months, they cut several songs together, so I wonder if that makes the relationship more noteworthy? I agree that we should delete Sykes, and I'll do it now. As Grande gets older, and if she gets married, then I would support dropping most of these youthful relationships from the bio as, basically, superseded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good call, I had confused the rekindling with Brooks for Sykes, so that looks good. And I think differentiating between relationships with notable individuals and with non-notable individuals also makes sense.

I can see how doing songs together makes an 8-month relationship more important. Generally with BLPs, I like to err on the side of privacy, so I would prefer to see it removed, but I recognize that that might be more my own bias against the inclusion of this sort of information in general in BLPs, so if you think that it makes the relationship noteworthy enough for inclusion, I won't argue against that. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave Big Sean in for now, unless others think he ought to come out. But, as I said, as the years go by, if Grande has more major relationships or gets married, then we should revisit these early relationships and trim away the least noteworthy ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, okay, seeing as Ssilvers stated that Big Sean had several songs with her. Won't we talk about the fact that Ariana Grande's debut single was in fact, with Miller? They've had several songs together and remixes. But I can agree on the fact that they haven't been together a significant amount of time. Therefore, we will leave it out for now. AjayTO (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mac and Ariana have two songs now, The Way and My Favorite Part, so I don't get why Big Sean is written, but Mac Miller not? EDigen (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Mac and Ariana have not been together for a significant amount of time. See WP:BLP, WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE for more information. Three factors should be considered: A long relationship or marriage, a blue-linked suitor, and, lots of work together. We do mention Miller above when we mention "The Way". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the relationship between Miller and Grande is not yet a significant point of encyclopedic knowledge. As others stated above, after a year or two, it will be a more significant part of Grande's biography, and we can add it then. UWS Guy (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course I understand that they haven't been married or dating for a few years. But I think, that all the things should be added, because Wikipedia is not just a website that tells what Grande was doing. I think , that all of the Wikipedia pages should have all the information. Please add it. Or if you're stuck just that you can't do it, I don't know, make a page called " Ariana Grande 's Relationships". That's not funny , I'm serious.

We need to keep this discussion here. Please do not archive it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Adriana Grande's DNA

I think that the article needs to expand the discussion about Grande's DNA being more African than she admits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:21C2:67D8:B7C4:735F (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no discussion of this in the article. Without reliable sources, it shouldn't go in the article, and it really shouldn't even be here. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if there was a RS, I would not include it, because it is unencyclopedic trivia. We already discussed this above under the heading "Ethnicity". Many southern Italians have significant (but genealogically untraceable) north African ancestry. See this. This is too tangential to be of interest here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Article lenght

Does this article need to be so long? While she is noteworthy, there is so much information in this page that it is not easy to find anything relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.187.4 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why the article has a table of content, to be able to find information more easily. I don't see a problem with the length. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

She has more instagram followers than 95 million

It's 98,8 if I'm not mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylannStormRoof (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

We will change it at 100 million. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ariana Grande. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67eErXXv7?url=http://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums to http://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161127113156/http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp?top=6 to http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp?top=6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arianagrande.info/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017234719/http://www.nickutopia.com/2011/11/15/ariana-grandes-brother-frankie-to-play-cats-brother-in-upcoming-victorious-episode/ to http://www.nickutopia.com/2011/11/15/ariana-grandes-brother-frankie-to-play-cats-brother-in-upcoming-victorious-episode/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Singles

She announced that everyday featuring future will be her 4th single off her album Moonlight26 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we know. We will watch the single and see how it performs. In the meantime, it will be mentioned on her discography page and on the Dangerous Woman (album) page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

True very true she has announced this lots of times XD MiaGirl (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

Please change "including the 3rd most followed Instagram account." to the 2nd most followed instagram account with over 100 million followers on the site. Kaylaa003 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done (for the most part - as far as I can tell, she still has less than 100 million.) Cheers! -- Irn (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was this done? It is incorrect. Two Accounts have more follwers than her: Selena Gomez and Instagram. She is the 2nd most followed person, but her account is not the 2nd most followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusaditus (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

is Ariana Grande an activist?

This article has a section named "Activism", but there are 0 sources calling her an activist. That section should just be named "Philantrophy". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The section is not just about philanthropy, but about Grande's efforts with respect to bullying and women's rights. Maybe there's a better word than "activism"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Doughnut / I hate Americans (again)

This incident was covered in the LA Times, Hollywood Reporter and People.com. All three of which are reliable sources, especially when it comes to entertainment and "celebrity" issues. Adherence to BLP should be our main objective, but I can't see NOT mentioning something about this, both in the body as well as lead. Thoughts?That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Adpete (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't see it. Now it needs to be shoehorned into the lead, along with other missing body points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 12:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed before on this Talk page (the discussions are archived by now). Again, it was a passing incident of bad behavior that was covered primarily in the gossip press. It is misleading out of context, and it does not belong in the Lead per WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"2017" section

It is absolutely ridiculous to add a "2017" section simply because one believes that a certain section is "too long". The last paragraph, from my perspective, does not need to be included. Also, not to mention, 2017 is the present, so to include "–present" is not required. It is quite ridiculous. And Ssilvers, it should have been up to you to open a talk page discussion, per WP:BRD, as you were reverted, multiple times, and you've ignored such BRD and instead are engaging in an edit-war to own your own preferred implemented edit of the page. livelikemusic talk! 22:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The previous section for 2015 and 2016 is long enough. It is customary in good Wikipedia articles to introduce new headings when the previous section exceeds what can be viewed on most large screens. 2017 is the logical place to begin a new section with a new level three heading. I have certainly seen headings called the current year "–present". I am happy to discuss a better heading if you have a suggestion. WP:BRD clearly states that person 1 can make a change. If person 2 (that's me) Reverts, then person 1 or someone else should open a talk page discussion to discuss the matter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That may very well be the case, but you were not reverted merely once, and not once in those four reverts you made — which is in violation of the WP:3RR — did you once open a talk page discussion discussing your changes, either. Two wrongs do not make a right. "–present" should only be added once we have reached 2018, as 2017 is the definitive present tense. If we are talking size; the [now] "2015–2016" section is four [full] paragraphs long, while the previous section "2013–2014" is six paragraphs long; by that defense, it should be the previous section that is split up into multiple sections, no? Again, per your own reasoning for adding the current year as a new heading... livelikemusic talk! 23:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong about the history here. My earlier edits were about different matters. I edit this page frequently and have been the principal editor maintaining it for the last couple of years, whereas you have never contributed anything of value to this article. You should also apologize for your bad behavior on my talk page, which I have reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The revert of material does not matter in this case, at all. WP:3RR states — and I quote — "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." And your statement is neither civil nor in good faith, and I would suspect someone, who has been editing on Wikipedia since May 2006 (which is almost 11 years) would be aware of this behaviour. It's not what Wikipedia is about. livelikemusic talk! 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are simply lying. I have made only two edits on Grande's page in the past 24 hours, and one was just to undo your violation of the WP:BRD guideline. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

edit 1 edit 2 edit 3. livelikemusic talk! 23:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is in no way "absolutely ridiculous" to add a new section for 2017. Each of the previous two sections covered a two-year period. We are now in the third month of 2017. It is logical to begin a new section for 2017. Extending the previous section to include 2017 events is not appropriate. Somambulant1 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but, wouldn't it be a bit overkill to continue on a two-year break every single time? I could understand if she releases a new album in 2017, but, thus far, she has only toured in 2017, etc. It, to me, is premature to add the section. livelikemusic talk! 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Given how the Dangerous Woman album came out in 2016 and the Dangerous Woman Tour takes place entirely during 2017, I'd say such a section is too soon and it makes no sense to have an album and its accompanying tour in separate sections. The length also isn't really a concern at the moment for 2015-2016. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there nothing here about the soft core porn aspects of Grande's "Side to Side" video? Why is this topic locked? I've been reading Wikipedia for 10 years and this is the first locked topic I've ever come across. The rich get Wikipedia perks that others don't? For shame. No more donations to Wikipedia from me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F153:F000:C4B9:75B9:DE8A:DEAD (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's too soon, a 2017 separate section is unnecessary. Btw who is choosing those super-positive critical reviews? the tour doesn't have its own "critical reception" section? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with both Livelikemusic and SNUGGUMS. It is unnecessary to add 2017. Because what I can see that as of right now for this year, she is starting a world tour. Also what I'm concerned is that why is there an edit-war going on this page? Raritydash (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Somambulant1 and ssilver, but in the interest of compromise, I moved the headings to put My Everything together with the Honeymoon Tour and Dangerous Woman together with its tour. Can everyone live with that? -- UWS Guy (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks reasonable to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur; definitely a viable solution. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a very good solution. Somambulant1 (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a nice solution. livelikemusic talk! 15:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Raritydash (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Length of lead

The length of this lead is absurd. While I appreciate an attempt at trimming, it is still in need of some scissors. Every show, album, tour and award being listed so nothing to summarize the body of the article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The explosion is also mentioned in the lead. Is it necessary? George Ho (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's currently being discussed in the section above this. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And it's removed from the lead. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC); reinserted in lede. 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that the tour has been suspended, that info has been added to the lead to give context to mention of the tour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don’t think it’s necessary to mention in the intro the Broadway musical 13, The Honeymoon Tour, Scream Queens or any of the awards except for the Grammy nominations. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What would be absurd would be to fail to mention her principal role in the Broadway show that launched her career, her first major tour, and one little sentence to summarize her numerous awards (she has won 46 awards out of 139 nominations, according to this article). Scream Queens is less essential, but it only takes up 10 words. WP:LEAD says: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. ... For many [readers, it may be the only section that they read. ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. ... Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. ... As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing ways to make sure the lead conforms to guidelines. I think removing mentions of some singles would go a long way towards achieving this.That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit, but just noticed there is nothing from her personal life nor philanthropic endeavors included in the lead. Someone should take a crack at that.That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed mentions of some of the singles, as you suggest above, although the Time 100 mention is an extraordinary honor for a singer and is essential in the Lead. She is not particularly known for anything in her personal life, except perhaps to mention that she is very close to her half-brother. None of it belongs in the Lead. I have also added a brief reference to her charitable activities and streamlined the sentence about accolades. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Is "She also released the top 10 single "Focus" and a holiday EP, Christmas & Chill, and she participated in several collaborative projects." lead worthy? Inconsequential, compared to actually lead singles and studio albums. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I just took out "Focus" and the "collaborative projects" but left in the 6-song EP. After she releases a couple more studio albums, we can take the EP out of the Lead, but for now, I think it is a leadworthy. Is that a reasonable compromise? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mac Miller

Ok, so again, I think its time to add Mac Miller as her boyfriend. As an example, The Weeknd and Selena Gomez are written as couple. EDigen (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They've been dating 7 months. Again, I suggest that we give it 5 more months. If they make it past the one year mark (or if they get engaged sooner), then I would not object to mentioning it. Frankly, a person's dating history is not very important from an encyclopedic view, unless it leads to children or marriage. Miller is not touring with Grande, they do not live together, and they are not working together on any major projects. See WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points expressed in the above post by Ssilvers. Somambulant1 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that we should *not* mention Grande's boyfriends in the article unless they have been dating at least a year or get engaged. There is an older discussion about this. I suggest that we remove the mention of any relationships of less than one year's duration. The information is trivial and not encyclopedic in nature. -- UWS Guy (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to remove mention of Mac Miller with reference to the discussion and consensus above. Jack1956 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

expanding infobox

How about we include Instrument and Associated acts under Musical Career in the info box?

For associated acts i suggest: Nicki Minaj, Mac Miller, Big Sean, Cashmere Cat as she has 3 project with each of those artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusaditus (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not an associated act. If she has a dozen projects with someone, that would be something. Also, we already say in the box that she is a singer. I have a better idea: Let's delete the redundant infobox. See WP:DISINFOBOX. If we do decide to keep the infobox, less is more. WP:INFOBOX says: "The less information [an Infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, I am not sure I agree. When trying to improve articles I always take inspiration from featured articles, and in this case I looked a lot at Mariah Carey. She even has Snoop Dog listed as a an associated act and they have only worked together on 2 songs, so I feel like 3 songs should justify it. Angusaditus (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox does not need to be expanded as the information should be included in a well written lead. I do not think the article actually needs an infobox at all. Jack1956 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ssilvers and Jack1956. Somambulant1 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this is what the infobox at Mariah Carey looked like when it was approved for Featured article. Its expansion since then has not been reviewed by featured article reviewers, and in fact, a discussion about the associated acts listed there shows that the experienced commenters did not think that any of the associated acts listed there are proper. So the example of Mariah Carey's article is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with SSilvers, Jack and others. The infobox is a pointless waste of space here and educates us about nothing that the well written lead section does. Cassianto^Talk 07:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Arena explosion

Information about this incident has been included in the paragraph about her concert tour, but it is now reads quite awkward, since details of the attack is directly followed by reviews of the tour. Surely the Manchester incident should have its own paragraph. This is Paul (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact. this incident has its own article, as the wikilinks at the top of the article will attest.Vorbee (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please be patient. There will be more information available soon, and we can then agree on how to express it and whether to move the mention to the end of the paragraph about the tour. The incident should not have its own section here, however, as it is only tangential to Grande's biography. It is more relevant to the Dangerous Woman Tour article, where it has its own section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Some amount of awkwardness is to be expected in the aftermath of a catastrophe like this, and is invariably resolved as more information becomes available. Keep in mind that there is WP:NODEADLINE. General Ization ^Talk 01:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. While this does deserve a mention here, it should be brief, considering that it's only tangentially related to Grande herself and that there's already an article for both the bombing and the tour. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Irn. The mention should be as brief as possible, and it should not get its own heading. Probably, it can just be the last sentence in the paragraph about the tour. It should not name the attacker. That information belongs in the article about the bombing. No mention of it belongs in the Lead section. -- UWS Guy (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above statements by Irn and UWS Guy. Somambulant1 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Eagles of Death Metal article mentions the Bataclan attack in the intro. I think the same standard should apply to this article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that it needs to get its own heading. It was a major incident and deserves its own heading. The heading should be like it was before someone undid it,but there should be a link to the main article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to turn this section into some kind of memorial. As tragic as the events were, this is not the place for such a thing. Cassianto^Talk 21:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's only tangentially related, but people are likely to come looking for that article via hers. What's the best way to accommodate those readers? A hatnote (ugly, IMHO), a mention in the intro, or a see also link? —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't object strenuously to the "see also" link, which has been added, at least for a reasonable period of time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think also link. -ANDREWs13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd mention it in the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Eagles of death metal aren't really comparable because they're nowhere near as famous, in fact probably most people have only heard of them in relation to the concert attack. A better parallel would be The Who concert disaster, which is a sub-section in the article on The Who, but no mention in the lead. Similarly, I think an appropriate mention would be as a sub-section of the "Dangerous Woman" section. It doesn't really belong in the "Dangerous Woman" section proper. And maybe a half sentence in the intro, if and when the tour is cancelled. Adpete (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there are some differences with the Who incident, which had a more direct connection with the band than this attack had with Grande. I do agree that if Grande cancels the tour, we should mention that, but we have no reason to believe that the tour will be cancelled; it is just as likely that they "won't let the bastards win". We'll see. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That was an unhelpful revert. The mention of the bombing is now buried in a paragraph where it is hard to find. Furthermore, I added useful content (like her tweet, the fact that the tour had been put on hold) and you removed it. If you don't like my edit, improve, don't revert it. Adpete (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the rather harsh reply above. It's just that I thought the subsection approach was so obviously right, that I decided to be WP:BOLD. It's not just The Who article, I've seen this sort of thing done quite a few times (I can't think of examples off the top of my head, but I know I've seen a few): when a large incident happens, which doesn't fit the rest of the article, a sub-section is put it. It's sort of a footnote - it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article, but it stands out appropriately. Anyway, feel free to edit, but I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that a subsection is the way to go. Adpete (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I fully support your edit. This page is currently the most views paged on Wikipedia, and the visitors should all have an easy way of getting information about the incident. They shouldn't have to find a small paragraphed sandwiched between descriptions of her tour. I even support having a link to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing in the lead, just temporarily. It might not be completely according to standard procedure, but it will help people get good supported information on the event and that really should be the main priority right now. Angusaditus (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Manchester bombing is only incidental to Grande's article and so it should not have its own sub-heading and should only have a brief mention; it has its own article where the details are described and are still evolving. Jack1956 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's fair or not, this incident is destined to be an important footnote to her career. It needs to be moderately prominent: it's close to the biggest story of 2017 so far. There's plenty of precedent for subsections referencing tragedies peripheral to people or places, with links to the main article about the tragedy:

• The Who#Cincinnati tragedy - a tragedy at a The Who concert;
• Jodie Foster#Obsession of John_Hinckley - a Foster-obsessed fan shot Ronald Reagan;
• Pont de l'Alma#Death of Diana, Princess of Wales - the place in Paris where Princess Diana died;
• and of course, Boston Marathon#2013 bombing.

In my opinion, a subsection is the best way to go. It sets it apart from the rest of the article, and it's easy to find. Adpete (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Tally so far: For a heading: This is Paul, Blaylockjam 10, Andrews13, AdPete and Angusaditus = 5. Against: Vorbee, Ssilvers, General Ization, Irn, UWS Guy, Somambulant1 and Jack1956 = 8. Did not opine: User:C.Fred.

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Reasons have been raised to include it, and they should be addressed. The only argument against is (variants of) "this is only incidental to Grande", which is only partly true. She's inextricably associated with it. For a start, when was the last time she was on the WP front page? Since she's associated with it, many viewers go to this page, so there needs to be an easy pointer to the bombing article. At the moment it's in the lead, which is good enough, though I still prefer a subsection for the reasons I've given above. Adpete (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the bombing has only an incidental relationship to Grande's life and career, it is also important to note that the bombing has not only its own article, but also its own longer section in several other articles, including the Dangerous Woman Tour article, the Manchester Arena article and the Cathedral Gardens article, and an entire "reactions" article. So it is well-covered in Wikipedia. In addition, not only is it mentioned *here* in the Lead, it is also discussed in the body of this article *and* mentioned again in the "See also" section. It would not be helpful to repeat further details in this article. Any more information about it would give it WP:UNDUE weight. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I never said repeat further details. I said make it a separate subsection, so that it is set apart from the actual information about AG, and is easier to find. Like in the examples I gave. The fact it is covered elsewhere on WP is irrelevant - the point is that coverage should be appropriately linked from the AG article, and that link appear in a natural place in the AG article. At the moment my objection is pretty mild since it's mentioned at the end of the lead; but in the long term it should probably be removed from the lead, and then the subsection will be more important. Adpete (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea that the bombing is 'incidental' in the sense of unimportant is surely untrue. It has made her a major part of a major general news story; not only that, but her response and involvement in the One Love concert can already be seen as a defining moment in her career. Happypoems (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! No, that is not what "incidental" means. It means "accompanying but not a major part of something." So it is incidental to Grande's article, but central to some other Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I rather think that's the same meaning of 'incidental' I thought you meant, so the disagreement stands - from my perspective, the Manchester incident absolutely is a major / important part of Ariana Grande's life and career so far. From a general interest point of view, it's the major event. I'd agree that it's an incidental part of the musical aspect of her career; but the way it's mentioned under 'Dangerous Woman and other projects' is bizarre and tasteless. The murder of children is not an Ariana Grande 'project'.Happypoems (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There used to be a wikilink at the top of this article stating the article on the Manchester Arena explosions, and this now seems to have been removed. Does anybody know why? The above discussion, for all diverse opinions, seems to concur that many people would come to this article to look for information about this incident - and the wikilink was a useful way to find this article.Vorbee (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User:Vorbee. There is a wikilink to the Manchester Arena bombing article at the end of the Lead section, another one later in the text of the article and a third one in the "See also" section. Do you mean the "current events" template? If so, my understanding is that it is no longer needed when edits concerning a recent event have stabilized. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

23 fatalities

Yes there were 23 fatalities however this figure is including the suicide bomber himself. Perhaps, like all social media outlets in Britain, it should be noted as only 22 fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:49FF:1900:D5F5:D089:3610:B212 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Time 100 mention in the lead

I removed some text about Grande being one of Time's "100 most influential persons" from the lead. Time isn't what it used to be, and its lists are slightly click-baity. Regardless, this info doesn't belong in the lead (it's not in the body) and it's questionable if it is even an award worth mentioning. The entry [1] was written by Jason Robert Brown who "is a composer and playwright whose musical 13 gave Grande her breakthrough role", so he's not exactly independent of Grande. This is puffery, and she's quite accomplished enough on her own merits that we needn't resort to gilding the lily.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the appropriate section to discuss the Time 100 source.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I understand your grievance with the inclusion of the list in the lead section, based on what you have presented (should not be there since it is "click-baity" and "TIME isn't what it used to be") I would have to concur that this is a problem that you have with the content produced by TIME itself and your personal beliefs regarding its quality and not something which actually has to do with its significance in general. The TIME 100 list is probably one of the most well-regarded accolades for any person, whatever their profession may be, and to not include it would be to disregard its importance in not only establishing Grande's influence in American mainstream media, but also since it is one of the most esteemed lists that one can appear on and to treat it as though it is superfluous is ignorant of its impact. I would agree that since it fails to be described in-depth in the article's body section, it could be considered unimportant, but this does not undermine the importance of one's inclusion on the list and merely shows that there is not a humongous amount to say regarding her specific inclusion. It also seems as though this point was an afterthought and not the main reason why you want it to be omitted. Benmite (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you live in my head? (checks) Nope. Address the point, not your perceived notions of what I may be thinking. As for the Time 100, well our job as editors is to examine sources and determine if we should use them. In this case, does the Time 100 entry for Grande, written by her colleague deserve mention in the article? Eh, I'm not sure if it helps one way or another. But does it belong in the lead? What does WP:LEAD suggest? It's certainly not an important part of the body, so there's your answer.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I merely stated that it seems as though this particular instance seems to be more based on personal opinion than anything else, as your reasons stated for wanting to remove it have mostly been based on personal opinions regarding the quality of the content produced by TIME, and although you cite WP:LEAD as a reason, your argument appears mostly subjective. If you provided evidence to the contrary (in other words, why your request of its removal is purely based on a significant violation of Wikipedia's rules) then I would not have said what I said. Its inclusion in the article is fairly crucial as I have already explained, even if it does not take up a significant part of the body. Also, I might add that your remarks appear to be rather confrontational and uncalled for, and that if you truly wish to reach a consensus on the topic, it would behoove you to act a bit more kindly. Benmite (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Benmite – it is worth mentioning in the Lead. I don't know what Nantucket means by "click-baity", but Time is probably the best-known news magazine in America, and to be selected by it as one of the "100 most influential people in the world" is noteworthy. As Benmite said, there is not that much more to say about it in the body of the article. It is not actually an honor or accolade, but rather a judgment by the magazine's international staff acknowledging that the person named is enormously influential. Removing it because of a personal bias against Time magazine violates WP:NPOV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your understanding of what NPOV means is completely off the mark. I suggest you read it again.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

At its core, NPOV merely states that changes made should not have editorial bias, which your edit clearly had. Regardless of whether or not we know your state of mind, you clearly expressed that the change was made because of your feelings about TIME. Benmite (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As editors, we decide what content from sources is germane. To say I'm biased against Time is ridiculous. The Time 100? It's about as useful as any Wikipedia list, but that's just my opinion. And you are still ignoring WP:LEAD by way of an ad-hom attack. It is possible to think the Time 100 is a poor source as well as the content from it not conforming to standards, no? Focus on the article, not your fixation on editor motivations. That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Constant deletion of sourced content mentioning Grande's relationship with Mac Miller

Although there was never any consensus to delete this content on talk in the previous discussion, some editors claim that the relationship was too soon or recent to warrant inclusion. This argument now makes zero sense, since the relationship has lasted longer than some other ones included in the personal life section. If you delete it on those grounds, then you would have to delete the others. Moreover, it is better sourced as well, received a lot more coverage, and is therefore more notable according to basic wikipedia guidelines WP:N. Avaya1 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion lays out three factors to consider: (1) notability of the other person, (2) length of relationship, and (3) professional collaborations. The consensus then was that we should wait until at least one year for a blue-linked individual with whom Grande has minimal collaborations. -- Irn (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there was a clear consensus. BTW, I agree with you that we should delete the ones that lasted less than a year (all except the first one, which lasted 3 years. Feel free to ask for a consensus on that). Copying from above:

They've been dating [9] months. Again, I suggest that we give it [3] more months. If they make it past the one year mark (or if they get engaged sooner), then I would not object to mentioning it. Frankly, a person's dating history is not very important from an encyclopedic view, unless it leads to children or marriage. Miller is not touring with Grande, they do not live together, and they are not working together on any major projects. See WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points expressed in the above post by Ssilvers. Somambulant1 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that we should *not* mention Grande's boyfriends in the article unless they have been dating at least a year or get engaged. There is an older discussion about this. I suggest that we remove the mention of any relationships of less than one year's duration. The information is trivial and not encyclopedic in nature. -- UWS Guy (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to remove mention of Mac Miller with reference to the discussion and consensus above. Jack1956 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Ssilvers. Fleeting relationships, or those which are newly established, are unimportant and uninteresting and should be avoided in encyclopaedias. Cassianto^Talk 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"One More Time" Typo Edit Request

Under the "Philanthropy" tab, it says that she released "One More Time" as a benefit single, which should say "One Last Time". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.253.233 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- thank you for catching that mistake! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

==Tours==

Festivals (various artists)

• Jingle Ball Tour 2013 (2013)
• Jingle Ball Tour 2014 (2014)
• Jingle Ball Tour 2016 (2016)

change to: Festivals (various artists)

• Jingle Ball Tour 2013 (2013)
• Jingle Ball Tour 2014 (2014)
• Jingle Ball Tour 2016 (2016)
• One Love Manchester (2017)

Please add this event because Ariana Grande performed in Manchester in honor of the Manchester terror attack, and to raise funds for the people affected for the attack. A reliable source is onelovemanchester.com or redcross.org.uk/love . Jacobgv2333 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done. This is just a one-night concert, not a tour or festival. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do not include? OLM is a one-off event, not a tour per the strictest definition. Part of me says to exclude it because it's not a true tour. Part of me says to include it because of its significance—but that's why it would be mentioned extensively in the prose to the article. I'm leaning toward not making the change, but I'm waiting for other voices. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly "One Love Manchester" should be listed under the 'Filmography' section under television, considering it was a huge televised event, and that the OLM wiki-page itself calls it a television program and lists Ariana as the 'Star'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.253.233 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ariana Grande. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001071524/http://nick-kids.net/post/74685927172/when-i-was-eight-years-old-i-was-on-a-cruise-ship to http://nick-kids.net/post/74685927172/when-i-was-eight-years-old-i-was-on-a-cruise-ship
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pasadenaplayhouse.org/box-office/mainstage/a-snow-white-christmas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Honorary citizenship

The sources say that the council is merely "proposing" to make available honorary citizenships at some unspecified time in the future, she will be granted honorary citizenship. I think this should be removed until it is actually granted. Also, is it really encyclopedic at all? We already say, further down, that she was praised for her efforts in Manchester. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

She has officially been grated the honorary citizenship. 2600:8800:788:7200:5117:B4B1:C37E:500E (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Mac Miller

It's a known fact that Ariana Grande has been dating rapper Mac Miller for quite some time now but it is not mentioned in her 'personal life' section. Ikrewrwe (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I would love to add it but it would inevitably be reverted for some kind of mistake. Could someone else add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikrewrwe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Headings

The consensus is that the years should not be included in the section headings as had been done here.

Editors noted that there are overlaps in Ariana Grande's career, which could confuse readers. The consensus is that WP:MOS does not require dates in headers.

Somambulant1, UWS Guy, SchroCat, Aoi, Davey2010, and Ssilvers opposed including years in the headers.

Fan4Life supported including years in the headers.

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (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.

---

User:Fan4Life wrote in an edit summary: "Removal of years violates MoS." What part of the MOS requires that the years be stated in the headings? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life, please do not edit war. Instead please explain specifically how the MOS supports your reasoning for changing the section headings. Somambulant1 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

All other pages of this type include years, so why should this page be any different? Fan4Life (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not correct. For example, this Featured article about Jo Stafford does not have years in the headings. You are changing your story. First you said the MOS required it. That was wrong. Now you say that all other bio articles for singers have them. It is hard to take anything you say seriously, when you just make stuff up to support your position. Sometimes years in the headings can make sense and help the reader's understanding of the topic. At other times, as here, where there are overlapping parts of the career, they are not helpful and, in fact, can cause problems in organizing the sections helpfully for the reader. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought it did, but I looked and couldn't find anything. But that doesn't excuse you accusing me of making things up. It doesn't matter whether or not MoS requires it, you still made a major change to the organisation and layout of the page without any discussion first, which is against Wikipedia policy. So until you are willing to discuss it properly and politely, and until you gain consensus, I will be changing it back to the previous version, which is the agreed upon version as far as discussion is concerned. Fan4Life (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Fan4Life, who continues to engage in edit warring. He is the only editor insisting on using headings that contain the inappropriate year numbers, which are not helpful. The heading format without year numbers more clearly introduces the subsections, in this case. Fan4Life is incorrect in claiming that all articles "of this type" use year numbers and that MOS requires the use of year numbers. I don't understand how, with both of his arguments having been refuted, he continues to insist on his position. Somambulant1 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Somnambulant1 and ssilver. The years in the section headings are not helpful in the Ariana Grande page. Also, Fan4Life keeps deleting the subheadings specific to the album titles, which I think are essential. Also, Fan4Life's most recent edit to change the Reception and accolades heading also seems to be a poor choice, since "accolades" is a broader term and so it is more useful than "awards", and "reception" is a customary heading for artists on Wikipedia. UWS Guy (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

But it makes the section a mess, it fails to define the years of her life that each heading spans. Fan4Life (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet, you can't just ignore this discussion and leave it. Fan4Life (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus. You are the only one who disagrees with the consensus, and the changes that you advocate would not help the article. They would only introduce confusion into the description of Grande's life and career at this point. You seem to have a mechanical view of how to write the headings that does not make sense here. You have made your points several times, but no one has agreed with any of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I agree that using year numbers in the headings is not a good approach for this article. Somambulant1 (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have written articles that use dates in headings and written them without dates in headings, and it depends on the context. With such a short career (so far), it makes little practical sense to include them. This may change in the future as her career develops, but not yet. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: There is not consensus as you have not properly discussed it yet, what you have done is take it upon yourself to make a major change to the structure of the page without discussing it first, then refused to discuss it instead just questioning me for following Wikipedia and insisting that you do the same. There is no consensus, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, meaning that consensus isn't simply more people agree than disagree and that's that, it means that there is general agreement as to what should happen. Two users agreeing vs one user disagreeing is not consensus, especially when it is concerning a major change to the structure of the article, as a third of the users involved disagree. So either discuss and gain consensus, or I will revert back to the last agreed upon version of the article, which includes years in the headings. Fan4Life (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Per the users above, I don't think it is necessary nor desirable to delineate each heading with years, given the overlap in various parts of Grande's career. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is still no consensus, two users agreeing versus one user disagreeing is not consensus. In fact, without the years there is more of an overlap, as there are years covered by multiple sections, 2013 is covered by two sections, so is 2014, and 2015. The Yours Truly section includes information about her work on Nickelodeon, along with information about My Everything. With the years, there was no overlap, her early life and career beginnings were clearly defined, her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly were in one section, all information about My Everything was in one section, and all the information about Dangerous Woman was in one section. Removing the years actually creates an overlap between sections, it creates a problem that wasn't there before. Therefore there is no reason for it. The overlap of the different parts of her career is a reason to keep the years, if a part of her career overlaps with another in terms of years, as her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly do, then it can't be divided into sections based purely on projects/parts of her career. The only way for the sections not to overlap is to have the years, and to have her breakthrough on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly together, which is only possible with the years. This proves that there is no reason at all to remove the years, as the reason given is overlapping, however with the years there is no overlap, an overlap only exists without the years. Fan4Life (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• All of the above are correct - her career does overlap so adding years to headings in this case would only confuse the reader - We want to help the reader not confuse the poor souls!, I see nothing in MOS that explicitly states "Headings must have years", I would advise Fan4Life to stop the disruptive editing here and focus on editing articles in a productive and helpful manner. –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life, you are having difficulty counting, so here are the editors who have expressed disagreement with you: (1) Somambulant1; (2) UWS Guy; (3) SchroCat; (4) Aoi; (5) Davey2010 and (6) me. We all disagree with your reasoning, your assertion that adding the years was required by the MOS was false, and your next assertion that all similar bio articles have years in the headings was also false. I hope you have finished edit warring. Your other arguments are also wrongheaded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't insult me. Removing years makes it more confusing as it makes it seem as though her career can be divided into those sections, which it can't. There are multiple overlaps, meaning that the only way to divide her career is years, as without years, her life and career is divided by projects, however these projects overlap, such as her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly. I stopped talking about MOS before this discussion, I even admitted I was wrong about that, so you clearly haven't been reading my posts. Why can't you just discuss this politely? All you have done is insult me and my intelligence. Removing years doesn't work as her career can't be cleanly divided by her different works, meaning that the only way to divide it without overlaps is using years. Fan4Life (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here but no one is insulting you or your intelligence, You believe there should be years in headings - 4-5 editors disagree so at this stage I see no reason why this needs to continue?..., You can repeat over and over why there should be years however inshort consensus is not to have them so discussing this further is really a waste of everyones time and your time too. –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ssilvers has done nothing but insult me. There is a point in continuing, the reason given for removing the years was overlapping, however before the years were removed there was no overlap between sections, but now that they have been removed, there are huge overlaps, meaning that there is no justification for it. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, consensus isn't simply more editors in agreement than disagreement, it means general agreement between editors, as long as any editor is actively dissenting, there is no consensus. Fan4Life (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, Wikipedia agrees that if a unanimous consensus cannot be reached, a majority pull towards one decision can be seen as a "consensus." Different levels of consensus exist on Wikipedia, and remember: consensus can change. If you feel that strong about this, then seek a third opinion through the proper channels, without canvassing, sock puppetry or meat puppetry. I also do not see Ssilvers insulting you at all; do not make this a personal discussion. livelikemusic talk! 04:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

But what about the fact that the justification for the removal was overlapping, however before they were removed, there was no overlap between sections, however now they have been removed, there are huge overlaps, meaning that there is literally no reason for it. Fan4Life (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The years have been removed from headings with no justification. The justification was that there were overlaps, however, before the years were removed, there weren't any overlaps, all the sections were concise. But now the years have been removed, there are huge overlaps, which is due to the fact that mulitple parts of Grande's career took place around the same time, like her work on Nickelodeon and Yours Truly. Removing the years only works if there is no overlap between parts of an person's career and there have never been multiple projects at once, which is the case with Ariana. The fact that the reasoning given is completely incorrect means that it needs to be discussed, as currently there is no reason for it, not to mention the fact that the change was made without discussion and was only discussed at all due to it being challenged, even then it wasn't really a proper discussion, the editors in favour simply would not provide any reason or evidence as to why the years should be removed, it was just repeated that more editors were in favour than opposition. Fan4Life (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

comment perhaps you can link a version of the article with and without years in the headers and/or or give an example here in the rfc. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The years were only added by you and you only and as can be seen above various editors disagreed with you so as such starting an RFC is simply disruptive, I've removed the RFC template and again I suggest you find something productive to do. –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps such action would best be left up to an author not involved in the discussion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:15, 5 September 2017 (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.

Headings (Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017)

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.

---

It should be

• 2012-13:’’Victorious’’===
• 2013-14:’’Yours Truly’’ and ’’Sam & Cat’’===
• 2014-15:’’My Everything’’===
• 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== Bahoputaymo (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done. See the discussion about headings above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Repeated repostings of basically the same request to add years to section titles

dude the headings are bothering me! Why the years have been removed? This will confuse the readers. This should look like this: 2012-13:’’Victorious’’=== 2013-14:’’Yours Truly’’ and ’’Sam & Cat’’=== 2014-15:’’My Everything’’=== 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== Can someone please update this, seriously!!!! §Bahoputaymo (talk) pat n06:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Answered above -- Begoon 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Sorry but I don’t know what you’re trying to say, why can’t you just do this: 2012-13:’’Victorious’’ and ‘’Yours Truly’’=== 2013-15:’’Sam & Cat’’ and ‘’My Everything’’=== 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== OR 2012-13:’’Victorious’’=== 2013-14:’’Yours Truly’’ and ’’Sam & Cat’’=== 2014-15:’’My Everything’’=== 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== OR 2012-13:’’Victorious’’=== 2013-15:’’Yours Truly’’, ’’Sam & Cat’’ and ‘’My Everything’’=== 2016-present: ‘’Dangerous Woman’’=== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahoputaymo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC) so it is easier to read, since her album ‘’Yours Truly’’ released on 2013 and finishes also in a same year. ‘’Sam & Cat’’ started from June 2013 to July 2014 and Ariana Grande was focusing on her album ‘’My Everything’’ from April 2014 to October 2015 including her concert tour and the release of her singles Bahoputaymo (talk) As you've been told twice already, please see the lengthy discussion above, which indicated a very solid consensus that years should not be included in the headings. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

A reference should be exact

The reference (Arriana's twitter) says Greek/Italian. while the text says just Italian. Moreover, it notes .."checked"... why not, will anyone?

At various times, Grande has said various things about her heritage. All of her Grandparents were from Italy, and the one thing that is crystal clear is that she is of Italian descent. Any further information would require high-quality definitive sourcing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Then the reference should point to that "crystal clear" thing. The reference cannot have different content from the article.

I've replaced the social media ref with a high quality news ref. that is indeed "crystal clear". -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

People magazine article

Does anyone think that there is anything in this People magazine article that belongs in any of the Ariana Grande-related articles? For example:

• the stuff about her character, generally, in the main Ariana Grande article
• the stuff about her returning to her tour after the bombing, either in the Manchester Arena bombing article or in the Dangerous Woman Tour article, or elsewhere?

I'm on the fence about it. If people think so, please feel free to go ahead and add whatever you think is appropriate. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ariana Grande. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702071145/http://www.fanlala.com/news/ariana-grande-finishes-recording-first-album to http://www.fanlala.com/news/ariana-grande-finishes-recording-first-album
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141116023939/http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/majo-lazer-all-my-love-premiere/ to http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/majo-lazer-all-my-love-premiere/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702153620/http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/39505/20150107/ariana-grande-boyfriend-list-big-sean-graham-phillips-justin-bieber.htm to http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/39505/20150107/ariana-grande-boyfriend-list-big-sean-graham-phillips-justin-bieber.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

She’s a queen

y’all forgot to put that this women is a gay icon and a queen. y’all stay staning trash cans. Kyamarie07 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ariana Grande. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121220103046/http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/mika-popular-song-featuring-ariana-grande-single-premiere/ to http://www.josepvinaixa.com/blog/mika-popular-song-featuring-ariana-grande-single-premiere/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Extra spaces

@Ssilvers: See MOS:HEADINGS. They are optional and you see them on many articles. They are helpful for the readability and styling of wikitext/source. Anyway since this article uses non-spaced style, I don't restore my edit. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ariana Grande. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026170358/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/idUS232814+11-Aug-2011+BW20110811$$495411498 to https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/idUS232814+11-Aug-2011+BW20110811$$495411498
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903120634/http://style.mtv.com/2014/04/23/ariana-grande-nancy-sinatra/ to http://style.mtv.com/2014/04/23/ariana-grande-nancy-sinatra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere Over The Rainbow

Hey! Is "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" Ariana's single or is only a cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.125.18 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a cover that she also officially released as a benefit single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:C204:F927:6CC6:913E:8E1C:4DC7 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo

Hi, please any body (users), please change the photo of infobox, no face and no quality, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JiiQo (talk • contribs) 11:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

bad photo, please remove it.JiiQo (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a recent photo that complies with our "free" image policies. Because of these overly restrictive policies, a lot of images on Wikipedia are sub-optimal. But this is not a particularly bad one. Unless you upload a better, recent, copyright-free or freely-licensed image that we can use, this one is more than acceptable for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relationships (again)

I'd like to know what the guidelines are regarding Ariana's relationships / relevance. Personal bias aside (I don't think it's important to outline her relationship history), I'm wondering why the fact she dated her 13 costar when she was a teenager remains in the article while mention of other previous relationships were cut out. Is it because of the length of that relationship? That itself needs a fact check - this wiki article says they dated until Dec. 2011 but the cited source says until 2010. Or is it because their relationship was publicly confirmed and wasn't PR? Because in that case, her on-off relationship with Jai Brooks would be deemed relevant to include in this article. Just seeking clarification! Journalismqueen (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. New messages go at the bottom of Talk pages. This topic has been discussed here many times, as you can see in the Talk page archives. Yes, the length of the relationship is a major factor. As I noted in one of our recent discussions on the subject, short relationships are trivia that runs afoul of both the WP:BLP guideline and WP:UNDUE. See also WP:NOTNEWS. Her total public relationship with Philips was three years (I've updated the links), but her relationship with Brooks (adding together the two pieces) was only about a year. She has now been dating Miller for well over a year. If one is really interested in her early relationships, they can click on the Bustle cite. Another factor is whether the person dated is notable (blue-linked). If not, I would suggest that the relationship not be mentioned unless it endured publicly for at least 2 years, at a minimum. A third factor is time lag and the number of major relationships. Marriages will always be mentioned, even if short. In 10 years, especially if Grande is married by then, or has longer and more significant relationships, we may re-examine the earliest ones and decide that they are no longer of encyclopedic relevance and perhaps remove the mention of Philips. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

North African descent?

I'm not sure if this is a joke, because Grande hasn't described it as such. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed previously on this Talk page (see the archives). Apparently, Grande took a DNA test that showed that a large percentage of her DNA was of North African origination. But this is not unusual for southern Italian gene pools, and her family seems to have been in Italy for generations untold. Especially since the references are weak, I think this dubious assertion is clearly not something that belongs in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018

In September 2017, Grande participated in A Concert for Charlottesville, benefiting the victims of the August 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottlesville, Virginia. In March 2018, Grande participated in March for Our Lives. Laurenm04 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 23:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

April 15, 2018

Ariana Grande attended Pine Crest School and North Broward Preparatory School after being initially being declined admission into the Dreyfoos School of the Arts theatre program. (This sounds very Shaky, but I'm an RA for music students at Florida State. A bunch of them have gone to this school, and this is one of the most popular stories they have to tell in relation to famous alumni (or lack thereof).) Mraustinadams (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)mraustinadams

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead section trim

Lapadite77's edit of the lead section is better as it is more condensed. Indeed, how many sources introduce Grande with her YouTube views? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to the change. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Lapadite77's change. It deletes all mention of her tours, which were certainly of Lead importance, and it deletes the very brief mention of her 9 (now almost 10) billion YouTube/Vevo views. Very few people in the world have a stronger online presence than Grande, and I think that mentioning it is required by WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead should include mention of her tours and her YouTube presence. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ssilvers, it's not about what you or I or any editor "thinks" about the subject and what you want to highlight, it's what reliable sources determine to be noteworthy. WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." In order for that present trivia to be included, it should at least be attributed to a secondary or third party source. Cite a reliable source that considers her number of views on social media noteworthy, then it can be considered noteworthy on WP. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in the lead, or anywhere in the article, if not supported by secondary or third party reliable source.
Also, the WP:LEAD is a "concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." [emphasis mine] "The next year, Grande gave her first world tour, The Honeymoon Tour, to promote My Everything" - there is nothing important or noteworthy, i.e, lead-worthy, about an artist going on a tour. Likewise with the statement "In 2017, Grande gave her international Dangerous Woman Tour." This is just trivia. Unless there is sourced context that make this trivia noteworthy, ergo support its inclusion in the lead, it shouldn't be in a lead. Lapadite (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says: "The lead should ... summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. ... The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs..." Grande's two major tours are key aspects of her career. Touring is how pop artists make most of their income, so nothing in the article could be more noteworthy. The tours are fully referenced with reliable sources in the article below, so it is most certainly not WP:OR. Grande is one of the most popular people in the world on social media, and this is also well-documented in the article with reliable sources. It should be mentioned in the Lead. If not the number of views of her music videos (which is the most significant metric for a singer), then a more general statement about her social media popularity, or perhaps just that she is one of the 3 most-followed people on Instagram. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the argument put forward by Ssilvers above. The tours and her social media presence are at the centre of her career and need to be covered in the lead. Jack1956 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If the 2017 tour is mentioned, then so should the Manchester attack. Most artists have a high profile social media presence, and if this is noted in the Lede then the doughnut licking incident should be mentioned as this generated considerable amount of controversy. Karst (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

None of her tours are among the highest grossing; what received massive attention was the Manchester attack that took place at the one of the concerts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Rather like Jack1956, tours and social media presence should take precedence over other points. The doughnut incident is trivia that has already been forgotten, and isn't a defining characteristic of her, her life or career, and so is not lead-worthy. – SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat, Ssilvers, and Jack on this. Cassianto^Talk 21:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Latest additions (Genre again)

I have just reverted the article. Is there a consensus for these alterations to be accepted? Jack1956 (talk)\

I agree with your revert, Jack. We've discussed the infobox genres before and decided that Pop and R&B are her two main genres. Other sub-genres can be discussed in the text of the article, unless there is a new WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. I'd also point out that we are awaiting a new album, and that after it is released would be a good time to reevaluate the genres, if people think that the new album changes her main genres. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Songwriter

I think we should add songwriter to Ariana's occupations as she took the lead on songwriting for her new album, Sweetener.[2][3] Other singers have "songwriter" included when they have albums where they didn't write all the songs or even only co-wrote songs, so there's no reason why Ariana shouldn't be considered a songwriter when she wrote every song on her album (apart from "Raindrops", which is a cover). Fan4Life (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's wait until the album is released, showing the actual songwriting credits, and the music sources discuss the songwriting, rather than relying on interview features. When that happens (about 2 months from now), we can discuss the songwriting in the text of the article with the analytical sources and add "songwriter" to the IB and "singer-songwriter" to the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. When the time comes, I would go with "singer, songwriter and actress" rather than "singer-songwriter and actress" as that is how it is written for other singers and there is a difference between a singer who writes their own songs and a singer-songwriter. Fan4Life (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP article says "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose, and perform their own musical material." Tori Amos, for example, says "singer-songwriter" in the first line of her article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It also says that singer-songwriters place more emphasis on the quality of writing than their performance of the song and that they compose their music. As well as this, having it separate better reflects the fact that Ariana didn't always take such an active role in writing, plus most singers who have "songwriter" included have it separate. Fan4Life (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that, but it does say that singer-songwriters often accompany themselves, which Grande does not. The distinction does not make any sense from a language point of view. If anything, separating the word "songwriter" would indicate that the person writes songs for other performers, not just herself, and would give additional emphasis to the "songwriter" part. But I don't feel strongly, so once the album comes out, I will not resist the characterization of "singer, songwriter and actress". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actress

I wonder if we should consider "former" actress. It has been a long time since Sam and Cat, and her only non-cameo acting gigs since then, Scream Queens and Hairspray: Live! have been in the category of "just for fun". In her two huge feature articles recently in Time and The Fader, she did not mention any acting plans. Just a thought. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be jumping the gun without Ariana officially saying she no longer plans to act. It's best to just wait until when/if such a confirmation comes up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Associated Act: Nicki Minaj.

I think it is time to add Nicki as her associated act, because on Ariana's 4-th album, there will be their 4-th collab, including: Bang bang, Get On Your Knees, Side to Side and their newest The Light Is Coming. At least consider it, because as Ariana said: Nicki is true friend, so I think, there will be more collaborations in the future. P.S. Sorry, if I'm writing incorrectly, I am not English-speaking. Edgarasb (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The album has not been released yet. Why are we so eager to make lists of "associated acts" in infoboxes? Victoria Monet is probably more "assocated" with Grande. Grande far more often performed with Monet, Rixton, Cashmere Cat, Prince Royce, Who is Fancy, Little Mix and BIA. One could argue that Victoria Justice and Jannette McCurdy are more "associated" with Grande than Minaj. Jason Robert Brown, Victoria Justice and Scooter Braun had at least as significant an effect on Grande's career as Minaj. So, no, I don't think it's time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Engagement?

Per WP:BLP, we should not mention a rumored engagement. If Grande makes an official announcement of an engagement, we can, of course, mention it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As of Tuesday, everyone is still saying that somebody else reported the engagement, or heard Grande and Davidson talking about it, or inferred it from the massive diamond that she is wearing, but that their representatives have not responded to requests for comment. In other words, there is NO OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION OF THE ENGAGEMENT yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

One user who has been edit warring to add the information about the supposed engagement wrote: "Ariana has … liked tweets saying it." This most certainly does not equate to encyclopedic confirmation of a fact. Perhaps Grande is just having some fun. We need to wait for an official confirmation of the engagement, if any. In the meantime, please read WP:BLP and WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion that she's "just having some fun" is saying that she's lying. She has liked tweets saying it, replied to fans about it and has tweeted about it (see her tweets to Camila Cabello), she has made it very clear. To say that this isn't confirmation is ridiculous. Fan4Life (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

on twitter for the location she has "ǝʌɐ uooɯʎǝuoɥ" (honeymoon ave) Randompersonlolo (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

May or may not mean something just wanted to say that Randompersonlolo (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018

On June 11, 2018, multiple sources confirmed that Grande is engaged to actor Pete Davidson. Zwickerp (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If indeed "multiple sources" have "confirmed" this please provide them here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Engagement

So, Ariana is now engaged to Pete Davidson, according to multiple sources on the Internet. Below, I have included a list of the more reliable sources I have found:

• https://people.com/music/ariana-grande-pete-davidson-engaged/
• https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/a21282597/ariana-grande-engagement-ring/
• https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8460682/ariana-grande-engagement-ring-details-pete-davidson
• http://www.tmz.com/2018/06/12/ariana-grande-engagement-ring-pete-davidson-100k/
• https://www.eonline.com/videos/274475/ariana-grande-pete-davidson-are-engaged
• https://www.today.com/video/ariana-grande-and-pete-davidson-are-reportedly-engaged-1253758531782
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2018/06/11/ariana-grande-pete-davidson-engaged/693041002/

The only reason I'm talking here is because, on her page, it says not to put anyone on there, unless she has been/was dating them for one year. I don't know if we should add this or not, considering it's only been a month since they began dating, but it is a big part of her life. I also would suggest adding her relationship with Big Sean in there; even though that didn't last for a year, it was well-publicized, and people are still talking about it even after they broke-up two years ago.

EDIT: Just saw the other discussions -- never mind! NDfan173 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Still no official confirmation of the engagement, although numerous new outlets have asked for confirmation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

How is Ariana liking tweets about it and replying to fans about it[4] not confirmation? She doesn't have to explicitly say that she's engaged for it to be confirmed, she has made it very clear that she is. Fan4Life (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, she does. Read WP:BLP. Also, please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We need to get things right, not fast. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One could reasonably say in the article, however, that various media have concluded that they are engaged, although their representatives have not returned numerous requests for confirmation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not media sources jumping to conclusions, Ariana has made it very clear that she is engaged. Fan4Life (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

She has not made it very clear. She has coyly implied that it's true and not denied it. That is not a clear confirmation. As the Billboard article you linked states, she has appeared to confirm it; that's not the same as confirming it. -- irn (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes she has, plus her friends (and Pete's friends) have talked about it. Fan4Life (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Fan4Life, you are pretty much defining unencyclopedic information. Your arguments would be excellent ones for a fan site to include the information, but not an encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing really. They flaunt their relationship on their social media accounts. The man shows the world the engagement ring. The woman is going to performances with a planet on her ring finger, they're living together, the man has a tattoo of her name,, a fan says "I hope he knows he's marrying us as well" and she replies "hahahahahahh he's been briefed", heck the jeweler of the engagement ring went on record, but to y'all they're merely acquaintances.... Trillfendi (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

References

So, Pete Davidson went on Jimmy Fallon and has confirmed their engagement, I'll wait for the whole episode tonight and an article from a reputable source before adding it on the page. The video itself is here, but I'll wait til the episode airs and see if anyone writes an article about it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You should add her engagement to Pete Davidson. And her relationship with Mac Miller and Big Sean because most of them have been in a relationship for sometime now Sibudaqueen (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sibudaqueen: her engagement to Pete Davidson and her relationship with Mac Miller are both already mentioned in the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)