Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Beyoncé and Jay Z Top Our List Of The Highest-Earning Celebrity Couples for the second consecutive year
Beyoncé Knowles and Jay Z are so much more than just the first couple of hip-hop: They’re a combination of two of the savviest businesspeople in entertainment. They made more than any other celebrity couple this year with an estimated $95 million in earnings between June 2012 and June 2013.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"It's not that Beyonce does things that other stars don't, it's just that she does them on a level that few of her contemporaries can match, and 2013 has been a banner year in Beyonce exceptionalism. Other stars sign brand endorsement deals for a quick paycheck — Beyonce gets Pepsi to pony up $50 million for a “creative content development fund,” whose purpose seems to be whatever Beyonce wants it to be. When HBO airs a two-hour documentary on her life, she gets to direct it herself. When she goes on a summer stadium tour, it surpasses $50 million in grosses after the first 30 dates. When Beyonce plays the Super Bowl halftime show, she sets Twitter records and the stadium's power grid goes dark in response. When she gives birth to a daughter with husband, Jay Z, it becomes the hip-hop generation's “Baby Ricky” moment."
What's with your "Retired" note on your talk page, Jivesh, when you clearly haven't? Totally assumes bad faith on your part.--Aichik (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Life is But A Dream" will be available on DVD on November 25. The self-produced documentary includes a 2-disc set with bonus concert footage and one new song "God Made You Beautiful".
This new collection includes the previously aired HBO Documentary "Life Is But A Dream" which has been re-edited to include a new song, "God Made You Beautiful." This new track will be included in the package via a digital download insert. The second DVD in this package is a one time live event "Live In Atlantic City," performed over four consecutive nights in May, 2012 to inaugurate the new REVEL Resort/Spa/Casino in Atlantic City, NJ, and its' Ovation Hall. The concerts were noted as the singer's first performances since giving birth to her daughter, Blue Ivy Carter in January of the same year. These shows became the prelude to her sold out "Mrs. Carter World Tour."
Now Knowles is the most nominated woman in Grammy history, with a total of 46 nominations.
Another question.. 57. Best Compilation Soundtrack For Visual Media The Great Gatsby (Deluxe Edition)(Various Artists)
- http://www.grammy.com/nominees
Not done Unsure, the award seems to be won by the producers and "Various artists", I'll do some more research into who is accredited and get back to you. —JennKR | ☎18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The word "legacy" primarily means something handed down by someone who is dead; by extension, it can be used to refer to people who aren't literally dead, but to use the word to refer to the influence of someone who is still active seems very odd to me. The obvious title for the section that is currently titled "Legacy" would be "Influence," which means much the same but doesn't carry the connotation that Beyoncé is no longer active. Is there any reason to prefer "Legacy" to "Influence"? VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
As the section stands, only a small paragraph refers to Knowles' influence on other artists, the other two are about songs, dances, things named after her etc. "Legacy" encompasses what the singer is most notable for, changed and established; something handed down by someone after their dead is a different usage. For example, the fact that the section demonstrates "Crazy in Love" was considered one of the best pop songs of the decade isn't Knowles' influence, it's an extent of success—", etc. Also, as I explained in my edit summary, such sections are found on an exhaustive list of Wikipedia articles of active musicians, even articles of featured status (Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue), as well as Britney Spears, Rihanna, Christina Aguilera, Madonna, Mary J. Blige, etc. I don't see why "Influence" would be preferred on this article and not on others that use this term. —JennKR | ☎18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Influence" could, it seems to me, mean influence on culture broadly, not just influence on other artists, so would include precisely what the singer "changed and established". But that is not a usual meaning of "legacy," which specifically refers to something "handed down by an ancestor or predecessor" (quoting the OED). The fact that this misleading use is common on Wikipedia is no reason to keep using it.VoluntarySlave (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Kelly Rowland should be changed from childhood friend to cousin.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's official: Beyonce's new self-titled album debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart, making her the first woman to hit No. 1 with her first five studio albums.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The words "led to critics hailing her as one of the best entertainers in contemporary popular music", in the 3rd paragraph, are not supported by a citation or anything similar, despite citations being plentifully supplied for other claims in this section. Which "critics" is not specified. She is undoubtedly popular but a statement like this is claiming something more and, if it is true, it ought to be possible to cite a source and reword it to identify the critics in question. Otherwise perhaps the whole statement should go - as there are plenty of better cited plaudits elsewhere in the article. 86.185.36.224 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Things mentioned in the lead do not have to be cited (as they are in the main body). This sentence stems from the" Legacy" and "Stage and alter ego" sections of the article, particularly the second paragraph of the latter, although I do agree that this section (Stage) could pin-point this better. —JennKR | ☎20:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Controversy of sampling audio from the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Beyoncé has been labeled "insensitive" by some current and former NASA astronauts and their families for sampling audio from the space shuttle Challenger disaster for a love song off her newly released album.
User:Oleg-ch: the controversy surrounding this has been covered on XO (song), copy and pasting the information and putting it at the bottom of the article is not helpful. Please read over WP:CRITS (particularly this), WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT; just because something was in the US media for 24 hours does not grant it a section on Wikipedia, especially when we have five years plus worth of content in one section of an article. —JennKR | ☎00:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Are you putting all the controversies that exist and have existed about Beyoncé, songs, personal life, etc in this main article?
It's all ready written about it in the article dedicated to the album and in the article dedicated to the song in question.
I think it's totally uncalled for having this theme in this main article. It doesn't make any sense to me and I'm sure for the majority that should be impartial.
So I should think that will deploy here all the other controversies that have ever existed on her songs? Is there many more!
Thank God no one had the idea to create here a theme about the fake pregnancy craziness!
Please see if you reconsider this. It's unbelievable.
Wikipedia is a source of information that should have the best quality. Everybody comes here to read the articles with compiled information, for a brief examination.
Check please if the focus is on really matters. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.7.25 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I cannot agree. Before this controversy I new nothing about Beyoncé, I live in Russia and I am not very interested in pop music. This controversy was reported by Russian mass media which, I think, is an argument to consider it notable enough. It seemed important for me - like a vivid example of the entertainment industry commercializing even such tragedies. Do you know any other song that was commented by NASA?Oleg-ch (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello. I have wrote this in the edit summary but Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle requires you to talk about something that has been reverted by another editor, especially when it's a content issue, and build a consensus. This particular article is a biography that documents an entire life and career. Something controversial in the media (whether Russia, US, or anywhere else) receives coverage for 24 hours, it doesn't warrant a whole section on a Wikipedia BLP, please read WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV for this. The sampling controversy is certainly pertinent to the XO (song) page (where you copy and pasted this section from) but it is less so in the overall view of her career (which is what the BLP page aims to achieve). I suggest reading WP:CRITS (why controversy sections are not preferred and if to be included, where) and WP:RECENTISM (it may seem controversial right now, but is it is not in the grand scheme of things). —JennKR | ☎23:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
All of Beyoncé's solo albums have only been featured as "Beyoncé" on the covers, and her songs on Itunes are credited to just "Beyoncé." Why is her last name included in the page title, when the likes of Cher, Madonna, Adele, Usher, Drake, and her husband Jay-Z all appear on Wikipedia as their one word stage names? Does anyone have an explanation which would apply to Beyoncé and not these artists?
Yes it should be, especially since "Beyoncé" is an available redirect and not shared by any other notable person on Wikipedia. But the page has been hijacked by a clique who are dictating their utterly absurd and unexplainable minority opinion that breaches most if not all conventions on naming. Basically they have set up a bizarre title criteria that only applies on this bio and no other page on Wikipedia. Loginnigol (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Without seeing the specific archived conversation you're referring to, it's hard to get a handle on what you're saying. Anyone can start an RfC to propose a title change. For what it's worth, I'd support "Beyoncé" under WP:COMMONNAME. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Every time this topic comes up, the argument is that she uses both names sometimes and therefore the full name should be used as the title. However, the frequency that move discussions appear means that they are quickly shot down without any consensus really developing. As for my two cents: I prefer the mononym. Some editors may like to read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CCC and WP:Yogurt Reminder. Adabow (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
See that funny box at the top of the page that says "This page was previously nominated to be moved. Please review the discussions and previous page moves if considering re-nomination: "? Perhaps if you clicked one of those "Show" buttons you would be treated to a list of the previous eight discussions.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
To note, I also prefer the mononym. What I've noticed in past discussions is people people saying "oh well she was known as Beyoncé Knowles in Destiny's Child and takes this name in her film credits, it shouldn't be moved", but there is no basis for this in Wikipedia policy. What I find even more strange is the fact "Beyoncé Knowles", despite being the name of the article, is not mentioned in the first sentence, instead it reads "Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, known as Beyoncé", highlighting its redundancy further. Most sources refer to her as Beyoncé, she releases music as Beyoncé and even just named her album Beyoncé. Knowles (as a single surname) only finds use in her movie and album credits and I think this represents tradition more than her choice, as for the past few years she has always said she is "Beyoncé Knowles-Carter". —JennKR | ☎12:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, it's not a consensus to move. It has to go through an RM discussion because the article is move-protected and given that it's the ninth request and nothing has changed since the eighth, no admin would treat this as an uncontroversial move.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
2013 - The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Beyoncé has contributed a small rehearsal for a 400-page study titled The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink, work that seeks to learn more about "the millions of women who give their all and they can barely survive, struggling to feed their children a country [the United States] that did not follow the modern realities of their lives". Besides Beyoncé, also actresses Eva Longoria and Jada Pinkett-Smith, as well as Hilary Clinton, wrote for this work, which can be downloaded for free on Amazon until 15 January.
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
A question: why in the page of the awards received by beyonce there are also destiny's child awards and nominations? Doe not seem to be correct! Or they also put it in the awards and nominations's page of kelly and michelle (michelle beginning from the 2001) or delete destiny's child awards also from the page of beyoncé awards! Only Grammy and ASCAP Awards are ab personam" even if defeated to group. All the other prizes are titled to Destiny's Child and not to Rowland, Williams and Knowles.
It is to clarify well and to balance the situation, the feeling is that beyoncė's fan wiki-writers wanted to inflate the number of awards and nomination of beyoncé.
In more in the section Grammy history of Beyonce comes one brought a nomination as featured artist for the album of Lady Gaga of The Fame Monster: motivation is that beginning from the 50th Grammy ceremony all nominations in all album categories must be attributed to every featured artist also? Is it true? Seem me very strange...
But if it were so then Kelly she has received a nomination as feat. artist for the album David Guetta's One Love 52th Grammy cermony and this year for the album Side Effects of Fantasia. We make things clear and we adjust in honest way the situation.
The easiest way to express this is that who actually wins the Grammy Award is different to who the award is presented to. For example, in 2001, Destiny's Child were presented with the Grammy Award for Best R&B Song, however, the award was actually won by the songwriters and not the band (it just so happens that all members were credited as songwriters): Beyoncé, Rodney Jerkins, LaShawn Daniels, Fred Jerkins III, LeToya, LaTavia Roberson and Kelly Rowland. So on the face of it, Destiny's Child win, but actually, the award is credited individually—even to non-members of the band.
When concerning the Album of the Year, originally the award was presented to the artist, now its been extended to the featured artist(s), the producer, the engineer and/or mixer and the mastering engineer—Beyoncé's feature on "Telephone" qualifies for this. (A strange example can be seen in how Lauryn Hill won in 1999 for her The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, only to win again the next year for production work she did on Santana's Supernatural). This doesn't apply to either One Love or Side Effects, however, as both are nominated for awards that are solely given to the artist (Best Electronic/Dance Album and Best Urban Contemporary Album, respectively) and not to those involved in its writing, production, mastering, mixing, etc. —JennKR | ☎16:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ok is valid only for the album of the year and is all right. For the operation of the grammy it is as you say, I know him/it and I had also written already him the above. However this discourse is valid only for Grammy and Ascap, not for the other prizes.
But if we decide in accord to leave also here all the prizes won then by the destiny's child it needs to also insert them in the page of kelly, and partially also in those of michelle, the tavia and the toya.109.52.118.35 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
The awards won by Kelly, Michelle and the rest during their tenure in Destiny's Child are already on their respective awards page. If they're not in the article where relevant, then they certainly should be. —JennKR | ☎18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rowland and Williams's awards and nominations pages includes grammy and ascap in the group and
s solo artists, and their solo awards ONLY, not like beyonce's page, which includes all destiny's child awards. Is not equal and correct.109.52.68.12 (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments15 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé – In response to the discussion above, I've decided to open this page move request to move Beyoncé Knowles to Beyoncé. I understand that this discussion has arisen quite a few times in the past, but what I notice is that there are certain aspects of policies that have been ignored, and some incorrect statements of how either name has been used.
1. The subject of the page is essentially known by three names in sources: "Beyoncé", "Beyoncé Knowles" and "Beyoncé Knowles-Carter". One of the strangest things about the article is that the first sentence reads: Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, simply known as Beyoncé' (born September 4, 1981) is an American... Here, the article follows the correct guidelines described in MOS:BIO that a person's legal name (e.g. Knowles-Carter) should be listed first, shortly followed by their pseudonym (or stage name in this example). Despite the fact the article is named "Beyoncé Knowles", the first sentence actually draws the explicit inference that she is mostly known as Beyoncé. It also crucially excludes the article name—is there an instance on a Wikipedia BLP in which the person's name as per the title is not used in the first sentence at some point? To me it feels like the page presents her legal name, the name she is known most by and we're just going to ignore the fact the page is titled something different.
2. This draws me to my second point, grounded in Wikipedia's basic titling policy: WP:COMMONNAME. "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. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." Although I think most editors would not dispute the fact that she is known solely as "Beyoncé" most frequently, I have been guided towards looking at what the sources are using. A Google News Archive search produced 11,600,000 results for Beyoncé, 9,480 results for Beyoncé Knowles and 458 results for Beyoncé Knowles-Carter. I'm aware that editors are not keen on using Google as a guide to the preference of naming articles from looking over past discussions; I think what presents a problem in this case is the potential for overlapping results (despite using restrictive term searching) and it is definitely not the preferred method of ascertaining this. I do think, however, that the sheer volume of results corroborates the belief that the sole term—Beyoncé"—is by far the name used most frequently in English-language sources.
3. What editors have attempted to discern in previous discussions is what each name is used for. For most ventures she will use her sole name Beyoncé, whether that be to release music, promote tours and market goods. She continues to use "Knowles" in album credits and movie campaigns and is increasingly using "Knowles-Carter" for formal work such as writing essays and charity work. What I find here is that her sole name "Beyoncé" is used for the things she is actually notable for; the other two surnames are used for smaller aspects of her career. However, some editors still have drew the conclusion that as she continues to use the surname, that the article must be named so. Yet, there is no Wikipedia policy that allows an article to be titled so because it receives a name limitedly, in fact, I find the choice to title the article "Beyoncé Knowles" in spite of this as directly contradictory to Wikipedia's principal policy of WP:COMMONNAME: to use the name most frequently referred to in English-language sources.
4. When I looked over some of the previous move requests, I noticed that some editors cited the following from WP:NCP (see paragraph 4 of the "Single name" section): 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. What editors chose to ignore was the key sentence that directly follows, 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 find this particular guideline to be particularly explicit and convincing: use a person's surname if well known unless they have a stage name, where those guidelines should be followed. I don't believe there is any doubt that Beyoncé is her true artist's name, not only has the first sentence of the article alluded to this for some time, the volume of sources and brevity through her life and career demonstrate it is by far the most common usage. I feel it's redundant to continue using a surname that is used in a minority of her work, especially when there is no grounds in policy for doing so and her married name is being increasingly used. Best regards. —JennKR | ☎02:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your objection on the grounds of the "Oprah principle" from WP:NPC just doesn't make sense. The policy reads, 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. Oprah doesn't fall into the latter as she does not have an artist name/pseudonym/stage name, it just so happens that some sources refer to her first name only. Beyoncé clearly has a stage name and qualifies for the latter. You can't cherry pick or modify policies. —JennKR | ☎13:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'm assuming that you're also proposing to rename every article with the disambiguator (Beyoncé Knowles album/song) and any other page that says Beyoncé Knowles, correct? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, if the consensus is to move then the pertinent articles would follow. Which should be relatively easy considering the amount of people who are involved in articles related to Beyoncé. Thanks! —JennKR | ☎22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Support, this is her stage name which she has used since the very beginning and for which she is best known as. Also there are no other people known as Beyonce to distinguish from. Raykyogrou0(Talk)06:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Wow, I'm pretty sure you've covered all (or at least most) pages in a matter of hours. As this page has now been moved, surely the subsequent use on all pertinent articles (e.g. Knowles said, Knowles won, Knowles released) should be changed to Beyoncé (e.g. Beyoncé said, Beyoncé won, Beyoncé released), as we are now considering her to be mononymous? I've tried to tag people involved in articles concerned with her and who have moved many of them today, feel free to tag anyone else involved. Mayast, Adabow, WikiRedactor, Efe, Tomica, My love is love. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ahh, I needed to purge the page as it had not shown—thank you! Did you do it manually or is there a tool that can replace it? —JennKR | ☎22:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I just wanted to let you know that I changed Beyoncé Knowles to Beyoncé (only in the artist field in the infoboxes and first sentences of the articles, as I didn't have more time), and replaced the singles template with {{Beyoncé songs}} in articles for the songs from the following albums: Dangerously in Love, 4, Beyoncé. That leaves B'Day, I Am... Sasha Fierce, and other non-album releases. As for the use of mononym, I'm not sure what to do with the "Writer" and "Producer" fields in songs/singles infoboxes, as in the credits for Beyoncé she is listed as Beyoncé Knowles. Maybe we should use this name there, just as we list Timbaland as Timothy Mosley in the "Writer" field, but refer to him as Timbaland elsewhere? — Mayast (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would leave the album credits as-is; since her name appears as Beyoncé Knowles in her writing credits, it should remain like this in track listings that rely on liner notes. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't think there's any consensus Wikipedia-wide to use legal name over stage name (or vice versa). Just keep it consistent within an article. Adabow (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Adabow: Those are credits listed in the official booklet of an album which is a legal document. It's accurate to use Beyonce Knowles for writing and producing if she is credited like that. — Tomíca(T2ME)11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
The flipside of that is when artists' stage names are quite different from their actual names (eg Swizz Beatz, Polow da Don, Lorde); people will read "Kasseem Dean" and think "who on Earth is that?", and need to click through to find out that he is Swizz Beatz. In many album liners production will be credited under the stage name and writing under the legal name. As I say, it doesn't actually matter which name we use for writing credits as long as we are consistent. Adabow (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would side with Tomica on this one and list the names as they appear in album credits. But as you say, many artists use their stage names in production credits – in those cases I would only use their actual names in "Writer(s)" columns in track lists and "Writer(s)" fields in song infoboxes, and their stage names in "Producer(s)" columns/fields, and in the "Personnel" section. — Mayast (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add "Deja Vu" to the commercial hits off of B'Day, along with "Irreplaceable" and "Beautiful Liar", mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Beyonce Knowles" wikipedia page. "Deja Vu' was commercially successful and should be recognized as a hit record from the album "B'Day".
Editor in Chief 100 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think the new image is not of higher quality, especially due to being taken by a fan. I believe we could obtain a non-performance image of Bey or even one that is professionally taken, it would be better suited. The image just does not look right on the page. livelikemusicmy talk page!19:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I kind of agree and anyone can feel free to revert it, but it's just that a lot of the non-performance, free for use professional images are very outdated and not representative of her recent look. However it is slightly a better quality than the previous image although it is also not as tall and looks rather squashed. I think I will revert my own edit for now and see if anyone else adds to this discussion --Lolcakes25 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Blue Ivy is a minor who is not notable other than her parents. Should her name and date of birth (even though it is well documented) be included in this article, because it would seem to contradict with Wikipedia's guidelines on this? I'm confused. Twyfan714 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing in the article that violates the guideline; a guideline that protects more discriminate information on BLPs like e-mail addresses, phone numbers, etc. The only information that should be removed is that which compromises the identity of BLP, none of which is present. —JennKR | ☎17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
The "Jayonce" Stadium tour--opinions on this source?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, rumours have been swirling for some days now about this Beyonce/Jay-Z stadium tour in the US this June. Although there has been no comment from them or Roc Nation/Parkwood, Billboard has released an article saying reps have confirmed to them that they will tour in June. What are your thoughts on this source? Billboard is obviously trusted, but there is still no official comment. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎17:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
No one talk about the Time Magazine Cover in this chapter: "present: Beyoncé" or "Public Image"?
It's such an honor and defining moment in her life and career.
I think it would be great if you choose to talk about this in the chapter Public Image or Present, enter the photo of the cover of the magazine in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.57.154 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's mentioned in the Legacy section, but I also was thinking of putting the cover into the article. I'll get back to you. —JennKR | ☎15:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
To expand on my revert, Mariah Carey is noted as an influence on the Beyoncé's career, but Michael Jackson has been asserted several times as her major influence and idol. I'm at a loss as to why it is necessary to overstate Carey's influence on Beyonce when we have several sources (literally take your pick, including a piece by Beyoncé) that demonstrates Jackson's is far more profound, and very little literature that supports the idea that Carey has been a major influence on her career. The status quo of the article presents the weight of each appropriately. Best, —JennKR | ☎13:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
@JennKR:@Adabow:@Tomica: Linking us to google where Beyonce (as well as countless other celebrities) pay homage to Jackson after his untimely death means absolutely nothing aside from your OR. As Adabow said. Post reliable sources that state he is her primary influence. There are reliable sources and actual quotes from B stating her as the sole reason for her to pursue a career in music and start singing. Either way I left it as is in the meant time, but you have nothing supporting you except fandom. @Tomica, maybe you should invest your time in finding and quoting reliable sources (as you've suggested) instead of just posting a bunch of poor-faith and immature fan comments. PS. You want to tell me how following and quoting reliably sourced material is bias and fancruft? Musical preference doesn't equate to anything of the sort, or should I say you can't be neutral because you're a fan of Rihanna?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
The one that springs to mind is when "Halo" was changed as to a tribute to Michael Jackson for the remainder of the I Am... World Tour. The DVD can be cited, but YouTube handily has a clip, "that was the night that I saw my hero perform for the very first time". There is constant mention of his influence in tour performances, interviews and several tributes. But this wasn't why I reverted you, Petergriffin9901. I reverted because your edit placed too much weight on Carey as a major influence. I have never seen other sources that convey Carey as a major influence to her work other than the one cited in the article. I certainly think the sheer volume of sources places a substantial amount of weight on Jackson's influence being more profound than Carey's. Best, —JennKR | ☎22:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I add, if you believe it would be neutral to convey Michael Jackson as a "major influence", rather than "major influence and idol", then I think this might be more reflective of the sources. However, and I as I stated above, this isn't why I reverted you, or why I brought this here. —JennKR | ☎22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Jenn... paying homage to a deceased musician is not the same thing (nor have you provided the reliable sources yet we've asked, simply stating 'there's so many'). Aretha Franklin & Patti Labelle have covered Mariah songs live on several occasions. Does that mean they are influenced by her even though they are 30 years her senior? PS. How is quoting 2 reliable sources (far more so than People or ContactMusic that don't even say the same thing) equate to too much weight? Be honest. You don't like her being placed first, that is the only reason.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me22:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
What you have decided to not take from the clip is the point where she describes Jackson as her "hero". It's not that it is a tribute, it's why there is a tribute. I don't feel the article needs a full-blown discussion of his influence on Beyoncé but it extends to music journalists comparing their performance styles and seeing much of Jackson in Beyoncé performing (see a 2013 VH1 article). It is also found in how he inspired much of Destiny's Child's early work and drive, Beyoncé discusses his influence at her Roseland Ballroom residency in 2011 (clip here). Her songs have gone as far to imitated Michael's vocal style (see Jody Rosen, article from yesterday, talking about "Love on Top"). Most recently, the nature and success of Thrillerinspired her to release her self-titled album to reclaim an album release as an event. I think Michael's influence is abundant in her work, while I don't believe the evidence exists that Carey has influenced Beyoncé extensively. I want to see Jackson listed first because I infer from the sources that he is the most influential music artist on her career, not because "I don't want Carey there" which is a disingenuous statement. Best, —JennKR | ☎22:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Dearest Jenn. You still haven't posted any reliable sources that rival what has been placed for Carey. I see a bunch of YouTube links, and a VH1 article comparing Beyonce's performance power to Jackson's. Still nothing but OR darling. Again, her "hero" and "angel" while performing a tribute to a fellow deceased musician is not at all the same thing. Where does it say he was her primary influence or was the person who made me want to sing?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me23:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Not it isn't just Jackson. Jenn is reverting any movement of Carey into the lead sentences even after Jackson. You aren't making a strong case for yourself.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me23:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've just realised I made a fatal error in not reading the Mariah Carey source which the journalist states that "Beyoncé Knowles told me that she started doing vocal “runs” after hearing "Vision of Love." And that is it. There is not even a mention that Carey helped her "pursue a career as a musician". And you want to put this source above Jackson, Ross, Houston and Prince?? —JennKR | ☎ 23:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I'm actually astounded I did not realise this sooner, but I suppose we can support the Jackson claim much better. —JennKR | ☎23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can the Vibe source be cross referenced with the New Yorker article it mentions? I can't find it anywhere other than Vibe. —JennKR | ☎23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
@JennKR: Thanks for finally providing reliable sources and for acknowledging my sources exist. As I said, my issue is you keep trying to bury Carey's influence behind several other now for no apparent reason. If you leave it as is, I have no problem leaving Jackson as the first one. Also, you should change the wording for Jackson and add the sources/quote provided. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me04:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would say the section currently as it is gives a perfect balance to all her influences. May JennKR if you say that MJ has influenced her more than the others listed, one or two extra lines about his impact on her would suffice? Would love to hear your input and let me know if you need mine. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]08:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
No, because as I said right from the beginning, the reason why I brought this discussion here is not because I feel Jackson's influence was overstated, but that Mariah Carey is not proven to be a major influence on Beyonce's work. At the moment I see a source which asserts that Beyoncé began vocal runs because of "Vision of Love" (which also wrongly states that Carey helped "her pursue a career as a musician") and that quote from Vibe which I seriously doubt the verifiability of when I search The New Yorker archives and there is no such article. The reason why I'm disputing this is because I've followed the careers of both for some time, and never have I heard Beyoncé mention Mariah Carey as impactful on her career and that is why I see placing Carey as second in this section as misleading to the reader. If you believe she has, where is the evidence of Carey's influence? —JennKR | ☎08:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
WAs that in response to me? If not then ignore. What I wanted to say was that if you say that the New Yorker article never existed then that's problematic. And yes, doing vocal runs after listening to "Vision of Love" is not the same as having influence over one's singing career. There are differences to the two. We need a solid evidence to establish Carey then as a direct influence. I believe the other influences have these direct links? If not we need to check them too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]08:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
It was not in response to you IndianBio, but I'm glad you're involved because I think this discussion needs more people and their opinion. I agree, I think this whole section could benefit from more accuracy and perhaps more explanation as to behind who is influenced what and to what extent. Best, —JennKR | ☎09:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have just come back from the library where I quickly skimmed through all the April 2010 issues of the New Yorker and I couldn't find anything discussing Beyonce or Carey. The fact that Jenn can't find it online either makes me suspect, and I definitely don't think we should be using a tertiary source such as Vibe for a quote published by the NY. Adabow (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Running even a general Google search on the quote to see if it has been picked up by another source fails also. I seriously doubt its validity and it should not be used in the article. In light of this, we have a source that says Carey has influenced Beyoncé to improve her vocal technique. I reiterate my initial point: there is no evidence for Carey posing a major influence on Beyoncé's career and the proposed layout of the section misleads the reader. I have moved the Carey quote back to its original position, without the erroneous information, and have expanded upon the Michael Jackson section. Although, as I stated earlier, this section could do with being more specific and perhaps could do with expanding beyond quotes and naming artists. I'll look into it further. Best, —JennKR | ☎13:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Current infobox image, from 2011. Petergriffin9901 claims that the image is too old and too airbrushed.
Previous infobox image, from July 2013. While it is more recent, I (Chasewc91) find this image to be of much lower quality than the first image.
On 20:38, 18 June 2014, I made a few changes including the changing of the infobox picture from File:Beyonce - Montreal 2013 (3) crop.jpg to File:Beyonce Knowles with necklaces.jpg, which is slightly older but (in my opinion) a better quality image that allows Knowles to be better identified. A few days later, Petergriffin9901changed the image back, with the edit summary Absolutely ridiculous. A three year old heavily air-brushed promotional poster as a main infobox image?. I initially reverted this change, claiming that the picture choice should be "obvious", though I now think that it might be best if there be a discussion on this.
I can certainly see Nathan's point about the Montreal tour image being more recent. However, free images of such good quality as the photoshoot image are rare, the photo isn't that old, and Beyoncé still looks very much the same in that picture as she does today, which is why I believe it is the one we should continue using. But I have opened this discussion so that Nathan can make any further points and so that other editors may discuss. I'll leave a notice of this discussion at WP:BEYONCE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for opening the discussion mate. My main issue isn't the age of the photo (or whether she looks the same). I just find it ludicrous to use an edited/airbrushed/photoshopped/promotional poster as an image. Find me one bio article that does the same (I understand this one is a rare find). In my book, a real, unfiltered and again real photograph (whether as clear or not) is absolutely the right and only way to go (I mean, really, she's got the diva fans blowing her hair and everything lol. Totally unacceptable). Cheers--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me10:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Peter on which image is better, but for different reasons: for me, the one of her in white gives a clearer view of the face (she has her hair in the way in the other one). Snuggums (talk • contributions)13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Good Morning America, July 2011 How about this one from a GMA concert? It's about 3 years old, isn't edited, is clear and shows her face well. Adabow (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
(I cleared the discussion so it takes place below the first two pictures. Just a little OCD. Hope no one minds.)
Nathan: A lot of free photos are edited in some way, whether that's professionally done as is the case with this Beyoncé picture, or by our own editors using photoshop on them to clean them up. I fail to see what is "unacceptable" about it - are publicity photos in some way discouraged by policy or guidelines? I know that Elvis Presley, a featured article, similarly uses a publicity photo as the infobox image. As far as the photo being "diva"-like, isn't Beyoncé noted in the media for her diva personality? That to me seems like an even better reason to use the 2011 shoot picture. Snuggums, her hair only covers a small part of her face; there's no misidentifying the fact that it is Beyoncé in the picture?
Any of these are fine except the Montreal white dress one. I agree with Chase that it is just of too low a quality. Adabow (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a huge fan of the GMA pictures, the one linked isn't great as it's almost the whole body and head and shoulders are generally much better (so I'd prefer the one to the right of this text if it had to be used). I would support the use of the promotional picture for Chase's reasoning above: I don't find it unacceptable to use pictures like this and fans are used quite often in her performances/photo shoots, as well as the performances/photo shoots of other music artists. I've always been interested in the circumstances around this picture, it was licensed and sourced by Parkwood Entertainment LLC (Beyoncé's management company) but taken by Tony Duran, I wonder if it is possible if Parkwood could grant the article a newer picture under similar circumstances? I'll look into it and see what I can do. —JennKR | ☎19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Beyoncé Knowles donated $7 million to help build a complex shelter for the homeless in hometown Houston [1]
A donation of $500,000 was made by Beyoncé Knowles to the Chine for Change project for girls and women in areas of Education, Health and Justice which she helped co found. [2]
It appears that Dr Dre has overtaken beyoncé as the 'highest-earning black musician in history' due to his earnings of $620 million this year (according to the Forbes 100) & his net worth already being valued at $270 million in 2012
This refers to how much the musician earns from their activities as a musician (perhaps 'highest paid black musician' is a more relevant description). Don't confuse this with Beyoncé's net worth -- which is far less than Dr Dre's, as well as other black musicians including her husband Jay-Z. —JennKR | ☎18:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Although MOS:Images prefers the person's face to face the text, it's not a requirement and I think it's impractical to follow that on this article. Also the edit meant that the text of the Personal life section was sandwiched (which is against the MOS:Images) and also that the article would not follow a left-right alignment, which looks messy. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎14:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Crazy in Love, Baby Boy, Irreplacable, Deja Vu, Beautiful Liar, Single Ladies are mentioned in the lead, so why can't Drunk in Love be mentioned in the lead too? It was a major hit. Can someone explain? Likia21 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Beyoncé records sales are wrongly stated on her wiki page and the best-selling artist page. She, as a solo, has sold over 120 million records WW, not 75 million. This has been proven by many people. Can someone please fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.10.211 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Note: Hot New Hip-Hop states that she's sold over 180 million records. They're including her records sold with DC ( 180 million - 60 million = 120 million) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.112.9 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Reopening the discussion about record sales in the opening due to a mini dispute. The argument was that 120 million found in the sources above did not match her certifications and was not the same as what is found on the List of best-selling music artists. I disagree with this. First of all, for example another GA article, Lady Gaga has different record sales in her opening compared to the LOBSMA page. Secondly, Beyoncé's is heavily under-certified and her certifications are not accurate of her sales. For example, Single Ladies has sold 5 Million, but is only certified 4x Platinum, I Am... Sasha Fierce has sold 3 Million, but is only certified 2x Platinum, Crazy in Love has sold 1.9 Million but is only certified Gold, Partition has sold over 500,000 but is not certified, Beyoncé has sold over 2 Million but is certified 1x Platinum, If I Were A Boy sold over 3 Million, but is certified 2x Platinum. The list does go on. I hope this makes light of why compared to the LOBSMA page, certifications are not a necessity for reported record sales in this article and its opening. Any thoughts? Lolcakes25 (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
First off, there is no re-opening because it was never opened. It was simply implemented and then reverted. Let me explain it to you. First of all, The Independent source used in from 2010; basically, her current certifications of 50 million would probably be in the low 40s. Next, the source is fairly vague and not clear on whether it's referring to her total sales with DC or solo. Now, this source, as I stated, is from 2010. All following sources are far more recent. Even this one from 2011 lists 11 million albums and 25 million singles. Lastly, the reason we use 75m even though her certifications are at 50m is for that very reason you brought up: undercertified releases and the small teritories that can't be accounted for. 120m is a ridiculous figure and even out of reach for her work including DC. Go compare her certifications to Rihanna and Eminem to see what is required for sales of 120m+. I'm sorry, I see a weak source posted for 180m. Lol. Yeah, let's put her up there with Dion and Carey.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Independent is not a weak source and being hypothetical to prove a point is unnecessary. I do also think it's funny you tried to accuse me of "fandom" when you are the one bringing up other artists and their sales, not to mention this article had her at 118M for literally months before. Like I said, there is no rule about sales having to be a percentage of certifications in this article, and other GA articles leads have sales differing from the LOBSMA. I really don't care enough to make a big deal out of it anyway, if anyone else wants to comment they obviously can. Lolcakes25 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Independent is a reliable source. The problem is the record labels that are feeding them the facts are far from reliable. Our mission is to provide realistic and as close to precise numbers as possible. 118 or 120 is ridiculously inflated, and the certifications are the easiest and most fail-proof way to guide us. Also, I didn't accuse you of fandom. I said your disissive edit summary was easy to interpret as fandom. The source is 4 years old. Are you telling me without her last two albums you still think she's sold 120m? Let's be honest mate. Its promotional fluff.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me11:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I completely understand what you're saying and there's no need to go back and forth between us, but remember above I did point out in just one market alone (US, RIAA) Beyoncé is heavily under-certified giving several examples. There are also at least two reliable sources above from 2013 giving both the 118 and 120M figure. But yeah like I said I see where you are coming from and have no interest in changing anything unless any other people comment. Thanks for discussing :) Lolcakes25 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Very dubious/vague statement (not to mention untrue). I tried to find the source (Billboard) for elaboration, but could not. Maybe they mean highest grossing tour by a Black musician. This seems to be what they are referring to as her tour is the sole subject of the short/vague article. Either way something must be changed. Thoughts?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think it refers to an average of how much black artists are paid for their endeavours. But it isn't to be confused with net worth (of which several black artists exceed Beyoncé). —JennKR | ☎10:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I have no real opinion on whether or not this info should be included, but on a cursory look through the wikipedia pages of all the other people named in this source, none of them mention this. Cannolis (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Can this be changed to something a little more impartial, e.g. the name of the campaign the section refers to, Ban Bossy? I would do it myself but it's semi-protected. Thanks 109.151.162.170 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I agree it may be an uncomfortable read, but it's the truth, I'm just summarising what I'm finding in multiple articles. Beyoncé is undeniably on record in a prominent national campaign promoting the banning of a word—that's kind of the definition of "censorship advocacy." I mean, it seemed like the clearest heading I could come up with. What would you call it? I can cite several sources calling this campaign "censorship" if needed, but I think the three I already provided outline it well. What else would it be called if not "censorship advocacy:" 'promotion', 'endorsement', something else? As for a sub-heading-considering her high visibility and her decision to lend her likeness to this type of campaign, it's a good bet many readers would probably find it noteworthy. She wants to ban a word. No matter the reason or the merits, it is what it is. I noted the anon user cited WP:NPOV when removing such terms in the linked article, but who's injecting POV? It almost feels like an attempt to WP:Sanitize. Isn' t this noteworthy and relevant to the section and the subject? It has multiple, easily verified sourcing from prominent news organizations. What else would you want to see to keep it as entered? Lexlex (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
@anon, please see Censorship definition. Please suggest a term you feel is more appropriate. I was asked to characterise it this way by another editor, when expanding and interlinking this article. (e.g. it's plain-spoken, etc.) Lexlex (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
@anon, I ask you to please read the definition. There is no special pass when the reason for the censorship has lofty political rationale. It's still the banning of a word which some people find objectionable—and that is censorship. Are you attempting to WP:Sanitize this? If so, why? This is fact, it's really clear, it's really well-documented and there really should be no discussion. Your quoting of the campaign literature does not address this or change the facts. Lexlex (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I left the lead as is but the infobox should *definitely* list all her main occupations; singer, songwriter, record producer, dancer, actress. Beyoncé is credited for co-writing/co-producing most of her records and is known to be a skilled dancer. It's standard proceeding for all such Wiki articles incl. Mariah Carey, Britney Spears and Madonna. I'd also add songwriter to the lead but I'll leave it as is until more editors weigh in. Israell (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The one that I wouldn't completely disagree with addding is "songwriter" for the reason Snuggums gave, but I am opposed to it to some extent because she isn't independently notable for songwriting (she hasn't written for many (or maybe any?) other artists). For the rest of those occupations, I oppose record producer and dancer for similar reasons. She doesn't produce or choreograph for anyone else, her production work consisting of co-production and vocal production and her dancing is also inconjunction with Frank Gatson et al. I mean we could also throw in "voice actress", "entrepreneur", "fashion designer", "perfurmer", "activist" and "philanthropist" to name a few titles, but I think all of this is simply superfluous to a first sentence. Perhaps "recording artist" should go there? I mean that can be seen as an umbrella term for singing and its associated attributes such as co-writing and co-producing? —JennKR | ☎19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It would indeed be excessive to add such an extensive list in opening sentence. From what I've seen across articles, "songwriter" is used when said person is known to write their own and/or others' material. I wouldn't include it for people like Cher or Elvis Presley. Snuggums (talk / edits)03:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The term "recording artist" does not explicitly state the artist in question (co-)writes and (co-)produces. A singer that does not (co-)write and does not (co-)produce anything at all (such as Alizée) is a recording artist. A singer that does (co-)write and (co-)produce is also a recording artist. That's why it's better for the lead to explicitly state "singer, songwriter" or "singer-songwriter" (depending on the case) if the singer does indeed (co-)write. Many Wiki articles follow such standard. Israell (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014 Record Sales
Partly done: Although No, No, No (Destiny's Child song) was not released until November 1997, so is not 17 years yet, Men in Black: The Album was released in June 1997, justifying the 17 years, which I have, therefore, changed. However, the site you have sited for sales is not a reliable source - It even admits it is unsure, by stating "BEYONCÉ'S FULL TOTAL RECORD SALES MUST STAND AROUND 160–180 MILLION." There are very few reliable sources for record sales - many labels and/or the artists management/promoters inflate the figures. Even if these figures were reliable, they do not support the change you have asked for, as it appears to include downloads, whereas the article currently refers to records. - Arjayay (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I personally do not think that all of Beyoncé's key business ventures need to be divided into separate sub headings with a paragraph explaining them all. This could surely go in just one section like I believe it used to be, as it should not be the key focus of the article with too much information. ThirdWard (Lolcakes25) (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Done I added one sentence about the additional footage. Details belong in the Life Is But a Dream article. Adabow (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Done —JennKR | ☎ 18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done Unsure, the award seems to be won by the producers and "Various artists", I'll do some more research into who is accredited and get back to you. —JennKR | ☎ 18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
WikiRedactor (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
_crop.jpg)
Unnecessary – Already done. – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: Although No, No, No (Destiny's Child song) was not released until November 1997, so is not 17 years yet, Men in Black: The Album was released in June 1997, justifying the 17 years, which I have, therefore, changed.