![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page should not be speedily deleted because this is a redirect, that was suggested at the AfD. There used to be a regular article, not a redirect. I don't think anyone opposes a redirect to the competition she's WP:BLP1E for? It just wasn't thought of at first. I mean there was handidly more than enough sources covering her, but the problem was especially found to be WP:BLP1E. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 07:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... she is now "Notable" as the winner of Season 11 of "America's Got Talent" -- 98.217.202.171 ( talk) 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... she won. -- 108.20.205.6 ( talk) 02:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Accessdates are only useful and helpful when the link is accessed long after its publication date. If an article is published today, you don't need an accessdate unless you access it next year. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
She was born in Lenexa, as the Kansas City Star already says, if you would read it more carefully (it states at the beginning of the article that she is a "Lenexa native"). Here is an additional source that confirms this fact: [1]. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
birth_place =
parameter from the IB, but we cannot (stating the obvious) violate
the very cornerstone of an encyclopedia within the text. Also (again stating the obvious), as a living encyclopedia we can replace the now-most reliable data with anything more reliable if/when it occurs. —
ATS 🖖
Talk
00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Per policy and this essay, I've deleted this sentence. Please discuss here before considering restoration. — ATS 🖖 Talk 23:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I see that there has been a disagreement about external links in this article. It is customary to include an external link section with a limited number of helpful links. Per wp:el, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." In this case, the links selected do appear to me to be minimal, meritable and particularly relevant to the article. The first link is to VanderWaal's official Youtube page. This is customary for a singer. The other four links are videos of some of VanderWaal's most important performances. The first two are from the official America's Got Talent Youtube channel and have been viewed a total of nearly fifty million times, so they are meritable. The third one is a cover of a song from VanderWaal's Youtube channel, which has the largest number of views of any video on her channel. The last one is a video taken by an audience member at VanderWaal's live performance at Planet Hollywood on October 28, 2016. The posting of such a video on Youtube would not violate copyright principles, as no copyrighted recording is being reproduced. Therefore, I believe that the links given are minimal in number, helpful to the reader, meritable, and relevant to the article. Somambulant1 ( talk) 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple parts of WP:EL here that have not been mentioned. We generally do not link to ssubpages of sites already linked. If the videos in question are already in her "official channel", there is no need to link them separately. On another point, are any of these links under a compatible license? If not, my read of EL says we cannot use them. Am I interpreting that correctly? John from Idegon ( talk) 21:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If the links are used as references, ELNO is quite clear that we don't use them as external links. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Good job finding the official website. That makes the YouTube channel redundant, so I've removed it. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the external link dispute is part a larger problem, NOT violations, mostly SOAP. (diffs to follow) -- Ronz ( talk) 18:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This is simply verifying a key fact of the biography.If there is a source that demonstrates that indeed these songs are a key fact of her biography, then we should include it. Neither source demonstrates this though. The first was simply her YouTube channel, the second is a puff piece from before her AGT win. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
VanderWaal sings cover versions of songs, in addition to her original songs, in live performances and has also uploaded many of them to her YouTube channel. It is hard to understand why we would omit this important fact from the article. Articles that mention various covers sung by WanderWaal include this, this (listing her "top 5" covers on YouTube, this, this (re: a live performance), this (also re: a live performance), this, this, this, this ("Imagine"), this ("All About that Bass"), this (same), just to name a few. Will someone else please restore the information with whichever ref(s) you think we should use to verify this information? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Consistent with short EL section
Note that in both cases, the burden rests on the editors wishing to restore the material ( WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:ELBURDEN).
Given VanderWaal only very recent prominence, there's not much written about her, so it's easy to get carried away with the pr around her AGT appearance and win. BLP is an extremely strong policy that needs to be kept in mind at all times. And while EL is only a guideline, it's enforced extremely strongly because of how it relates to SOAP problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
misunderstands the purpose of the BLP rulesYou keep focusing on other editors. Please stop. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is essential to include a link to VanderWaal's YouTube channel, since what interests people most about VanderWaal is her performances. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.
I've limited my involvement for the past couple of days so that I may weigh the arguments and apply them to my own thinking. I agree with Somambulant1 that this is an IAR issue: does its presence help the reader? I believe it does. That said, one man's opinion:
— ATS 🖖 talk 19:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I have brought dozens of articlesSeems like you are taking this all very personally, while not addressing the concerns here. If there's any wider consensus for any of your assertions here, you aren't offering any.
The energy going into this is ridiculous. WP:EL is a guideline and this is an article on an undeveloped new artist so the normal procedures of removing puffery do not apply. Save the standard arguments for SPAs who are abusing Wikipedia, but this article does not need it. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The energy going into this is ridiculous.
WP:EL is a guideline
this is an article on an undeveloped new artist
so the normal procedures of removing puffery do not apply
Save the standard arguments ... this article does not need it
Pinged by Sslivers. I'm not sure why there's still an argument here. A compromise seems to have been proposed to lose the 12 Stars video, which I tend to agree with given its amateurish quality, and keep the official site, the YouTube Channel and the AGT, all of which seem fine to me. I suggest just do it, and move on to other things. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
ATS, you accused me in an edit summary just now of failing to assume good faith. I think you *are* editing in good faith, but that you are stubborn and a mediocre editor. You have violated the letter and spirit of WP:OWN. I have done nearly all the research for this article. Nearly every footnote is to an article that I found and added. You have merely reformatted the article to suit your taste and insisted that the text and ref formatting must be done your way. That is classic WP:OWNership. I believe that you apply the rules mechanically, rather than in a way that helps readers and editors. You cherry pick language from rules and then apply it absolutely. For example, WP:REPEATLINK says that generally it is not helpful to repeat links, but that footnotes are among the things that *may* be linked (in addition to a link in the text) "if helpful for readers". It doesn't say that one *ought to* link them in the footnotes over and over again. In this case, you have linked Billboard magazine repeatedly in the footnotes, but it is distracting and unhelpful after the first time. Why is that so? WP:OLINK explains that "an excessive number of links" makes it "difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly." That is, if you look at a footnote where you have linked to the magazine, that link is not the important link in the footnote: the important link is to the source itself, so linking to the WP article about the publisher is distracting and not helpful. Similarly, as I noted before, you clutter up the footnotes with redundant dates, justifying this by reference, mechanically, to a template discussion! Obviously, you don't want to learn anything from me, but the best place to learn about balanced and nuanced editing is at FAC, where the best editors work on the highest quality articles. According to your user page, you have never been responsible for improving an article to the WP:Featured Article level. I strongly suggest that you read some FACs, and see how people deal with the letter *and spirit* of the guidelines there in order to write superior articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cite}}
—the standard, and used almost exclusively in our best articles—is somehow inferior to manually replicating it. That I have no featured articles—yet—is a phony comparison you've manufactured specifically to debase my contributions. Or inflate your own. Or both. I reject this in toto, and correctly so.Please speak to the substance of an issue and use matter-of-fact edit summaries that avoid inflaming issues.I assume you intend to rebuke more than one editor.
ATS, you have deleted the cite that gives the date of the performance, November 6. Sometimes you need more than one source to verify all the necessary facts. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
ATS, I was just trying to be polite. I thought you had begun to try to put our disputes behind you, but you continue to attack me in the edit summaries. I think that the article would be better off if you did not do so. Ssilvers ( talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Since I have done the bulk of the research for this article, I think we should use manual citation formatting, which I prefer for its simplicity and flexibility, instead of the cite templates that ATS prefers. I am happy to do the conversions. What do others think? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The only reason the redundant dates bother me is because they bloat the ref and makes the ref list slower going
: it's been argued that the templates do that; this would be valid only in a very large article with hundreds of sources, otherwise "slower going" is negligible if existent.
they also beg the question of why the editors would do such a thing as to add an access date identical to, or shortly after the publication date
: because a notice of the last date of access is a notice of the last date of access, regardless of when. Certainly, its presence may seem redundant if, say, it's seen only days after a source is published, but time passes quickly. I've seen sources die literally within a few days after I'd last checked them—which is particularly frustrating when
attempting to promote an article, never mind in general furtherance of the encyclopedia.
This is an exceptionally useful tool that requires but a few words. — ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Grace has said in a recent Rolling Stone interview that the marching band is the *high school's* marching band (not middle school). I don't know how that worked, but she was very clear about it. The interview video is embedded in today's Rolling Stone article at 8:15. She also notes in that interview that her sister Olivia did the artwork for her album cover. How should we cite the embedded video? Also, should we mention Meghan Trainor in the musical influences list? She has mentioned her before. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
She's getting her online presence in order, I see no reason for any exceptions to EL, let alone rationale for adding more. I've removed the new one. Please follow WP:ELBURDEN in the meantime. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Consensus has been rejected, and editors appear uninterested in following any policies or guidelines that do not support their preferred version. Will editors agree to follow our behavioral policies and guidelines for resolving this type of dispute? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
So no response about the content? No response about the relevant policies and guidelines? No recognition of past consensus and how we got there? Then there's no consensus beyond personal opinions.
I believe we had consensus to create an exception from EL for the initial YouTube channel per Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#YouTube_channel. I even found some weak rationale to support it [5].
Here web presence is evolving. Her main website is now a promotion for her album, retaining all the links to her social media sites. Her initial, "personal", YouTube channel continues to act more as her main website than any other. The YouTube Vevo channel has all of one video not on her personal channel.
I don't see any reason to change from our last point of consensus. No one is arguing that the one unique video on the Vevo channel is important. She's clearly favoring her personal channel, so the Vevo channel should be removed per Perhaps, over time, she will choose just one for her performances, and then we can link to just one of them.
--
Ronz (
talk)
16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I cannot imaging how having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting in an encyclopedia article about anyone. Please provide independent sources if you feel otherwise.
In the meantime, please respect BLP's requirement, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." -- Ronz ( talk) 18:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
If someone kept doing this to something you'd writtenNo. I don't own the content, and have no personal stake in it. I try to follow our policies and guidelines, and expect others to do the same while working cooperatively with other editors. BLP requires such content be removed. I didn't follow BLP at first, and tagged the content rather than removing it. After the problems were not addressed, I decided to simply follow BLP as is required.
rewriting it yourselfSee WP:CHOICE. I don't think the content belongs. Neither do you judging by the rewrite, where you removed the most contentious part of it. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the content belongs. Neither do you judging by the rewrite, where you removed the most contentious part of it.My point precisely—what was stopping you from the same action? The nuke-it-all, baby-with-the-bathwater approach was more evocative of IDONTLIKEIT than of BLP/OR. There is literally no reason what is there now should not be there; in fact, per LEAD, I would argue that some such summary must be there. — ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to fix this when the 'undo' button is so much easier.I've no idea who you think you're quoting. BLP says exactly how to address BLP problems. There's nothing to "fix".
The Vevo link that was excluded as an external link ( Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#ELs_again), has been repeatedly inserted in the article body. This appears to be nothing other than blatant spam, an external link repeatedly being added for the purpose of promoting it's content. It's not a source for anything, so WP:REFSPAM seems to describe it accurately other than it's just this one article. Am I missing something? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ssilvers, Somambulant1, and Johnuniq: the sentence in question has been changed to the unquestionably accurate "Lyrics videos of songs from Perfectly Imperfect have been released on VanderWaal's YouTubeVEVO channel." To verify "videos" (plural), we need only provide reliable sources for two of them. The proposal: cite the sentence with Billboard and Teen Vogue, and put the VEVO channel back in the external links. — ATS 🖖 talk 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
First, content must be verifiable. We had one source verifying one video was hosted on VEVO. That sources has been subsequently removed, so the content is no longer verified by the references. The current source (IBT, Heimbrod) does verify that there's a lyrics video for each song on the album. How about we just remove the mention of VEVO hosting and be done with it? The source does mention all the videos are available on YouTube, and we have an external link to her YouTube website, where the videos can all be accessed. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Somambulant1, for the example.
Re: you wrote that it had only one unique video
You have taken my comment out of context
[6]. At that time, only one video on the VEVO site was not linked from her YouTube site. What I said was correct. If you didn't understand (or still don't), I am happy to clarify further. --
Ronz (
talk)
17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is helpful to have a Level 2 discography or filmography section, unless the section lists multiple examples. I suggest that we remove the Discography section until VanderWaal has released at least a couple more recordings. If, on the other hand, others disagree, and we are going to include a discography section in the article, why isn't the single listed? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the comments made by Ssilvers and Johnuniq above concerning removing the Discography section until there's more content. Jack1956 ( talk) 11:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Previous discussions:
Currently we have only her official website [7]. Looking over all the past discussion and content changes, I personally think we had fairly good consensus with having three links (her official site, her YouTube site, and a link to her AGT audition) 3 Nov, which was changed Jan 3 after some attempts to incorporate it into the article content Dec 28. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that just the one official site makes the YouTube and Vevo links redundant, last I checked the audition, which is probably the most notable aspect of her life, is not linked from any of these sites (because the content of the YouTube site changes so frequently, I've not checked to see if it has been subsequently added in the past month).
Given that her official site is just a banner with links to her social media, I have asked for an exception to EL, ELOFFICIAL, and ELMINOFFICIAL to follow the purpose of ELOFFICIAL: Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.
While her YouTube site is becoming overwhelmed with her marketing campaign, it does offer links to the very personal videos she made early on. Because of this, I think her main YouTube site is worth keeping as an exception.
The videos on her VEVO site are promoted and linked from her YouTube site, completely or nearly so, and the VEVO site is linked from her YouTube site. Because of this, I think the VEVO site should not be listed. As far as I can tell, the VEVO site is just automatically populated by the hosting service, so there's nothing personal about it. I wonder why there is a special click monitor to her VEVO site from her official site through smarturl.it. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to avoid making any edits to the article related to this topic while we get this dispute resolved. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
In the hope we can get clear consensus and move on from this, I've started a discussion at ELN. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
[10] The edit summary didn't indicate any of this, so I wanted to make it apparent for anyone looking to close the ELN dispute or otherwise review the situation. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Closed by Eggishorn. — ATS 🖖 talk; closure effective 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
After sorting through the weeds, comes down mostly to an argument of assisting a reader versus WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, with a rough consensus for inclusion
There is no consensus on either keeping or removing the Vevo site. Policy- and guideline-based arguments suggest against it, and the arguments in favor are largely based n personal preferences-- Ronz ( talk) 15:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the subject is billed as a "singer and songwriter" rather than a "singer-songwriter"? Typically an artist is only described as a "singer and songwriter" if a significant degree of the said artist's notability is also for writing songs for others—rather than for themselves alone—to sing, as a distinctly separate facet of the artist's career; Vanderwaal, however, is the epitome of a "singer-songwriter", as she only writes songs for herself to sing and has never written a song for anyone else to perform. I propose that this be swiftly remedied, as it is truly a factual error. WikiEditorial101 ( talk) 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a relation to the dutch physicist Johannes Diderik van der Waals? I mean, her family name name whould be a prime example of an americanised Version of Van der Waals. -- 122.103.84.111 ( talk) 04:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to mention/add that Grace is currently managed by TH3RDBRAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMcNaughton ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanderwaal has begun playing the guitar. She played a cover of Ed Sheeran's " The A Team" at an appearance recently at Paste magazine studios using the guitar that Shawn Mendes gave to her. She also played the guitar to accompany her Alessia Cara cover, "Scars to Your Beautiful", on the Elvis Duran and the Morning Show on Z100. [ADD: Huffington Post published this article and Teen Vogue published this one praising the cover and noting Cara's reaction]. Should we mention the guitar playing yet in the article yet? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 07:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Grace Has played the Guitar for public performances at a scholarship benefit dinner in February 2017, at a concert in Franklin Lakes NJ in May and at the Shops of Nanuet summer concert series in July. In addition two of the three bonus tracks on the Japanses version of her Perfectly Imperfect EP (released May 2017) have her on the Guitar. So it does appear as if this is more than a fancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebeewawt ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Grace VanderWaal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tell them that she also performed on America's Got Talent 2017! Brax232 ( talk) 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article lists Moonlight as reaching nr. 22 on the Belgian (Wallonian) charts. This is not correct. The song was at 22, and now is at 13, in the Wallonian bubbling under. Somebody must have confused this with an actual chart list.... The header says 'Ultratop' but the sub-header says 'Bubbling under'.
[1] So please change BEL (W) into BEL (W) Bub. !
(PS I don't know why I can't edit myself, I have definitely made more than 10 changes....) Eti erik ( talk) 22:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, it counts every language separately. I have made dozens of edits in the Wikipedia of my native language and apparently only seven in English... so that's why. (And I can edit by now...)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grace VanderWaal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grace VanderWaal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
She is not listed at ASCAP but at BMI http://repertoire.bmi.com/Catalog.aspx?detail=writerid&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyid=1775794&subid=0 Perhaps her MTV interview/performance and todays Colbert Late Show performance should be put into article. Eifelochse ( talk) 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest adding Suffern, NY back to the infobox as Grace's origin. It's misleading to say that Grace was born in Kansas while not also mentioning she lives in New York, given that she has been based in New York since she was 2 years old. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 17:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been a big one with the
Bee Gees article. Their origin has been the subject of much debate, both inside and outside Wikipedia. The solution has been to not display an origin at all in the Infobox, telling the more detailed story in the text, and including in the template the note...
"| origin = <!-- PLEASE, DO NOT ADD ANYTHING IN THIS FIELD TO AVOID EDIT WARS = SEE ARCHIVES-->"
HiLo48 (
talk)
07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
VanderWaal's duet with Ingrid Michaelson on the latter's upcoming album is premature to mention. It will not be noteworthy unless it charts well. I removed the reference to it for now. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
A song's single status is not dependent on whether it charts or not, so the singles section is incomplete. Songs can be released as singles and fail to chart; this happens very often. I have changed the heading to "Charted singles" to accurately reflect what the section displays. We should not be misleading readers into believing they are looking at a full wikitable of VanderWaal's singles when all they are seeing is the singles that have charted somewhere. "Charted singles" is a heading used on articles where editors, for some reason or another, have chosen to only list charting singles. Has there been a prior discussion or consensus on this matter, or is this just one editor's idea of what should be listed? This article is quite at odds with the majority of Wikipedia discographies and discography sections, where we list all songs released as singles. (Regarding replies, please do not ping me) Ss 112 14:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Ssilvers: I'm afraid the material is not well-referenced at all. Of course it is absolutely reliable, but it is totally primary, which fails to prove its relevance. Is the number of followers she has notable by itself? Has it been discussed by third-party sources? My point is: like they say, this is basically a tree falling in a forest without anyone taking notice of it. Mentioning the number of followers in articles about celebrities (except for internet personalities) just for the sake of it is no common practice at all — otherwise, it would be just another parameter of our infoboxes. Btw, just noticed DarkGlow did the same as me one month ago, only he provided an even more accurate reason for it: it's sheer WP:FANCRUFT. Victão Lopes Fala! 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Among other sources, Forbes thinks VanderWaal's social media following is important. See this. Vanity Fair mentions it as one of VanderWaal's key facts here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
We know exactly how many followers she has from the social media websites themselves, which were clearly cited in the stable version of the article, and are reliable numbers, as you admit above. The Forbes and Vanity Fair references confirm that this large social media following is of importance to their editors and readers, just as they are to ours. A brief mention of the size of social media followings is of interest to Wikipedia readers in this day and age when the subject of a bio article has millions of social media followers. To omit them is simply an old-fashioned and out-of-date bias against new media. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
A few points from a completely disinterested editor.
Should we move the information to the Reputation and Accolades section? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:
"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. [2] As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, [3] her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, [4] and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers. [5]"
References
The arguments for exclusion are violation of WP:BLP (because the material is disputed), WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:FANCRUFT (only relevant to fans) and WP:POV (I'm unable to find the rationale for this last). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the material.
The arguments for inclusion are that it it does not violate WP:BLP, is not excessive to the point of triggering WP:NOT for the BLP of an actively engaged and followed media personality, is not WP:FANCRUFT (for the same reason), and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a guideline for admins, not editors so isn't a trigger until admin intervention.
Should this material be included or excluded from the article?
The specific arguments for/against may not be absolutely exact, however they're a starting point for disinterested editors to review. Is the above a suitable rendering of the dispute? (I do not intend to argue for/against within the Rfc - I think it's more helpful if uninvolved editors make their arguments.) Anastrophe ( talk) 18:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thus far, editor Ronz has submitted three proposals, none of which apparently have been satisfactory to other editors. The "results" of the RfC suggest inclusion of the material or some variation on it appropriate, the issue being, what exactly is appropriate. We need more proposals; it would be ideal if they were from uninvolved/uninvested editors, but that's a tall order. I am not invested enough to write a proposal myself.
Bickering/lawyering over vague policy issues isn't necessary at this juncture - the material doesn't violate any policies (note, policies, not essays) tendered so far, at least not with specific chapter and verse cited and verified; the material suggested for inclusion is brief, and relevant to this individual's BLP. It's not a mountain, it's a molehill, we don't need a demolition crew. As I've mentioned before, I've hardly ever dealt with the formal/lawyerly aspects of editing wikipedia in my years here, so I don't know offhand if there's a mechanism for requesting that uninvolved editors offer compromise drafts, but if there is, I'd be delighted to learn how to make such a request. Anastrophe ( talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is too early to add it to the article, but VanderWaal's new 2021 song is rock, not pop, and she plays bass, not ukulele. See this. She told Nylon that she is working on a rock "project". See also WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page should not be speedily deleted because this is a redirect, that was suggested at the AfD. There used to be a regular article, not a redirect. I don't think anyone opposes a redirect to the competition she's WP:BLP1E for? It just wasn't thought of at first. I mean there was handidly more than enough sources covering her, but the problem was especially found to be WP:BLP1E. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 07:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... she is now "Notable" as the winner of Season 11 of "America's Got Talent" -- 98.217.202.171 ( talk) 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... she won. -- 108.20.205.6 ( talk) 02:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Accessdates are only useful and helpful when the link is accessed long after its publication date. If an article is published today, you don't need an accessdate unless you access it next year. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
She was born in Lenexa, as the Kansas City Star already says, if you would read it more carefully (it states at the beginning of the article that she is a "Lenexa native"). Here is an additional source that confirms this fact: [1]. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
birth_place =
parameter from the IB, but we cannot (stating the obvious) violate
the very cornerstone of an encyclopedia within the text. Also (again stating the obvious), as a living encyclopedia we can replace the now-most reliable data with anything more reliable if/when it occurs. —
ATS 🖖
Talk
00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Per policy and this essay, I've deleted this sentence. Please discuss here before considering restoration. — ATS 🖖 Talk 23:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I see that there has been a disagreement about external links in this article. It is customary to include an external link section with a limited number of helpful links. Per wp:el, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." In this case, the links selected do appear to me to be minimal, meritable and particularly relevant to the article. The first link is to VanderWaal's official Youtube page. This is customary for a singer. The other four links are videos of some of VanderWaal's most important performances. The first two are from the official America's Got Talent Youtube channel and have been viewed a total of nearly fifty million times, so they are meritable. The third one is a cover of a song from VanderWaal's Youtube channel, which has the largest number of views of any video on her channel. The last one is a video taken by an audience member at VanderWaal's live performance at Planet Hollywood on October 28, 2016. The posting of such a video on Youtube would not violate copyright principles, as no copyrighted recording is being reproduced. Therefore, I believe that the links given are minimal in number, helpful to the reader, meritable, and relevant to the article. Somambulant1 ( talk) 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple parts of WP:EL here that have not been mentioned. We generally do not link to ssubpages of sites already linked. If the videos in question are already in her "official channel", there is no need to link them separately. On another point, are any of these links under a compatible license? If not, my read of EL says we cannot use them. Am I interpreting that correctly? John from Idegon ( talk) 21:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If the links are used as references, ELNO is quite clear that we don't use them as external links. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Good job finding the official website. That makes the YouTube channel redundant, so I've removed it. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the external link dispute is part a larger problem, NOT violations, mostly SOAP. (diffs to follow) -- Ronz ( talk) 18:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This is simply verifying a key fact of the biography.If there is a source that demonstrates that indeed these songs are a key fact of her biography, then we should include it. Neither source demonstrates this though. The first was simply her YouTube channel, the second is a puff piece from before her AGT win. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
VanderWaal sings cover versions of songs, in addition to her original songs, in live performances and has also uploaded many of them to her YouTube channel. It is hard to understand why we would omit this important fact from the article. Articles that mention various covers sung by WanderWaal include this, this (listing her "top 5" covers on YouTube, this, this (re: a live performance), this (also re: a live performance), this, this, this, this ("Imagine"), this ("All About that Bass"), this (same), just to name a few. Will someone else please restore the information with whichever ref(s) you think we should use to verify this information? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Consistent with short EL section
Note that in both cases, the burden rests on the editors wishing to restore the material ( WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:ELBURDEN).
Given VanderWaal only very recent prominence, there's not much written about her, so it's easy to get carried away with the pr around her AGT appearance and win. BLP is an extremely strong policy that needs to be kept in mind at all times. And while EL is only a guideline, it's enforced extremely strongly because of how it relates to SOAP problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
misunderstands the purpose of the BLP rulesYou keep focusing on other editors. Please stop. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is essential to include a link to VanderWaal's YouTube channel, since what interests people most about VanderWaal is her performances. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.
I've limited my involvement for the past couple of days so that I may weigh the arguments and apply them to my own thinking. I agree with Somambulant1 that this is an IAR issue: does its presence help the reader? I believe it does. That said, one man's opinion:
— ATS 🖖 talk 19:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I have brought dozens of articlesSeems like you are taking this all very personally, while not addressing the concerns here. If there's any wider consensus for any of your assertions here, you aren't offering any.
The energy going into this is ridiculous. WP:EL is a guideline and this is an article on an undeveloped new artist so the normal procedures of removing puffery do not apply. Save the standard arguments for SPAs who are abusing Wikipedia, but this article does not need it. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The energy going into this is ridiculous.
WP:EL is a guideline
this is an article on an undeveloped new artist
so the normal procedures of removing puffery do not apply
Save the standard arguments ... this article does not need it
Pinged by Sslivers. I'm not sure why there's still an argument here. A compromise seems to have been proposed to lose the 12 Stars video, which I tend to agree with given its amateurish quality, and keep the official site, the YouTube Channel and the AGT, all of which seem fine to me. I suggest just do it, and move on to other things. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
ATS, you accused me in an edit summary just now of failing to assume good faith. I think you *are* editing in good faith, but that you are stubborn and a mediocre editor. You have violated the letter and spirit of WP:OWN. I have done nearly all the research for this article. Nearly every footnote is to an article that I found and added. You have merely reformatted the article to suit your taste and insisted that the text and ref formatting must be done your way. That is classic WP:OWNership. I believe that you apply the rules mechanically, rather than in a way that helps readers and editors. You cherry pick language from rules and then apply it absolutely. For example, WP:REPEATLINK says that generally it is not helpful to repeat links, but that footnotes are among the things that *may* be linked (in addition to a link in the text) "if helpful for readers". It doesn't say that one *ought to* link them in the footnotes over and over again. In this case, you have linked Billboard magazine repeatedly in the footnotes, but it is distracting and unhelpful after the first time. Why is that so? WP:OLINK explains that "an excessive number of links" makes it "difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly." That is, if you look at a footnote where you have linked to the magazine, that link is not the important link in the footnote: the important link is to the source itself, so linking to the WP article about the publisher is distracting and not helpful. Similarly, as I noted before, you clutter up the footnotes with redundant dates, justifying this by reference, mechanically, to a template discussion! Obviously, you don't want to learn anything from me, but the best place to learn about balanced and nuanced editing is at FAC, where the best editors work on the highest quality articles. According to your user page, you have never been responsible for improving an article to the WP:Featured Article level. I strongly suggest that you read some FACs, and see how people deal with the letter *and spirit* of the guidelines there in order to write superior articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cite}}
—the standard, and used almost exclusively in our best articles—is somehow inferior to manually replicating it. That I have no featured articles—yet—is a phony comparison you've manufactured specifically to debase my contributions. Or inflate your own. Or both. I reject this in toto, and correctly so.Please speak to the substance of an issue and use matter-of-fact edit summaries that avoid inflaming issues.I assume you intend to rebuke more than one editor.
ATS, you have deleted the cite that gives the date of the performance, November 6. Sometimes you need more than one source to verify all the necessary facts. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
ATS, I was just trying to be polite. I thought you had begun to try to put our disputes behind you, but you continue to attack me in the edit summaries. I think that the article would be better off if you did not do so. Ssilvers ( talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Since I have done the bulk of the research for this article, I think we should use manual citation formatting, which I prefer for its simplicity and flexibility, instead of the cite templates that ATS prefers. I am happy to do the conversions. What do others think? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The only reason the redundant dates bother me is because they bloat the ref and makes the ref list slower going
: it's been argued that the templates do that; this would be valid only in a very large article with hundreds of sources, otherwise "slower going" is negligible if existent.
they also beg the question of why the editors would do such a thing as to add an access date identical to, or shortly after the publication date
: because a notice of the last date of access is a notice of the last date of access, regardless of when. Certainly, its presence may seem redundant if, say, it's seen only days after a source is published, but time passes quickly. I've seen sources die literally within a few days after I'd last checked them—which is particularly frustrating when
attempting to promote an article, never mind in general furtherance of the encyclopedia.
This is an exceptionally useful tool that requires but a few words. — ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Grace has said in a recent Rolling Stone interview that the marching band is the *high school's* marching band (not middle school). I don't know how that worked, but she was very clear about it. The interview video is embedded in today's Rolling Stone article at 8:15. She also notes in that interview that her sister Olivia did the artwork for her album cover. How should we cite the embedded video? Also, should we mention Meghan Trainor in the musical influences list? She has mentioned her before. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
She's getting her online presence in order, I see no reason for any exceptions to EL, let alone rationale for adding more. I've removed the new one. Please follow WP:ELBURDEN in the meantime. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Consensus has been rejected, and editors appear uninterested in following any policies or guidelines that do not support their preferred version. Will editors agree to follow our behavioral policies and guidelines for resolving this type of dispute? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
So no response about the content? No response about the relevant policies and guidelines? No recognition of past consensus and how we got there? Then there's no consensus beyond personal opinions.
I believe we had consensus to create an exception from EL for the initial YouTube channel per Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#YouTube_channel. I even found some weak rationale to support it [5].
Here web presence is evolving. Her main website is now a promotion for her album, retaining all the links to her social media sites. Her initial, "personal", YouTube channel continues to act more as her main website than any other. The YouTube Vevo channel has all of one video not on her personal channel.
I don't see any reason to change from our last point of consensus. No one is arguing that the one unique video on the Vevo channel is important. She's clearly favoring her personal channel, so the Vevo channel should be removed per Perhaps, over time, she will choose just one for her performances, and then we can link to just one of them.
--
Ronz (
talk)
16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I cannot imaging how having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting in an encyclopedia article about anyone. Please provide independent sources if you feel otherwise.
In the meantime, please respect BLP's requirement, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." -- Ronz ( talk) 18:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
If someone kept doing this to something you'd writtenNo. I don't own the content, and have no personal stake in it. I try to follow our policies and guidelines, and expect others to do the same while working cooperatively with other editors. BLP requires such content be removed. I didn't follow BLP at first, and tagged the content rather than removing it. After the problems were not addressed, I decided to simply follow BLP as is required.
rewriting it yourselfSee WP:CHOICE. I don't think the content belongs. Neither do you judging by the rewrite, where you removed the most contentious part of it. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the content belongs. Neither do you judging by the rewrite, where you removed the most contentious part of it.My point precisely—what was stopping you from the same action? The nuke-it-all, baby-with-the-bathwater approach was more evocative of IDONTLIKEIT than of BLP/OR. There is literally no reason what is there now should not be there; in fact, per LEAD, I would argue that some such summary must be there. — ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to fix this when the 'undo' button is so much easier.I've no idea who you think you're quoting. BLP says exactly how to address BLP problems. There's nothing to "fix".
The Vevo link that was excluded as an external link ( Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#ELs_again), has been repeatedly inserted in the article body. This appears to be nothing other than blatant spam, an external link repeatedly being added for the purpose of promoting it's content. It's not a source for anything, so WP:REFSPAM seems to describe it accurately other than it's just this one article. Am I missing something? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ssilvers, Somambulant1, and Johnuniq: the sentence in question has been changed to the unquestionably accurate "Lyrics videos of songs from Perfectly Imperfect have been released on VanderWaal's YouTubeVEVO channel." To verify "videos" (plural), we need only provide reliable sources for two of them. The proposal: cite the sentence with Billboard and Teen Vogue, and put the VEVO channel back in the external links. — ATS 🖖 talk 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
First, content must be verifiable. We had one source verifying one video was hosted on VEVO. That sources has been subsequently removed, so the content is no longer verified by the references. The current source (IBT, Heimbrod) does verify that there's a lyrics video for each song on the album. How about we just remove the mention of VEVO hosting and be done with it? The source does mention all the videos are available on YouTube, and we have an external link to her YouTube website, where the videos can all be accessed. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Somambulant1, for the example.
Re: you wrote that it had only one unique video
You have taken my comment out of context
[6]. At that time, only one video on the VEVO site was not linked from her YouTube site. What I said was correct. If you didn't understand (or still don't), I am happy to clarify further. --
Ronz (
talk)
17:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is helpful to have a Level 2 discography or filmography section, unless the section lists multiple examples. I suggest that we remove the Discography section until VanderWaal has released at least a couple more recordings. If, on the other hand, others disagree, and we are going to include a discography section in the article, why isn't the single listed? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the comments made by Ssilvers and Johnuniq above concerning removing the Discography section until there's more content. Jack1956 ( talk) 11:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Previous discussions:
Currently we have only her official website [7]. Looking over all the past discussion and content changes, I personally think we had fairly good consensus with having three links (her official site, her YouTube site, and a link to her AGT audition) 3 Nov, which was changed Jan 3 after some attempts to incorporate it into the article content Dec 28. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that just the one official site makes the YouTube and Vevo links redundant, last I checked the audition, which is probably the most notable aspect of her life, is not linked from any of these sites (because the content of the YouTube site changes so frequently, I've not checked to see if it has been subsequently added in the past month).
Given that her official site is just a banner with links to her social media, I have asked for an exception to EL, ELOFFICIAL, and ELMINOFFICIAL to follow the purpose of ELOFFICIAL: Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.
While her YouTube site is becoming overwhelmed with her marketing campaign, it does offer links to the very personal videos she made early on. Because of this, I think her main YouTube site is worth keeping as an exception.
The videos on her VEVO site are promoted and linked from her YouTube site, completely or nearly so, and the VEVO site is linked from her YouTube site. Because of this, I think the VEVO site should not be listed. As far as I can tell, the VEVO site is just automatically populated by the hosting service, so there's nothing personal about it. I wonder why there is a special click monitor to her VEVO site from her official site through smarturl.it. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to avoid making any edits to the article related to this topic while we get this dispute resolved. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
In the hope we can get clear consensus and move on from this, I've started a discussion at ELN. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
[10] The edit summary didn't indicate any of this, so I wanted to make it apparent for anyone looking to close the ELN dispute or otherwise review the situation. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Closed by Eggishorn. — ATS 🖖 talk; closure effective 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
After sorting through the weeds, comes down mostly to an argument of assisting a reader versus WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, with a rough consensus for inclusion
There is no consensus on either keeping or removing the Vevo site. Policy- and guideline-based arguments suggest against it, and the arguments in favor are largely based n personal preferences-- Ronz ( talk) 15:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the subject is billed as a "singer and songwriter" rather than a "singer-songwriter"? Typically an artist is only described as a "singer and songwriter" if a significant degree of the said artist's notability is also for writing songs for others—rather than for themselves alone—to sing, as a distinctly separate facet of the artist's career; Vanderwaal, however, is the epitome of a "singer-songwriter", as she only writes songs for herself to sing and has never written a song for anyone else to perform. I propose that this be swiftly remedied, as it is truly a factual error. WikiEditorial101 ( talk) 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a relation to the dutch physicist Johannes Diderik van der Waals? I mean, her family name name whould be a prime example of an americanised Version of Van der Waals. -- 122.103.84.111 ( talk) 04:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to mention/add that Grace is currently managed by TH3RDBRAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMcNaughton ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanderwaal has begun playing the guitar. She played a cover of Ed Sheeran's " The A Team" at an appearance recently at Paste magazine studios using the guitar that Shawn Mendes gave to her. She also played the guitar to accompany her Alessia Cara cover, "Scars to Your Beautiful", on the Elvis Duran and the Morning Show on Z100. [ADD: Huffington Post published this article and Teen Vogue published this one praising the cover and noting Cara's reaction]. Should we mention the guitar playing yet in the article yet? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 07:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Grace Has played the Guitar for public performances at a scholarship benefit dinner in February 2017, at a concert in Franklin Lakes NJ in May and at the Shops of Nanuet summer concert series in July. In addition two of the three bonus tracks on the Japanses version of her Perfectly Imperfect EP (released May 2017) have her on the Guitar. So it does appear as if this is more than a fancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebeewawt ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Grace VanderWaal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tell them that she also performed on America's Got Talent 2017! Brax232 ( talk) 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article lists Moonlight as reaching nr. 22 on the Belgian (Wallonian) charts. This is not correct. The song was at 22, and now is at 13, in the Wallonian bubbling under. Somebody must have confused this with an actual chart list.... The header says 'Ultratop' but the sub-header says 'Bubbling under'.
[1] So please change BEL (W) into BEL (W) Bub. !
(PS I don't know why I can't edit myself, I have definitely made more than 10 changes....) Eti erik ( talk) 22:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, it counts every language separately. I have made dozens of edits in the Wikipedia of my native language and apparently only seven in English... so that's why. (And I can edit by now...)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grace VanderWaal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grace VanderWaal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
She is not listed at ASCAP but at BMI http://repertoire.bmi.com/Catalog.aspx?detail=writerid&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyid=1775794&subid=0 Perhaps her MTV interview/performance and todays Colbert Late Show performance should be put into article. Eifelochse ( talk) 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest adding Suffern, NY back to the infobox as Grace's origin. It's misleading to say that Grace was born in Kansas while not also mentioning she lives in New York, given that she has been based in New York since she was 2 years old. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 17:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been a big one with the
Bee Gees article. Their origin has been the subject of much debate, both inside and outside Wikipedia. The solution has been to not display an origin at all in the Infobox, telling the more detailed story in the text, and including in the template the note...
"| origin = <!-- PLEASE, DO NOT ADD ANYTHING IN THIS FIELD TO AVOID EDIT WARS = SEE ARCHIVES-->"
HiLo48 (
talk)
07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
VanderWaal's duet with Ingrid Michaelson on the latter's upcoming album is premature to mention. It will not be noteworthy unless it charts well. I removed the reference to it for now. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
A song's single status is not dependent on whether it charts or not, so the singles section is incomplete. Songs can be released as singles and fail to chart; this happens very often. I have changed the heading to "Charted singles" to accurately reflect what the section displays. We should not be misleading readers into believing they are looking at a full wikitable of VanderWaal's singles when all they are seeing is the singles that have charted somewhere. "Charted singles" is a heading used on articles where editors, for some reason or another, have chosen to only list charting singles. Has there been a prior discussion or consensus on this matter, or is this just one editor's idea of what should be listed? This article is quite at odds with the majority of Wikipedia discographies and discography sections, where we list all songs released as singles. (Regarding replies, please do not ping me) Ss 112 14:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Ssilvers: I'm afraid the material is not well-referenced at all. Of course it is absolutely reliable, but it is totally primary, which fails to prove its relevance. Is the number of followers she has notable by itself? Has it been discussed by third-party sources? My point is: like they say, this is basically a tree falling in a forest without anyone taking notice of it. Mentioning the number of followers in articles about celebrities (except for internet personalities) just for the sake of it is no common practice at all — otherwise, it would be just another parameter of our infoboxes. Btw, just noticed DarkGlow did the same as me one month ago, only he provided an even more accurate reason for it: it's sheer WP:FANCRUFT. Victão Lopes Fala! 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Among other sources, Forbes thinks VanderWaal's social media following is important. See this. Vanity Fair mentions it as one of VanderWaal's key facts here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
We know exactly how many followers she has from the social media websites themselves, which were clearly cited in the stable version of the article, and are reliable numbers, as you admit above. The Forbes and Vanity Fair references confirm that this large social media following is of importance to their editors and readers, just as they are to ours. A brief mention of the size of social media followings is of interest to Wikipedia readers in this day and age when the subject of a bio article has millions of social media followers. To omit them is simply an old-fashioned and out-of-date bias against new media. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
A few points from a completely disinterested editor.
Should we move the information to the Reputation and Accolades section? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:
"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. [2] As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, [3] her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, [4] and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers. [5]"
References
The arguments for exclusion are violation of WP:BLP (because the material is disputed), WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:FANCRUFT (only relevant to fans) and WP:POV (I'm unable to find the rationale for this last). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the material.
The arguments for inclusion are that it it does not violate WP:BLP, is not excessive to the point of triggering WP:NOT for the BLP of an actively engaged and followed media personality, is not WP:FANCRUFT (for the same reason), and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a guideline for admins, not editors so isn't a trigger until admin intervention.
Should this material be included or excluded from the article?
The specific arguments for/against may not be absolutely exact, however they're a starting point for disinterested editors to review. Is the above a suitable rendering of the dispute? (I do not intend to argue for/against within the Rfc - I think it's more helpful if uninvolved editors make their arguments.) Anastrophe ( talk) 18:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thus far, editor Ronz has submitted three proposals, none of which apparently have been satisfactory to other editors. The "results" of the RfC suggest inclusion of the material or some variation on it appropriate, the issue being, what exactly is appropriate. We need more proposals; it would be ideal if they were from uninvolved/uninvested editors, but that's a tall order. I am not invested enough to write a proposal myself.
Bickering/lawyering over vague policy issues isn't necessary at this juncture - the material doesn't violate any policies (note, policies, not essays) tendered so far, at least not with specific chapter and verse cited and verified; the material suggested for inclusion is brief, and relevant to this individual's BLP. It's not a mountain, it's a molehill, we don't need a demolition crew. As I've mentioned before, I've hardly ever dealt with the formal/lawyerly aspects of editing wikipedia in my years here, so I don't know offhand if there's a mechanism for requesting that uninvolved editors offer compromise drafts, but if there is, I'd be delighted to learn how to make such a request. Anastrophe ( talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is too early to add it to the article, but VanderWaal's new 2021 song is rock, not pop, and she plays bass, not ukulele. See this. She told Nylon that she is working on a rock "project". See also WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)