Talk:Christina Aguilera/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Article revamping

In order to bring the Christina Aguilera article to GA, a revamping of the article has begun. In October 2013, User:WikiRedactor started a revamping process, however it was not done. Thus I wanted to re-start the process.

The article is quite large, which means that a team effort from several editors will be helpful in meeting the final goal. Below is a "checklist" of sorts, where you will find the current status of the various sections of the article. Feel free to "adopt" a section and help the cause!

Participants

(Note: Add your name by adding ~~~ under this list)

• Simon (talk)
• PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• WikiRedactor (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Alex ^{talk page!} 22:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Closed for another discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Infobox and introduction Issue #1: Genres seem to be unsourced A possible contender if it was cropped Issue #2: The picture in the infobox isn't a great picture of Christina; she doesn't even really look like herself there. There are some nice pictures of her from 2006 available on Commons, and even though they're a bit older, in my opinion they represent Christina better than the 2010 picture does. @WikiRedactor: I don't think so. She has reinvented her look from her career beginning. In my opinion, Aguilera didn't even look like her natural white person "persona" during the Stripped era. Simon (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: How would you feel about swapping the infobox picture with the picture in the 2010 section? They're both about the same age, and I think the latter picture is a nicer angle and view of her face. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC) @WikiRedactor: I do think so. Simon (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Issue #3: What exactly makes Justin Timberlake an associated act? Aside from being on The Mickey Mouse Club together (which with that reasoning would make Britney Spears an associated act too?), they've only toured together once and that seems to be it. I think that this parameter should be left blank. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC) @WikiRedactor: Per {{Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts}} Simon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Issue #4: The Biography Network is not WP:RS Issue #5: I think it's worth (briefly) noting the under-performances of Bionic and Lotus, since their minimal commercial impact is a fairly notable part of her more recent career. We'll deal with this after all sections are cleaned up. Simon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Life and career Early life  Not done Simon (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Resolved. Simon (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 1999–2001: Christina Aguilera, Mi Reflejo, and new management Issue: the headline is not-so-suitable (in this era, Aguilera released three studio albums, but the headline lists only two) Possible solution: How about just titling the section "1999–2001: Christina Aguilera" because it is undeniably the most prominent of the three records? (Although Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas are technically studio albums by definition, they don't appear to be particularly noteworthy that general readers would suffer from their exclusions in the title.) @WikiRedactor: i'm thinking of the headline "Early success with three debut studio albums". Simon (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: My only concern is that all of the other sections list specific projects, I just feel like Christina Aguilera should be directly mentioned in the heading for clarity. Maybe a combination like "Early success (or breakthrough?) with Christina Aguilera"? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I just think that it would be quite odd if we only list Christina Aguilera here. Simon (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC) 2002–05: Stripped, new image, and marriage Issue: I believe another editor in another discussion raised the point that the title "new image" isn't really accurate since Xtina has embraced new images with each record she has released. For that reason, I think it would be best to rename this section "2002–05: Stripped and marriage". Another issue: I think that this section of Stripped should only lists events from 02-03, because in 04 Aguilera dyed her hair blonde, which (in my opinion) is the early stage of Back to Basics. Simon (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: That's a good point, since the last single from Stripped was released in 2003. So maybe the middle sections could be restructured like "2002–03: Stripped", "2004–08: Marriage and Back to Basics", "2009–10: Motherhood, Burlesque, Bionic, and divorce", and "2011–12: The Voice and Lotus", and "2013–present: Current endeavors and eighth studio album"? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @WikiRedactor: Thanks for your response! That is such brilliant. Simon (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC) 2006–09: Back to Basics, motherhood, and hiatus Issue: I don't think that Aguilera took a hiatus in this era Possible solution: I would recommend renaming the section "2006–09: Back to Basics and motherhood", since the hiatus described in the article doesn't even seem like an actual break since she spent much of her time working on Bionic, only out of the public eye. Agree. Simon (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 1991–2000: Career beginnings, Christina Aguilera, Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas  Done I have cleaned up the whole section, but I wonder if anyone feel that this section still needs copyedit. Simon (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 2000–03: New management and Stripped  Done Simon (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 2004–08: Marriage, Back to Basics and motherhood  Doing... Simon (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)  Done Simon (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC) 2010–11: Bionic, Burlesque, divorce, and The Voice Issue: I always thought it would be best to chunk Bionic, Burlesque, and her divorce in one section and The Voice and Lotus in another. As it is right now, we start (very briefly) talking about The Voice in the 2010 section, and then randomly pick back up with her hiatuses in the fourth and sixth seasons in the 2012 section. Agree. Simon (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)  Done Simon (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) 2012–present: Lotus, eighth studio album and other projects  Done Simon (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) WikiRedactor and 11JORN I have cleaned up the whole "Life and career" section (except for the "Early life"). What do you think? Simon (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: Nicely done! I'll start going through and formatting references. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Artistry Voice  Done Simon (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Themes and musical style I'm not a fan of this section, so could anyone please take care of this part? Simon (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I'll clean it up! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: How do you feel about this current layout? I've tried to group it by sound, themes, then that interesting bit about the producers she works with. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Looks definitely better now. Simon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Influences  Doing... Simon (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)  Done Public image I am about to add this new section. Simon (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Legacy Issue: Lots of unreliable source (resolved by User:Petergriffin9901) Overwritten with lots of cliched information. Simon (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Other ventures Philanthropy Issue #1: This section seems unnecessarily large, and could benefit from some trimming. Issue #2: Is the promotional poster needed for this section? As far as I can tell it doesn't add additional extra value to the proset Resolving issue 1. I think that the poster is needed for this section. Simon (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Product and endorsements Overall Resolved WP:URS WikiRedactor Let's talk about sections reordering. For me, the sections should be: 1999-00: C. Aguilera, Mi Reflejo, My Kind of Christmas and early success 2000-03: New management and Stripped (In 2001, Aguilera appeared on "Lady Marmalade", which marked Aguilera's image departure from the "teen pop" star image.) 2004-09: Marriage and Back to Basics 2009-11: Motherhood, Bionic, Burlesque, divorce and The Voice 2012-13: Lotus and continuing with The Voice 2014-present: Eighth studio album @HĐ: Nice work, I've made a couple tiny adjustments in the article that you can change back if you're not a fan of. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC) So let's just do it, follow the above arrangement. Simon (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I am about to add the "Personal life" section. What do you guys think? Simon (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: I think that we should retain the original "Life and career" organization; I think it reads less fragmented than if we were to discuss her earlier career to her current endeavors, and then jump back to things that happened to her in the early 2000s. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Okay then. Simon (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) DeadSend4 Okay, again, really? You are really messing up things that have been already discussed. The order of the article is discussed here, so please, if you want to try it, say a thing first! Simon (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Yes really, cannot none of you see that she departed ways with her management and the entire turmoil, wanting to change image, events leading up to her firing Steve Kurtz was happening well before 2001? Or all you all going to come to a consensus to leave it as is because it's me who is editing it? It's not even in the proper place and none of you care. DeadSend4 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC) I agree with DeadSend4 on this point. There's no clear 'cut-off' here, so we shouldn't have the year 2000 in two sections. Be consistent. The whole year should be in one section, just like the rest of the article (other sections) and most of other biographies. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC) @DeadSend4: Since I moved the new management information back into the 2001 section a couple days ago, I just wanted to chime in here real quick and clarify that it did not occur to me that that had happened in 2000 (although at closer examination I see that the paragraph specifically mentions October 2000). This was not done to target your edits in any way, and I wanted to apologize if I gave you that impression. I have moved that information back into the 2000 section, I hope that you are alright with this current organization. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Comments from participants First discussion As I'm not too familiar with her work/background etc. my main focus will be copy-editing/trimming/ref formatting etc. which I already started. If there's any important info I remove in which you Aguilera veterans feel is necessary, feel free to re-place. I'm more than willing to try and get this to GA. I recently helped out a lot in getting Katy Perry to GA through my review c/e etc so let's give it a go ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I'm happy to help bring this article to GA! For now, I've taken a quick scan through the article and left some initial suggestions, although I plan to come back and get more into editing the article itself. WikiRedactor (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Let's do it! One of my favorite singers of all time. There's a lot to do but, nothing's impossible. Alex talk page! 22:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC) @WikiRedactor: @11JORN: @Petergriffin9901: Omg, thank you guys! I'm sure that we'll bring this article to GA-status in a short period of time! And WikiRedactor, I have responded to your comments above. Simon (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Second discussion Gentlemen, I am more than happy to be the reviewer once the GAN has been submitted. Might do some copyedits beforehand. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC) O.M.G. Such nice! Simon (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC) You're quite welcome :). Just lemme know when the GAN has been submitted and I shall then review. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 17:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Third discussion WikiRedactor I have noted your recent edits on refs formatting. The publishers can be removed because they are repetitive and redundant, and also, "archivedates" do not need "accessdates". Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC) @HĐ: All taken care of, thanks for pointing that out! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Fourth discussion Just wanted to say that I formatted this "Article revamping" section to hopefully keep it tidy as the process moves forward; I haven't touched any of the actual content/discussion, just organized it a little bit! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC) That's alright! Simon (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC) 11JORN and Petergriffin9901 Would you guys want to edit any sections? Simon (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'm just trying to choose one :P. And I'm very busy with school yet. Alex talk page! 01:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Fifth discussion As of now, the article seems to be nearly completed. There are four sections need more work than the others: "Early life and career beginnings", "Legacy", "Philanthropy", and "Product and endorsements". Simon (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated: July 28, 2014

As of today (July 28, 2014), the article is now seems to be in better shape. However, there are still four sections need more work, as reported:

Lead and infobox

•  Done

Career beginnings

•  Not done There are still {{cn}} remained

•  Doing... WikiRedactor (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done WikiRedactor (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

C. Aguilera, Stripped, Back to Basics, Bionic, and Lotus

• All  Done

Influences

•  Done

Voice

•  Done

Music and theme

• @WikiRedactor: How's your work with this section?

• @HĐ: I think the prose is in good shape, I'd still like to take a look at the sources to make sure it supports the information in the article. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done WikiRedactor (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Public image

•  Doing... This may needs more bit trimming

Legacy and philanthropy

•  Not done

To the participants With the current status, I think that we'll get this to GA very soon. WikiRedactor 11JORN And Petergriffin9901, would you mind helping in anymore? Simon (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: I'll take care of the "Early life and career beginnings" section within the next couple of days. Also, I've expanded the introduction to mention some of her more notable songs and chart successes, since I found it odd that the only songs specifically mentioned in earlier revisions were the singles from her debut record. What do you think of the introduction now? WikiRedactor (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: Excellent! Now there are three sections left. I'll take care the "Legacy" section, you can adapt one, and the last one we'll do together! Simon (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: I'll take care of the trimming that you requested for "Public image" and finish that section off, so we can tackle the largest section "Philanthropy" together and wrap this baby up! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: I think I've done. Simon (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: "Legacy" looks great! I'll start working on "Philanthropy" with you shortly and this article will be good to go! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: Have you begun yet? These days I feel quite lazy because the article is so long. Ugh... Simon (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: I'm so sorry, I've been getting so sidetracked by outside things that I haven't been able to do much editing at all these last few days. I'll try to get things going soon. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki campaign

Given this and especially this, I thought I would draw everyone's attention to a supposed off-wiki campaign to "improve" Aguilera's articles. Usually I would dismiss a threat on my talk page like that but since there has been an increase of new editors editing this article today (and most of those edits have been to introduce POV-pushing/unsourced content), I thought I would mention it here. I haven't yet been able to locate the (fan)site from where this is being orchestrated. Acalamari 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank my fellow Aguilera #Fighters in helping improve this once sterling article. If you look at my previous edits, you'll see I was suspicious of one particular person. It's funny how this one person has Mariah Carey's legacy page reaching several paragraphs, but out of no where comes in to remove information (without bothering to find other proper citations) all in their excuse to remove "fan fluff". Since my edits on here cause controversy for some and an entire talk page headline dedicated to me. I'll refrain from editing here, as I've stated before, at least for now. I'm glad others see the mess that was made. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You can say what you want, but your "once sterling" article would never be qualified enough. And your "fellow #Fighters" are messing this article with lots of fan biases. If you want to edit the "sterling" article, you can start a Chrstina Wiki instead. Simon (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I always seem to pay little attention anytime you chime in :) DeadSend4 (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@DeadSend4: As it just so happens, your once "sterling" article was full of ridiculous fluff/unreliable sources/bias NPOV/and just flat out fancruft that would be classified as C-level at best. Another point to note, since your exile (thankfully) we have all worked together in perfect harmony and have really upgraded this article into something soon worthy of GA. I think we can all agree this page (and probably everything else) is far better without you and your unnecessary fucking drama. Good day, and Ps. stop talking smack, at least learn to throw proper shade. Hope not to see you again Dahhling!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• http://www.michigandaily.com/arts/step-salon-christina-aquilera

Simon (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If needed

• http://www.mtv.com/news/1702485/mariah-carey-demi-lovato-camryn-inspiration/
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/voice-tony-lucca-christina-aguilera-387824

Simon (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolute Mess

This articles is honestly an absolute mess and reads like a hate page. Even Lily Ellen and Jessie J page look better than this.I am kind of dissapointed the Christina WikiProject group members for this. The page needs serious revamping and ALOT more neutrality, its not suppose to read like a hate or fanpage. CJBXT720 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@CJBXT720: Please clarify more about the "hate" page. Simon (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@HĐ: this is one of the users from that forum. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

While that might be the case, I don't think that's a reason to ignore CJBXT720; at least they've made an attempt to discuss and have made some useful contributions to Aguilera-related articles, which is preferable to another edit war that gets this page semi-protected. I said to CJBXT720 on my talk page that they should expand upon their concerns. Acalamari 11:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Acalamari. I think people should remember to assume good faith here. There was some kind of off-Wikipedia campaign, but that does not mean that new contributors have some kind of agenda or are acting disruptively because they believe the article is a "mess". In my opinion, CJBXT720 has made a number of useful and neutral edits, from what I've seen, and I'm happy more people are contributing to the article. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do assume good faith edits. But the thing here is to clarify why CJBXT720 think that this article is a "mess". Simon (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article is a mess, I don't agree it reads like a "hate page". It definitely needs better structure. A "Personal life" section would be a good start. As it is, personal life content is mixed in throughout the article, making it difficult to follow. That alone causes it to read more like a fan site than an encyclopedia article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "personal life" is often blended, so to speak, within "life and career" section of bio's (i.e. Madonna, Michael Jackson, Yoko Ono, Britney Spears, and Charlie Chaplin). Sometimes one's high-profile partners are involved in his/her professional career, or perhaps there is so little detail on dating life and such that it could just be included in main bio section. For one or both reasons, one's relationships don't necessarily warrant a separate section. This article does indeed need work, but it's made lots of progress over the last couple of months. See the above discussion on revamping this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

Please change "The couple has one child together, a daughter, born in August 2014." to "The couple have one daughter together, Summer Rain Rutler, born on August 16, 2014." This is more specific than the previous description.

Legendxtina (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Legendxtina :)

 Not done we try to avoid giving over-specific details of Minors. - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Voice of a generation

Never heard of her being referred to as "The voice of a generation" and there's no citation for this assertion. 2601:603:4F81:70C0:603C:4ADA:36FE:3ED1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"With the recognition of her vocal ability and influence in the music industry, she has been referred in media with the titles of "Princess of Pop"[256][327] and "Voice of a Generation".[328][329]" (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this a joke? There are many certifications for this. It was even a title awarded to her. See: Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 06:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a tag to this dubious claim that she's referred to as "Voice of a Generation", as if it's some generally agreed upon fact. Please see WP: Weasel Words. We should rephrase to give attribution ("New York Times referred to her as the Voice of a generation" etc). I reviewed the sources, and one states that she seemed on track to become the voice of her pop generation. The second source said that she won an American Latino Media Arts Award with that title. Nowhere does it state that she's referred to in the media as the voice of a generation. Journalist . talk 17:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to rephrasing to: Referred to by Rolling Stone as one of the greatest singers of all time, the American Latino Media Arts Award described her as "the voice of a generation". Or something similar? Article could really use a copyedit for tone and clarity. Journalist . talk 17:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, she received an award with the same name, but it is ridiculous to say that she is not referred to as "Voice of a Generation" in the media, as there are several sources in the body of the article that attest to the information, and these others: The Irish Times, Health, Entertainment Weekly, The Times of India, Fuse TV, Daily Express, Gay Times, Idolator, ¡Hola!, PR Newswire, US Weekly, as well as non-English language medias: SAPO, Universo Online, El Colombiano, TeleHit. Furthermore, in this Billboard article, it is clearly reported that she was honored with the Music Icon Award by the People's Choice Awards for, among other reasons, being "referred to as the 'voice of our generation'". It looks like a "generally agreed upon fact".

In your first edit, you objected to the title and said that "not everyone considers her a good singer", but in the introduction there is a paragraph focusing on other sources who referred to her as one of the greatest singers of all time, and the greatest in history among the vocalists of Latin origin. I agree that not everyone can thinks she is a good singer, but these lists is from a group of editors/professionals at renowned pop music magazines - which supports the claims throughout the article that she is a singer of remarkable vocal ability, regardless of the reader's opinion. Nyvak (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you are right. the sources that you included do say that she's the voice of a generation. To be honest though, despite the many sources that you listed here, there's only 3 that are used as inline citations in the actual body of the article (2 when I last checked), and the most robust ones (e.g Billboard) were added after I challenged the statement. Anyway, if you all changed it back, I'm fine. I do, however, encourage you to include at least the Billboard or Entertainment Weekly citations in the intro. The lead doesn't need inline citations (usually) when you're making general statements (eg. "she's one of the best-selling" or "most successful" etc.) But I'd argue that for direct quotations and titles and such, inline citations would really help. Thanks! Journalist . talk 14:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit. The matter seeking consensus is the use of TopHit.ru as a source for song release dates. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Other activities edits

This section should include mention of a 2021 Nintendo Switch commercial featuring her children that extended into a further recurring promotion with variation of commercials airing. Sources: • https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a38191227/christina-aguilera-nintendo-switch-interview/ • https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/christina-aguilera-nintendo-mario-kart-1235135083/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:7:84A7:AC32:DAE6:692:5689 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Pa Mis Muchachas (album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pa Mis Muchachas (album) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 1#Pa Mis Muchachas (album) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Christina net worth is $160 million as of 2010 it's about over $300 Million by now plus Wikipedia u guys take long to update stuff Sony recently updated Christina sales to OVER a 100 million records making Christina one of the best selling female singers in the world !!!!!! Christina Aguilera is the voice of HER generation and collecting DISNEY LEGENDDDDD and MUSIC ICONNNNN AWARDS at least get her records and net worth updated and accurate thanks ! 190.83.130.92 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera Updated Records and Net Worth 2022 !!!!!

Christina net worth is $160 million as of 2010 it's about over $300 Million by now plus Wikipedia u guys take long to update stuff Sony recently updated Christina sales to OVER a 100 million records making Christina one of the best selling female singers in the world !!!!!! Christina Aguilera is the voice of HER generation and collecting DISNEY LEGENDDDDD and MUSIC ICONNNNN AWARDS at least get her records and net worth updated and accurate thanks ! 190.83.130.92 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sony Music is not a reliable source to certify her sales. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Change "Aguilera said he was physically and emotionally abusive." to "Aguilera said she was physically and emotionally abusive. 199.231.28.240 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The subject of the sentence is her father. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this considered a residency?

Is Christina Aguilera with the LA Phil considered a residency? Only 2 shows and none of the sources even refer to it as a residency. Seems more wiser to be listed on her List of Christina Aguilera concerts page under Stand-alone concerts, as well as, changing it from a “residency” to a “two show concert” on its page. Any thoughts? Pillowdelight (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. No sources call it a residency.[1] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

Kindly please add a proper more stunning profile pic of CHRISTINA ON HER WIKIPEDIA PROFILE.

and also edit her bio. She is one of the greatest singers of all time. A pop Superstar icon that has made a huge contribution and played a major role in changing the pop revolution. Christina is hilly respected in the industry and she has a lasting life Long legacy in the form of her music, music videos and her humanitarian work.

Richlee Richlee2809 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

Please update Christina Aguilera information: Net Worth as of 2023=$300Million Sales = Over 100M-150M Jordanroopnarine (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Jordanroopnarine Please change her net worth which is now $300M and her sales is 100M-150M thank you! Jordanroopnarine (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Update needed.

The "2002–2003: Stripped" section states, "The album peaked at number two on the Billboard 200 and has sold over 4.3 million copies in the US as of 2014". Sources, and the Wikipedia article Stripped (Christina Aguilera album), agree with the article stated, "According to the RIAA, Stripped sold over 12 million copies worldwide." -- Otr500 (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

External links

Would someone look at the "External links" section for trimming? I have not looked at why this is a "delisted good article" but:

There are five entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four or more. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

It seems that there is an unofficial collaboration between Wikipedia, AllMusic, Discogs, and IMDb to put these sites on as many articles as they can possibly get away with. Gives flashbacks to Find a Grave and the well-intentioned project to list the site on every dearly departed with an article on Wikipedia. While a noble endeavor these "External links" are only supposed to be added when they are "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". The second paragraph of the External links lead states, Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Many times these links are added just because it has become the "norm".

This subject has had so much written about her it could probably fill two large presidential libraries so it seems dubious these sites would have information not overly covered in reliable sources. Adding the sites without consideration of relevance (and article benefit) is just giving them prominence, even if there is a "nofollow" on search engines, Wikipedia is inadvertently, or maybe not, advertising for these companies on a large chunk of Wikipedia articles. Alright, I have aired my grief. On the other side of the coin:

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• Links on a BLP (WP:ELBLP) must be of high quality as they are held to higher standards.

I threw the ELCITE in the bundle, not because it is relevant here, but because so many articles are treating links in the section as references. I don't think five links become a link farm but thousands of articles seem to be a parking garage for sites that can be upward of 30 links in some cases. Over time, without due diligence, they seem to grow---and grow.

On a less popular article I might have just deleted one or more and the result should have been a discussion per WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them., however, having had 5,645 editors, with 1,020 watchers, and 282,973 pageviews in 30 days, this is a VERY popular article, so there is likely a multitude of article "protectors".

If a site is added, just to be added, with no article benefit, it effectively becomes a link to be avoided (#4) and can be considered [[Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming|]].

The above is provided as the result of "External links cleanup". I am sure this will be considered from an article improvement point of view. Consensus may decide (or has decided) whether these links are acceptable in this article. Have a great day, Otr500 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC:Lead Image

Three possible portrait images for Christina Aguilera

• 
  Current image
• 
  Alternative

Hello! Just wondering, what does everyone think about changing Aguilera's lead to this? Assuming it passes all criteria - so far it looks good - I think it is slightly more appealing than the one on the left which shows her in a more slouched position. I think creating a RFC would be helpful in coming towards a consensus. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 06:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Both photos aren't that good. The current image she has sunglasses on, and the alternative her eyes are closed. Aaron106 (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the alternative image is much better. I understand that her eyes are closed in that image, but the sunglasses in the current one cover half her face. Unless someone has a better image, I think changing it to the alternative is the right decision. 204060baby (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

How about using this photo which shows a recent modern look and her full on portrait https://parade.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1200/MTk1NTQxMTIwNzI4NDQxOTA3/gettyimages-1352590772.jpg