Talk:Beyoncé/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Another source for "Highest Paid Performer Per Minute in the World"?
Saucytime.com isn't a reliable source. Please replace it with something else.--Aichik (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you can find one yourself. Instead of adding incessant controversies, you can find a source (a reliable one) to support this fact (achievement). I am sure it will be easier than digging the net for controversies surrounding Beyonce's activities. Just give it a try. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you admitting there is nothing out there, and we can take this out?--Aichik (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all. I am just asking you to find one yourself since you are the one who pointed the current one's unreliability. Just like you dig in the net for controversial issues related to Beyonce, I think it will be kind of a "change" for you to
digsearch the net for a reliable source to reference at least one achievement by Beyonce. This is with the most genuine intentions. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC) - Oh, I must have forgot to tell you, I found the source consolidated by The Independent, so I assumed it must be reliable (I've included that also). —Jennie | ☎ 07:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all. I am just asking you to find one yourself since you are the one who pointed the current one's unreliability. Just like you dig in the net for controversial issues related to Beyonce, I think it will be kind of a "change" for you to
- Are you admitting there is nothing out there, and we can take this out?--Aichik (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2013
"The tour sold out 1 million tickets within a month"
???
At the source of the Billboard (157) says nothing of this...
"Beyonce last toured in 2009-2010 with her I Am...” world tour, which grossed $85.6 million and drew nearly 1 million people to 73 shows reported to Billboard Boxscore".
This isn´t about Mrs Carter Show tour.. You put here a wrong information! They only say the selling out is fast!! But they not say any number!
I Am... Mrs Carter
Just placed a deletion request on the page I Am... Mrs. Carter as it is un-sourced and clearly fake. The author has also added it to her album chronology and discography. --Lolcakes25 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
New main photo
What's with this? Is she a football player scoring a goal? Don't see why we changed it from the closeup.--Aichik (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please stop with your stupid immature comments and act properly for once in your life? The picture is not perfect, but if you have issues with it start a nice decent discussion. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's part of the Survivor choreography; I just thought the image needed updating, and that's the most recent, high-quality one available. The tour starts today, so hopefully some European fans will upload new pictures in the upcoming months that we can use. —Jennie | ☎ 16:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jennie, that's what I wanted to know:)--Aichik (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, you're a good editor, not a cheap one. But still, you don't think it's a bit much, this victory stance? Is she going to prison? It just seems needlessly aggressive.--Aichik (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Not a cheap one"? Was that really necessary? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have written that now but, Indian Bio, 1) everything has its context and 2) you've used this example on the Administrators' board. I feel that your own overkill can cancel even your good efforts (like this) out. Relax. Anyway, back to topic: No one else thinks this photo is a little weird?--Aichik (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Although I find Aichik's behavior disgusting, I will have to agree here, the picture seems kind of weird. Why don't we simply use this photo until new pictures from Mrs Carter Show Tour are uploaded? And I believe that will happen pretty soon. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Beyoncé being heavily criticised for her endorsement of Pepsi
1) The Center for Science in the Public Interest launched a campaign a month prior to the inauguration to try to get Beyoncé to change her mind. 2) Laurie David started the petition on We the People to get her disinvited to the inauguration and remained equally condemnatory after the petition was taken down by the White House. These, I believe, constitute heavy, involved criticism.
Nowhere do I say claim that it was the wider media that heavily criticized her: Get to the rest of the sentence. "She has been heavily criticized for this endorsement by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, New York Times's food writer Mark Bittmann and environmentalist Laurie David."--Aichik (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Beyoncé has had controversies and criticisms throughout her entire career. She has also been a partner with Pepsi for over 10 years. Why should we start adding every little criticism she receives now. Also, none of these criticisms achieved anything, especially Laurie David's, who was completely ignored --Lolcakes25 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, finally some debate instead of just censoring and insulting people. If there are other noteworthy controversies, please discuss them here except ones for specific videos. Jennie and I have discussed some, and I still think the Malaysian cancellation is important, just to show that even though we all like Beyoncé, the global reach has its limits: Not every country is like the US or the UK. As for Laurie David's criticism, it wasn't ignored: Look at the links in the article. And the White House certainly didn't ignore it: Look at article links.--Aichik (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is really ridiculous but hilarious at the same time. Sales and awards are being removed and controversies + unsuccessful petitions are being added. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't the word "heavy" and/or "heavily" an opinion? As far as I know it is, it's like saying "that film received extremely positive reviews" (I've seen this language occasionally). If there is a reference that especifically says that, then it should be quoted, if not removed. As now I, as a normal reader, read "Knowles was heavily criticized by the CSPI and [two people]", and? and then what?. The way the paragraph is written clearly denotes the person(s) who add it doesn't know how to write articles, as simple as references go after the punctuation symbols and never before them. This is a clear violation of the NPOV policy, and the article works well by saying "Knowles was criticized by the CSPI (if there are other orgs they are added), as well as The Journalist and The Environmentalist, because... (some reason the reader cannot read because it is not in the article as you are a) obligating him/her to go to the references and read why she was criticized. The article, now, never says why; and b) you are more worried about using the correct adjective to qualify negatively a living person, and much more worried to restore it of someone removes it.) Also, why they decided to criticize her after the Super Bowl when she's done it for 10 years. This never is said and it should say so: "because she is part of the Move Your Body movement, which dedicates to...)
- This is simple, the problem is not the article, or the fans, or the people who watch it, or Obama, or Canada, or etc., the problem is you cannot work with others and cannot collaborate as it should be desired, and considering you have edited less that 5,000 times in five years, this is the sixth article you've edited the most (122 edits in four months), apparently you don't have written any kind of featured or recognized content here, that apparently you do not understand the NPOV policy ("Nowhere do I say claim that it was the wider media that heavily criticized her", two persons and an organization are "heavily criticizers"?) how you can people to trust you or your editing or your changes? Also, I want you to analyze every "-ly" I wrote and understand how "-ly" adjectives and adverbs work and why they shouldn't be written on main space. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
To this last, I really don't know what to say, Tbhotch. For someone who has purportedly made 140,000 contributions to Wikipedia, your social skills are extremely lacking.--Aichik (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wasn't you reported due to your constant attacks and uncivil comments the last days? I can say the same with you. Yes, I have social issues but at least I admmit I have a problem, and it is my problem, and most important to this site, I never post them in articles. In your case, you don't only post your bias, you post your attacks, any kind of negative comments you find, and 'you-are-the-worst-to-this-website-and-the-world' comments elsewhere, the evidence is the last comment you left; why it is relevant to this page to know if I have or not social skills and they are "extremely lacking"? (again your adjectives). It is off-topic, similarly to "heavily critiziced" to what happened in real life. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Like I wrote at the very top of this discussion, 1) The Center for Science in the Public Interest launched a campaign a month prior to the inauguration to try to get Beyoncé to change her mind. A month. By a science organization. 2) Laurie David started the petition on We the People to get her disinvited to the inauguration and remained equally condemnatory after the petition was taken down by the White House. And she's an environmentalist. These, I believe, constitute heavy, involved, and unusual criticism. It's not PETA, going on about her and her furs. It's not an anti-smoking group of mothers angered by her glamorizing smoking. And, these are each individually more than a mere statement to the press once. (So no, "heavily" is different from your "extremely" in "extremely positive reviews.") As for the other stuff, look on your talk page soon.--Aichik (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You said so "I believe". Wikipedia articles musn't have the opinions or believes of the writers per WP:NPOV or WP:COI. If you can't prove she was "heavily" criticized using an external source, it is solely your opinion. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yours is a literal reading to suit your own ends. And don't throw Wikipedia rules at me like some overeager law student, I know what they are. The critiques were heavy! Deal with it! And BIG news in the US to p e o p l e w h o f o l l o w t h e n e w s. It's absolutely not my problem if you don't happen to.--Aichik (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2013 - Miss A Meal / + / Beyonce is Lending Her Voice for GOOD / + / CHARITYBUZZ
More than 50 million Americans go hungry every day. With economic downtimes increasing and the unemployment becoming the norm for so many people, iconic entertainer and performer Beyoncé along with her mom, award-winning fashion designer Tina Knowles and entertainers Solange, Kelly Rowland and Michelle Williams have all joined forces with Bread of Life, Inc. the Houston-based non-profit organization founded by Rudy and Juanita Rasmus, to fight for the needs of the less fortunate with a fundraising campaign they call Miss A Meal.
Miss A Meal meets the Needs of the Hungry!
Every day people like you and I simply decide to Miss A Meal and then donate the money that we would have spent on that meal to feed someone less fortunate. With a nominal cost of $1.00 per person to provide one well balanced meal, Miss A Meal supporters are able to donate multiple meals through a single donation.
Beyoncé, Ms. Tina, Solange, Kelly and Michelle have decided to take charge of passing the plate with the simple premise that one person has the power to help many.
Miss A Meal today; It Only Takes One Plate!
http://www.beyonce.com/news/miss-a-meal
http://www.missameal.net/#!/about-us/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
/+/
Beyoncé is Lending Her Voice for GOODWILL
Beyonce partners with Goodwill to Transform Lives
ROCKVILLE, Md., April 15, 2013 - Goodwill Industries International is pleased to announce that Beyonce Knowles-Carter will lend her voice to help raise awareness about Goodwill's mission of transforming lives through the power of work. The announcement comes just as Beyonce gets ready to kick off The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour today in Serbia.
"Goodwill helps people get back to work by providing education, job training and placement. I wanted to team up with an organization that puts people first and works every day to help them improve and re-establish their lives," said Beyonce.
- http://www.beyonce.com/news/goodwill
- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/goodwill-beyonce-idUSnPnDC94242+160+PRN20130415
/+/
CHARITYBUZZ - Beyoncé's The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour for Job Creation Auction
Beyoncé has launched an online auction to support programs that help put people back to work. The global entertainer is offering fans the opportunity to experience The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour with VIP credentials and unprecedented access. Proceeds will benefit a variety of charitable organizations throughout Europe that focus on creating job placement opportunities.
http://www.beyonce.com/news/charity-buzz http://www.charitybuzz.com/auctions/beyonce/catalog_items
- I'm considering reinstating the "Philanthropy" section; she seems to be active in a lot of charity work this year, and it will make sense to put it together. (Just to let you know I'll add this in ASAP). —Jennie | ☎ 16:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Done Thank your for this!! (You can find it in the "Philanthropy" section). —Jennie | ☎ 20:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why? This was identified as one of the problems with the article. And the addition of the political views section is also unnecessary. She is not a politician. It was already pushing it having an other ventures section, and bloat has been a serious problem for this article in the past. I do not think this has improved the article at all. AIRcorn (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Philanthropy section was never a problem, people just merged it to make it appear that the article was shorter when it in no way decreases the length (as you're just moving information around and not removing anything). I don't think it contributes to bloat at all; articles can reach a decent length as long as summary style is applied, and there is no length an article needs to reach (be under or above) to satisfy the GA criteria. I do understand what you're saying about Politics, however, it's just that information like this (personal views and life) is hard to integrate into the article in an accessible way, because there isn't a section like that. The comment on same sex marriage support was in the "Products" section, which may seem odd, but the person was right to not put it in "Life and career", because it's not really relevant to her career. —Jennie | ☎ 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see the philanthropy section as being analogous to a controversies section. It is not really a length concern, but more a neutrality one. However, it can become a concern for focus as these sections encourage a proliferation of trivial edits (much like what happened with the legacy section). I can see it being filled with paragraphs about how "Beyonce donated money to a beggar" or "Beyonce participated in a charity single" and other similar edits which were a major problem before. I think both those section (plus the product endorsement one) could fit quite comfortably in "Life and Career" (hence why I did the merging in the first place). Life is a pretty all inclusive heading. Either way I don't think they fit in "other ventures" (I never liked that section title). Politics in particular looks out of place as it is not really a venture. I would suggest giving them their own level two heading if they are going to be kept or even better a catchall heading for both of them. Something like the Political and moral stances heading in Bernard Fanning. I mentioned it in the GA review, but I think it needs to decide whether the biography section is just her career or whether it is everything. At the moment it is a bit of both. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Concerning your first point, I completely disagree. I think controversy sections present themselves as non-neutral because they aren't biographical and usually consist of trivial discrepancies between other celebrities. And although I think Philanthropy sections can become trivial (and small donations/projects should be removed), if a celebrity is involved in a notable and reliably sourced project then it should be included. The problem of merging this into the "Life and career" section is the fact that Knowles isn't a philanthropist, in the same way she principally isn't a businesswoman (Products and endorsements), political figure (Politics) or fashion designer (House of Dereon). The "Life and career" section should include what she is most notable for: her singing, acting and dancing. Adding the "other stuff" into this makes "Life and career" too long and inaccessible, with the potential for that information to be lost when people summarise it. I wonder whether the article is missing a "Personal life" section, in which the Politics stuff could be merged into, along with some other bits. (I think Political and moral stances is a bit misleading, as she doesn't have many, she's more involved in supporting Obama). —Jennie | ☎ 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just adding that your point about the Biography section is the exact feeling I've had when editing this article over the past few months, it needs addressing somehow. —Jennie | ☎ 17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Notably controversies are biographical, just like notable charity work is. The problems are that having a dedicated section is a magnet for adding indiscriminate information to the section and that by combining all the criticism (or in this case praise - which is what a philanthropy section really is) in one section it gives the appearance of being greater than it really is. I think you have just put you finger on why this is an issue; you say that she isn't a philanthropist, yet we devote a section and header to her philanthropy. While the same might be true for the other headings under "other ventures" the philanthropy one stands out because by its nature it is not neutral (i.e. it only contains praise). Maybe the best solution is to create the "Personal Life" section, change "Life and Career" to "Career" and move this, political views, plus the birth of her baby and relationship to Jay-Z and anything else that is relevant to this new section. AIRcorn (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see the philanthropy section as being analogous to a controversies section. It is not really a length concern, but more a neutrality one. However, it can become a concern for focus as these sections encourage a proliferation of trivial edits (much like what happened with the legacy section). I can see it being filled with paragraphs about how "Beyonce donated money to a beggar" or "Beyonce participated in a charity single" and other similar edits which were a major problem before. I think both those section (plus the product endorsement one) could fit quite comfortably in "Life and Career" (hence why I did the merging in the first place). Life is a pretty all inclusive heading. Either way I don't think they fit in "other ventures" (I never liked that section title). Politics in particular looks out of place as it is not really a venture. I would suggest giving them their own level two heading if they are going to be kept or even better a catchall heading for both of them. Something like the Political and moral stances heading in Bernard Fanning. I mentioned it in the GA review, but I think it needs to decide whether the biography section is just her career or whether it is everything. At the moment it is a bit of both. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Philanthropy section was never a problem, people just merged it to make it appear that the article was shorter when it in no way decreases the length (as you're just moving information around and not removing anything). I don't think it contributes to bloat at all; articles can reach a decent length as long as summary style is applied, and there is no length an article needs to reach (be under or above) to satisfy the GA criteria. I do understand what you're saying about Politics, however, it's just that information like this (personal views and life) is hard to integrate into the article in an accessible way, because there isn't a section like that. The comment on same sex marriage support was in the "Products" section, which may seem odd, but the person was right to not put it in "Life and career", because it's not really relevant to her career. —Jennie | ☎ 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why? This was identified as one of the problems with the article. And the addition of the political views section is also unnecessary. She is not a politician. It was already pushing it having an other ventures section, and bloat has been a serious problem for this article in the past. I do not think this has improved the article at all. AIRcorn (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In the personal life section, you can enrich enough with everything that has been said in the documentary Life is But A Dream. It would be a great source of information, since the change of manager, the relationship, the daughter, etc. And congratulations, the article in general of Beyoncé is frankly better organized and presented! Just got too bad the philanthropy section has lost some information. In the past was much more complete than it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(My emphasis on the above). How nice!--Aichik (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 24 April 2013
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May i edit on the Beyoncé Knowles page? GagsGagsGags (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
- You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
- You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
- You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2013 - H&M COMMERCIAL VIDEO
"Standing On The Sun", a song from Knowles' upcoming album, was previewed first in H&M "Beyoncé as Mrs. Carter in H&M" commercial
http://www.beyonce.com/news/mrs-carter-in-h-m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
SIA FURLER - Beyoncé as Mrs. Carter in H&M--- dreams do come true!! my queen @beyonce singing a song I wrote with @GregKurstin
https://twitter.com/Sia/status/327323164218630145 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done Thanks! I couldn't include the Sia details (as it is from Twitter, which isn't a reliable source), but I'm sure that will come along with the album details (which are hopefully imminent). —Jennie | ☎ 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Billboard Millenium Award
As I already stated in my edit summary, I find the mention of the Billboard Millenium award, an award that started only two years ago unnecessary in the intro of an article in GA reassessment status. Compared to the Grammys, the MTV Music Video Award (for music videos), and compared even to other Billboard Awards of which there are numerous, it is minor. If a governing body or a magazine comes out with 46 awards a year, it relegates all of their important-sounding awards to minor status, unfortunately, especially one that is only two years old. Lastly, the "Billboard Millenium award" is not even included in the main chronology of Beyoncé career.--Aichik (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree So the award is not important because it is new? Where is the logic? If I follow you, then the Grammy, MTV Awards etc were all irrelevant when they were two years old only.
And [1] applies million times more suitably for you as you were the one who removed the information, not me. So that people don't say I am canvassing, I inform you all in advance that I am leaving a message on the wikiproject talk-page. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree – The Billboard Millenium Award was included in the lead section because it's a major award in Beyoncé's music career. Billboard honored Beyoncé with the award for her "career achievements and influence in the music industry". 0z (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Your source is Billboard. Of course they're going to say it's a really, really important award. Give us another source please.--Aichik (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree - A significant award; Beyoncé described it as "one of the best memories of [her] life", I think it has a place here. —Jennie | ☎ 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
She said that while she was accepting? Or elsewhere? Please don't use Billboard as a source, it's circular logic.--Aichik (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Who are you to say please don't use Billboard? Billboard is not good now? And please don't ignore what others said. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
beyonce' baby is real so ya'll cant say anythih bow swag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.0.185 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, Jivesh, I was saying that using Billboard as a source in this case is faulty because they themselves put out the award. Read more carefully.--Aichik (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Where is this written on Wikipedia? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Really? How is Billboard "self-published or a questionable source"? Who are you to question the reliability of Billboard? Can you prove that Billboard is a questionable source? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Beyoncé's dad's early job
Time, which we cite, says "medical equipment salesman" but People, which is well fact-checked says he worked at Xerox at the time he decided to manage Destiny's Child. Which is it? (This appears in the "Early life and career beginnings" section) --Aichik (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was the medical equipment division of Xerox (according to his own page, Matthew Knowles), which eventually closed down. —Jennie | ☎ 19:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I also added in his child born from an extramarital affair (in the Family section), as it seemed to be omitted. —Jennie | ☎ 20:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Stage and Alter ego
Band - It´s missing Mrs. Carter Show World Tour!
In this section "Stage and alter ego" I think it would be very interesting add Beyhive definition - "Stage, Alter ego and Beyhive" This is how she defines her base-fan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeyHive#cite_ref-beyonce1_8-4
"Deep inside the Beehive lives numerous bees. Some come in swarms, while others fly solo. With the characteristic of fiercely stinging threats and enemies, all bees tend to get clumped together into the same colony. However, all bees are not the same. The only thing all bees have in common is that the Queen Bee keeps them buzzing." http://knowyourbees.tumblr.com/
After that , with this inf available here you can add in "Also known as" Sasha Fierce and Queen B on top, everyone knows that, it should be add!
- Dunno, seems like a fairly new thing, not as frequently used in the press as Lady Gaga's "monsters" or crucial to ther self-image of the fan base. Let's wait to see if she makes more use of the term in the near future.--Aichik (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Fact that needs a new source
In the middle of the paragraph that starts with her first recording in her solo career being on Jay-Z's "03 Bonnie & Clyde," there's the sentence about her being "the first artist in 20 years and first female artist in chart history to have both and album and single debut at the top of UK and US charts at the same time". The sole reference for this is Beyoncé's own site, making it a self-published fact. Could someone find something in the press, thanks?--Aichik (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Needs consistency
We say that Destiny's Child signed with Elektra, then Columbia. Then in this section, we talk about Knowles' 2013 agreement with Warner/Chappell. Those are the only mentions of record labels she's dealt with. We need the one(s) in between (and, perhaps the reason why she jumped to a new label this year).
- Warner/Chappell isn't a record label, it's a music publisher. Her label has always been Columbia (since Destiny's Child). —Jennie | ☎ 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, we have her mother's ethnic background broken down in great detail, but not her father's: Many African Americans are of mixed heritage. Does anyone know what his background is? Is he the one with some Irish ancestry, alluded to at the end of the Huffington Post article?--Aichik (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)--Aichik (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- He could be, it doesn't seem her mother is Irish. You could see if it is around Google anywhere, but the connection with Brouissard (sp?) on her mother's side seems to be the most notable. —Jennie | ☎ 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Missing info
1. In the section on her music and voice, there is a sentence "Some of her songs are autobiographical or taken from friends experiences." Could we have a sentence or two to illustrate this point? Otherwise we should cut. I'll be adding other material to the top part of the section.
2. Would be nice to have: In the Family section, we talk about her 2010 or 2011 miscarriage and her returning to the studio and writing music to cope with her loss. For which album was this?--Aichik (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Free picture(s)
- Beyoncé Knowles - Madame Tussauds London
- [2]
- Beyonce Knowles at age 19
- Beyonce during the inaugural opening ceremonies
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I vote for the second or the third one. To be put into the main text right? Beyoncé critics would have a field day with the first one: The last one seems like it'd need to be cropped, which is a shame with all those other personalities in there: Forest Whitaker, Rosario Dawson, etc. We also seem to have alot of recent pictures of her. Would be great in the Obama inauguration article --Aichik (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay to take out?
In the Philanthropy section, it'd be good to have anything before 2010, say, be major, like the Survivor Foundation or Haiti. (I'm adding numbers to the latter as we speak.) I'd like to take out bit on the "Stand Up for Love" song which was done for Destiny's Child, with McDonald's (so self-promotional for them as well as being philanthropic on their part), and for a day that seems innocuous. It's also an event and cause for which I can't find how much was raised or where the money went specifically. Okay? So we have room to add details about more recent stuff (Chime for Change, London concert, Miss a Meal) as they come in?--Aichik (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce and Jay-Z named Pop music industry's first billionaire couple + Information on Family Ties
This would also be a great addition to the lead.
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
All sources given as reliable as per Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Added the latter (CNN) to the intro for the $75 million in total sales and corrected her mom's early profession but the projections from the tour and total are just that projections: We have to wait. Here is Tomica taking out my saying that Beyoncé wants a second kid. Similar issue: It's interesting but not encyclopedic ... yet.--Aichik (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the Marie Claire link says that the H&M collection is swimwear only. Jennie, could you confirm (and put in if it is)?--Aichik (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay to take out?
We attribute one Billboard list to two writers here in the third paragraph (Keith Caulfield and Gary Trust) when we don't do it anywhere else. Okay to take them out?
Related: In the Honors and awards section we talk about Knowles being ranked #53 on VH1's list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time yet merely two years later, she is suddenly third on VH1's 100 Greatest Women in Music. I know the status of women in music isn't all that great but isn't this a little extreme in the discrepancy? What happened in between? Could we take the first, or both, out? --Aichik (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Main image
I just added the new main image to the article as we need a new one and I took the picture, however I understand it is at an angle and does not look as good when shrunk down to wiki size.
However, I also uploaded 2 more high quality photo's I took front row at the concert, but they are more close up, maybe you could decide if they would be a better main image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lolcakes25 --Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's good (in fact, for the first images we have of this tour, they're brilliant), I've added another in the Fifth studio album section. Thank you very much! —Jennie | ☎ 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 19 May 2013
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the beginning when it tells you what Beyoncés name is it also says she uses a stage name when she doesn't so please fix it. Thank you. Laraib02 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done: You're really splitting hairs with this request. I personally don't see an issue with the wording as it stands, but I'm open to suggestions. If you would like it to be changed, please make a specific suggestion in the form of "Change X to Y", rather than simply asking that it be fixed. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done Stage name does imply a change in name: I've tweaked it. We've use "mononymically known as" but some editors think this word is too difficult for the general reader.--Aichik (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Retitling Awards and Honors section
The third paragraph is entirely rankings: Describing one's wealth relative to others' isn't an honor or an award, it's ranking. Rankings are also listed in the other two prior paragraphs. In the first, there is one near the end, "VH1 ranked her third on their list of the "100 Greatest Women in Music" (my emphasis). In the second it's those record Grammy nominations, rankings from the awards/nominations. You can't make awards out of awards, in other words. --Aichik (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a note on your talk page. The second paragraph is related to Grammy records (which aren't really rankings) and the term itself is ambiguous, and would only refer to the few instances in the section. —Jennie | ☎ 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Lead section
I strongly disagree with once again padding the lead section of the article with lists upon list of accomplishments of how great Beyonce is. An article about a singer has gone on to talk about album sales, and the video for "Single Ladies" and public declaration of marriage etc etc etc and "Crazy in Love" being voted by some magazine as the greatest in history. All this is not necessary, and it's what I was trying to move away from when I edited out the fluff and crafted a succinct account of the artist and her music. Can we just change it back please? The previous organization was a lot better than this. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)
- I'm still working on reducing some of the accomplishments, but the lead is (and has been for a long time) a little short, so it did need padding out. We are also working with a very commercial recording artist here, so naturally sales figures and the rest are more relevant than a normal musician. Take a look at the leads of artists like Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Madonna and Janet Jackson. —Jennie | ☎ 18:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The leads of those artists are all superfluous. I worked on the Mariah Carey article, helping to bring it to featured status with User: Extraordinary Machine, and at the time it was promoted, it was never that padded with commercial fluff. The MJ article is relevant because it dealt with a legacy. The Madonna and Janet Jackson article could use some cutting as well. I just miss a time when the article dealt with the artist and their music, instead of now saying that every artist is one of the best selling of all time with a million #1 singles yadda yadda yadda. I guess the NPOV tag has become obsolete. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)
- Saw the new changes. I like it :). 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)
- I completely agree with you! But I think it boils down to people not wanting to budge on sales figures and therefore making their favourite artist's bio look weaker, so therefore they're all superfluous. If there was a Wiki-wide crack down or cooperative effort (although I have no idea how this could be achieved) then I think it could work. —Jennie | ☎ 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, what would you think of this article as a FA candidate? —Jennie | ☎ 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I firmly oppose FA status until copyediting is complete. Don't be fooled by the sugarcoating, folks. Jennie here is all about promoting her favorite star in whatever shape or form.--Aichik (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are bitter attacks relevant here? Can we stick to the main topic of discussion, please. (Also, I'm not sure the FA process works like that, it's either nominated or it's not). —Jennie | ☎ 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm currently at work, so I'll talk more when I can. Aichik, no one is disputing whether or not a copy-edit would be necessarly. There are a couple of issues with the article, of course, but Jennie was simply asking if the potential is there for a possible FA. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)
- Any attack that's factually based is relevant. --Aichik (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are bitter attacks relevant here? Can we stick to the main topic of discussion, please. (Also, I'm not sure the FA process works like that, it's either nominated or it's not). —Jennie | ☎ 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Saw the new changes. I like it :). 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)
- The leads of those artists are all superfluous. I worked on the Mariah Carey article, helping to bring it to featured status with User: Extraordinary Machine, and at the time it was promoted, it was never that padded with commercial fluff. The MJ article is relevant because it dealt with a legacy. The Madonna and Janet Jackson article could use some cutting as well. I just miss a time when the article dealt with the artist and their music, instead of now saying that every artist is one of the best selling of all time with a million #1 singles yadda yadda yadda. I guess the NPOV tag has become obsolete. 199.198.223.106 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (User:Journalist)
- I'm still working on reducing some of the accomplishments, but the lead is (and has been for a long time) a little short, so it did need padding out. We are also working with a very commercial recording artist here, so naturally sales figures and the rest are more relevant than a normal musician. Take a look at the leads of artists like Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Madonna and Janet Jackson. —Jennie | ☎ 18:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wealth
Beyoncé Cracks Top 20 on Forbes Most Powerful Women List! In just a year, Beyoncé moved from #32 to #17 on Forbes annual The World's Most Powerful Women list. Making her the most powerful singler of 2013! She and Oprah are the only celebrity/entrepreneurs in the top 20.
http://www.forbes.com/power-women/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search: http://www.forbes.com/profile/beyonce-knowles/
- Not done: Sorry, no. This article just came out of Good Article Reassessment for too many similar kinds of rankings: Her Wealth section is already substantial. If you can propose a line this new information can replace, however, that's different. Also don't forget to sign your comments.--Aichik (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Public image
The looks already mentioned that Rihanna and Ciara allegedly stole are of Beyoncé's performance persona, so we can add the converse instances where Beyoncé borrowed looks from other people, most recently the look from her Mrs. Carter world tour.--Aichik (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Remove - per WP:BLPREMOVE, poorly sourced contentious material; the claim "copied liberally" is incredibly biased. You also haven't provided a source for Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker or Lorella Cuccarini, and the sources for Kerli are unreliable, which is a violation of the WP:BLP guidelines in general. (Although I also advocate a removal of the stuff on Rihanna/Ciara, I think it deviates from the topic in question). —User:JennKR | ☎ 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- No need to mischaracterize and outwardly lie, Jennie. I'd added a reference to Vibe magazine, and the De Keermaeker and Cuccarini links that you are well familiar with, are readily available on the articles on the Beyoncé videos that apply to them.--Aichik (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't lied: you failed to provide sources for the assertion of 2/3 people you listed. The fact it's discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't stop this being an unsourced, contentious attribution. —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- You lied about my only providing the Yahoo blog as a source: I provided Vibe magazine. And yet in your revert you kept screaming "blog" referring to my first edit. As for the information about the other two artists, putting your fingers in your ears and pretending you'd never heard of them makes you the biased one. Yeah, spending hours clearing up copyedits you never even detected (then belittled as unimportant), really makes me biased.--Aichik (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've full protected the article. Will add a message on Aichik's page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Concerning "copying"; Knowles has asserted she viewed both artists (De Keermaeker and Cuccarini) work and was inspired from them. It also turns out the latter's work was inspired by another artist's work. All three cases refer to the artist's music videos (and are found on these pages), which are ultimately irrelevant to a Public image section. This part of the article should not serve as a hotchpotch of criticism which should and could be integrated into the biography section or even other related articles (which in this case it has been). I have always supported the inclusion of criticism and controversy in BLPs, however, poorly-sourced material put into a section it does not belong, serves only to make a point which is unfounded. I would also reiterate that I support the removal of the Rihanna/Ciara information which also seems to deviate from the point. Regards. —User:JennKR | ☎ 19:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone claiming that a Yahoo Music blog story is not a reliable source is simply wrong. A blog story from any credible news organization with full editorial oversight is absolutely considered reliable and is no different than any other stories they publish. Be careful never to confuse a news organization blog with self-published or user-generated blogs, which have no editoral control. That's the question to ask when deciding if a blog story is reliable: Is there full editorial oversight over this blog and this blogger? Many of the biggest mainstream news organizations in the world have blogs, written by their journalists. The New York Times alone publishes at least eight or 10 blogs by their top writers, not to mention other blogs on various topics. So any story from the Yahoo branches - Yahoo News, Yahoo Music, Yahoo Sports, etc. - are indeed reliable if there's editorial oversight and not user-generated. And Vibe magazine is absolutely a mainstream magazine that has been around for about 20 years. It was founded by Quincy Jones. Now, as far edit-warring, that's a completely different story, Aichik. If you're edit-warring, you could have the greatest sources in the world and it wouldn't matter. And of course the content must be worthy of inclusion. Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in an encylopedic article. In fact, most reliably-sourced information in the history of the world does not belong on Wikipedia. Otherwise, everything ever printed by a reliable source could go on Wikipedia. Although I'm neutral on whether the content about Beyonce that you want to add is important enough to add, I do think it's interesting and seems to fit right in with the type of content I quickly browsed in the "Public image" section. But I did see some grammar problems, such as the part that includes "Beyoncé has noted for copying liberally". Even if content is reliably sourced and encylopedic, it needs to be written using proper English. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that blogs can be reliable, but something as contentious as this cannot be asserted by something with authorship as questionable. But this isn't my main problem; the content doesn't fit in with the "Public image" section. All three cases are taken from music videos (with two instances discussed on those pages) and this does not translate into how a person is viewed by the public/media; the criticism of her smoking or having light-skin in images exemplifies the right sort of content that should go into this section. The fact that critics have questioned the looks/visuals/dances in her music videos form part of her work. There is also the much larger question of whether it's notable. Regards. —User:JennKR | ☎ 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Understandably, some editors confuse amatuer blogs with legitimate news blogs. It's always fair and reasonable to be cautious if you think a source may not be reliable. But simply because a story is from a "blog" does not necessarily mean it's unreliable. It's pretty simple; just look at who's publishing it. Is it a legitimate site that's known for publishing real news, with a real editor-in-chief and news staff? Do they have full editorial oversight? Do they follow standard fact-checking policies? Do they have advertisers? So taking all of this into consideration, it's usually pretty easy to tell. If you're still not sure, you can always drop a note on the BLP noticeboard and ask... Hey, is this a reliable source? Amatuer blogs are simple to spot, of course. The pseudo-news sites pretending to be real news are usually pretty easy to spot, too. Of course, if it's an opinion piece, then any content used from it in a Wikipedia article must be attributed to that writer; it must never be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Finally, if traditional reliable sources are available to verify content, especially potentially contentious content, then it's always better to use them instead of blogs. The policy on this is WP:NEWSBLOG, which is a subsection of one of Wikipedia's most important policies, WP:VERIFY. The more specific blog policy within WP:BLP is WP:BLPSPS, which focuses on the use of self-published blogs. As far as whether the content belongs in the "Public image" section, you honestly would know better than me; I only casually browsed that one section. If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce Discography
Hello,
On Beyonce's discography page is Mrs. Carter as an album listed. I have seen reports that this will be the name of her upcoming album, but it isn't listed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.158.111 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The addition of Mrs. Carter as an album has been reverted by me from the discography page. Some reports like from Rolling Stone asserted that this would be the title of the album, however this seemed to be because the tour was called so. As the tour is not new material and as there has been no confirmation of a title, release date or track list from Columbia Records, Sony Music, Parkwood Entertainment or Knowles herself, it must be considered unreliable and unconfirmed. All we know is that it is planned to be released some time this year. Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 16:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Article title
P.S. I find it really interesting that the article isn't simply titled "Beyoncé", since that's how I see her overwhelmingly referred to as in most reliable sources I've ever read. Even all her concert tickets and albums that I've seen have her first name only. And I just noticed that the lead of this articles says "known simply as Beyoncé", which makes one think: If she's known simply as Beyoncé, then that's saying Beyoncé is her common name. So it seems, from my experience, that Beyoncé is clearly her common name, but I wouldn't be surprised it there have been numerous heated debates here about this issue. ;) Just an observation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of discussion about that, but I think that derives from her using "Knowles" in her acting career, so some people feel quite passionately her surname should stay. —User:JennKR | ☎ 22:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the rationale for using her last name is because of her acting career, that's a pretty weak argument because obviously her primary career is her music. But more importantly, we determine article titles solely by following the common name policy, which says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." But thanks for letting me know about that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jenn, I saw your message. You made some really good points. You're absolutely right... whoever used the argument "She is called Beyoncé Knowles in her album's liner notes" as a reason for using her last name in the title is way off base. That's a totally invalid criteria. That editor apparently is unaware that we base article titles solely on common usage per reliable sources. And, yes, you're right on the money about many or even most artists using the real names in liner notes and other credits for legal and professional reasons. But that's completely irrelevant to the issue of how Wikipedia articles are titled. Therefore, a closing editor is supposed to look at a comment like that and essentially throw it out the window. ;) That's why consenus isn't about counting votes; it's about counting reasonable, valid arguments that are in line with policies and guidelines. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at WP:COMMONNAME to see if there is a case and update this further. —JennKR | ☎ 23:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jenn, I saw your message. You made some really good points. You're absolutely right... whoever used the argument "She is called Beyoncé Knowles in her album's liner notes" as a reason for using her last name in the title is way off base. That's a totally invalid criteria. That editor apparently is unaware that we base article titles solely on common usage per reliable sources. And, yes, you're right on the money about many or even most artists using the real names in liner notes and other credits for legal and professional reasons. But that's completely irrelevant to the issue of how Wikipedia articles are titled. Therefore, a closing editor is supposed to look at a comment like that and essentially throw it out the window. ;) That's why consenus isn't about counting votes; it's about counting reasonable, valid arguments that are in line with policies and guidelines. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. There are many, many musicians who use their real names on their music credits, and a lot of people would never even notice it. As a random example, Ne-Yo uses "S. Smith" for his writing credit on Sexy Love. (His real name is Shaffer Smith.) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Beyoncé is Beyoncé Knowles in all of her credits, and she was known as Beyoncé Knowles in the early part of her career. Ne-Yo has always been known as Ne-Yo and is always credited as Shaffer Smith in booklets, just like Rihanna has always been known as Rihanna, and is credited in booklets as Robyn Fenty. That's why Beyoncé's article title is different to Ne-Yo's or Rihanna's. Same with Madonna, or Adele, or Shakria, or Usher. They have never performed or been know by their surnames too, but Beyoncé has. — AARON • TALK 00:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aaron, how her name is used in her credits is irrelevant to how we decide article titles. It is based solely on usage in reliable sources. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of her using her last name in the early part of career, the policy makes clear that we do not use an earlier common name usage over a more recent common name usage. The policy says that Wikpedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person...changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". (emphasis added). The bottom line to consider is: What do most reliable sources call her? How she is credited in her work or the name she uses on other documents are not considered when creating an article title. For the record, all her album covers and concert tickets use her first name only; and music is her primary field of entertainment. But, again, it's all about how she's named in most reliable sources. And all the other singers you named have those article titles because that is their common name, per reliable sources. If Madonna were to start going by Madonna Ciccone or Usher started going by Usher Raymond and it got to the point where most reliable sources started referring to them that way, then we would change their article titles. John Mellencamp was John Cougar and John Cougar Mellencamp for the first 14 years of his music career, but of course his article is titled John Mellencamp because that's his most recent common name. Hope that helps. Thanks for your input. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another argument from the previous move request was the full name used on a single cover for "Why Don't You Love Me". Here, the full name is used as a stylistic preference that pays homage to Leave It to Beaver; she didn't release the single or music video as by Beyoncé Knowles, but by Beyoncé. (See here and here). —JennKR | ☎ 09:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again Jenn. :) Another good point. Yeah, the only thing that matters is what the majority of reliable sources call her. Her name on a random cover or on any other listings is irrelevant. You did a great job in debunking that claim about that single cover. And again, although it's moot, all her album covers and concert tickets use her first name only. Thanks for your hard word on this. Have a great week! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting... if you do a Google News search for non-archived articles that use her full name vs. just her first name, about 15,000 use her full name, but a little over 100,000 use her first name only. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another argument from the previous move request was the full name used on a single cover for "Why Don't You Love Me". Here, the full name is used as a stylistic preference that pays homage to Leave It to Beaver; she didn't release the single or music video as by Beyoncé Knowles, but by Beyoncé. (See here and here). —JennKR | ☎ 09:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aaron, how her name is used in her credits is irrelevant to how we decide article titles. It is based solely on usage in reliable sources. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of her using her last name in the early part of career, the policy makes clear that we do not use an earlier common name usage over a more recent common name usage. The policy says that Wikpedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person...changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". (emphasis added). The bottom line to consider is: What do most reliable sources call her? How she is credited in her work or the name she uses on other documents are not considered when creating an article title. For the record, all her album covers and concert tickets use her first name only; and music is her primary field of entertainment. But, again, it's all about how she's named in most reliable sources. And all the other singers you named have those article titles because that is their common name, per reliable sources. If Madonna were to start going by Madonna Ciccone or Usher started going by Usher Raymond and it got to the point where most reliable sources started referring to them that way, then we would change their article titles. John Mellencamp was John Cougar and John Cougar Mellencamp for the first 14 years of his music career, but of course his article is titled John Mellencamp because that's his most recent common name. Hope that helps. Thanks for your input. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Beyoncé is Beyoncé Knowles in all of her credits, and she was known as Beyoncé Knowles in the early part of her career. Ne-Yo has always been known as Ne-Yo and is always credited as Shaffer Smith in booklets, just like Rihanna has always been known as Rihanna, and is credited in booklets as Robyn Fenty. That's why Beyoncé's article title is different to Ne-Yo's or Rihanna's. Same with Madonna, or Adele, or Shakria, or Usher. They have never performed or been know by their surnames too, but Beyoncé has. — AARON • TALK 00:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. There are many, many musicians who use their real names on their music credits, and a lot of people would never even notice it. As a random example, Ne-Yo uses "S. Smith" for his writing credit on Sexy Love. (His real name is Shaffer Smith.) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Reading over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), the following is mentioned:
- "Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. Only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym, etc.) can the recommendations of Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens below be followed."
I think the previous move discussions have neglected this; the singular form is undoubtedly the true artist's name and stage name; all music has been released by her under the singular and her official websites ("beyonce.com" and "beyonceonline.com") have used this. "Knowles" is only used in reference to her acting career and other ventures, and is becoming increasingly redundant considering she is now "Knowles-Carter" and is using this more frequently. Do you think a requested move should be made? Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it would have the same result as before: the best name for the article remains "Beyoncé Knowles", as she does use her full name for many aspects of her business and "Beyoncé" is just a shortened form.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
76.189.109.155, I was only giving an answer to your statement and explaining how things work. I don't really expect to receive a reply from you giving me an explanation about how things work. I'm not the only one who has said she using her surname in virtually everything she does, you're in the minority here. — AARON • TALK 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it probably may have the same result as before, but "Beyoncé Knowles" is only really used for acting. On here, the surname is also found in her music; song articles are titled as, "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé Knowles song) etc., which in a way is fallacious as no song has ever been released as such. Reading over some of the past moves, quite a lot of editors feel passionately about keeping the surname, is the main reason because of the association with acting or is it something else? —JennKR | ☎ 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, Aaron believes he can tell others "how things works", but that others are not allowed to tell him how things work. ;) I also see that he has yet to even acknowledge Jenn's very good points. I'd recommend that he check his facts about his claim that Beyoncé uses her last name "in virtually everything she does". Really? That reveals that he hasn't looked at her album covers and concert tickets, or has forgotten what they say. And the magazine covers she's been on. Perhaps Aaron would like to provide us with links that show some proof that she uses her full name on everything. But that point is moot anyway because we have very clear guidelines on titling articles. It's called WP:COMMONNAME and it tells us that we base article titles on usage in reliable sources. As the evidence shows, a Google News search for non-archived articles that use her full name vs. just her first name returns about 15,000 results using her full name, and over 100,000 using her first name only. So, what I'm saying is not based on unsubstantiated claims or personal preference, but on widely-accepted editing policy and the the overwhelming evidence presented by reliable sources. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know how things work. I would rather the article be simply renamed as Beyonce as that is what everyone commonly knows her by now, but I was explaining to you how credits work and why other singers bio's do not include their surname. So don't try and act like you know everything or attempt to show me in a bad light, for some strange reason. My first reply to wasn't supporting or rejecting your statement, it was merely a comment. If you want me to take you seriously, create an account instead of using an IP address, because IPs comments are usually tied with the same (nonsense) brush on here. She doesn't use her surname for album covers or most single covers, but for credits, producing, acting and designing, she does. I didn't say "everything", I said "virtualIy everything", which means nearly. I don't see why you are making a beeline for me? I haven't actually gone against your reasoning, have I. (Rhetorical, doesn't need an answer). You're making yourself look a bit stupid to be honest. — AARON • TALK 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A bit stupid"? "Aaron" or "Calvin" or whatever your name is, you need to start behaving like a civil human being. Quite honestly, editors could care less whether you take them seriously or not, particularly when you act so inappropriately. I sense you are very young, but if you don't know how to behave properly in discussions with other editors, then you shouldn't do so. Both Jenn and I are addressing the issue, not you. We see that you still have yet to provide any links, as requested, that back your claim that "virtually everything" of Beyonce's is credited with her full name. Inexplicably, you have chosen to ignore all the facts. More importantly, you have yet to understand or even acknowledge the fact that we title articles based on WP:COMMONNAME. Finally, for the record, I'll advise you that you are actually more anonymous than me; I suggest you read WP:HUMAN to educate yourself. Resorting to silly anonymous/IP rants like "IPs comments are usually tied with the same (nonsense) brush on here" comes across as quite desperate and erodes much of your credibility. That comment is also extremely ironic, and therefore funny, in case you didn't notice. If you don't understand why, ask someone to explain it to you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Behaviour aside, Calvin999 is correct that her acting credits use "Knowles". I have never bought anything she is involved with so I don't have a copy of any of her CDs to scan for production credits and such. While his tone is inappropriate, there's a kernel of truth in it: it's hard to take an editor seriously when he refuses to edit in a format that provides a permanent talk page or a complete contributions history. Editing anonymously may be permitted, but it signals a refusal to accept full accountability.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:HUMAN, too. Some of the project's best editors are long-time IPs. And some of the most disruptive are registered users. As well, many registered users are socks. In fact, even you may perhaps be a sock who uses multiple registered and IP accounts. ;) If you don't like it that unregistered users are allowed to edit, write to Jimbo and complain about it. Or take steps to get the policy changed. See how that works out for you. But don't spout your nonsense generalities and discriminatory hostilities about unregistered users. Btw, let me fill you in on a little secret: You are an IP too! Now, as far as the content issue, no one disputes that her last name is used in her acting credits, but that's completely irrelevant to how we title articles. We create titles based strictly on dominant usage in reliable sources. And for the record, her primary career is music, not acting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not so certain about that last part. Indulge a hypothetical for a moment. Assume we had a person that exclusively used one name for acting and another name for writing books. Would you argue that we have to go count mentions of "acting" vs. "book authorship" and title the article by numerical majority?—Kww(talk) 22:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a very interesting hypothetical. But, again, policy gives us clear guidance on such a situation. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and if "there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic...editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering "Deciding on an article title". Obviously, if the subject is a person, choosing a title is much easier than if it's an event. For names, reliable sources tend to lean heavily towards one or two usages. But for events, you could have 100 reliable sources with 20 different usages. Out of curiosty, do you have a few examples of any other famous singers or actors who use different names or name formats for different aspects of their careers? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Give me a day. I know that I know examples, but they are not coming readily to mind.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Drake (entertainer). Adabow (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Give me a day. I know that I know examples, but they are not coming readily to mind.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a very interesting hypothetical. But, again, policy gives us clear guidance on such a situation. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and if "there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic...editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering "Deciding on an article title". Obviously, if the subject is a person, choosing a title is much easier than if it's an event. For names, reliable sources tend to lean heavily towards one or two usages. But for events, you could have 100 reliable sources with 20 different usages. Out of curiosty, do you have a few examples of any other famous singers or actors who use different names or name formats for different aspects of their careers? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not so certain about that last part. Indulge a hypothetical for a moment. Assume we had a person that exclusively used one name for acting and another name for writing books. Would you argue that we have to go count mentions of "acting" vs. "book authorship" and title the article by numerical majority?—Kww(talk) 22:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:HUMAN, too. Some of the project's best editors are long-time IPs. And some of the most disruptive are registered users. As well, many registered users are socks. In fact, even you may perhaps be a sock who uses multiple registered and IP accounts. ;) If you don't like it that unregistered users are allowed to edit, write to Jimbo and complain about it. Or take steps to get the policy changed. See how that works out for you. But don't spout your nonsense generalities and discriminatory hostilities about unregistered users. Btw, let me fill you in on a little secret: You are an IP too! Now, as far as the content issue, no one disputes that her last name is used in her acting credits, but that's completely irrelevant to how we title articles. We create titles based strictly on dominant usage in reliable sources. And for the record, her primary career is music, not acting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Behaviour aside, Calvin999 is correct that her acting credits use "Knowles". I have never bought anything she is involved with so I don't have a copy of any of her CDs to scan for production credits and such. While his tone is inappropriate, there's a kernel of truth in it: it's hard to take an editor seriously when he refuses to edit in a format that provides a permanent talk page or a complete contributions history. Editing anonymously may be permitted, but it signals a refusal to accept full accountability.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A bit stupid"? "Aaron" or "Calvin" or whatever your name is, you need to start behaving like a civil human being. Quite honestly, editors could care less whether you take them seriously or not, particularly when you act so inappropriately. I sense you are very young, but if you don't know how to behave properly in discussions with other editors, then you shouldn't do so. Both Jenn and I are addressing the issue, not you. We see that you still have yet to provide any links, as requested, that back your claim that "virtually everything" of Beyonce's is credited with her full name. Inexplicably, you have chosen to ignore all the facts. More importantly, you have yet to understand or even acknowledge the fact that we title articles based on WP:COMMONNAME. Finally, for the record, I'll advise you that you are actually more anonymous than me; I suggest you read WP:HUMAN to educate yourself. Resorting to silly anonymous/IP rants like "IPs comments are usually tied with the same (nonsense) brush on here" comes across as quite desperate and erodes much of your credibility. That comment is also extremely ironic, and therefore funny, in case you didn't notice. If you don't understand why, ask someone to explain it to you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know how things work. I would rather the article be simply renamed as Beyonce as that is what everyone commonly knows her by now, but I was explaining to you how credits work and why other singers bio's do not include their surname. So don't try and act like you know everything or attempt to show me in a bad light, for some strange reason. My first reply to wasn't supporting or rejecting your statement, it was merely a comment. If you want me to take you seriously, create an account instead of using an IP address, because IPs comments are usually tied with the same (nonsense) brush on here. She doesn't use her surname for album covers or most single covers, but for credits, producing, acting and designing, she does. I didn't say "everything", I said "virtualIy everything", which means nearly. I don't see why you are making a beeline for me? I haven't actually gone against your reasoning, have I. (Rhetorical, doesn't need an answer). You're making yourself look a bit stupid to be honest. — AARON • TALK 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, Aaron believes he can tell others "how things works", but that others are not allowed to tell him how things work. ;) I also see that he has yet to even acknowledge Jenn's very good points. I'd recommend that he check his facts about his claim that Beyoncé uses her last name "in virtually everything she does". Really? That reveals that he hasn't looked at her album covers and concert tickets, or has forgotten what they say. And the magazine covers she's been on. Perhaps Aaron would like to provide us with links that show some proof that she uses her full name on everything. But that point is moot anyway because we have very clear guidelines on titling articles. It's called WP:COMMONNAME and it tells us that we base article titles on usage in reliable sources. As the evidence shows, a Google News search for non-archived articles that use her full name vs. just her first name returns about 15,000 results using her full name, and over 100,000 using her first name only. So, what I'm saying is not based on unsubstantiated claims or personal preference, but on widely-accepted editing policy and the the overwhelming evidence presented by reliable sources. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it probably may have the same result as before, but "Beyoncé Knowles" is only really used for acting. On here, the surname is also found in her music; song articles are titled as, "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé Knowles song) etc., which in a way is fallacious as no song has ever been released as such. Reading over some of the past moves, quite a lot of editors feel passionately about keeping the surname, is the main reason because of the association with acting or is it something else? —JennKR | ☎ 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
In Drake's most recent film role, he was credited as Drake though. Simon Rex would be a good example, he acts as Simon Rex, and performs as Dirt Nasty. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Politics
"In December, Knowles along with a variety of other celebrities teamed up and produced a video campaign for "Demand A Plan", a bipartisan effort by a group of 950 US mayors and others[130] designed to influence the federal government into rethinking its gun control laws, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[131]"
This should be in Politics too, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Not sure. The group she supported is bipartisan. And gun control advocates would say the issue is much larger than politics.--Aichik (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
"New Year's Eve 2009 Beyonce performed in St. Barts, for the likes of Lindsay Lohan, Russell Simmons, her husband Jay-Z, Usher and Jon Bon Jovi--and the family of Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi (war criminal and terrorist) footed the bill. Hannibal Gaddafi was host to the party and is no stranger to violence No confirmation on just how much Hannibal paid Beyonce for her private performance. Asked to comment, Beyonce's spokesperson, Yvette Noel-Schure emailed The Huffington Post: "All monies paid to Beyoncé for her performance at a private party at Nikki Beach St. Barts on New Year's Eve 2009, including the commissions paid to her booking agency, were donated to the earthquake relief efforts in Haiti, over a year ago. Once it became known that the third party promoter was linked to the Qaddafi family, the decision was made to put that payment to a good cause." It took an entire year to find out how signed the check.
I think this should be included being that it involves high profile political leaders. I apologize this is my first time adding to Wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do exactly I found this info on the Huffington Post wed site.
It should also be added the she and jay-z took a trip to Cuba. Being that it is such a hot button political is with the embargo and all. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflecrisp (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beyonc%C3%A9_Army.mil.jpg){kind=link}
Fragrances and games
Beyoncé Heat The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour Limited Edition is a unique commemorative fragrance, paying tribute to Beyoncé’s amazing momentous journey. "I love my music, I love performing and most of all I love and appreciate my fans. I wanted to give them a special remembrance of this tour and I created this scent to reflect the power, passion and playfulness I put into my performances." - Beyoncé
http://www.beyonceparfums.com/heat-the-mrs-carter-show-world-tour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.80 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Beyoncé: All New
The video by E!, titled Beyoncé: All New, is cited six times in the article, however the only given information about it is the title and publisher. Does anyone know what format it is (ie VHS, DVD, online), or anything else about how to access it? Adabow (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Beyonce, video game company settle NYC lawsuit
- [6] Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Age
She cannot possibly be 31, it would mean she began in Destiny's Child aged 12/13... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.73.125 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Care to go into further details. And please credit whatever you are going to
fabulatewrite with reliable sources. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Beyoncé has stated her age many times and she is 31. She was first in destinys child when she was 9 and they realised there first album in 1998 when she was 16— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.130.139 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Politics
Trayvon Martin
http://www.beyonce.com/news/actnow4trayvon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/20/jay-z-beyonce-trayvon-martin-rally-photo_n_3628592.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
2013
MORE DATES: "Knowles' The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour began on April 15 in Belgrade, Serbia and features 92 dates worldwide that will run until December 2013."
100 dates worldwide (update this, thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Categories to Add
If someone could add any/all of these categories that apply, that would be awesome.
Category:African-American feminists
Category:Christian feminists
Category:Sex-positive feminists
Category:Female music video directors
Category:Feminist artists
71.191.95.5 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Public image
Beyoncé makes Vanity Fair's 2013 International Best Dressed list!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2381976/Vanity-Fairs-International-Best-Dressed-List-published-today--Kate-Middleton-makes-cut-Michelle-Obamas-given-dressing-down.html http://www.hollywoodtake.com/vanity-fairs-international-best-dressed-list-2013-here-kerry-washington-kate-middleton-make-cut-see# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Change the title (Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé)
I thought the unnecessary "Knowles" in the page's title was one of those oversights and I decided to move this page to "Beyoncé". But unbeknownst to me (I was never previously involved in any editing and/or discussing here) this was apparently a, quote, "controversial" act according to an editor, who promptly proceeded to revert it back.
Like I stated, not only did I not know it was controversial but I still don't! But I do want to know, so I opened this section as I see no discussion here on what valid grounds it is still titled "Beyoncé Knowles" in 2013.
The only thing I notice here on the talk page are the archived polling activities involving mostly the exact same editors and that is totally inadequate since polling is not a substitute for discussion.
And the discussion is simple: anno 2013 "Knowles" in the title is not only outrageously redundant (increasingly as time goes by), but nowadays it has become downright semi-inaccurate! The first sentence of this article itself refutes the title: she is now is a married person and as such "Carter" has also been added to her last name. So "Beyonce Knowles" is neither accurate nor common by any stretch of imagination. So quit vote stacking and do the only right thing: change the title to the one used by nearly all verified sources currently (almost all the "Knowles" references that I skimmed thru on the internet are old/longstanding pages that have evidently been un-updated). Literally all the fresh references of her in newspaper articles and the like nowadays (anno 2013) are all just "Beyoncé". I haven't found one "Beyonce Knowles" titled article. Here is a (by no means exhaustive) example of that:
- 2013 New York Times articles using the title "Beyoncé"................. 17
2013 New York Times articles using the title "Beyoncé Knowles"......... 0
Loginnigol (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Without commenting on anything else for now, the major reason (besides the lack of a talk page discussion) that Favonian reverted your edits is because you performed a cut and paste move when the move feature should have been used. I hope that clarifies part of why you were reverted. Acalamari 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Favonian reverted me just cause of the way I moved it - otherwise he would not have just reverted but corrected and completed my move the supposed right way (I don't care who moves it - what matters is that the page, now, in 2013 can only be validly titled "Beyoncé". Clearly, as demonstrated, "Knowles" has long passed the expiration date.
- Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think the discussion has been beaten into the ground yet?—Kww(talk) 23:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Does any of that laudatory list of polls (not discussions) address any of the points I raised in opening this discussion? I mean the only one that could address the point is the last poll in March involving ZERO discussion (= pure, unadulterated vote stacking involving barely five or six). And the rest (the previous) of those polls are not even applicable since it requires future time-travel in order to address the point I raised in my opening post).
- Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Loginnigol, the reason why you were reverted is because you were not moving the page, you were copy-pasting it, which is wrong as it creates copyright problems. You can read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for further information. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem here is technical. Otherwise why didn't the editor simply correct my supposed wrong way of doing it and move the page the right way? I got the impression that he regarded the act "controversial" he said so himself. I take people at their word.
- Loginnigol (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because pages are moved with consensus, not because an user wants it to be moved, or in your case copy-pasted. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Loginnigol, the reason why you were reverted is because you were not moving the page, you were copy-pasting it, which is wrong as it creates copyright problems. You can read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for further information. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Loggnnigol knows full well how to move pages, as his logbook shows. It's hard to take his failure to use it in this case as anything but an attempt to bypass the move protection that is in place on this article.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- What are the valid grounds (valid for 2013) that the page is "protected" from a move?
- Loginnigol (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- That there's a consensus not to move it. Edit-warring cut-and-paste moves to get past protections that you don't like (while claiming to be performing a "merge") and then coming to the talk page and saying that you "did not know it was controversial" is a really good way to get blocked for bad faith and disruptive editing. I wouldn't repeat a stunt like that were I you.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"to get past protections that you don't like (while claiming to be performing a "merge") and then coming to the talk page and saying that you "did not know it was controversial" is a really good way to get blocked for bad faith and disruptive editing."
- What about false accusations (reverting an article only once can hardly be called an "edit war") and threatening with blocks and attacking me personally with patronizing claims involving what I know and what I don't know? Are those not grounds for blocking? Is going offtopic not grounds for blocking? Or how about stalking activity - is that not grounds for bad faith and blocking?
- Do you have anything to say abut the topic? Lest ye forget the title of this page is talk:Beyonce not talk:Loginnigol. You have now posted multiples of times already but yet you have not addressed the only reason why I opened this discussion: What are the valid reasons for keeping the article at this page at this time instead of the title with only "Beyoncé"?
Here are my reasons why it should move (that have yet to be addressed even once):
- 2013 New York Times articles using the title "Beyoncé"................. 17
2013 New York Times articles using the title "Beyoncé Knowles"......... 0
- Loginnigol (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Kww already gave you the reasons why it hasn't been moved in several years. Instead of taking this personal, why don't you check them, especially those of 2013, and have a new idea why NYT references are trivial as NYT is not the only reliable reference. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Loginnigol (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Kww only gave me a laundry list of polls even though I had stated that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Besides there was no discussion to speak of in that last poll (here look at it). Barely five or six people participated and the only thing they did was vote and claim that there was nothing to discuss, that's it. No attempt was made to provide specific reasons as to why "Beyonce Knowles" was still a more valid title than "Beyonce" even in 2013. Yet that is precisely what I wanted to find out and the ONLY reason why I opened this discussion section --Loginnigol (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps the 2013 "poll" is not helpful, but at that time it didn't belong to this talk page, it belonged to WP:MRV because there was a discussion one month before it, and the rationale was "There's really only one Beyoncé", which is not a reason to move. Regardless if these "polls" are polls or not--because then AFD discussions would be polls in their structure as well--this has been discussed many times, and they have been presented in the same way you do, "'Beyoncé' is the common name". Yes, it is, but exclusively in music, in other topics, like films, she is credited as "Knowles" so both terms are correct. If you want to move this page you have to prove something has happened from the last three or four RM discussions to say that a) the page needs to be moved, b) the current title is incorrect, c) the past RM discussions are incorrect because this is 2013 and past RMs are outdated. With this I mean that you need to prove that she is now overwhelming known as Beyoncé, and that pre-2013 references are not valid enough to use her last name.
- It is not as simply to come here and say "I have 17 NYT references, now move the page". No, it doesn't work like this. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Kww only gave me a laundry list of polls even though I had stated that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Besides there was no discussion to speak of in that last poll (here look at it). Barely five or six people participated and the only thing they did was vote and claim that there was nothing to discuss, that's it. No attempt was made to provide specific reasons as to why "Beyonce Knowles" was still a more valid title than "Beyonce" even in 2013. Yet that is precisely what I wanted to find out and the ONLY reason why I opened this discussion section --Loginnigol (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yawn! Favonian awakens. Regarding Loginnigol's claim "I don't think Favonian reverted me just cause of the way I moved it - otherwise he would not have just reverted but corrected and completed my move", I did indeed revert because cut-and-paste moves are a bad thing. I don't personally give a hoot what the article is called, but I was aware of the multitude of discussions, so clearly the move couldn't be completed as uncontroversial. Over-and-out and off to work! Favonian (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Standing on the Sun
I would like to add this line to the article: "On June 24 a song was leaked online called Standing on the Sun featuring Beyonce and Jamaican Dancehall artiste Mr. Vegas. This leak fueled specualion that Standing on the Sun could be the first single off Beyonce's upcomming album. Citation: http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2013/07/24/beyonce-standing-on-the-sun-sos-reggae-mix/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alykhatpr (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
End of Time performing poorly in the US.
"End of Time" was never released as a single within the United States. It peaked at #113 upon the release of the '4' album. "End of Time" was a single in the United Kingdom however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.134.3 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
2013 - Super Bowl
Beyoncé 2013 Super Bowl was the most talked moment in the Twitter history!
https://blog.twitter.com/2013/behind-the-numbers-how-to-understand-big-moments-on-twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Endorsements - Fragrance
Her “Heat” collection of signature scents has just been named the best-selling celebrity fragrance brand worldwide. Since 2010 she’s launched six, to be exact — the latest is a limited edition of Heat for her Mrs. Carter Show World Tour. If you missed the show, it’s the best-smelling alternative.
Beyoncé’s fragrance house has done upward of $400 million at retail globally, putting her in the top three with Elizabeth Taylor. (This is missing!!)
http://www.beyonce.com/news/heat-fragrance-line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.178.201 (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Redo the reference on their selling $400 million. Celebrity's own website is less reliable than a newssite, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the celebrity's "unreliable" website borrowed the text from Women's Wear Daily's article titled "Beyoncé Wraps Tour With Scent Success" (which can be seen in the link provided). Instead of removing the info, you could have just looked and found a better source. Plus I removed the sentence "it seemed that the mainstream didn't know about the issues or didn't care" you added as you didn't provide a reliable source and it reads like an original research. My love is love (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Redo the reference on their selling $400 million. Celebrity's own website is less reliable than a newssite, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You welcome! Now it's only missing this in Public Image:
Beyoncé makes Vanity Fair's 2013 International Best Dressed list
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2381976/Vanity-Fairs-International-Best-Dressed-List-published-today--Kate-Middleton-makes-cut-Michelle-Obamas-given-dressing-down.html http://www.hollywoodtake.com/vanity-fairs-international-best-dressed-list-2013-here-kerry-washington-kate-middleton-make-cut-see#
Duplicated sentences
Mentioning something in two different sections is OK, if they are relevant to both sections. However, the Career sections seem to document things which are already mentioned in later sections. For example:
- "Knowles and Jay-Z raised $4 million, during a fundraising event at the latter's 40/40 Club in New York City, for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.[145]" and "Knowles and Jay-Z held a fundraiser at the latter's 40/40 Club in Manhattan for Obama's 2012 presidential campaign[145] which raised $4 million.[199]"
- "Her appearance helped that year's MTV Video Music Awards become the most-watched broadcast in MTV history, pulling in 12.4 million viewers.[140]" and "Her appearance helped that year's ceremony to become the most-watched broadcast in MTV history, pulling in 12.4 million viewers.[140]"
This should be amended to avoid significant duplication. Adabow (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done - @Adabow: Do you think the following is duplication?:
- Knowles was born in Houston, Texas, the daughter of Mathew Knowles, a Xerox sales manager and Tina Knowles (née Beyincé), a hairdresser and salon owner.[14][15] Mathew is an African American; Tina, an African American Louisiana Creole, has African, French, Irish, and Native American ancestry.[16][17] Beyoncé's name is a tribute to her mother's maiden name.[16] She is the elder sister of Solange Knowles, also a singer, songwriter, and actress.[18] (Early life)
- Knowles is the eldest child of Mathew and Tina Knowles, who also have another daughter, singer and actress Solange. (Family)