Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Spotify metrics in lead

Per WP:BADCHART, her statistics being the most streamed person on Spotify etc cannot be in the lead as it goes against Wikipedia's content guidelines that charts pertaining to one retailer/music provider should not be used. Ergo, this is the same reason why iTunes or Amazon Music charts are not used in Wikipedia articles. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The 98 billion info should still be re-added. It's important, as it as its describes her as the most streamed artist in general, and there is no mention of Spotify or other provider in it. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ben0006 Please re-add the 98 billion data. Thanks. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Upon reviewing WP:BADCHART, PHShanghai's edit was indeed consistent with that guideline (BADCHART and WP:CHART apply to prose as well as discography charts). Unless there is a compelling reason (and consensus) to bypass a Wikipedia content guideline (and I don't see either here), this shouldn't be readded. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

In what way goes this sentence: "With over 98 billion streams globally, she is the most-streamed female act as of 2021", aginst the guideline? It's described without naming any provider like Amazon/Spotify specifically. Isn't it the reason why it was removed in the first place? @Aoi Mirrored7 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the guideline's intention is that a single retailer chart is ok to use, just as long as you don't say which chart. That would be even worse. I think the problem is not with including a count of Spotify streams, but in the use of a Spotify chart that ranks that count against others. That's a fair point. While Spotify is a major player in streaming, it is only one platform. Its counts are not necessarily representative of streaming activity across the entire internet. Which is a bias the guideline is about avoiding. I assume the 98 billion figure is across all platforms? Where does it come from, is it sourced?--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, those numbers are in general. It's sourced by two reliable sources. I would agree to remove the Spotify numbers, they are still in her Achievements section anyway. However, her having 98 billion streams across all streaming platforms, is a rare achievement and one of her biggest accomplishments, which should stay in the lead. Especially as it not says Spotify or any other platform specifically. @Escape Orbit Mirrored7 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I misunderstood Mirrored's proposal. It looks like the 98 billion figure is sourced in the article body to this article, which reads in part, By age 28, she released six albums which have all gone platinum and has surpassed 98 billion streams globally – she's Spotify’s most streamed female artist of the past decade – while rapidly becoming one of the biggest pop stars of our generation with her powerhouse vocals and unmatched presence both on stage and with her fans. It's not clear whether the 98 billion streams is a Spotify-only figure, but Spotify is mentioned in the same sentence.

The article also doesn't say anything about being "the most streamed female act [ever]." That's from a second source, this article, which says Grande recently surpassed 90 billion streams consumed worldwide, the most ever by a female artist.

The way the sentence is proposed to be written, it reads like WP:SYNTH since there's no source that directly references both the 98 billion streams and the "most-streamed female act" part. Given the Synth issue and the fact that the two sources cite different figures, I would propose simply leaving out the figure altogether and just say that, as of 2021, she was the most-streamed female artist worldwide. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

First source was from April 2021, which stated that she recently surpassed 90 billion consumed streams, the most by ANY female artist. The second was from months later, November 2021, stating 98 billion. I would trust the later more, as it's the most recent. She only recently surpassed 50 billion streams on Spotify, so I doubt this comes from the platform only, especially in 2021. Those numbers are mostly from Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube.

Just re-add the senetence with the 98 billion data as it was. There's nothing wrong with that, it's all sourced and doesn't go against guidelines. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you provide a source that explicitly states: "Grande has surpassed 98 billion streams across multiple streaming platforms including Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube", I don't see why the data should be re-added to the lead when there's not enough sources to support it.

Furthermore, why is this information lead-worthy and not on Ariana Grande singles discography or the Achievements section instead? What does her high amount of streams contribute to the conversation regarding her commercial success; which we can use other metrics for instead, like her amount of Billboard Hot 100 number ones? Why does the content need to be included? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Why you need a source that explicitly states it. It's obvious why what is meant by that. Grande has been very successful in streaming, why not mention it in the lead? There are two major sources of the 98 billion streams info. So we should ignore her streaming accomplishments all together, just because you're not satisfied with it? Mirrored7 (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Because every text in every Wikipedia article requires a clear and reliable source, per WP:RS. Using two vague sources to conclude something is WP:SYNT. I didn't say her streaming accomplishments should be ignored; I said that her streaming accomplishments should be sourced properly according to the guidelines. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

They are sourced properly. It depends, on what mean with "properly". For me, the source has been very clear. And since the three years the source has been up, no one has ever complained about it either. Mirrored7 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I look up the sources again. It 98 billion is the most recent reported number. "The most by any female artist", which makes her the most streamed female artist, AT LEAST for that time, that's why, "as of 2021". Since then, there has been no higher figure reported for any other female artist. It has no provider listed, it has TWO reliable sources. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay, to at least re-add "With over 98 billion streams globally, she is the most-streamed female act as of 2021" on the lead again. I don't think it's okay to ignore her streaming success in the lead, especially when she is primarily known for that. It has its sources and doesn't mention Spotify or other streaming platforms specifically. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@PHShanghai @Escape Orbit @Aoi

Can you take part on the discussion again?

60 % of Grande's success has been in streaming. I don't think, it's right to ignore it all in the lead. I would be for it, to at least re-add the 98 billion streams part again, as it has no provider like Spotify or Apple Music linked to it. I also would be open to rephrase it differently. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I find the 98 billion streams part to have weak sourcing and overall just reads WP:PUFF. (Just because it is verifiable does not mean it needs to be included). Unless there is a broad, strong consensus that she is VERY NOTABLE for having very strong streaming numbers, it should not be readded. There are other artists like Drake who have amazing streaming records, but the numbers aren't mentioned in the lead. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Image

@19Arham:, the new picture that you changed to might potentially be copyvio, as there is no indication that "Our Movie Guide" was the one who actually filmed/interviewed Ariana at the Wicked premiere, and the description says "All materials provided by EPK.TV". PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. 19Arham (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

Add a section for "Controversies." To include in this section: Grande has been accused of cultural appropriation. Grande is ethnically Italian-American, and commentators have remarked upon her skin color appearing to change dramatically, altering her hair color and hairstyles, and adopting different vernacular and slang, in manners that make her appear ethnically ambiguous. Grande has been accused of "Blackfishing," in which "individuals often use makeup, Photoshop and cosmetic surgery to change their natural appearance" to look Black when they are not racially or ethnically black. At the 2018 Billboard Women in Music Awards, Grande also stated to fans, "thank you so much for coming to my Quinceanñra," despite not being Latino or Hispanic and never having a Quinceañera. Grande has also more recently been accused of "Asianfishing" after sharing photos of herself "her makeup seemingly imitating Asian features."

Of course, please edit as you see fit. Thank you! Allbirdy (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITS, which is admittedly an essay, not an official policy, "Controversies" is not a recommended section title. Rather the title should address the specific issue at hand (such as "Allegations of cultural appropriation.") if it is determined to be WP:DUE under the WP:BLP policy. PianoDan (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: There are a number of issues with this request. First, there currently isn't a "controversies" section in this article (nor should there necessarily be one per PianoDan's comment). If there is another part of the article that you think this material would fit within, please let us know.

In addition, there are sourcing issues with this content. First, there are concerns about the reliability of Newsweek (see WP:NEWSWEEK), and I'm honestly not comfortable supporting its use in a WP:BLP article. There is also no consensus on whether Vice is a reliable source. The Billboard article supports the statement that Grande said, "thank you so much for coming to my Quinceañera" but doesn't mention anything about controversy coming from that statement.

I haven't assessed the other sources, but ideally this content should be discussed before it's added to the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Re-instate Impact section

Grande used to have an impact section, however for some reason it was removed and merged into a different section. I see it has been said on here already that someone planned on reinstating it, but it hasn’t been done yet. Grande has had a massive impact, whereas Selena Gomez, who obviously has had impact but not to the scale of Grande’s, has an impact section on her page. I would appreciate it if the impact section is reinstated, especially now with the release of Wicked and with Grande’s recognition from Billboard as the 9th best pop-star of the 21st century and the only performer who debuted in the 2010’s to make an appearance in the top 10 TIA :) Olivergrandeee (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Olivergrandeee: Just be bold and reinstate it yourself. You don't typically need to ask permission to add content unless someone else reverts you. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name (7 December 2024)

The phonetic pronunciation of her name is given as /ˌɑːriˈɑːnə ˈɡrɑːndeɪ bjʊˈtɛərə/ AR-ee-AH-nə GRAHN-day byuu-TAIR-ə. I think there are several problems here. Most importantly, the IPAC-en pronunciation does not match the Respell. /bjʊˈtɛərə/ would be byuu-TAI-əRə, and I don't believe that extra schwa is needed. I haven't found a video of Grande pronouncing the last part of the name, but in this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lo8HesXmO8&t=168s) the interviewer pronounces it without the glide after the initial B and with a more english EH vowel as opposed to the more Spanish pronunciation: buu-TER-ə. I would note that he Spanish pronunciation would not have the glide either. Lastly her normal pronunciation of her first name is more anglicized /ˌɑːreɪˈɑːnə/ AR-ay-AH-nə with the close-mid front unrounded vowel rather than the close front unrounded vowel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_front_unrounded_vowel). This can be heard over and over here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skglkez7QgI (Try 1/2 or 1/4 speed.) I cannot edit the article but I think someone should fix this. Mgolden (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - typo

I noticed a missing letter in the 2013-2015 Career section:

”became 2014's eight-best-selling digital single globally”

”eight” should be “eighth” Sneakers2929 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

Add "Right after, she was ranked as Billboard's 6th greatest pop star of 2024" right after "In October 2024, Billboard ranked Grande as the ninth-greatest pop star, out of 25 artists, of the 21st century" in the 'Awards and recognition' section. Elapiedra (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to cite? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Anne drew 04:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Grammar

A line mentions that a nutritionist working with Grande has “got her to . . .”

Grammatically, this should be “gotten her to . . .” or the sentence should be rewritten to say something like “encouraged her to . . .” CERy1 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Technically, "has got" is considered correct in British English. See https://oneminuteenglish.org/have-got-vs-have-gotten/ Mgolden (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a suggested rephrasing that works well in both British and American English? CERy1 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the article is written about an American, in American English, the British English argument holds no weight. Also, the source says "gotten". - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image is currently tagged for deletion under copyvio concerns. From another similar copyvio discussion regarding an image from Vogue Taiwan, Wikimedia commons administrator Bastique said "Vogue Taiwan republishing a copyrighted video doesn't make it magically CC-BY-3.0, when it has been demonstrated that the original is copyrighted. The license is obviously incorrect, and we would be hard pressed to refuse a takedown notice if Conde Nast were to decide they want to hold that copyright." I think the image should be removed due to the reasons I've mentioned, at least until the deletion discussion has come to a consensus. jolielover♥talk 13:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jolielover Most of her recent images are nominated for deletion, which is a bummer. We have to keep one of them as the lead image until they are deleted, because the other ones are a decade old and don't represent her that well. We've had many discussions about her lead image in here, just last year. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Re-instate Impact section part two

Hi guys, so it's been a while but it's unfair that Ariana Grande's impact section was removed, i don't know what happened, I would re-instate but i can't do it so someone has to, because Ariana definitely has impacted the industry, last article revisions corrobored it, in fact, I helped to make it, so please, cand somebody re-instate impact section? 2800:BF0:60:F22:B41A:3235:9050:2EBF (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ben0006

I think, it would be great to re-establish the impact section soon again

Sources you can look at (Choose the ones, you think are right):

https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/ariana-grande-redefined-pop-sweetener-thank-u/?

https://www.hercampus.com/school/umkc/how-ariana-grande-made-impact-2018/

https://www.thehypemagazine.com/2024/07/why-ariana-grande-reigns-supreme-on-spotify-a-look-at-her-streaming-success/

https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/taylor-swift-evermore-folklore-surprise-explained.html

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/taylor-swifts-new-album-evermore-embraces-more-is-more-release-strategy-11607621727

https://www.her.ie/amp/celeb/ariana-grande-opens-up-about-the-impact-of-thank-u-next-one-year-on-487668

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/music-industry-study-women-diversity-1330009/

https://www.popbuzz.com/music/artists/ariana-grande/features/thank-u-next-album-review/

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/07/thank-u-next-why-pop-stars-fell-out-of-love-with-albums-ariana-grande

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/08/ariana-grande-rocketed-to-the-top-sweetener-pete-davidson

https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/a-guide-to-ariana-grande-pop-stardom.html

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/6/20852568/streaming-revenue-growth-spotify-apple-music-industry-ariana-grande-drake-taylor-swift

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/in-praise-of-ariana-grande

https://www.revolt.tv/article/2018-11-05/97237/i-guess-ariana-grande-did-what-taylor-swift-couldnt

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-yes-and-eternal-sunshine-1234965716/

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-thank-u-next-pop-star-8483363/

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/11/ariana-grande-youtube-series-dangerous-woman-diaries

https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/g30256467/best-pop-culture-moments-2010s-decade/

https://archive.junkee.com/ariana-grande-positions-era/275792

https://dailytargum.com/article/2022/11/two-years-out-pandemic-era-hit-positions-reflects-our-growth?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Targum_Social

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/arts/music/popcast-ariana-grande-positions.html

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/filipino-youth-k-pop-ariana-grande-taylor-swift-advocacy-presidential-candidate-leni-robredo

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-god-is-this-woman-77

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-yes-and-eternal-sunshine-1234965716/

most recent one:

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-greatest-pop-stars-21st-century-1235804073/

I feel like three good stuctured sections would be sufficient. Maybe get some help from the others editors who are in here regularly. There is already section above music records and awards, to start with. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ben0006 You have not replied. Like I said, I would like to get this done this month. It's really not a big deal. Three sections of Ariana Grande's impact in the pop industry. I can help you too. Are the sources helpful to you? Mirrored7 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of these are solid sources. But I'd not be able to start working on it this month itself.

Ben | he/him (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's okay. I will try to put something together, you can see, if you can added. @Ben0006

Maybe some editors who are often working on this article, could help too? @SNUGGUMS @Flabshoe1 @Prefall @Batud1991 Mirrored7 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll assess these more closely later, but from a glance, that is quite a large collection of sources you've given! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think it would be best to use Capital, Junkee, Billboard, and Rolling Stone among the links listed. Not sure how many paragraphs one could make using those. Regardless, more citations could easily be added to expand the section once started. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2025

Add Oscars Nomination Marcyswu (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominations in the lead

@SNUGGUMS and @Aoi Is there a specific rule that prevents nominations to be mentioned in the lead? I found it unfairly, as other actors and actresses have their acting nominations mentioned in their lead too. Grande is fairly new in the industry, and acting nominations seem definitely lead worthy to me, especially if we talking about an ACADEMY AWARD nomination, which is a rare feat for any singer turned actress.

An example, singer Cher has her Oscar nominations mentioned in her lead, as well as actresses like Cynthia Erivo, Angelina Jolie or Scarlett Johansson and many more. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a practice reserved exclusively for those who work in music or who primarily focus on acting careers. I could also name other pages that save nominations for article body (if anywhere) while sticking to wins for the lead section. The goal of only mentioning awards won is to reduce bloating/overstuffing. Being from a particular ceremony isn't some boost of significance in the way you seem to view it as. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why anybody treats the Academy Awards as more important than other American film accolades (which sometimes includes the Golden Globes and those often appear to be deemed a next-best-thing in the country for movies). Being awarded still is getting some form of recognition no matter who it's from. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Still, the Academy Award is the highest recognition you can get as an entertainer. Grande isn't a veteran, and "Wicked" is practically her first big picture. To be nominated for an Oscar, is an achievement in itself, especially if you count, that this is her first nomination and she has been known for decades as pop star. Same goes for BAFTA, SAG, and Golden Globe. It would be a different story, if she has won already, and as been nominated for multiple awards, like with her music career. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Mirrored7. Her Oscar nom is among the *most* notable aspects of her career thus far, and should definitely be mentioned in lead. Krimuk2.0 (talk)

Neither of you have elaborated on what makes them a bigger deal than other film awards. Being from one ceremony doesn't automatically give a nomination more importance compared to other institutions. The stance you have appears to reinforce a systemic bias of treating Oscars as a top priority even when someone has other big wins. I at least would wait until the ceremony takes place before adding that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty much known to everyone that the Oscars are the highest award you can get in entertainment. Even if she doesn't win, it's still notable to her career and should be added to the lead, as a nomination is a recognition in itself. That you don't think much about that award, doesn't change its importance or makes it lesser relevant. I don't know what purpose it has to wait until the ceremony.

I also think that, BAFTA's, SAG and Golden Globe nomination should be added, as it's a rare feat for a singer to achieve that with one role, especially with the first major one. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You took my comments the wrong way. I wasn't suggesting that I have a low stance of them or any other institution, I just couldn't grasp the reason(s) behind the "Oscars matter more than other film accolades for America" mentality. One thing I have observed over time is that BAFTAs are seen as the UK equivalent of what Academy Awards are to the US, though am also not sure what made folks decide one particular award was more important than other British accolades for movies. It sounds arbitrary to treat things from non-Oscar ceremonies as "lesser" achievements (for a lack of a better adjective) or to declare anything along the lines of "awards from this place are most important and others don't mean as much". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Snuggums, The Guardian, a British newspaper, has called the Oscars the main awards event, while terming the SAG Awards, the Golden Globes and the Baftas as "precursors". As does the very British BBC. Also from the BBC comes: "The Oscars are thought to be the most prestigious film awards in the world." while "The Baftas are the biggest film awards in Britain." So there you go, world vs Britain. Meanwhile, the LA Times have a power-ranking of award ceremonies in which the Oscars come on top. The Hollywood Reporter has written an analysis about this. This thinking goes beyond the West, with The Indian Express terming the Oscars "the biggest film awards on Earth". So no, it's not an arbitrary thinking to give the Oscars more prominence than other ceremonies. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe that we're discussing if an Oscar nomination should be added to a lead, like its some Kids Choice Award. I just know, that this wouldn't be happening to another artist, but for some reason there seems to be a bias against that particular one. Also, her BAFTA, Golden Globe, and SAG noms should be included too. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Please don't twist this thread into something it's not, Mirrored7; nobody was saying or even suggesting they were similar to the Kids Choice Awards. Your accusations of bias are also unfounded when Ariana isn't some one-of-a-kind case when it comes to talk page discussions or what awards are pending. Regardless of what ceremony somebody is writing about, I thought it was obvious that merely being nominated is less lead-worthy than actually winning. That (along with wanting to avoid potential bloats) was why I recommended waiting until the ceremony had taken place before adding to the lead. Thankfully you aren't one of the Wikipedians who omits other big awards (yes that includes BAFTAs and Golden Globes) from leads for the sake of focusing more on Oscars (a worrisome practice of being too Oscar-centric I sometimes have witnessed on other pages). As for what Krimuk2.0 wrote, it admittedly does surprise me that any British media wouldn't consider awards from their nation to be the biggest deal among film ceremonies, and I previously was under the impression that the "Oscars are the most important movie achievement" stance was mostly one that Americans and their news publications held. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS I apologize. I took it the wrong way. Let's keep the Oscar nomination, and wait until the BAFTA and SAG ceremonies instead, as the Oscar nomination is still an achievement on its own, no matter what. There's still a way to add nominations, without the lead looking bloated. I feel like, It's still important to mention, that Grande found success as an actress, after being pop star for a decade. Those nominations, show it, especially because it's not in common, seeing other female pop stars careers in acting. Grande belongs to the minority, actually. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not like she was completely new to films or acting in general before Wicked. Sure, most of her prior non-musical recognition comes from TV endeavors, but even non-starring roles still count for something. Supposing for a moment we did include any nominations ahead of their verdicts, how would we manage to avert bloating? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It's still not comparable to star in a major picture and getting that recognizition. This is definitely Grande's breakthrough as an actress. I can tell only five female singers who were nominated in those acting categories and even lesser who won. For now, let's keep the Oscar nomination how it is, one sentence doesn't make anything bloated. If she loses all, we can still add "for which she earned nominations for the Academy, Golden Globe, SAG, and BAFTA for Best Supporting Actress", at the end, of her starring in Wicked. However, we don't mention the nominations, in the section, where the awards are listed. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume the lack of mentions under "Awards and recognition" (which should be retitled to something like "Achievements" or simply "Awards" to avoid clunkiness) is due to them already being discussed within the Eternal Sunshine and Wicked section of "Career". This looks sufficient and avoids redundancies within the article body. On another note, it's misleading to call the movie her "breakthrough as an actress" when she already became quite famous for starring in Victorious as well as Sam and Cat. TV counts for more than you think with or without accolades. Nevertheless, I do see what you mean with one sentence by itself not being a big bloat, but am unsure whether the other paragraph discussing awards is only separated from that because those others are for music instead of acting. If not, then maybe they could be merged. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely her breakthrough as an "Hollywood leading lady". Her roles on Sam & Cat and Victorious are supporting roles on a kids show. Not comparable at all.

As far as I know, the paragraph is for both. If she wins any of the awards (which I doubt), they can be added to them, like Lady Gaga's lead. I feel like only the Academy Award is worth to be added in the Wicked paragraph (if she wins them all). If she loses, I think the nominations (BAFTA/Golden Globe/SAG), should be still be mentioned in the lead, especially the Academy one. (Especially, if in the future, she will be mentioned in the media as an Oscar nominated/winning actress) Mirrored7 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what purpose it would serve to have Oscars in a separate paragraph from any other film awards the lead discusses. It seems more logical to keep those closer together, particularly when for the same role. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the original ping in the original post was malformed so I did not receive it, and I was traveling. I just happened to see this conversation going by my watchlist. I've only skimmed through this section, but want to note that my thinking when I reverted the original edit was as follows: Yes, an Oscar nomination is notable, but given all of this person's other accolades, is this one nomination really lead-worthy?

In the past, the lead for this article has been very bloated. It's better now (edits in the last year or so have brought it down to about 525 words, which is more than most featured articles, but not as bad as it has been in the past), but I think we need to be judicious in what is added to the lead to make sure what is included is really lead-worthy (and, as Grande's career evolves, her lead should be edited to ensure we're giving specific items the appropriate due weight. Additions also need to be viewed with WP:RECENTISM in mind. The idea is not to show a "bias" against Grande, but to really focus the lead to make sure 1) it clearly states the major reasons why she is a significant figure and 2) ensure that those major reasons don't get drowned out in a sea of trivial details.

If the consensus is to include the Oscar nomination, that is fine, but IMO it should not have been restored without discussion and consensus per WP:BRD.

As for whether this was her "breakthrough" as an actress--I don't think it really matters whether it was or not. What is notable and lead-worthy is that her role as G(a)linda was met with critical praise. The specific nominations are all encompassed in that fact and may not necessarily need to be mentioned separately. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Grande & Slater

@QubeChiba: Please do not say they began dating in July 2023 as the source supporting the statement (and most other reliable sources online) does not say so. Their relationship was CONFIRMED that month. Please do not change this, also given it is a contentious topic with differing opinions on when the relationship started.. People is considered a reliable source and we'll take their word for it. jolielover♥talk 17:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Image change?

I just noticed that there is most likely a new picture. Because I had thought it was a different one before or has it always been the one from 2023? WebWhiz123 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw it got deleted. WebWhiz123 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead image change

The current lead image is one the worst I've ever seen on this article. Someone change it back until there is consensus. @Prefall @Davey2010 @Ben0006 There is already an active discussion about it. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Temporarily changed to option "D" in the ongoing discussion above as it currently has the most "votes" in favor. We should continue this discussion there. Hopefully others chime in as well. Prefall 19:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2025

CHANGE THE PICTURE OF ARIANA GRANDE IN 2024 OR 2025 2402:B400:41D4:5BB2:0:0:10CB:248A (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Vogue Taiwan

I'm very confused as to why the lead image was deleted as previous consensus has determined that Vogue Taiwan is a reliable source for photographs and images as they are an official subsidiary of Conde Nast.

Please explain the difference between this and Ariana's image? Pinging @Aoi and Jolielover: and @Bastique: who seems to be the editor primarily raising the issue with Vogue Taiwan. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

sigh... well, it looks like we're gonna need a strong official consensus on Vogue Taiwan images since they are used on quite a lot of celebrity articles. All of Grande's recent images are supplied through Vogue Taiwan. There have been conflicting consensus' and opinions on whether the attribution is valid. This deletion request regarding a Vogue Taiwan image ultimately went through as Bastique deemed that a republished video by Vogue Taiwan ultimately does not make it CC-BY-3.0 if the original is copyrighted. Personally, I think it depends on whether the original is copyrighted or not (which is most cases it is). I also would rather have an article with an old image than Wikipedia potentially receiving a takedown notice. But up to the discretion of administrators and people more educated on the topic than I am. jolielover♥talk 06:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

But I feel as though Bastique is taking it through the wrong channels. This is something that needs to be discussed and changed on a proper community consensus on Commons, not through individually deleting *some* Vogue Taiwan images that affects articles like Ariana Grande but not other articles that have been using Vogue Taiwan YouTube images for years.

Vogue Taiwan images have been used on Wikipedia articles for years now, with new materials coming from the channel which might I continue to reiterate is an official subsidiary of Conde Nast. Some of these images are on A list celebs like Adele and Billie Eilish and Vogue Taiwan continues to publish CC-BY 3.0 content- the idea of a takedown notice happening (which there hasn't been for 10+ years since the VT images have been uploaded to Commons) seems to be very, very unlikely. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@PHShanghai, I see you've pinged me. The Vogue Taiwan image was from a video first published on Vogue's main YouTube, which reserved all rights, Vogue Taiwan did not have the authority on the copyright and therefore have no basis to release it CC-BY 3.0. You have to be very careful with pages like Vogue Taiwan's YouTube page to ensure that they own the copyright that they're claiming, as they frequently republish other people's copyright. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 17:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Both Vogue US and Vogue Taiwan are under Conde Nast who ultimately is the one releasing these copyrights on the Vogue Taiwan youtube channel. I think this is just precautionary principle for the sake of precautionary principle. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, you are welcome to ask for an undeletion on Commons (commons:COM:UDR is the shortcut there), but I ap reasonably certain t that the editors of the Vogue Taiwan YouTube channel has the authority to release copyright on videos or images that are explicitly copyrighted where they are first published by Conde Nast, and so, this is likely to have implications down the line for other images published on their YouTube channel. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 17:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover , @Bastique Hey y'all, actually, it's true that the Ariana images (similar to other articles) were republished by Vogue Taiwan. But ultimately, isn't it all under the same company? I checked Google, and it is, so I don't know,it doesn't seem like a problem, right? Lililolol (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Vogue Taiwan is a subsidiary of Conde Nast Publications. They are not the same company, however. They are definitely different organizations. I suggest you read the Commons discussion I linked below. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 05:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In short, the images were deleted because, although the Vogue Taiwan image came from a video that was licensed under a Creative Commons license, the same video had been posted previously as a fully copyrighted video on a separate Vogue account. Because the copyrighted video was uploaded first, the copyright on that video takes precedence over the reupload on the Taiwan channel; hence, the images were deleted as copyright violations. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the current image properly licensed? It also comes from Vogue Taiwan but am unsure whether there is an original video under which it is fully copyrighted. jolielover♥talk 07:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have seen the Met Gala video from which the image is from on the official English Vogue account before, but I am not sure what license that video was published under, and I am not sure when both videos were uploaded. From what I've seen on Commons, it looks like a lot of uploads from Vogue Taiwan have or are being scrutinized for potential copyright violations, so I'm sure someone will have eyes on it eventually. It's worth noting that, for better or worse, a consensus on Wikipedia is not binding on Commons because it is administered as a separate project. Therefore, any consensus about the broad suitability of Vogue Taiwan uploads would have to be made there rather than here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@PHShanghai There is still a discussion about the lead image. Please revert until there is consensus. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Commons so we can reach a consensus about these. Even though in the past they're being retained, looking through, in the last year, we've been deleting them. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 17:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Fresh Air interview

Ariana Grande says 'Wicked' was a gift — and she's proud to be in a 'beautiful coven', NPR's Fresh Air, February 4, 2025.

The highlights in the above link] are just a snippet: the actual interview is 42 minutes long (and there is a transcript of the full interview available). It's a primary source so please be mindful of WP:PRIMARY if you use it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Messy Lead change

The lead looks somewhat messy now. Someone please revert it the way it was before, as in general, there has been no improvement.

- "Sweetener (at least no in its entirety), "Thank U Next" and "Positions", were NOT inspired by the Manchester Bombing. In general its inapropriate to have it in the lead, as this is NOT what defines Grande's career.

- Positions (album) is not about her personal struggles at at all, and actually a positive album.

- Some notable achievements were removed like "first solo artist to occupy the top three spots of the Billboard Hot 100", most number-one debuts, "the most successful female artist to emerge in the 2010s", or "highest-paid female musician".

@Ben0006 @SNUGGUMS @Prefall @Olivergrandeee @Davey2010 Mirrored7 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hubert555: Courtesy ping to the editor who made the change to the lead. Fwiw, her sixth album is mentioned in the third paragraph, and the revised text does not assert that "Die for You" and "Save Your Tears" were number one debuts--it says that those two songs, along with "Rain on Me", made her "the artist with the most number-one duets in the Billboard Hot 100's history." Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hubert555 Remove the Manchester attack from the lead as its inappropiate, not what defines Grande's career and NOT what all three albums are about.

Why removing achievements like "first solo artist to occupy the top three spots of the Billboard Hot 100", "most number-one debuts, the most successful female artist to emerge in the 2010s" from the lead, when they all were more siginificant than "most number duets"? Mirrored7 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Manchester Bombing has been removed. Two achievements, "first solo artist to occupy the top three spots of the Billboard Hot 100" and "the most successful female artist to emerge in the 2010s", have been brought back. Mentioning Grande's number-one debuts in the lead is outdated, that record has been broken a few years ago and she no longer holds it. It is also worth mentioning the duets with the Weeknd, which weren't number-one debuts but charted a lot better than some of her other number-one singles, particularly Save Your Tears which ranks among her biggest Hot 100 hits. Regarding achievements, you have to be selective, otherwise the paragraph becomes too long and difficult to read. Hubert555 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hubert555 Thanks, but I'm still not satisfied. Most of your changes were unnecessary, especially as the lead isn't that long to begin with. The number one debut record is worth mentioning, as she became the first artist in 2020 to break it after Mariah Carey held it for nearly for over twenty years. She's also still tying the record with Taylor Swift, for female artists with the most.

• Revert back: "She subsequently achieved the most number-one debuts with the title track of her sixth album, Positions (2020), as well as the collaborative singles "Stuck with U" and "Rain on Me"" and then continue with "and the most number-one duets with "Save Your Tears" and "Die for You" in Hot 100 chart history". I also agree with you to not to mention the names of the artists, as they make the lead overstuffed and are in their linked articles. Also, link the remixed versions of Save Your Tears and Die for You.

• "After a musical hiatus, Grande released her critically acclaimed seventh album, Eternal Sunshine (2024), which spawned the US number-one singles "Yes, And?" and "We Can't Be Friends (Wait for Your Love)" should be re-added as Grande took a four year break, and its should be mentioned in the lead, as it was her longest break for an album.

• Also re-add, "and was ranked the highest-paid female musician of 2020 by Forbes", as she is one of the minority of female artists to ever achieve this.

You can shorten some sentences, but keep those informations, as they're significant to her career. Mirrored7 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hubert555 Have you forgot about this discussion? I want to find a resolution with you. I already told you, that most of your changes were unnecessary. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned the hiatus between Positions and Eternal Sunshine as it is indeed a fair point that she took a break. Calling Eternal Sunshine critically acclaimed is what I find completely unnecessary, as the album didn't do particularly well when compared to her other albums, it didn't receive any particularly big awards and it wasn't as widely talked about as some of her other albums (which doesn't mean it wasn't acclaimed but it didn't receive exceptional praise and haven't regularly been called her magnum opus to the point where it would be worthy mentioning its praise in the lead). Once again, mentioning her record for the most number-one debuts, which she only held for two years, is not neccesary. Neither Taylor Swift nor Drake, nor Mariah Carey who held the record for twenty years, have their record mentioned in the lead. Like I said before, you have to be selective. Grande holds plenty of Billboard records and it makes a lot more sense to mention ones that she continues to hold. That same rule also goes with mentioning her ranking as the highest-paid female musician of 2020. I checked every single artist who topped Forbes' list of the highest-paid musicians and only five of them have it mentioned in the lead that they topped the list (Madonna, Celine Dion, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga - three of which achieved it multiple times). In Grande's case, the fourth paragraph is already long, there is no need to make it longer with an achievement relating to only one particular year, when she has many other achievements that hold a bigger value. Hubert555 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Hubert555 Well at least mention the #1 Forbes ranking, by replacing it with the Celebrity 100 mention, as former is at least impressive. Like I said, minority of women have achieved this.

• The #1 debut record, is about showing her dominance she held in that year. She was the first artist to have four and five #1 debuts, before nobody else did it. Mariah held the record for three decades and then Ariana and Drake were tied with. It was a huge achievement, back then. And I'm pretty sure for Mariah Carey it was too. It's not about now, it's about what was then. Drake and Swift are much bigger artist with longer artists and bigger achievements. Not a fair comparison. You btw, could say the same about her top three record, which also has been outperformed numerous times. It's about her becoming the first artist in decades to do it. Maybe add it like this "which made her the artist with the most number-one debuts and duets in the Hot 100's history. Its one word, which doesn't make a difference.

• Don't like how you put the paragraphs of her first three albums together with the one of her fourth and fifth albums. Latter albums clearly marked a shift in her career from sound, to image, to success. Especially after what happened back in 2017. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say @Hubert555 I don’t really think you should be changing the lead without consulting the talk page first as Grande’s lead has been subject to discussion for months. Olivergrandeee (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ariana Grande's partner is missing from the infobox.

Ethan Slater is her partner. I need y'all to fix that or I can fix it. MichaelJacksonFan234 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not confirmed neither by Ariana or Ethan themselves I guess 2800:BF0:60:F22:B211:A60C:2FDE:5AF9 (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Grande's Impact Section

I’m really confused why Grande’s impact section hasn’t been reinstated. Many people have asked for it back since it was removed, and @Mirrored7 provided a plethora of articles pertaining to Grande’s cultural impact and legacy (on a thread which has now been archived). It would be silly to deny that she hasn’t had an impact on the music industry and popular culture overall. Her lead identifies her as a "pop icon" yet there’s now really no evidence of it on her page? Olivergrandeee (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Because there's not enough ones on this page who care about this article or the artist himself. There's a reason why the lead image still hasn't been changed yet. I would even argue, that most editors in her don't like her at all, and try to minimalize her success and importance in the music industry. Just a couple of months ago, a chunk of her streaming achievements were removed from the lead, even when this 60 % from where her success comes from. Grande has a had an outstanding career and definitely made a long-lasting impact in the entertainment industry. Her achievements and success speak for themselves anyway. I could literally list twenty more articles that make her icon status even more clear. Her longevity, her impact on other artists, her resilience she had, when she responded to the Manchester attack, her generational talent, and success. Literally everything she did from 2018 to 2020, changing the game for many pop artists, that came after and even before her. From the way she released her music to her specific sound and look, that makes her so special and many female artists try to emulate, most recently Sabrina Carpenter.

It's frustrating to go to her article sometimes and to see the way nobody take cares of it. Mirrored7 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ben0006 @Prefall please can you change her lead image to File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg per the previous ongoing discussion. And reinstate Grande’s impact section using the sources that Mirrored provided in a now archived thread. I do agree with Mirrored that some of the editing on this page seems careless, and the Impact section should not have been removed without a previous discussion. Looking through the archives of the talk page I can see that the issue of her Impact page being removed was first mentioned in November. I don’t understand why it hasn’t been added back yet Olivergrandeee (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping for a few more responses from other contributors before changing the lead photo. You want to build a solid consensus for these types of changes before implementing them.

I looked through the page history and the "Impact" section was not removed, but rather renamed. I agree with the rationale that most of its content is more fitting in an "Achievements" section. Though, I think the paragraph about her influencing other artists should be moved to a new section, maybe "Legacy", but that would require some work as it's too little information on its own. I don't consider myself a good writer, so I don't think I'm the right person to expand the article in that way. Prefall 21:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall I don't know, if you saw the sources I provided. @SNUGGUMS definitely saw them. It's about structuring them into sentences and paragraphs. You can take inspiration from other artists' impact/legacy section. Just three paragraphs about her influence, her voice, her success and her various listicles from media like Billboard or Rolling Stone.

First step would be removing "Recognition" from "Achivements" and add the first three sections in the "Impact" section, which has to be added. It would be like it was back last year. From there we could build up. It's not like the sources aren't there. @Olivergrandeee Maybe you could do this? Mirrored7 (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to take the "Recognition" subsection's paragraphs and move them into the Impact section, like @Mirrored7 said.

⠀

I would join in on expanding the Impact section, formatting it a certain way, editing the prose, etc. but with guidance and supervision; and not at the moment, but in nearly a month's time.

⠀

I have noticed that some, or many, of the frequent contributors/editors on this article have not yet responded to the Impact section idea/proposal, while some have/have not stated that they're simply not interested in doing that section, which is totally fine.

⠀

So I guess if anyone is interested in it, then they could just begin working on it. Maybe eventually, gradually, others will join them.

⠀

@Olivergrandeee and @Mirrored7, you two could start working on the section, since Mirrored7 has a good set of sources compiled and Oliver seems to have a good idea of what is/how it is to/should be added and arranged. I would join you two later.

⠀

Thanks

Ben | he/him (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ben0006 Can you reinstate the "Impact" part? I will ping you in here, latter next week, so you can include more information to the three paragraphs we already have. For now, maybe have the sections look like the Bruno Mars or Katy Perry ones.

I feel like it should stay "Impact" too as "Legacy" feels so final, and she still young in her career. Mirrored7 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not create a separate page about her impact? Lililolol (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Because that would be fancruft and likely bloated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ben0006 @Olivergrandeee Someone re-instate the Impact section.

Some additions:

Add quotes to "Rolling Stone' Greatest singers" mention: with the magazine highlighting/praising her “whistle tone that rivals Mariah Carey’s in her prime and a voice that is intricate and honeyed across four octaves” and labeling her a “genius.”

Add quotes to "Ninth-Greatest Artist" Billboard mention; declaring that “her standing today as a veritable icon is less a reflection of the efficacy of established systems that promoted her rise, and more a testament to her enduring, generational talent.”

Also find those parts interesting:

"Trace that ring from start to finish, and you’ll witness something fascinating; a young woman who managed not only to transform her pain into prosperity, but created a mold-breaking model for success. The career framework Grande built has only benefitted recent pop ingénues like Sabrina Carpenter and Tate McRae, who’ve capitalized on her streaming-focused strategies and sweetly melodic (and slyly winking) pop&B sound to rocket-launch their own music. Ariana Grande consciously changed how pop music is perceived and enjoyed by the masses, in a way a new generation of fans and artists will forever be so f–king grateful for."

"Where Adele had revitalized the art of album sales in 2010, Grande became proof of concept at how the streaming era could generate gargantuan pop idols in the modern music business."

+

"She learned from the prolificacy of her hip-hop contemporaries like Drake that more was more when it came to content creation. Putting those two skills together, Grande became the artist to beat in the streaming game."

I feel like she definitely changed the way pop artists release their music now (more frequent releases like hip-hop artists) and she was one of the first biggest streaming artists that came from the 2010's. Mirrored7 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Add more artists she influenced:

Nayeon from TWICE

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/twice-nayeon-solo-ep-na-interview-1235039511/

Yeri from Red Velvet

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-follows-red-velvet-yeri-instagram-8524033/

María Becerra

https://www.billboard.com/music/latin/maria-becerra-latin-artist-on-the-rise-interview-9582100/

Maybe also mention specifically that she inspired many K-Pop artists. Add to Chappell Roan, calling herself an "Arianator" and to Billie Eilish, "Grande's 2019 album Thank U, Next inspired her to continue making music." Mirrored7 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mirrored7 I'd like to add to your response cited articles where canadian singer and frequent collaborator The Weeknd emphasizes and praises Ariana Grande's production and vocal production skills, maybe this worth on impact section? Let me know please:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/music-industry-study-women-diversity-1330009/

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/the-weeknd-praises-ariana-grande-production-skills-beast-pro-tools-1235065529/ 2800:BF0:60:F22:E6A3:EE59:5ADD:2B8E (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm kinda irritated. So far, I'm only doing the work here. I'm currently unable to work on her page. But I still try my best to build up the Impact section and provide with informations. I asked twice for someone to reinstate the section and to add content, but so far nothing happened yet. I did my part. @Olivergrandeee Why open the discussion in the first place? Mirrored7 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I am swamped with school work and I do not have edit perms for this page. If I did, I would have reinstated it myself. I will try to write something up over the weekend. Olivergrandeee (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have been busy with academics/schoolwork and extracurriculars lately. Your research has been great. Why don't you just start the section? Might as well add initial things.

Ben | he/him (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• More sources about Grande popularizing frequent release strategy in Pop, moving on from the usual eras/album cycle module and journalists crediting Grande for redefining pop music with her albums "Sweetener" and "Thank U, Next":

https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/ariana-grande-redefined-pop-sweetener-thank-u/?amp

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-thank-u-next-pop-star-8483363/

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-sweetener-pop-star-success-8472304/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-god-is-this-woman-777941/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ariana-grandes-sweetener-proves-that-trap-is-the-new-pop-712838/

https://web.archive.org/web/20201020102409/https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/07/thank-u-next-why-pop-stars-fell-out-of-love-with-albums-ariana-grande

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna969316

https://www.capitalfm.com/artists/ariana-grande/thank-u-next-album-review/

https://junkee.com/ariana-grande-positions-era/275792

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-god-is-this-woman-777941/

• Inspiring other artist with her release strategy:

https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/taylor-swift-evermore-folklore-surprise-explained.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20201226074412/https://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-swifts-new-album-evermore-embraces-more-is-more-release-strategy-11607621727

• The character of Catherine Howard in the West End and Broadway musical Six was inspired by Grande (the inspiration for the queen’s ponytail).

• Grande's transition from Nickelodeon actress to global pop icon.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/ariana-grande-went-nickelodeon-star-145446469.html

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/music/article/ariana-grande-the-superstar-who-graduated-from-children-s-tv-to-a-global-stage-nxvks2t2l

https://www.businessinsider.com/best-most-important-artists-of-the-decade-2010s#while-only-10-musicians-made-the-cut-for-insiders-artist-of-the-decade-series-here-are-our-honorable-mentions-starting-with-ariana-grande-11

Insider stating "Grande has brought a remarkable brightness and resilience to modern music, infusing each release with more and more details from her multi-colored inner life." Mirrored7 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ben0006 Please add at least half of the sources I included and re-instate the Impact section, it's time already. Grande is one of the biggest artist of this century and deserves to have that. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Help with Brighter Days Ahead article

Hi, I’ve made a draft for a page on Grande’s upcoming short film, Brighter Days Ahead. If anyone here would like to add to it, feel free! Here Olivergrandeee (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Newest image

@Aoi The images haven't been deleted yet, so what's the point of not using either of them on this article? Especially if the Met Gala one is also nominated for deletion. The ones from the Wicked press are her most recent ones and they are also used for other articles of hers. Cynthia Erivo's lead one is also from the Wicked press tour. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The image was changed under the reasoning that the prior image was being considered for deletion. However, it was replaced with a photo that is also under consideration for deletion, so the change solved one problem by creating another.

More importantly, the prior image was decided by consensus at a pretty well-attended RfC earlier this year, which shouldn't be overturned unilaterally. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right. But now there are several recent pictures to choose from. The discussion only took place because there was no other current picture of her to choose from. The lead image right now, is not her most recent one. It's also not that flattering anyway, with all the butterflies in her face. @Aoi Mirrored7 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aoi Can you reply to me? There's no reason to not a have one of the most recent images of Grande as the lead photo. So far, you're the only one to have an issue with it. Mirrored7 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Quality is more important than how recent a photo is. And File:Ariana Grande at the Met Gala 2024 (1).jpg is much better quality than File:Ariana Grande (Wicked Premiere in Sydney) 2.jpg, in my opinion. Head shots are preferred for the lead photo, so the latter would need to be cropped, which will make its poor quality even more evident.

Regardless, this discussion is not really worth having because both of these photos will likely be deleted soon. If anything, we should be discussing which other photo to use afterward. From a quick glance at Commons, all of the options from the past few years are low quality screenshots from YouTube videos, unfortunately. Prefall 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely with the points Prefall makes here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall How about this one? This has surely more quality. She has no weird butterflies on her face, while its one of her most recent ones and at the Wicked premiere, the era she is in right now:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ariana_Grande_(Wicked_Premiere_in_LA).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ariana_Grande_at_a_Wicked_film_(2024)_premiere_in_LA.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ariana_Grande_(Wicked_Premiere_in_Sydney).jpg

For now they are only nominated for deletion. How likely is it, that they are going to be deleted?

That should be the alternative, if that's case, as it was the image before, and shows her with her signature look and on stage.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariana_Grande_during_The_Honeymoon_Tour_in_Jakarta_2015.jpg

The cropped youtube one would be another option, but it's really unflattering. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The first one is a good look, but she has a really awkward smile going on in that particular frame. Second is a worse version of the first. Third is the worst quality, and the least flattering, I think. The current one is still better than all of these, I'd say. Assuming the rationale in the deletion request is accurate, they will all 100% be deleted.

I don't mind the fourth one, but it is super old compared to other viable options. And I think the cat ears are more distracting in that than the butterflies are in the current one. File:Ariana Grande for Vogue Taiwan (cropped).png isn't the most flattering shot, but it'll probably end up being the best "semi-current" photo we'll have left. Prefall 14:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The cat ears are one of her most iconic looks. Justin Bieber's one is a decade old too. Don't think that matters much.

How about using the first photo for now. I don't think her smiling is a big deal. It suits more for now, because of her still promoting Wicked and the awards season tied to it. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how many times this has been said already, but we should definitely not be swapping in images that are likely going to be deleted as copyright violations. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall Can we change that photo to that 2015 one? The 2023 is really unflattering and does nothing. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall I really would like to discuss this with you. You yourself said, that you wouldn't have something against to include the 2015 image. It was the lead, before the Met Gala one. 2023 is really unflattering, especially as a lead image. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I just went through Commons all the way back to 2015. I think the following photos are the best candidates we have:

Potential lead images

• A (current)
  A (current)
• B
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F

B may be better than A. C is a good photo, I'm just not sure it works as the lead photo—it's dated (2015), low resolution and doesn't focus on her face. D is much better quality and a head shot, though it doesn't match her current appearance, either. We may need to start an RfC to decide. Prefall 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall B, C or E are much better than the 2023 one. I would prefer C. Many artists lead images don't focus on their faces especially if it shows them performing at stage. The others resolution isn't much better too. Justin Bieber's is from 2015 and I don't think that's an issue, especially if there's no better option. Mirrored7 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall, thank you for gathering these candidates. I prefer A, B, D, or F, in not particular order. The resolution of C (251x351) is far too low to be the featured image. The resolutions of the other images are all significantly better. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Talking about resolutions, when you choose F over E, latter which has a much better resolution. F It's also dark and the microphone is hiding her mouth.

Resolution doesn't matter that much, when the image is unflattering in general. The first ones have better quality, but are screenshots from makeup tutorials. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall Please revert current image until there is consensus. Mirrored7 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall I disagree with the change. I would add either A or B for now, as they are the current ones. Doesn't the C one have the same number of votes as D? She doesn't look like in the 2016 photo anymore. Also, It's way too small to be the lead image.

I hope some new images will be soon added. Its like last year, all over again. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Unless I missed something or misunderstood, Aoi and I are in favor of A, B and D. You are in favor of C and E. Aoi is in favor of F. That's 2/2/1/2/1/1. Regardless, this was just a temporary change due to the issue raised in the Vogue Taiwan discussion below.

Also, worth noting here that A and B are facing potential deletion due to Vogue Taiwan's licensing. See the discussion on Commons. Prefall 20:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall

What are about those ones? Are they allowed to be used?

File:Ariana Grande Wicked Interview 2024 01.jpg

File:Ariana Grande Wicked Interview 2024 02.jpg

File:Ariana Grande Wicked Interview 2024 03.jpg Mirrored7 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they can be used. Unfortunately, the video is really low quality, and those particular frame choices don't appear to be the best. Maybe we can sift through the video and find frames that may be better. Prefall 00:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Great to hear. I don't mind their quality tbh. They are still the most current ones and how she actually looks right now. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol @Davey2010 @Prefall @SNUGGUMS @Olivergrandeee

I think we can all agree that it has to be the most recent image of hers, so let's vote, as some new ones have been uploaded.

I vote for that one: File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg

Maybe you can chime in to? I saw you reverting the 2016 image. @Samuelloveslennonstella @Kieran19 Mirrored7 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree and vote for File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg as well Kieran19 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

i agree with File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• D - None of them are fantastic, A and B look weird because of her dramatic change, C would look somewhat odd as the main pic, D is a crap low quality but better shows her face in a more natural way, E looks weird because of her facial pose, F looks better but is a crap quality,

In short, I'd say D is the better image although like I said they're all crap for my above reasons .... just D is imho the least crappiest. –Davey2010^Talk 20:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

New Lead Image

I managed to find an interview on YouTube that was uploaded by the Interviewer under Creative Commons.

Ariana Grande during an interview to promote Wicked (2024)

Olivergrandeee (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I should have uploaded to this to an existing thread instead of making a new one Olivergrandeee (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. @Prefall What do you think, is this allowed to be used? Mirrored7 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Also another option:

Ariana Grande during an interview to promote Wicked (2024)

Olivergrandeee (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it can be used. I'm going to WP:BOLDly move this discussion up to the other ongoing one, so everything is in the same place. I prefer the second shot of her smiling, though I still have some concerns over the quality of these screenshots. Prefall 17:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall Most of them have no good quality. It's still better than the 2016 one, which is not current and way too small to be a lead image anyway.

I would prefer the first one, in which I find her face more subtle. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think these images are the best option. They aren’t the best quality but it’s still better than 2016 that does not represent her at all in 2025. I think we’re better off with one of the 2024 ones for now. Olivergrandeee (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Think so too. @Prefall It would be great, if you could change it now. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol You sure, you have not altered it a bit? I prefer the ones before tbh. @Prefall Can you please respond? It's been a week. Since then the 2016 has been reverted twice or thrice, others clearly not agreeing with the change. There at least three editors who prefer the 2024 ones, @Olivergrandeee has uploaded. Mirrored7 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the AI enhancement looks good on this image. It doesn’t even look like her anymore really. I think the previous ones are fine, they are lower quality but still better than extremely old pictures that don’t reflect her current appearance Olivergrandeee (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Olivergrandeee Umm, the AI enhancement made it clearer and less blurry. Do you think I should update the original screenshot without the enhancement? Lililolol (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mirrored7 & @Olivergrandeee Hi yall, I took a screenshot at the 00:08 mark of a YT video, added "clarity filter" over the image, and then cropped it. Honestly, I don't think it looks drastically different (Like, I don't think anyone would look at it and not recognize her), but I do think it's a little more color saturated. Lililolol (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Hi again! I thought, why not upload more screenshots? So here it is :) It's obviously without AI enhancement. I tried to capture her face when she looked at the camera, and this is the best I could get. Lililolol (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

IMO, an AI filter would eliminate the blurriness. Lililolol (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I like 3 the most. They are all blurry too and I strongly disklike AI filter. Lead images should show how a person actually looks like. Mirrored7 (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think these two are the best options (File:Ariana_Grande_promoting_Wicked_(2024).jpg File:Ariana_Grande_promoting_Wicked_(2024)_2.jpg). The other ones uploaded are lower quality than these two and the AI filter looks horrible. Olivergrandeee (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg is still my favorite from this new batch of images. Not a fan of AI/filters being used either. Sure, the original quality is not good, but I'd rather work with what we have than trying to enhance it in that manner. Prefall 04:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t get the resentment toward AI/filters. They enhance images and make them look better without changing them drastically, so I’m not sure what the issue is. Lililolol (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I can filter images 3 or 7 because they show her full face, unlike the others. Honestly, they don’t do a great job of showing her face. Lililolol (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This "Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024) 2.jpg" does a good job of showing her full face, but it looks a little blurry. A filter would help fix that! :) Lililolol (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The AI enhanced image you uploaded looks unnatural and when you actually look at the image it really doesn’t look like her. It also focuses on just the face without enhancing the other objects in the image and just looks really unnatural. I don’t really think Wikipedia should be promoting use of AI at all but that’s just me. Olivergrandeee (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall We have 7 votes for this image: File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg

So, it's settled now? Can we change it? Mirrored7 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're in a good spot to go forward with it now. Prefall 02:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I also definitively prefer using File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg for the infobox. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I generally don't mind the use of AI to retouch images, but in this particular case I agree that File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg is the most appropriate for the infobox of all the choices provided in this subsection. The resolution and quality are not ideal, but I think it's OK enough for the infobox. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi y'all, I also vote for File:Ariana Grande promoting Wicked (2024).jpg. However, I dug and found this video on Vimeo under CC BY-SA. It has potential for good screenshots, but I'm not sure about the license. Lililolol (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the video appears to be pulling clips that are owned by Getty Images. Given that Getty's whole business is based on licensing videos and images, there's almost no way that we could use those images on Wikipedia (and I almost guarantee that the people who uploaded this video to Vimeo do not have the right to relicense the video clips under a CC BY-SA license). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall A new picture of her at the Oscars has been uploaded, which I find much better than the current one. Maybe replace it?

File:Ariana Grande Oscar 2025 Red Carpet.png Mirrored7 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a screenshot from a video copyrighted by Fotogramas originally published on 2 March 2025 (while this image was uploaded to Commons a week later). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Aoi So can it be used? Mirrored7 (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: It needs to be cropped if we take into account that it will be used in the infobox. Lililolol (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Aoi Hi, what do you think about this one? Google Lens suggests that it isn’t an original image, and it might be a screenshot from one of the videos. There are a lot of clips, so I’m not sure which one it was taken from. Lililolol (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a nice photo! Unfortunately, I did a quick search and it looks like you are right -- it seems to be a screenshot from the broadcast of the Oscars program (specifically, it looks like it's from about the 6:11 or 6:12 mark of this YouTube video from the Oscars' official channel). The upload is from the same user who uploaded the Red Carpet image, so I would not be surprised if all of their recent uploads are copyvios. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall Can we use that image?

I think this one is way better than the current one. It shows her at the biggest event on the red carpet. Its also the most recent one we have of her and looks way better than the Interview one. Its very reminiscent of the Grammy image, which was deleted in 2023. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If it is indeed copyrighted as Aoi stated, then no, we cannot use it. It will be deleted. Prefall 21:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2025

"Scream Queens" is missing in Ariana Grande's filmography. 185.110.117.197 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The filmography section is not meant to be exhaustive (you need to click to the main article, Ariana Grande videography, to see the full list. Grande was not a main cast member in Scream Queens (her character was recurring), so it doesn't surprise me that the show isn't listed. However, of all the TV appearances Grande made that aren't listed in the selected filmography list, this does seem to be the most major one, so it may justify a listing. I don't have a strong feeling either way; other opinions would be appreciated. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it could be added, but is it notable enough that she was a recurring cast member in it? Ben | he/him (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not. She had a recurring role and only was in the pilot. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

She was actually in multiple episodes. (If she only appeared in the pilot, it would, by definition, not be a recurring role.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

She appeared in other episodes, but she wasn't playing a big part in them. Her most significant part was in the pilot. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. There's doesn't seem to be a consensus to include this for now, so I am closing this edit request so it doesn't linger and clog up the edit request queue. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2025

I would like to add a relevant sound file. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 21:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flame, not lame  Done Lililolol (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Ariana Grande as RECORD PRODUCER and BUSINESSWOMAN

Hey guys, I'm calling for a motion to approve adding Ariana Grande's description as a record producer and businesswoman; since she has written and produced her own music, the same skill The Weeknd has praised on several occasions and obviously, her song credits are more than enough for that; regarding her status as a businesswoman, it's more than obvious from her investment in perfume lines like Ari, collaborations with Viva Glam by Mac, the recent Swarovski jewelry campaign and obviously, her R.E.M. beauty makeup line, so please, I vote for it to be added to said description. 2800:BF0:60:F22:AFF1:763C:6F58:DCA4 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Tagging frequent editors on the article.

@Prefall, @Aoi (青い), @Mirrored7, @SNUGGUMS, @Olivergrandeee.

Thanks. Ben | he/him (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

But is that what she's notable for is the question? Have any of her collaborations received wide-spread acclaim, or won any kind of industry-focused awards? That, to me, would qualify adding "businesswoman" to both the lead and infobox. And the same goes for record producer. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Ben | he/him (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. In the media, she is seen as businesswoman, mainly because of her makeup and perfume brands. She has was won many industry awards for R.E.M Beauty, a company she owns. She also has a successful fragrance line which has made 1 billion in revenue, as of 2022.

Sources decribing Grande as a entrepreneur, businesswoman etc.:

https://www.musictimes.com/articles/88332/20221123/ariana-grande-named-1-biggest-celebrity-entrepreneurs-hits-billion-sales.htm

https://eccles.utah.edu/news/5-business-lessons-from-ariana-grande/

https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2025/03/ariana-grandes-money-making-empire-from-music-to-beauty/

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3191416/how-ariana-grande-made-us220-million-net-worth-30-her-hit

https://www.businessinsider.com/ariana-grande-net-worth-how-she-makes-her-money

https://www.vogue.com/article/ariana-grande-perfume-empire

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/the-hollywood-reporters-40-biggest-celebrity-entrepreneurs-2022/

Ariana Grande vocal produced most of her songs has co-produced all the songs of her last album "Eternal Sunshine".

Some sources about Grande producing:

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/top-artists-join-recording-academy-initiative-to-support-female-producers-788032/

https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/ariana-grande-hot-100-songwriters-producers-charts-first-time-1235637168/

https://www.nylon.com/entertainment/ariana-grande-vocal-lesson

https://variety.com/2021/music/news/ariana-grande-vocals-positions-recording-video-1234945167/

https://americansongwriter.com/gear-tutorial-ariana-grande-offers-her-personal-vocal-recording-tips-plus-audio-technica-slate-digital-and-berklee-online-share-secrets/

https://www.businessinsider.com/ariana-grande-positions-tayla-parx-rascals-behind-the-scenes-interview-2020-11

https://www.nme.com/news/music/the-weeknd-praises-ariana-grandes-production-skills-3216645

Definitely not in the lead, but at least add businesswoman and record producer or vocal producer (which suits more), in the infobox. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. That should be more enough to justify her status as record-producer and businesswoman. Just being recognized in relevant media or being nominated for awards would be enough. 2800:BF0:60:F22:6A7C:B55D:8CD1:F854 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If it is not in the lead, it should not be in the infobox. Per the relevant template documentation, the occupation field of the infobox should be the same as the "occupation(s) as given in the lead."

(While Grande is a talented businessperson and producer, I agree that those aspects of her career are not what she is most notable for, and those items should not be included in the first sentence of the lead. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not true at all. You can still have occupations in the infobox without having them in the lead. Beyoncé (a good article) has like ten in the infobox, without them being added in the lead. Also, Grande is NOTABLE for being a businesswoman. There are enough articles and sources that support that. She is a globally known brand with products and endorsements with her name on it and a makeup company she owns. She's in control in almost everything she does. Mirrored7 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Which ten does Beyoncé have in the infobox that are not in the lead? Flabshoe1 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, they have been removed yesterday. They weren't exactly ten either, but there were a lot occupations in the infobox for a while.

To the subject, I think, it would be fair, to add businesswoman in both, the lead and infobox, and record producer only in the latter. Mirrored7 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The occupation of producer is a person who produces music for other artists. Grande only co-produces her own stuff.

She could have the occupation of producer in the lead section and the infobox is if she was commonly called a producer (which is not the case). Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how it works here but a record producer doesn't necessarily mean producing for other artists, i quote from Wikipedia: A record producer or music producer is a music creating project's overall supervisor whose responsibilities can involve a range of creative and technical leadership roles. Typically the job involves hands-on oversight of recording sessions; ensuring artists deliver acceptable and quality performances, supervising the technical engineering of the recording, and coordinating the production team and process. 2800:BF0:60:F22:ABCF:7B64:D5FA:87CB (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It's still one of her occupation too. That's why I said, only add it to the infobox. She's not mostly known for it, but she still is practicing it and there are sources that prove it. Mirrored7 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The activity of producing one's own music is not the occupational title of "producer". A person who is commonly called a producer is one who produces music for others. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And that's your definition? Sorry, but a producer is a producer. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It's like saying a songwriter isn't a songwriter if he doesn't write songs for other people, it has no common sense. 2800:BF0:60:F22:F200:EE51:C975:2C6F (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to quote the weeknd's wikipedia page: he has his occupations in the infobox as record producer and businessman (according to @Binksternet's definition, he shouldn't have that occupation there because he is not known for that but his songwriting. 2800:BF0:60:F22:F200:EE51:C975:2C6F (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, regarding The Weeknd, I removed the mention of him being a record producer, but a biased editor re-added it, even though it violates WP:ROLEBIO. Lililolol (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually many artists have "Record producer" on their info boxes, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, both which are not known for producing for other artists. There's no specific rule, that says, you have to produce for other artists to have that occupation included. There are sources and credits for involvement in producing.

Businesswoman should definitely be added in the lead too. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

We have to reach consensus, there's no rule or evidence that says you have to produce for other artists. I vote for putting the occupations "record producer" and "businesswoman" on lead description, and if not, at least on box description. 186.65.53.81 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Everyone takes part in activities that are not considered a professional occupation. I vacuum my house but I'm not a maid or janitor by occupation. I prepare dinner but I'm not a chef or cook by occupation. Grande is an acknowledged expert at manipulating her own vocal tracks within a digitial audio workstation, but she does not do this for other people. A producer would be doing this job for other people. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Grande has credits (also from a soundtrack album she was an executive producer on) and is getting royalties for her productions, whatever she works for herself or someone else. There are jobs existing, for which you only work for yourself, btw. Acknowledging Grande as a producer, will not take anything away from your occupation. Again, anything to discredit Grande. Mirrored7 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Image

Someone please revert the infobox image, it looks awful and over-edited. We already had conversation about it earlier this year, with everyone consent to that that image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7c/20250412122639%21Ariana_Grande_promoting_Wicked_%282024%29.jpg :@SNUGGUMS @Prefall @Ben0006 @Lililolol Someone? Mirrored7 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The one you linked has now been restored. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! @SNUGGUMS Mirrored7 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

lead

is the lead not too long? as is the entire article right (11k)? Taylor Swift, an equally if not even more influential artist has 9.6k words, and the lead is not this long 750h+ 13:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ Thank you for your contribution. While I agree, with the length of the lead, there are some clarifications and requests to your changes. I feel like Taylor Swift and Grande aren't really comparable, as Swift has been in the industry much longer and her status is much more established. That's why Grande's lead should be more specific, as she might be not as notable for readers.

▪︎ Revert back "With "Save Your Tears" and "Die for You", she broke the record for the most number-one duets in the US", right after "She subsequently achieved the most number-one debuts in Hot 100 chart history with the title track of her sixth album, Positions (2020), as well as the collaborations "Stuck with U" and, "Rain on Me"." Save Your Tears and Die For You didn't debut at number one. Also, it looks random in the fourth section.

▪︎ Revert "Among the world's best-selling music artists, Grande has sold over 90 million records worldwide" to the fourth section back, as its more suitable there.

▪︎ Re-add "Billboard named her among the greatest pop star of the 21st century and the most successful female artist to emerge in the 2010s" right after, "With six Billboard 200 number-one albums and nine Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles", to clarify her status and success in the 2010s and this millennium.

▪︎ Add, "She was ranked among the greatest singer of all time by Rolling Stone in 2023", right after mentions of awards, in first section.

▪︎ Re-add 39 Guinness World Records, as it's the award she won the most.

Maybe shorten some of it, the best you can, so it's stays under the 10k range. Thanks. Mirrored7 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Mirrored7 a lot of the things you want me to add back have no explanation. you wanna rewrite this with an explanation for all of them and maybe i'll take a look? thanks 750h+ 10:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like, I explained myself. Can you tell me with what you need explaination with? Mirrored7 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Mirrored7, you explained some of your dot points, not all. to the fourth section back, as it's more suitable there. and Add, "She was ranked among the greatest singer of all time by Rolling Stone in 2023", right after mentions of awards, in first section. are no reason to move anything back, as you give no reason TO move anything back. also as for your first point, i think when you say Taylor Swift and Grande aren't really comparable, as Swift has been in the industry much longer and her status is much more established., i'm pretty sure this is a sign that Ariana's article should be much shorter if Taylor "has been in the industry much longer and her status is much more established" 750h+ 14:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Swift has achieved way more than Grande. Of course her lead has to be toned down. For every artist there a level of accomplishments. A couple of years ago, Swift achieved new kind of fame, so here lead had to be shortened, because she achieved so much. She became a billionaire, had more #1s, became the highest grossing touring act. By 2019, her lead was way longer, because her achievements weren't as much as they are now. I understand, making the lead a bit shorter. But why removing Grande's most notable accomplishments? Why removing her Guinness World Records? Why removing, Rolling Stone listing her among the greatest vocalists of all time or Billboard ranking her among the ten greatest artists of the 21st century?

So you only didn't get those two points? Did you get the others? Sorry for that.

"to the fourth section back, as its more suitable there", right after mentions of awards, in first section.": You're right. When I think about it, you can let this go. I just made the request, because most artists have it in their last paragraph.

About the Rolling Stone mention, like I stated above, its impressive ranking and specifies her status as one of most acclaimed vocalists or her generation. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ Can you add back now? It's been over three days. I think, I explained myself enough. Especially "Save Your Tears and "Die For You" not being number one debuts, but still being mentioned as one of the songs. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ Hello? Why you haven't responded yet. I now agree with some of your changes, but I need you to revert those three things.

- Re-add her Guinness World Records. You haven't explained, why you removed them in the first place.

- Add after, "With six Billboard 200 number-one albums and nine Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles", "she has been listed amongst history's greatest artists and vocalists by publications such as Rolling Stone and Billboard"

- "Save Your Tears" and "Die For You" weren't number one debuts, but broke the record for most number one duets. Remove the record from the foruth section and add specify this in the third. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the wordiness of the lead (and this is something that has been brought up my many people in the past, including myself--just look through the talk page archives).

Overall, I think your changes are fine. I think the various achievements and accolades you removed from the lead were notable, but not every notable achievement/accolade needs to mentioned in the lead. The lead only needs to summarize the most notable achievements; the rest can be discussed in the article body. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't complained about it either. I don't care about the length. I just asked about one award being added and being more specific about her rankings and accomplishments mentioned in the lead. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"I haven't complained about it either" yes you did? i simply noted the lead was too long before shortening the lead of the length, and then you bring up a string of changes, many of which you didn't explain WHY i should have added back. this includes including "Save Your Tears" and "Die for You"; i don't believe that the songs that broke the record for having the number-one duets is worth mentioning in the lead as with mentioning the artist she collabed with if we don't mention the other artist. NOT every somewhat notable accolade, as per Aoi, needs to be mentioned in the lead, ESPECIALLY guinness world records. if the lead was this gigantic i probably wouldn't be removing this but "Billboard named her among the greatest pop star of the 21st century and the most successful female artist to emerge in the 2010s" is just not worth mentioning in the lead in its current state, the way i've formatted it is by far better and more concise.

Saying "because it's more suitable there" is not a good reason.

if you want talk to another editor about this but i'm not going to be involved with the article again thanks. please refrain for pinging me, like you've five times within a few days 750h+ 05:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, I explained myself enough. Save Your Tears and Die For You weren't number one debuts, but are lumped with the songs that are actually were. Both were already in the charts, but Grande's remixes helped the songs go #1. Both were also the reason she broke the duets record. I just wanted you to specify it in the lead, nothing more. Guinness World Records are big accolades and the ones, Grande has achieved the most. They SHOULD be mentioned in the lead.

You are one of the editors in here, who just can't take a hint and can't admit that they are wrong. I just made a simple request, as I'm currently unable to edit the article myself. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2025

In the second line of the "Early Life" section, add a single space between ref and name in the <refname=CoolDiva> tag because currently the template is breaking and exposing the ref in the body. Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Prefall 19:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Re-instate "Impact and legacy" section

I would appreciate, if someone would re-instate her "Impact" section, as I'm currently unable to do so. There was already an Impact section, but it was renamed to "Recognition" back in August 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariana_Grande&diff=prev&oldid=1239434825

Grande is one of the biggest artist of this century, and it's at this point overdue. It has been the fifth (?) discussion about, without no results. I have A LOT of sources, some might be added. It needs just needs more content and quotes, some sentence/paragraph structure, re-wording, and quotes.

More artists Grande influenced;

- Nayeon from TWICE https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/twice-nayeon-solo-ep-na-interview-1235039511/

- Yeri from Red Velvet https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-follows-red-velvet-yeri-instagram-8524033/

(she inspired many K-Pop artists, so maybe clarify it too)

- María Becerra https://www.billboard.com/music/latin/maria-becerra-latin-artist-on-the-rise-interview-9582100/

- Sabrina Carpenter stating "admiration" for Grande:

- Carpenter's music and image have often been compared to Grande's in the media:

Adding quotes from articles already in the section:

• She was one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world in 2016, with Jason Robert Brown describing her voice as an “extraordinary, versatile, limitless instrument,” and in 2019, with Troye Sivan calling her as “an industry game changer” and “the biggest artist in the world.”

• She was ranked #9 on Billboard’s 2024 list of the 25 greatest pop stars of the 21st century, with the magazine declaring, “Her standing today as a veritable icon is less a reflection of the efficacy of established systems that promoted her rise, and more a testament to her enduring, generational talent.”

• And she was ranked #43 on Rolling Stone’s 2023 list of the 200 greatest singers of all time, with the magazine highlighting her “whistle tone that rivals Mariah Carey’s in her prime and a voice that is intricate and honeyed across four octaves” and labeling her a “genius.”

More quote examples, particularly about this article, mainly talking about her impact on streaming success in pop music; https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-greatest-pop-stars-21st-century-1235804073/

"Trace that ring from start to finish, and you’ll witness something fascinating; a young woman who managed not only to transform her pain into prosperity, but created a mold-breaking model for success. The career framework Grande built has only benefitted recent pop ingénues like Sabrina Carpenter and Tate McRae, who’ve capitalized on her streaming-focused strategies and sweetly melodic (and slyly winking) pop&B sound to rocket-launch their own music. Ariana Grande consciously changed how pop music is perceived and enjoyed by the masses, in a way a new generation of fans and artists will forever be so f–king grateful for."

"Where Adele had revitalized the art of album sales in 2010, Grande became proof of concept at how the streaming era could generate gargantuan pop idols in the modern music business."

Will add more soon. Mirrored7 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2025

Wanted to add Oh, The Places You'll Go (2028) under the Filmography section with added reference. https://deadline.com/2025/07/oh-the-places-youll-go-movie-casts-ariana-grande-josh-gad-1236458241/ MrInfo2008 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: I notice User:Ben0006 added this information to the career section earlier today, so Grande's involvement in this film is now mentioned in the article (which is good). However, adding this material to the filmography section may be premature at this time, given past talk page discussions on the filmography section, as well as some recent edits to the article. Specifically, I think the consensus of some of the more regular editors to this article is that the filmography section is not meant to be all-inclusive, and that it would be premature to add films to the list whose titles have not yet been confirmed or that have not yet entered production. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

New image

@Prefall Is there a way that this image can be used as the lead? Its more recent and has much better quality. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ariana_Grande_em_2024.jpg Mirrored7 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The license was falsified by the uploader. Prefall 18:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Deceased grandmother

Hello, I can't edit since I don't have 500 edits but I noticed that in the "Early life" section it says "Grande has a close relationship with her maternal grandmother, Marjorie Grande". Her grandmother passed this year so I suppose that has to be changed. Kolsian (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I changed the sentence tense per your comment. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thank you too :) Kolsian (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Trimming

so i plan to do some trimmning of the article due its gargantuan length (12,000 words); there also seems to be a lot of cruft throughout. If I remove anything important while trimming or you disagree with any of my the article you can leave comments below. Beyonce was recently promoted to Featured Article status so we'll see where this article goes from here. 750h+ 11:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ 1. Why removing her status as a pop icon? Being an influential figure and a pop icon, are both two different things.

2. "According to Forbes, she was the world's highest-paid female musician in 2020, and among the Forbes Celebrity 100 in 2019 and 2020, while Time included her on its Time 100 list of the world's most influential people in 2016 and 2019", I would appreciate it, if you could re-add this back, as its siginificant to her status and makes her influence more clearer.

3. "and made her the first solo artist to occupy the top three spots of the Billboard Hot 100", it's a historic record, she broke after decades, and if the number one record is mentioned in the lead, this should be too.

4. Brit Award and Guinness World Records, are all pretty much impressive and should be mentioned in the lead, especially because she hasn't won many American and Billboard Awards.

5. Removing "She has a large social media following, being the sixth-most-followed individual on Instagram", when Grande is with 375 million follower, the second most followed musician on Instagram and known for having large social media follwing, is not correct either.

6. "Grammy Awards" has no link to the article.

You practically removed most of her biggest accomplishments. There is way to make the lead smaller, without doing all of this. You already reduced a large size, months ago. You're doing the exact opposite on Beyoncé's lead. @SNUGGUMS maybe you can chim in too, as you're one of the main editors in here. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what to make of the changes, but it's a stretch to call me "one of the main editors" for the article here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I defintely thought you are. Mirrored7 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

1. no point of mentioning her pop icon status in the lead, if this WAS necessary every article would include it

2. i might consider adding the highest paid part back

3. notable, but not notable enough. Taylor Swift occupied the top 10 and 14 spots in the lead and it’s not in her lead

4. “pretty much impressive” should already explain my point as to why i’m not including them in the lead, also her not winning many AMAs or BB awards isn’t a reason to include them.

5. I could reconsider adding this back possibly

6. i removed the grammy link because it’s already linked above creating a WP:DUPLINK, also i don’t get what you mean by i’m “doing the exact opposite” from what I did on Beyonce when I and another editor literally helped take that article down from its gigantic, cruft-filled length (which is what i’m trying [and AM going to do] for this article). Best, 750h+ 23:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

1. I disagree, it should definitely be mentioned. Stop, discrediting her status, just because YOU personally don't agree with it.

2. Not just the highest paid, also the Time's list mention. Both are equal.

3. Grande was the first artist to do it in decades, after the Beatles.

4. I don't understand. If it's impressive, than why removing them? They are her biggest awards, the same Beyoncé has her biggest awards in her lead.

5. Then do it. You were very fast with reverting my Beyoncé edit.

6. I literally removed fancruft from the Beyoncé lead and you literally reverted it back. What are you talking about? Mirrored7 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

1. HOW am I discrediting her status by removing "pop icon" from the lead. Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Katy Perry, Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson are ALL pop iconc, many of whom are BY FAR bigger than Ariana, yet they don't include 'pop icon' in the lead.

2. No. Her being the highest-paid is by FAR more notable than being mentioned in a simple list. Maybe if she wasn't as signficant/there isn't a lot on the artist I'd consider but her being THIS significant and her lead being THIS huge does not warrant including the Time 100 in the lead.

3. Taylor Swift was the FIRST EVER to occupy the top 10 and 14 yet I don't see it in her lead?

4. No? Beyonce only has the Grammys (quite literally the most notable award in the history of music) and a Peabody award + the shows she is most awarded at? Ariana isn't the most awarded at any of these is she?

5. I will do it when i do it.

6. "fancruft" or how she has quite literally revolutionized the industry? that is sourced and important information and if you'd like to argue about that article, take it to that article's talk page. 750h+ 02:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit and would like you to undo everything. The size of the lead was perfectly fine. Grande is one of the greatest artists, but the lead doesn't make it look that way. You removed all of her greatest achievements, and this isn't the first time you've done it. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m not undoing everything SIMPLY because YOU (yes YOU) want me to. “Grande is one of the greatest artists, but the lead doesn't make it look that way.” it still says “history’s greatest artists” in the lead? “You removed all of her greatest achievements” by removing “highest-paid musician” in ONE year and a few listicles? Please. 750h+ 12:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ Haven't you said you considered adding the Instagram mention back? Also, I would appreciate it if you could add the Time 100 mention back. It just isn't a listing, it's a recognition and is included in many leads. Also, "Incorporated" is double too, in the second and third section. Mirrored7 (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ You know what, you're really something. First, you make changes, that weren't needed in the first place, most removing recognitions, milestones, and awards (you did it months ago too), then you said, anyone who disagreed with your edit, should leave a comment, but then you don't let any critic slide and later don't even reply to me at all, because you're on some power trip. Just admit, that most of your edit was uncalled-for in the first place. Talking about some cruft and the lead being too long, while adding fan cruft, and unnecessary stuff yourself on Beyoncé's article. I'm not going to even waste any energy on you anymore. I could report right now, but you're just not worth it. Mirrored7 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Can you maybe take a look of was removed. I know, you don't want to get in the middle, but I need a objective overlook from another editor, and I made requests to you in the past. Also, he shouldn't have made those changes without consent in the first place. 750+ hasn't respond to me for days now.

1. The remove of the Brit Award, Guinness World Records:

Any artist should have their biggest awards on their lead. However they removed hers, without any reason at all. Consider adding those back.

2. while Time included her on its Time 100 list of the world's most influential people in 2016 and 2019: Most influential artists have the Time listing in their lead, it's one of the most respected listings and should be included in the lead, to make her influence more obvious. Consider adding this back right after Forbes mention.

3. She has a large social media following, being the sixth-most-followed individual on Instagram: Social media is a big part of Grande's career and should be mentioned in the lead, she's with over 370 million the second most followed musician. 750+ even considered adding it back, but he still hasn't done that. Add this back, right at the end of the lead.

4. The word "incorporated" is mentioned in section two and three. Its repetitive, and should replaced with something different or back to; Personal struggles influenced Grande's trap-infused albums

5. Reword after Don't Look Up, to "and received critical praise for her portrayal of Glinda, in the musical fantasy Wicked (2024)", earning her a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress" Her performance was widely acclaimed, it should be mentioned in the lead.

As you see, I'm not criticizing anything and even agree to some of it which was removed (The Icon Part, the Billboard Hot 100 record). However there are those things I'm not agreeing with. Mirrored7 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Reworked with some tweaks of my own to avoid bloat, though going forward, please try not to use me so often as a proxy for implementing your preferences. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS The part you added is bold, which is my fault, because you probably have taken it from me. Also, her accolades are in the fourth section already. It was more about adding the two more awards.

Sorry, you're really one of the nicest editors here, and I really appreciate you. Also, thank you, for telling me how it is. You're already told me that in the past, and I really will try to better myself. Mirrored7 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how I didn't see those other mentions before, but now I consolidated them into one paragraph, and yeah copying over the bold text was definitely an oversight on my part. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2025

Someone typoed “rain on me” as “ror fain on me” so can someone please change that?Thank you 38.101.95.73 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for catching that. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome! 38.101.95.73 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)