Talk:Billie Eilish/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

singles off debut album

hello all, not entirely sure how editing on here works but i wanted to bring to your attention that “everything i wanted” is not a single off of “when we all fall asleep, where do we go?” though it is listed as such. have fun doing your thing on here, and sorry that i most likely did not point this out appropriately! Mango Overlord (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

argh, meant song, not single** Mango Overlord (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh you’re right, it was a bonus track that appears to have been released as a promotional single or something like that but not one of the official singles of the album. I will put a note. Trillfendi (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It is specifically listing songs from the album. "Everything I Wanted" has nothing to do with the album so it shouldn't be there in the first place. Even if a note is added, it will just result in more confusion. heyitsben!! talk 13:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You are right but Billie has uploaded wwafawdwg on Spotify and the single everything I wanted is part of the album Mario Fejzo (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Age

Someone really should update her age to 19 - Deepabysm (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepabysm: The system will do that when she turns 19...in December. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, i will right now... -KeepitMello224

RfC: Should the main image be changed?

There is a clear consensus to use the previous image, File:Billie Eilish 2019 by Glenn Francis.jpg, instead of File:Billie Eilish at Pukkelpop Festival - 18 AUGUST 2019 (08) (cropped).jpg. There is no prejudice against discussing the use of another image such as those suggested by Koavf.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To avoid a possible edit war, here is an RfC regarding the main image. I personally think this image that was previously used File:Billie_Eilish_2019_by_Glenn_Francis.jpg is more suitable. Should we change it to that one? Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support previous The previous image is the better of the two, it depicts her in a more realistic way and seems less staged. - HAL333 23:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support previous It's preferable to me because it's in color and her head doesn't look like it's floating like the current pic is. 100cellsman (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support change to File:Billie Eilish @Pukkelpop 2019 (48590443241).jpg or File:Billie Eilish at Pukkelpop Festival - 18 AUGUST 2019 (01) (cropped).jpg. The current image is fantastic but being in black-and-white makes it much less recognizable. The previous photo is fine but not very engaging. The suggestions I've posted show her performing music, which is appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons stated above. Johnrichardhall (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support whatever you do, don't use a black-and-white photo, which is a disservice to her image and music-video aesthetics. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I personally think that the main image should change. Although I got nothing really against the image, the issue stems from the fact the her facial expression is not inviting. This is true even more so when you consider that's the image Google will present for a search of her. Akiba2 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Name in early life section

Hi @Trillfendi - would you mind expanding on why you undid my edit to the early life section? Of course, she was born with the last name O'Connell, but the entire article, when not using her full name, refers to her as "Eilish" rather than "O'Connell." Is there a compelling reason to keep referring to her as O'Connell in this section? Other notable people who go by a different professional name are referred to by that professional last name throughout their articles (for example, Martin Sheen or Cary Grant). I had thought that changing it would add to the article's clarity, but happy to keep as is if that's more in keeping with Wikipedia in general. Leyarburns (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

During that time, she was just O'Connell and she hadn't established herself as Billie Eilish yet.100cellsman (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you for clarifying! Leyarburns (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Although I understand that argument it makes for some strange reading. There are parts were sentences like "Eilish and O'Connell" appear and the "O'Connell" refers to the brother, sometimes it refers to the sister. It's impossible to read the article and understand who it is referring to.
Also, notice the name of this article: "Billie Eilish", not "Billie O'Connell" or "Billie Eilish Pirate Baird O'Connell".
Aisteco (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Aisteco, I agree; the convention for discussion brothers and sisters in a BLP would be to use their first names where there is possibility of confusing them by surname. Anyway, FINNEAS is known as a mononym anyway, is he not? Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It just comes down to the Manual of Style. The Manual of Style says legal name has to come first when someone uses a stage name or nickname. In her music's liner notes, she's typically "Billie Eilish O'Connell" if not "Billie O'Connell", so intrinsically we start the article from birth. Only one instance does "Eilish and O'Connell" respectively refer to herself and her brother (who naturally shares the same last name), so no it's not that confusing when all other times it refers to herself and just about every use of his name is his first name. And if he were strictly mononymous, his own article would be too. I'm really getting bewildered at this new movement on Wikipedia where editors think one sentence changes the entire subject of one article to someone else. It's not hard for the reader, who by the time they get to Early life have seen at least twice what her full given name is, to understand that Eilish is only her middle name. Trillfendi (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Bill English"? Seriously?

I removed it yet one of these dodos “reverted” it, for no valid reason. It’s nonsensical. ⌚️ (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, dodo is a featured article... if you actually read it you’ll find nothing about “personal attacks”. ⌚️ (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the hatnote is nonsensical and ridiculous. Hatnotes are not for promoting anything remotely resemblant without a real need, and this one is even worse than that. — Mike Novikoff 19:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no reason to call people names, this isn't elementary school, we are all adults here. LanHikari64 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No “names” were called, people just want something to overreact on this uneventful Thursday. None of that changes how idiotic it is to lead people to believe Billie Eilish would be confused with a random politician who isn’t even in office, when there’s no evidence of that happening. ⌚️ (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but there is no reason to be rude about it. You called someone a "dodo". That is an insult. Wikipedia is no place for playground insults. If someone did something you didn't like, that doesn't mean you have to make a rude comment.LanHikari64 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Does no one realize the irony that said bird doesn’t even exist? ⌚️ (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
And? LanHikari64 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. You’re choosing to get upset about something nonexistent. ⌚️ (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
It is extinct, not nonexistent. It's more the secondary meanings of the word, being "one hopelessly behind the times" or "a stupid person". It's rude, and again, this is no place for that. LanHikari64 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, kindly do not revert my messages, Davey. LanHikari64 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Resetting the discussion: Is there really cause to have a hatnote in the article distinguising Eilish from Bill English? —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Probably not. LanHikari64 (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm from NZ. I can't imagine anyone would really confuse the 2. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

um im actually in elementary school... -KeepitMello224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepitMello224 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section

It seems like there should be a criticism or controversy section. Isn't anyone critical of anything about Billie Eilish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t Miley Cyrus. Unless you have reliable sources for such criticism or controversy, which seems to manifestly be the opposite, it won’t go here as there must maintain neutrality. ⌚️ (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality isn't ignoring criticism, on the contrary; only noting praise is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Critical commentary is valuable where relevant, and that includes criticism. However, a controversy section for its own sake is discouraged. Notable criticism from reliable sources should been integrated in the article, in the relevant section(s). I'd come across a couple articles critiquing the artist's public image and style, for instance (such as [1]). This should be included in that section especially as she's received a lot of media attention for her image. Lapadite (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding a criticism section just for the sake of the idea that people might not like her, which this IP was inferring, is not neutral. ⌚️ (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree, everything/one has someone that dislikes them. We can't go putting criticism sections on everything. LanHikari64 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


Father in infobox

It seems odd to me that there is this page restriction:

"Do not add father until / unless he gets his own Wikipedia article"

I suggest this restriction be removed. The omission suggests that his name is not in there for family reasons.
Bkengland (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bkengland: Her father is named in the article prose already. I'm not certain on the MOS/guideline around having unlinked topics in infoboxes; I know I've seen it before, so unless there's a good reason (a MOS/guideline) to omit the name from the infobox, I would lean towards inclusion. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Very odd restriction. Of course it should not be redlinked, but otherwise there should be no objections, as long as it's supported by the RS. — Mike Novikoff 03:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
A strange restriction - especially considering that her father is named in the article. Sofubar (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree. MOS/Infoboxes says nothing about requiring a link; it is very common for people to have unlinked relatives in infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauri0.o (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Kauri0.o, {{Infobox person}} says Names of siblings or other relatives; include only if independently notable and particularly relevant. Include the relationship in parentheses after the name (sister, uncle, etc.). For multiple entries, use an inline list. So the comment is correct, we cannot add her father unless/until he is independently notable. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

Billie Eilish recentaly published a new song called No Time To Die for the new james bond movie Gap-Jacket (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
@Gap-Jacket: Please provide sources that the song has been released. Until we have verification of that, the article will just say that she is scheduled to record the Bond theme. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Are you being serious? She released that last week. It’s out for the world to listen to. This has been news. ⌚️ (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: Then providing a source for the release date should be trivial. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting the single this far ahead of the movie, but Billboard reported it was released on Thursday. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

At the end of the Career section currently, the release of the title track for No Time to Die as a single on February 13 precedes the awards she won at the Grammys ceremony (on January 26). I guess this part of the article came to be written like this because the announcement that she was the artist who recorded (or was going to record) the title track was made before the Grammys ceremony. I suggest removing mention of the announcement, as it is no longer noteworthy now that the single has been released (if I'm wrong and it remains noteworthy, the article should explain that) and moving the rest to follow the Grammys, or separating the sentences about the title track into their own paragraph. —⁠173.129.235.246 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I think the announcement caused more furor than the song itself. So the announcement should be mentioned. (I'm not saying the song isn't good. I like it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done: Moscow Connection raises a good point, in that the announcement itself is noteworthy. feminist (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

I want to add more info LazyDog10120 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request April 9, 2020

I request that the first line of the article be changed to "...is an American singer, songwriter, and director." Billie has directed two of her music videos.

Under the Artistry heading, it should be included that Billie directed the music video for her song "everything i wanted" which was released 23 January 2020.

Additionally, most of Billie's song titles are stylized using all lowercase letters, yet this article capitalizes all her song titles. This should be changed.

[1]

Goat Billie (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8548869/billie-eilish-everything-i-wanted-music-video-finneas
@Goat Billie: Regarding the styling: we typically don't stylize titles, per the MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the main image be changed? 2

The RfC initiator has withdrawn the RfC. There is no consensus in this RfC to change the main image with editors roughly evenly divided between the two image choices.

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • First (current) image
    First (current) image
  • Second image (performance at Pukkelpop)
    Second image (performance at Pukkelpop)

Should the main image be changed? RFC withdrawn - Alexis Jazz 22:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed that the second image is better: it shows her performing. Both are good for representing her and the first image shows a very direct shot of her face but the second one is more dynamic and still gets across what she looks like. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    If you want this to actually be a request for comment you have to use the request for comment template. ⌚️ (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Trillfendi: like this? I don't know if RfC is required, but considering this was decided with an RfC last time I figured it may be. - Alexis Jazz 22:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks alright. Just not a fan of the bangs on her face, personally. 웃OO 23:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Second image. The main thing I will say is that her hair color and look change frequently, and the Pukkelpop image captures that updated look well. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Second image is better as per discussions made above by Justin (koavf)❤ & Elizium23. Idealigic (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • First image is better in my opinion. I feel like it gives a better sense of what she looks like. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • First image per Aitch & Aitch Aitch. She is more identifiable in the first photo. However another good alternative is File:Billie Eilish at Pukkelpop Festival - 18 AUGUST 2019 (08) (cropped).jpg. It may not show her current true hair colour but she is more indentifiable in this one than in the second image (eyes are tense/flexed; hair in face; open mouth) and gives it a better representation of her face shape than in the first image (hair hides jaw and teeth; head is at an awkward angle). heyitsben!! talk 12:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Aitch & Aitch Aitch and HeyitsBen: I don't know if it makes a difference, but a narrower crop is possible, see the added square crop. HeyitsBen, that black and white photo is exactly the one that was rejected in the previous RfC. - Alexis Jazz 12:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    HeyitsBen, there was a discussion a while ago to decide against using that photo. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • First Image I still think that one's better. ~ HAL333 18:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Second image, I can't really say why, I just like it better than the first one if I'm being honest. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • First image (the current image) since you can see more of her face. 2nd image has her head turning sideways, with bangs covering part of her face and a microphone to her face; it belongs more in the body of the article, not as a lead image. Some1 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Some1: I see your point, but do keep in mind that those bangs don't appear to be an accident. Just Google billie eilish performing and you'll find a lot of photos with her bangs all over the place. Arguably those are part of her image. Second, on the current photo her cheeks and ears are entirely obscured by her hair, and that is not typical for her appearance. I'd argue you can see less of her face on the current photo. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: "Google billie eilish performing", but what about when she's not performing, such as in interviews? Search any interview of her on YouTube (or even her music videos such as Bad Guy, When the Party's Over, Xanny) and you can see that her ears are typically hidden by her hair. Some1 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Some1: but she's not known for her interviews, she's known for her music. Also, her ears, yes, sometimes. At Jimmy Fallon her cheeks are clearly visible and her ears are obscured.. until 1:48 when she adjusts her hair, though it falls back a bit later on. But the lower part of her ears remains visible. Vanity Fair has three interviews in one. In all three her cheeks are clearly visible. Her ears are also visible in the 2018 interview. In her Capital FM interview it varies, sometimes you can see her ears, sometimes not, sometimes only partially or only part of the time, but her cheeks are always in the picture. And her music videos, well, it varies there as well. Bury a friend, Ocean Eyes, watch show her ears in varying degrees. But her cheeks are basically always visible. - Alexis Jazz 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: "1:48 when she adjusts her hair, though it falls back a bit later on", "show her ears in varying degrees". So her hair covers her ears the majority of the time, then. And her typical hairstyle is hair down, not hair up (and with her hair covering her ears). Her right cheek doesn't even appear in the 2nd image, so I'm not going to touch on that point. I think we've already made up our minds which image we prefer, so us debating further on this matter isn't going to change each other's minds. I'm going to disengage; other editors who find this RfC can judge for themselves which image is the better lead image (look at her interviews, music videos, pictures, etc. if they need to). Some1 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Some1: indeed we will have to agree to disagree. That's fine. Her hair may be typically down, but I haven't seen this "oval" hairdo anywhere else. Her right cheek not being visible in the second image is IMHO not as big of a deal as you make it out to be, it's not a matter of square inches visible. The human brain can interpolate. We see her left cheek, we can guess what the right cheek looks like and what shape her face has. When we see no cheeks (first image), we have no clue. But indeed, we'll agree to disagree. Supporters of both images have valid points but we weigh them differently. - Alexis Jazz 20:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Second image - Both aren't what I would consider to be great however with the second one you can see more of her face and she doesn't have an awkward look/stare like the first one. –Davey2010Talk 19:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think there's any awkward look or staring going on in the first image; her eyes are like that. [2][3][4] Some1 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    Fair point, Google Images is filled with more similar images, gives me the creeps either way. –Davey2010Talk 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This edit by Alexis Jazz (talk · contribs) has changed a not-very-good RfC statement into a bad one. To see just why it's bad, follow the link Biographies in the RfC banner. Please provide a brief and neutral statement, in line with WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: unrelated to this RfC I already have a headache. I don't do RfCs normally. I'm used to simply discussing stuff, I only made it an RfC because this was previously decided by RfC. (and I have no idea why that had to be an RfC either) It seems clear to me there is no consensus to change the main image. Can we just close this and get it over with? - Alexis Jazz 21:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    Because people were disruptively changing the lead photo on an almost daily basis. ⌚️ (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    It just gets worse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    How is that worse? - Alexis Jazz 11:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • According to WP:RFCEND I can withdraw the question. So it is hereby withdrawn. This isn't productive. There is no consensus. - Alexis Jazz 11:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 5 May 2020

Change "Use mdy dates|date=April 2020" to "Use mdy dates|date=May 2020"
Change "access-date=2020-04-20" to "access-date=April 20, 2020"


Request to unify date format. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96: Which refs have the ANSI access date formatting? —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
One ref: "<ref name="Sunny">{{Cite web|title=Billie Eilish & Finneas perform "Sunny" {{!}} One World: Together At Home|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJuHn8JzhP0|language=en|access-date=2020-04-20}}</ref>" Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done access-date tweaked in that ref. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC 3

Consensus is to retain the current image. Guy (help!) 09:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Which image should be used if any?, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Current image
    Current image
  • Second image
    Second image
  • Third image
    Third image
  • Current Image /#1 - I've been mulling over this since yesterday - The strand of hair in #2 just looks awful imho, Not her fault at all but for me it just doesn't look right... whereas atleast with #1 her hair looks better, Although you can see more of her face in #2 than you can in #1 but meh. –Davey2010Talk 13:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current Image /#1 Her face isn't obstructed. Out of the other two, I think the second image is preferable to the third. ~ HAL333 16:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current image / #1. She is most instantly recognizable in the first photo. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Image #3 this is a rock star who is known for putting on high energy stage shows, so a little hair in her face shows that she is flailing around actively. She is also known for music videos in which blood and other bodily fluid streams down her face, so I don't think we should let a little hair stand in our way. Finally, she is one to change her look often, and so the sedate goth in Image #1 is no more, and has not existed for years. We have an obligation to display a current representation of the artist, and that is #3. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic
  • Instead of doing 3 RfCs on this in 5 months, why don't we just leave the image alone. ⌚️ (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Trillfendi Maybe you should get yourself some (new) glasses as had you read the above RFC you would've seen it was actually withdrawn and therefore If an RFC is withdrawn anybody is entitled to start a new one, No one's asking you to participate infact you wasn't even pinged!, If you have a problem with this RFC then fuck off and don't participate in it, Simples. –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: But get this... I was the one who suggested the first Rfc because you obsessed people were changing the image daily. Check yourself before you check me. The second RfC was withdrawn because people couldn't simply decide to keep one image for more than 2 weeks. If you're telling me to "fuck off" over a picture, get off Wikipedia for a few days and get some help. ⌚️ (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Except I haven't changed the image atleast to my knowledge I haven't ..... I saw the RFC was withdrawn so started another one which I'm more than entitled to do, The RFC was withdrawn because Alexis didn't set it up correctly but again you obviously didn't read it to know that, I haven't told you to fuck off over an image .... I've told you to fuck off over your IMHO useless and POKEY comment. Nah I'm fine thanks, I'm not the only getting all delirious (as you put it) over an RFC, Now you can either participate or you can jog on :). –Davey2010Talk 16:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL "Participate in a respectful and considerate way."
Wikipedia is still an open encyclopedia where anyone can edit, invitations are not required. Civility is required.
Current image -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current image not perfect but a clear and recognizable image, entirely appropriate for the Infobox. Fully expect her image to continue to change, image 2, might even be outdated already by the time you read this. It is a good image but it does not seem like the best choice for the Infobox. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current image for the same reason as the previous RfC; I think it gives a better sense of what she looks like. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current image or #2, I have no preference for either in the end, but I prefer number two because she looks more... herself as a performer. I do agree the current image allows you to see her face more though. QueerFilmNerdtalk 01:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current Image / #1 - Completely unobstructed view of her face and looks kind of objectively better to me? If people want to watch her perform they can watch countless performances on YouTube.--NØ 11:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Second Image Albeit the First (current) image looks appropriate for the mentioned item, but perhaps the second one might be more appropriate which could give more general image, I mean it gives more details of the image. At least it is my viewpoint! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Current image or #2 - I prefer the current image, but I'd prefer either 1 or 2 above the third choice. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Whilst it hasn't been discussed above - Any future infobox image RFCs should be made a year after the previous one as I completely agree multiple RFCs in 5 months is disruptive (FWIW this RFC was a procedural thing and wasn't done because I was bored),
Any infobox image RFCs set up in less than a year will be speedy closed. –Davey2010Talk 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal. There have been too many attempts to change the image, it's getting tiring. Surely there are better ways to improve the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: In regard to new photo opportunities, she won't be out in public for several months anyway. 웃OO 02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: If you're talking about the photos that have already been discussed, sure. But what if a better photo gets uploaded? Even if there won't be any public appearances in the next few months, someone could upload some photos they took months ago. Or we find one that we previously missed. And she'll probably perform again within a year. - Alexis Jazz 13:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alexis, IMHO all images (whether new or old) should be discussed in May 2021,
Someone in August could start an RFC with a new image included, and then someone else could start another RFC in November with a new image included.... so for simplicity sake all images whether new or old should be discussed in 2021, If someone uploads better images after May then unfortunately those would need to be discussed (if wanted) the following year, I know it seems silly to have to do that but at the end of the day it stops the unnecessary RFCs and stops unintentional disruption to the project :) (Although this was procedural I still firmly believe this RFC alone was/is unintentionally disruptive), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: so if a new photo is taken and uploaded that everyone agrees is better, we'd still have to wait until May 2021. Oh well, I was done with this anyway. - Alexis Jazz 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That is correct yes, If it stops the disruption then I'm all for it, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to figure out for myself what was going on here, so I'll explain what I learned and maybe it will save other some time.
The image is supposed to be from the 2019 Grammy Awards, and shows Billie Eilish against a plain background, wearing sunglasses, and a mask over her mouth, hair hair is dyed bright green and black.
The image comes from Voice of America "the official external broadcasting service of the federal government of the United States". As a government publication the images might be Public Domain, but it might also be republished from the Associated Press and subject to copyright. It is not clear if this image can be freely used by Wikipedia, and it might need to be deleted. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Image no longer used in article, better to play it safe anyway I guess. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Grueslayer: on https://www.voanews.com/arts-culture/sadness-controversy-surround-grammys the image is clearly watermarked with VOA, so The Salvator (the uploader) is not to be blamed here. It does however appear to be copyvio, https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/early-list-of-grammy-award-winners/ar-BBZlLgP also credits Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP. VOA only blanked the background. (I verified it, it's the exact same photo) - Alexis Jazz 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey Alexis, Ah okay thanks - I've added a link to here at Commons :), Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not My Responsibility

I've created a short stub for Not My Responsibility; we might add mention here as well? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Better to merge it into the article, as there’s nothing to encyclopedically write about it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s good. I think maybe you should mention it briefly, and then link the article you created. 👍🏼

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Hi I just wanted to know if I could add Billie's father as he was not mentioned in this article. Thank you BillieStan2001 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@BillieStan2001: You'll need to specify what about him you want added to the article and what reliable sources support the change. Further, he is already mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

In the section "Early life": "with who she frequently collaborates" → "with whom she frequently collaborates"

82.132.226.148 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Add her signature

I think we should add her signature in the information page to be just like the other artists.Also signature is really important information. Mario Fejzo (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Mario Fejzo, do you have a copy of her signature? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have it personally but i have photos from google Mario Fejzo (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. If someone could find a photo of Billie’s signature, or has it personally, it would be nice to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazychickennthang (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a picture of it; however, if Mario would like to do it that's fine. I don't think I can edit semi-protected pages yet(I'm a complete newbie.) Billiestan123 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)billiestan123

Should I do it now? I am able to now. I don't have it personally; I used a Google image, but if we all agree that we should put it in I will. Thanks! Billiestan123 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Billiestan123

Billiestan123, that is not acceptable. Whoever uploads it needs to assign a Creative Commons license so that it can be freely used. Elizium23 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and I agree with you. Would I have to see if the creator of the image in question does have a Creative Commons license?

(edit) I checked and it does. The image in question has been used on Wikipedia pages in other languages. All we need to do is provide attribution. I'm not familiar with this, so it could mean something different, but to me, it sounds like we are free to use the image.

There could be a problem with the actual editing part, though, as the page is semi-protected until May 8, 2021. Billiestan123 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Billiestan123

Endorsement of Joe Biden 2020

Billie Eilish has endorsed Joe Biden. See https://twitter.com/billieeilish/status/1296259757209051137 and https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/20/entertainment/billie-eilish-dnc-performance-my-future-trnd/index.html 134.3.255.195 (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Documentary 🖤

Billie recently announced that she has made a documentary that will be released on Apple TV. The documentary’s name is “The World’s a Little Blurry”. I’m a new editor so I can’t make the edit myself, so it would be great if someone could do it for me. It’s expected to be released in February 2021. Billie has a clip with all of these details posted on her Instagram that you could use as a citation.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Please add in some information about Billies new song, 'I think there for i am' and how the music video was filmed in her old favourite hang out spot, a shopping centre. Niamh.dutton13 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail[✉] 20:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Dark pop" in infobox?

Yes, she plays music generally described as being both as "pop" and "dark", but those two elements alone do not make a genre. Now, this isn't an edit request yet as we could use a bit further investigation to suggest better genres to place her in (while most mainstream press sucks at this knowledge, there's enough encyclopedically relevant coverage sites which do get more properly music nerdy), but I seriously don't think there's any relevance to this pseudogenre. --181.115.61.86 (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If you can find more specific attributes in reliable sources, then don’t hesitate to provide them. Trillfendi (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Billie is very frequently put in Alt pop, we could add that. Apple Music often showcases her as the background picture for Alternative pop Ary123mal (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

DNC 2020 performance

I assume that she is a registered due paying member of the Demcoratic Party due to her performance at the DNC and she should be mentioned as a democrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Main image changed

  • current in article
    current in article
  • proposed by HeyitsBen
    proposed by HeyitsBen

I feel like the main image does not match her appearance anymore. She is now 19 and that photo is her with blue hair at 17. She has since changed her appearance. Charlixyd (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Charlixyd. Putting foward File:Billie Eilish Spotify December 2019 (cropped).png as a more recent image where she is most identifiable. HeyitsBen talk 09:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Her hair color could very well change again - does quality outweigh currency?--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I support the proposal by HeyitsBen as it exhibits Eilish's hair color and does not have the problems of the concert photos we considered earlier. Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The proposed photo is too blurry for the infobox. The page won't look good ("professional") with a giant image like that at the very top. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the change. The current image is of much better quality. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The photos were taken in the exact same year and the current one appears to be a higher equality. --Bettydaisies (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Charlixyd: Did you not see the multiple RFCs on this page about that? Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Charlixyd: Something slightly better (and sharper) could be extracted from Vimeo: Playing With Playlists – Billie Eilish (Shower) (view archived source), as I just added an image to the gallery above. However, after the previous RFCs it is clear that the main image will never ever be changed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
She has wrinkles in the photo you added. (I'm talking about the third one. You are the one who added it to the discussion section, aren't you?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I also oppose the change as the current one is a fair depiction of Billie Eilish. Though there could be future changes to the image as she ages, I don't see a reason to change the current one as the change of the tint of one's hair does not seem to be a compelling reason to change the image. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Let the record of this talk page show, I was cursed at for saying people should stop trying to change the lead imagery every month, only for the consensus to be the same thing I said. It does nothing but disrupt the page. Trillfendi (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
She finally changed her hair! :-) See https://www.instagram.com/p/CMhvKMvF3HR/. Now this discussion can be closed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Ilikeyouilikeher (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

c Ilikeyouilikeher (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ilikeyouilikeher: It's unclear what you would like changed. You need to make a specific request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Kails5282 (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Billie Eilish was born in St. Jude Hospital

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. Trillfendi (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Billie Eilish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

  • Infobox looks good.
  • Add a serial comma after "Song of the Year".

Early life

  • Add a comma after "dancing".

Career

  • Add commas after "Goldhouse", Jerry Folk, "live session EP", "November 17, 2019", "March 9, 2020",
  • "sleep hit" → "sleeper hit"
  • "single February 13" → "single on February 13"
  • Add a serial comma after "Song of the Year".
  • Some of the last paragraphs in this section are composed of "On [date], she did [this]". Try removing the repetition and combining some paragraphs.

Artistry

  • Add commas after "produces her music", Green Day, and Childish Gambino.
  • That being said, remove the comma after "style choices".

Awards and nominations

  • Add a serial comma after "Song of the Year".

Public image

  • This section looks good.

Activism

  • The last sentence needs a reference.
  • Remove the comma after 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Personal life and discography

  • Both of these sections look good.

Tours

  • Each tour needs a reference.

Filmography

  • Each film needs a source.

References

  • Archive all archivable sources (either manually or with this tool).
  • NME.COM → NME
  • adage.com → Ad Age
  • People Magazine → People
  • V Magazine → V
  • Fix references titled "Archived copy".
  • There appears to be an error with the reference after "for her award" (broken parameters).
  • Fix references using the Wayback Machine template (such as the one after "James Bond theme song").
  • Fix the cite bundles after "Eilish's vocals", "Finneas' help", and "major-label contract".
  • The references after "construction worker" and "emo pop" should not be in capital letters per WP:SHOUT.
  • In the reference after "$53 million", remove "| NME".
  • The reference after "IHeartMedia members" goes to the home page of a website (I would remove it).
  • The reference after "female collaboration" is missing several parameters.
  • The last three references are missing "|first=" and "|last=" parameters.
  • Mark the reference after "December 18, 2001" with "|url-access=subscription".
  • Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from The Atlantic with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from The New Yorker with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".

Progress

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

  • Notifying @Trillfendi to tell them that they have until March 30, 2021, (7 days after I added comments) to address or add their own comments to the Good Article Nomination (GAN) page, or I will fail this article per WP:GAN/I#R3. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Some Dude From North Carolina can I complete the review instead? I’m one of the editors the has helped expand the article in the past. The Ultimate Boss (talk)
@The Ultimate Boss: Anyone can complete the review, so feel free to do so. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Some Dude From North Carolina Done with all the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@The Ultimate Boss: A few issues still need to be addressed before I can pass the article. To start, add a comma after "live session EP", fix the errors in the references after "December 18, 2001" and "special election", and archive the new sources that were added during this review. Additionally, the cite bundles need to be fixed (see WP:CITEBUNDLE; an example can be found here), and the last three references (along with others) are missing "|first=" and "|last=" parameters. The only reference in #Opening_act also appears to be missing. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Some Dude From North Carolina I promise I will complete this tomorrow afternoon. I just have been very busy finishing up high school before I head to college in the summer. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I never saw a notification but at the same time, there's no time limit on the Good Article process. Princess Fiona, for example, was totally abandoned and 4 months later still became a Good Article. Trillfendi (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Instruments

I think it is well known enough that Billie Eilish knows how to play the piano and ukulele. And it doesn't matter that she is not frequently performing live with those instruments. It's a disservice to leave those aspects of her abilities out of her Wikipedia page.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

I would like to edit Lets go learn unhelpful things (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

While you cannot edit the article (the page is protected due to a history of disruptive edits), you can suggest a specific change to the article by following the instructions above. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

A newer picture of Billie 90.252.25.144 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

All images must be licensed freely. If you can find one that meets that criteria, you can upload it to Commons and then it can be added to the article. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Hi, can you please update the career section? Billie released a single on Thursday but that’s not recorded in the career section. There’s nothing talking about the single she just released. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the career section, where it talks about the vinyl formats, please add Billie’s release of her new single “Your Power” that she released on Thursday. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Update

The career section is not updated. Billie released a new single on Thursday. Why is it not updated? Joyasaxena21 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It is now updated. Also, probably because wikipedia is run by volunteers and is WP:NOTNEWS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tone, tense

Let's drop the promotional tone, and write in encyclopedic style, i.e. past tense. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

BILLIE Eilish's hair

Billie Eilish is known for her colorful and exotic hair colors through the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisismyusernameteehee (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back that up? I'm assuming you want that in the article, so if you could provide a reliable source, that would be great. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your Power

Can someone update the bottom of the career section? “Your Power” debuted at #9 on the Billboard Hot 100. That sentence should go after the sentence that talks about her release of the song. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Could we change the main image at the starting?

Since Billie changed her hair colour, causing a stir of interest and breaking 8 Instagram records, forming her new era and defining it, isn’t it just fair for us to depict her in a recent, updated way, rather then an old version from an older era? I won’t make the change if I am told not to but this is just a small suggestion. Ary123mal (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing the image would probably be fine, but do you have a suggestion? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Q

Can we put her dating history on the “Personal Life” section? Joyasaxena21 (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Joyasaxena21, in general, we don't document the dating life of celebrities, because it is WP:TRIVIA. It's usually worth including only if he or she becomes engaged or married. Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Parents

Sources on Eilish's parents, mother Maggie Baird and father Patrick O'Connel's primary professions:

Majority of reliable sources note that the parents' primary professions was the arts: actors with the mother also being a screenwriter, and both also musicians who taught their kids instruments and songwriting (the mother also released an album). According to sources, they both now work on Eilish's tours. Some sources mention that at some point they had also gotten a side job or two. This side job trivia isn't notable to write about in this article, which is not the parents' article. Only their primary professions (whether or not they were famous), as noted by most of reliable sources, should be included here. Trillfendi, stop your disruptive editing on the parents - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. You are repeatedly posting original research here, misrepresenting what majority of sources say, ignoring WP:NPOV, and acting like you're personally involved. And nowhere are they called "amateurs" in the cited sources. Again, per the family, they taught their kids music and songwriting and the mother released an album. Stop writing misleading content. Lapadite (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: It's neither trivial nor "disruptive" to add biographical truth which is attributed from her own brother (not "me", use common damn sense). Pretty sure he would know what their jobs were to support their family. During my life time, our parents were never able to fully financially support us off of their work as actors. Our dad worked 12 hour days 7 days a week as a construction worker for Mattel and our mom was a teacher. Our parents gave us love but knew no one in the record industry. So there you have it. The dad was a long-toiling construction worker as his primary breadwinning. The mom was a teacher. If she taught songwriting it's still teaching. His words were in response to this banal myth that they had "connections" to get their children a career when they weren't even professional musicians, that's the definition of an amateur. Variety called Baird an amateur songwriter. What exactly has misled you there? Trillfendi (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: A deleted rant tweet from the brother in response to a random twitter user does not trump majority of reliable sources. Variety is one source calling her an amateur songwriter (and also an actor), great, but the mother is not being called a songwriter on Eilish's WP article: it says "actress and former theater troupe teacher", which is what is sourced here and on Baird's WP article. You need WP:CONSENSUS to add the parents' side jobs on Eilish's article and misleadingly pass them off as their primary professions - again, contrary to what most reliable sources say. Let me remind you of WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Lapadite (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we even confirm she's dating Matthew Tyler Vorce

All I can find is tabloid quality information that I assume just ran with it as fact because I've seen no official confirmation ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

2C0F:ED28:503A:53A0:24DC:5258:F35C:4584 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Bold and italic text Billie Eilish is 17

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Name in early life section

Consistency in the way we refer to her is necessary. As I noted in my edit summary, see Prince, Madonna, and Bob Dylan, or even Elliot Page, where they are referred to by their later names, even in their early life sections. Calling her O'Connell in one section is incredibly confusing to someone scanning the article, especially since there is no explanation as to why we suddenly refer to her as 'Eilish' in the next section. Ultimately, it just does not make sense to try and be 'cute' in that way. This is an encyclopedia article, it's not supposed to be read in real time. On WP, if someone changes their name/is known as something different from their birth name, we call them that consistently, even if it is technically inaccurate to refer to Madonna as Madonna when she was a child. The same applies here ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I already said above, the Manual of Style gives precedence to the full name: For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym[.] Her stage name isn’t even a pseudonym it’s simply first and middle name. The section starts with her full name so this idea of “confusion” is really a lack of reading comprehension. And absolutely nothing changed about Elliot Page’s early life section besides correcting pronouns because they would’ve already been referred to by last name regardless anyway. Trillfendi (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Trillfendi (talk · contribs) - Yeah, it should appear first - as in bolded in the lead sentence of the article, which is already does. Nothing in the manual of style implies that we should call the subject by different names throughout the article - I can't even imagine how you can get that from the quoted text. I will happily open an RfC if you continue to disagree. Cheers. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Naming in Early Life Section

Should Billie Eilish be referred to as Eilish or O'Connell in the Early life section? 14:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Eilish (as RfC creator) - whatever an individual is referred to, that should be consistent throughout the article. There is no basis or precedent for calling an entertainer by their 'birth' name in their early life section, and then changing to their 'stage name' throughout the remainder. In every example I can find, this is the case; see: Bob Dylan, Madonna, Prince (musician), Little Richard, Adele, Drake (musician), John Wayne, and Post Malone. The opposite position has been supported by the MoS entry: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." This (pretty clearly) means that the lead sentence should list the birth name, followed by the pseudonym, both in bold (which is how the article is now). It does not support the idea that the topic should be referred to differently in different sections of the article. It is pretty evident to me that Eilish should be referred to as Eilish throughout the entire article, for consistency in this article and for consistency across WP. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No Like you said, her original name should only be used in the lead, according to MOS:BIO and WP:PSEUDONYM as far as I can tell. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Both - summoned by bot. I spend way more time on company articles than I do BLPs, but I think there are some lessons to be learned by looking over at the corporate world. There, names change much more frequently. In this case, there is a manual of style for peoples’ names changing, and the article is incorrect as it stands. The lead sentence should be in this format Billie Eilish ( /ˈaɪlɪʃ/ EYE-lish); (born Billie Eilish Pirate Baird O'Connell; December 18, 2001) .... After that it gets a little trickier. When companies get founded under a different name, that’s always included as the first info in history section. So here I would say as the first line in the early life section, “Billie Eilish was born as Billie Eilish Pirate Baird O'Connell in Los Angeles, California on December 18, 2001.” I then include the date and the source of when the company changed its name. I don’t see that here so that’s something to consider adding. At this point, we should have agreement on both sides. where with a company article I might continue using the early name until the name change, but in this case as an olive branch compromise to both parties, why not use Eilish from this point forward, but maybe use pronouns like “she” or descriptors like “the singer” as much as possible? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • O'Connell in the lead, Eilish throughout the rest of the article as per COMMONNAME. (yes COMMONNAME is a move thing but can refer to this too). –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No. There is no reason not to use the name she is most often referred to throughout the article, even before she adopted said name. Other articles don't do this, so why should this one? Also, this would open an incredibly confusing can of worms for articles about people who were known under different names or aliases during different parts of their lives. Referring to Prince under his preferred stagename in each of the respective section of his article would be madness. PraiseVivec (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Eilish Should be used in the entire article. Sea Ane (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Eilish - per the arguments for Eilish above. Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Eilish This is what she's commonly referred to and should be consistent throughout the article. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Eilish For ease of reading and consistency within the article and with normal practice we use the name the person is best known by. The only good reason to use an 'earlier name' (other than in the lead), would be if the person had produced a record/made a film/ written a book - or some other 'public achievement' under an earlier name, as with Cassius Clay - otherwise it's just confusing. This is done consistently whatever the reason for name change (marriage/professional name … whatever) so no reason to do things differently this time. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • While it's misleading to call one's own first/middle name a "stage name" or pseudonym (those terms imply going by something not part of a full name and I object to the propsed format Timtempleton gave for this article's opening sentence when that would incorrectly suggest the singer has legally changed her name from birth identity), I'm going to say Eilish when she's far more known by that than her actual last name of O'Connell. The official surname (at least for now) should just be used for her in three instances (namely once in infobox, once in opening sentence, and once when first introducing full name within "Early life"). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Eilish - because that is who she is overwhelmingly referred to as. Meatsgains(talk) 22:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Eilish, as she is commonly referred to. Idealigic (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billie_Eilish/Archive_2&oldid=1057401678"