Beyoncé's three-act project was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 March 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Beyoncé. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beyoncé article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beyoncé, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beyoncé on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BeyoncéWikipedia:WikiProject BeyoncéTemplate:WikiProject BeyoncéBeyoncé articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Regarding the change from House to Dance. As per WP: EXPLICITGENRE the source needs to directly refer to either the piece of work or the artist as being of a particular genre. Maybe the following sources would be adequate?
1)This one refers to a specific piece of work being "Dance"
Koppite1, a reference describing a single work as a specific genre cannot be used to support saying that the artist is of that genre. Eric Clapton is not called reggae even though he recorded "I Shot the Sheriff". The Rolling Stone review can certainly be used to characterize Renaissance, which is already called dance in its article. The Vulture source is stronger in my opinion because it establishes her pattern of making music in the dance genre over time. Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive feedback. So, from these 2 sources combined, would you say they are enough to comply with Ravenfate's initial request i.e. to change House to Dance in the info box? Koppite1 (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202: and @Newpicarchive: who reverted edits that removed the disputed genres can no doubt speak for themselves, but from my perspective, i'm just keen to make sure that whatever consensus is reached, the correct protocols have been followed. You are asking for the immediate removal of certain genres. @GabberFlasted: (on Admin noticeboard) pointed to Dispute Resolution. If you study that, it actually advises against removal, but rather enhancement of the disputed material. So, if the crux of the matter is inadequate sources, then various editors should be given opportinity to correct this and provide references that are more acceptable.Koppite1 (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bascially no one other than user Koppite1 wants to keep these nonsensical genres (afrobeats, house, country) in the infobox --FMSky (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see those as nonsensical genres. However, I do see listing *any* genres in the info box as nonsensical since all it does is create nonsensical edit wars. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Koppite1 you keep on pushing the someone gotta do something mentality you was asked not to have on Admin noticeboard. You asked me to reach consensus here; the discussion is open and everyone but you is suggesting to remove these genres, some even describe them as nonsensical (and personally, I agree). I think we do have a consensus that you are refusing to accept DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — DollysOnMyMind (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppetofGiubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs). — AP 499D25(talk)12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there is a consensus. Let's take the country for instance. There is certainly no general consensus that the country genre itself is in anyway ridiculous. Beyoncé has recorded and performs a number songs in the country genre. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beyonce has delved into country many years prior her current country songs - so the genre is not "new" to her. She has a history there (whether or not ordinary folk see her as a "country" singer is somewhat irrelevant). What has continually been put forward for a removal of the genre from her bio is WP: EXPLICITGENRE. The whole argument for removal is simply based on inadequate references. So, if a consensus can be reached on what is considered acceptable sources, then i don't see why the genre needs to be removed. Koppite1 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit with the passive aggressive rudeness. You started this whole debate regarding removal by saying that certain genres need to be removed specifically because the sources were poor. You said:
" suggest to remove Afrobeat, house & county as they widely violate WP: EXPLICITGENRE parameters"
Therefore, if adequate sources can be found, and consensus reached on their adequacy, this should negate a reason to remove under WP: EXPLICITGENR. In fact, if you actually read WP: EXPLICITGENR, it states " Adding references to reliable sources will usually result in a total cure of the disease". Koppite1 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're acting like you have these sources in your pocket, if you do, pull them out and let us discuss their reliability — if you don't stop reaching with this someone gotta do it attitude you was asked not to have on Admin noticeboard DollysOnMyMind (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I never said "that certain genres need to be removed specifically because the sources were poor". The sources are not poor per se, they poorly support the claim that you're building up on the infobox by violating WP: EXPLICITGENRE, as they do not claim the artist to be part of such genres. “"5 Times Beyoncé's Music Was Inspired by Africa"” is a far far far far cry from saying “Beyonce is an Afrobeats artist” DollysOnMyMind (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) — DollysOnMyMind (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppetofGiubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs). — AP 499D25(talk)12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crux is, you proposed the removal of certain genres simply because you felt the sources were inadequate (see above) and had previously submitted the issue to the Admin notice board on the basis that the sources were poor.
Moving forward, as per WP: EXPLICITGENRE, the source needs to directly refer to either a piece of work or the artist as being of a particular genre (doesn't say it has to be both). For the country genre i propose the following:
1)This one explicitly/directly describes a piece of work (Texas Hold Em) as a country song/track
At this point I'm seriously worried about your reading comprehension abilities. WP: EXPLICITGENREdoesn't say that "the source needs to directly refer to either a piece of work or the artist" as you claimed. It says that the source needs to directly refer to a piece of work for the piece of work's article, and to the artist for the artist's article. The list of sources you provided is even worse than what was on the page before. Listing different types of charts to provide genres is beyond ridiculous. It's like saying Justin Bieber is a Latino and hip hop artist because he has a couple songs in those billboard charts. Bananas. With “Beyoncé Has Always Been Country” you're taking the sentence completely out of context trying to make it look like it refers to her making that music widely during her career, but the article never mentions her having a long-term county music career, it's not even hinting at that.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) — DollysOnMyMind (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppetofGiubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs). — AP 499D25(talk)12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, i'm not sure how the moderators allow you to be so rude. Can you not get your point across without insults?? As per :EXPLICITGENRE i disagree with your interpretation.
"When classifying music, sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole"
It gives an example "the album is a quintessential example of avant-rock ..."
Even if you want to discount the UK chart description (and let's face it--they could have chosen to describe the work as country influenced, or country themed rather than directly describing it as country)...Rolling Stone and American Songwriter directly describes the music as country i.e. the source explicitly attributes the genre to the work.
EXPLICITGENRE's example "the album is a quintessential example of avant-rock『
I see that as being no different to 』“Daddy Lessons” is a country song." (As) or "is a 21st century country banger" (RS). Koppite1 (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to. The sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work OR the artist. Nowhere does it say it has to be BOTH. Otherwise, there is no way there would be e.g. a reggae genre in Rihanna's info box, or a rock genre on Taylor Swift's or. a jazz genre on Lady Gaga's. And before you point to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF), that section doesn't completely discount the ability to reference to a similar situation.
"If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates".
Especially in the case of feature articles such as Swift and Gaga
"While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case"
In fact i'm astounded that there are no references in their info box re the rock and jazz genres considering the fuss and hoops being put out to include certain genres in the Beyonce info box Koppite1 (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "nonsensical" wall of text, quoted word for word, is from Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. It's explaining when it's "more" acceptable to use other examples. Lady Gaga, Swift, Rihanna are not referred to as Jazz, Rock and Reggae musicians "as a whole". But rather, some of their works are described that way - which is why those genres are listed in their info box (and Swift and Gaga are featured articles which mean they would have gone through extra scrutiny). That is a similar situation to Beyonce. Some of her work has directly been described as country - if not Beyonce as a whole Koppite1 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth in my opinion, I have two trail of thoughts on it:
A) Remove for all music related articles in their template, genres be it for a singer, single, album/EP etc. full stop as everyone disputes everything and it leads to confrontation.
B) If option A is a no no, remove just house, country and Afrobeats, as she has only just dabbled in those genres, it could be argued that maybe Afrobeats can stay as she released two Afrobeats songs in 2013 ("Grown Woman" and "Walking on Sunshine") and did during the whole the Lion King era release music that was rooted in Afrobeats, but when I think of Beyoncé do I really think of her as an Afrobeats singer? No. She dabbled with house music for Act I: Renaissance but that was more akin to dance music that Robin S., CeCe Peniston, Donna Summer made than house music like Calvin Harris makes, country music, bar from 2016's "Daddy Lessons" and Act II: Cowboy Carter" she's not a country singer like Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, etc. she was paying homage on her trilogy to the other genres that originated from Black music, who's to say when Act III: Rockstar Revisited or whatever name she wants to call it, (I think mine's cute 🥰) will we be saying Beyoncé's music genres are R&B, pop, hip hop, house, country, Afrobeats and rock? Where will we draw the line? If she did a UK garage song or polka song will we add those genres too? I doubt it, all artists experiment with different genres so their music isn't labeled stale or samey-same, I think we should keep it too her three main genres which are R&B, pop and hip hop as those are her prominent genres and stuff she'll continue to make after the days of playing with different sounds. Sorry if I rambled a bit but that's my opinion. Justinaintime (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Justinaintime (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppetofMariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs). — AP 499D25(talk)12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two two editors who have contributed the most bytes to this discussion - Justinaintime and DollysOnMyMind - are both socks of indef blocked users. I can't muster up the enthusiasm to go through and strike/remove their contributions to this thread - can those of you who aren't evading blocks figure this out please? Pings to Ravenfate, Cullen328 and Koppite1, apologies if I've missed anyone (and to the IP editors I can't ping). Also, if any of you are evading indef blocks, please could you just say so and get it over with? (Come on Cullen, come clean...). Cheers GirthSummit (blether)11:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Girth Summit, I will take a shower. Even after 15 years of editing, I remain surprised at the massive volume of words that can be spouted on talk pages for negligible benefit to our readers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I didn't mean that someone else should strike everything because I'm too lazy - I thought that striking it all would be pointless at this stage. I meant 'coukd the folk who aren't socks engage to decide what to do on the article'. Apologies for being vague. GirthSummit (blether)19:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally. i think the above sources provided should be adequate to at least change house to dance as per Ravenfate's initial request. If anyone thinks differently, then they need to say so (and because there seems to be a lot of sock puppets and ban evaders visiting this page, not sure how seriously to take IP address replies).
Re the whole topic of genre removals that was initiated by sock puppet DollysOnMyMind (see Admin noticeboard) and ip editors (who may or may not be ban evaders) - people have had enough time now to respond one way or another. So, if anyone feels strongly about the genre categories, then join in and constructively contribute. Otherwise, we leave things as they are and move on. Koppite1 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure seems like it would be prudent to allow the above Genre conversation to run its course before de-listing this article. Wouldn’t that mostly resolve the stability issue? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not now See Good Article Reassessment. Not only is it much preferable to simply improve an existing GA up to standards than delisting, but also explicitly Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate. There are good reasons for this. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral party, who is not involved in the ongoing genre disputes on this article, I do think this article warrants a Good Article Reassessment. I had mentioned this an archived talk page discussion months prior. A Reassessment discussion should be started to highlight the lack of neutrality and puffery related issues on this article. Just to give a few examples, at one point someone had this woman listed as a pianist in the infobox, her political affliations were being conflated as philanthropy and she was being credited as the founder of the singing/rapping melodic rap style that artists such as Drake have adopted. Not to mention her legal troubles being entirely omitted from the article, which begs the question how this article was classified as a Good Article in the first place, as criteria 3 and 4 were not sufficiently met. Instantwatym (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: What photo do you propose? It will need to be something freely licensed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
