Talk:Ariana Grande

Manchester Arena bombing

While there is a mention of Ariana having a concert to donate to victims of the Manchester Arena bombing (hyperlink or not), I find it odd that the attack itself, happening after/in one of her concerts is not mentioned as part of her life. I think if she can be mentioned licking a doughnut, she can have this tragedy listed as part of her bio. Perhaps with a quote from her about it. Imagine if a President were to give a speech, 139 people were (mostly children) were wounded there, 23 killed, and no one at Wiki put it directly in the biography... Just a hyperlink in a long list of charities they'd given to? Please see if you can't come up with a paragraph on this. Wiki should be history, not a tidy fan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsiddia67 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is already mentioned three times in this article. Of course, the bombing has its own article too, and it is mentioned in the Manchester Arena article, Dangerous Woman Tour article, and numerous others. It is thoroughly covered to the extent appropriate in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the bombing killed 22 victims and 1 wasteful human from isis so 23 isn’t the correct amount of victims. It also injured over 800 people. The reason she hasn’t spoke about it is because whenever Someone brings it up she has a break down it still lies very heavy on her heart, she did a interview with beats radio on Apple Music and completely had a breakdown and fell apart speaking about it MoonlightbaeRVN (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the bombing should be mentioned in the intro, and have its own section. Unless I'm mistaken, it's the third deadliest attack on a concert in the history of the world, after Paris and Las Vegas. I realize that Grande would prefer not to focus on that, but Wikipedia is supposed to be objective.Don't Be Evil (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Pronounciation

The IPA says /ɡrɑːndeɪ/ but links to a video in which she says /ɡrɑːnde/. I think it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.213.102 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, what it says is the same as what she says. Another user suggested still another pronunciation based on a joking discussion Grande had with a radio host. But she almost always says "Granday", always explaining that she and Frankie decided to use that pronunciation years ago, and until she changes it officially, that is the pronunciation. We do not need TWO sets of IPA at the top of the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you should listen to the interview again because the part where she talked about the pronunciation was clearly serious. The only really jokey part of that portion was when she talked about "grahnday" and said "Ariana [Grahnday]-Butera. Literally that's my name, like I'm a pizza. I'm a fucking meatball...That name is a joke." Contrast that to how she talked about "grand-ee" as part of her family and her personal history because that's how she pronounced it while she was growing up; clearly either is acceptable to her and both are relevant. As for "We do not need TWO sets of IPA at the top of the article!"—it's a dozen characters. We do need it if she considers both correct. lethargilistic (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are making a serious mistake by focusing on only one interview. This is only one interview, and Grande was obviously in a mood. She has pronounced her name Granday hundreds of times elsewhere and continues to do so. She is introduced as "granday" at her concerts. In any case, there is no WP:CONSENSUS to make the change that you are suggesting, so unless other commenters agree with you that we should clutter up the first line of this article, then your suggestion fails. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Stick with the current one, which is the overwhelmingly used one. If there are future occurrences or a statement about a change, it can be addressed again at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: Listen to Grande pronounce her name in her 2018 documentary as "Grahnday" in front of her Grandmother and mother. at 22:22 here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

As I put in my edit summary earlier, could all parties who have been involved in the to-and-fro please stop, respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO and discuss the matter calmly here BEFORE trying to force in any more changes. The 3RR noticeboard beckons if you decide not to bother with the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Break up with Pete

It's obvious that it's true as it's been 5 days since it was first reported and neither Ariana nor her representatives have denied it, Ariana was seen without her engagement ring and with her "pete" tattoo covered up, plus she seemed to address it on Instagram. As well as this, Pete pulled out of a comedy show for "personal reasons", further proving that he and Ariana have broken up. Saying that "several entertainment news outlets" have reported it makes it sound like a rumour, which it isn't at this point, and also Wikpedia isn't a tabloid (see WP:NOTNEWS), so rumours aren't included in articles anyway. Fan4Life (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not denying something is not the same as agreeing with it. I haven't read the Instagram post, so I won't comment on that directly, but there certainly appears to be some good circumstantial evidence from Grande for the breakup. As for Davidson, there are a number of "personal reasons" that could cause him to pull out of a show—illness or a situation involving a relative being the most obvious—so I do think it is reading between the lines to use that as evidence for the breakup. Finally, the general practice on Wikipedia is to attribute disputed claims, so it is appropriate to disclaim with a statement like "entertainment news outlets have reported". Finally, if it weren't for the tattoo and engagement ring, we'd just exclude the relationship from the article altogether, because Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or a Tiger Beat-grade magazine that covers every minute detail of a celebrity's life. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been 5 days and there's been no denial, plus there's been evidence to corroborate it. Saying that "several entertainment news outlets" have reported it is ridiculous when it's quite obviously true. If we don't take the evidence we have now then we'll be waiting for an explicit confirmation that will likely never come. Fan4Life (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been no official announcement yet. TMZ and People said that it was confirmed to them by "a source close to Grande". All we can say is that it has been reported by various sources. That is not at all the same as a rumor; it is a fact that major news outlets have reported this, especially since no major news outlets have disputed it. Your summary above of the anecdotal evidence and speculations show that you still don't understand what encyclopedic information is. As I have said before, and with all good will, I do not think Wikipedia is right for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You're insisting on waiting for an explicit confirmation that is clearly never coming. Saying that "several entertianment news outlets" have reported is calling it a rumour, which it isn't. Don't patronise me by saying that I "don't understand why encyclopedic information is". Fan4Life (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying "several entertainment news outlets" is not saying it is a rumour. It is saying that a number of different sources have commented on something. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm insisting only on encyclopedic information. This encyclopedia is not for "fans for life", it is for neutral, collaborative writing about subjects of historical interest based on the weight of reliable published sources, rather than cherry-picking and original research. See also WP:RECENT. Perhaps you could write a good blog about celebrities, and your time would be much better spent. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Davidson confirmed the split on October 20 onstage. I've updated the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic score of 81

"Acclaim" is not the same as "4 out of 5 reviews have been positive." A Metacritic score of 81 means *exactly* that it has received generally positive reviews from critics. Acclaim is a word that should be reserved for unusual situations where something has received almost all rave reviews or has subsequently been written about by historians in unusually glowing terms. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a Metacritic score of 81 indicates "universal acclaim". It's not up to you to determine what a score means. Fan4Life (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And therein lies the danger of the aggregator sites: boiling down finely honed criticism that strikes a balance into a dumbed down number which they classify with a hyperbolic label. Pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

But the point stands that it's not up to you or any other user to determine what a score means. It has a Metacritic score of 81 and as far as Metacritic is concerned that indicates "universal acclaim". Fan4Life (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is up to editors. If we provide a label that is misleading (which the inaccurate and hyperbolic "universal acclaim" is), then we are not being honest to readers. The best course would be to remove it entirely, but if it has to stay, then it needs to be described honestly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion demonstrates what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Its content is based on our policies, guidelines and the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources, not based on a gobbledegook, exaggerated label applied by a single media outlet. You are making an argument so ridiculous that it was satirized in Alice in Wonderland: Humpty Dumpty, like "Metacritic", said: "words mean what I mean them to say. Nothing more, nothing less." But, in fact, "universal" means "all", and "acclaim" means "enthusiastic" praise, not just a review that is more positive than negative. So "4 out of 5 were positive" simply does *not* mean "universal acclaim", and if you think it does, then you should be in marketing or writing a blog, or a politician, but not contributing to an encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, not the opinions of its users. It doesn't matter what you and User:SchroCat think, Metacritic interprets a score of 81 as "universal acclaim" and as that is the source used for the overall reception to the album, that is what should be written in the article. Fan4Life (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you really think that, then the Metacritic "score" should be taken out - of at least the misleading hyperbole they use to describe it. Too much weight to a piece of misleading fluff, only of interest to misguided fanboys is not encyclopaedic content. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Again this is purely your opinion, which is irrelevant. Fan4Life (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, and f you grasped what "encyclopaedic content" actually is, you would be able to see what people are on about. I see why others are suggesting you go off and write fanboy blogs, rather than a grown up encyclopaedia. Thankfully the consensus is against you on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Tour section

I notice that there is a hidden note that in the tour section that asks that tour information not be added until a tour officially has begun. I understand this note was added earlier this year when editors were disruptively speculating when Grande's next tour would begin.

Would it make more sense to change this note to allow a tour to be listed once the tour has been confirmed? An official announcement of this tour was released earlier today and I notice it has already been added to Template:Ariana Grande. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is still premature. It should be mentioned in the text above, but the lists at the bottom of articles really are intended to be lists of things that already happened. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is to leave out tours until they begin, I am OK with that. However, I do not believe WP:CRYSTAL applies in this case -- the policy exists to prevent unverifiable speculation or presumptions, but allows coverage of anticipated events if they are verifiable and notable. Specifically, the policy states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." In this case, the event is verifiable (the tour was officially announced) and the subject matter is notable -- it has already received quite a bit of independent news coverage (and, in fact, an article on the subject already exists). Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The article on the tour is currently at AfD. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that an officially-announced tour by the artist should be covered at least briefly in the main article's text, and we *do* cover it in the article. But it is a future event that can be cancelled, and so I don't think it should *also* be in the list "of her tours" at the bottom until it actually exists and is a historical fact. I bet there is a more specific guideline somewhere that I just haven't put my finger on about listing upcoming things in the tables on the bottom of bios, but note that WP:CRYSTAL also says: "events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place...." Another guideline that gives some color on this (although it also is not directly applicable) is WP:NTOUR, which says that the notability of a tour depends partly on "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience": an upcoming tour cannot even be measured in terms of any of these factors, because it doesn't exist yet. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, a fansite or a newspaper, so we don't have to "scoop" anyone: WP:NOTNEWS says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events ... routine news reporting of announcements ... or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia … breaking news should not be emphasized. So we should be patient regarding upcoming events, and begin with coverage in the biography's text, graduating to also including it in the list once it exists, and finally adding it to the Lead if it becomes a really important part of the artist's life and career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank U, Next

There are currently 2 drafts: Draft:Thank U, Next and Draft:Thank You, Next. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

Change it to singer, songwriter and actress. 2A00:23C5:508:4600:A185:DEFB:A18:FDA (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fair and supported by the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hose-McCann

The company Hose-McCann is described as "a marine communications equipment company". However, the firm also supplies communications products for use on land, as well as other safety equipment.

Hose-McCann should preferably be described as "a provider of industrial communications and safety equipment". 195.147.82.34 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)endingdotthreefour

Changed to "... Hose-McCann Communications, a manufacturer of communications and safety equipment ..." General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think "provider" or "supplier" instead of manufacturer is correct. I do not think they manufacture their own lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.82.34 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hose-McCann Communications is the Leading Manufacturer and Designer of Marine Turn-Key Communication Solutions."[1]; "Hose-McCann Communications is the Leading Manufacturer and Designer of Land Turn-Key Communication Solutions."[2] Since this article is not about the company, I think the distinction, if any is to be made, is not particularly important to be made here. General Ization ^Talk 18:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018

Please discuss her most recent song "Imagine" in the wiki. Thank you Ajoyyy (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make precise requests and cite reliable sources if applicable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2018

Al Shahriar Shawon (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Edit Ariana Grande Profile Photo"

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

CHANGE THE 2018 TO 2019! THE THANK U NEXT ALBUM IS EXPECTED TO RELEASE IN 2019

The thank u next album is expected to be released in 2018 ---> should be 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C2:700:F13:340B:F7D3:DBBE:E059 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Logically, the album will release in 2019. Without a release date, though, it's bad WP form to speculate, so I've removed the date from the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Out of date sections

I've inserted Template:Update to the "Artistry" and "Public image" sections as they need updating, very little information has been added to these sections since 2015. Fan4Life (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Donut or Doughnut?

Currently the article says doughnut. I'm thinking it should be donut, because the subject of the article is American. Thoughts?

73.252.158.66 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)