Talk:Christina Aguilera/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Studio Albums

Up until a year ago. It was a very certain fact that Stripped was her second studio album, and Back to Basics was her third, Bionic was her fourth and Lotus was her fifth. Her other albums with compilations and or themed album experiments. If you look at all the sources around any of her album/non album releases. They all agree with me. If this is a website based on sourced information and actual FACTS. Can we change it back to the truth. It needs to be changed back to the way it was a year ago. That's the way it was for the first 12 years of her career and I don't see why it needs to change randomly (And untruthfully) now. It's basically lying, which is exactly what this wiki is against. Yeah, she only has four official albums, two Themed albums, One unofficial Album, and one greatest hits. It's a lie to say she has had 7 albums, when two of those albums where only for her fans around the 2000 period of her career. I think this really needs to be fixed. It's essential this wiki remains truthful to her career and the highs and lows she has experienced. I am very invested in how accurate this wiki is for convincing people to like Christina truthfully. I don't see how the other way is true in anyway, especially considering all the evidence towards the contrary. If it has to stay they're should be certain thing explaining WHY she got three albums out between her self titled debut and Stripped and how and why all her other albums have taken 2-4 years to come out. I know, I know, her fans run her wiki, or her team, but I do think her team should be a lot more honest and genuinely true to her story.

We already talked about this, many times. Spanish and Christmas albums are studio albums. "Themed" albums aren't a thing. Period. And it's been this way since before Bionic came out, it wasn't changed in the past year.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I swear they used to be considered "Compliations" why the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.107.215 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Never. Status 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

Halfway through the third paragraph is a sentence that starts The ladder two . . . Ladder should be changed latter. A ladder is a structure consisting of several bars or steps between two upright lengths of wood or aluminum. Latter means being situated near to the end of something. In this case the end of a song list. Thanks, Simmonssg (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done and thank you for catching this. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Vh1's 100 Greatest Women In Music

Christina #8

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-02-13/vh1s-100-greatest-women-in-music-complete-list/

--189.172.164.225 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have proposed a WikiProject with the goal to improve the quality of articles related to Christina Aguilera; it can be found here. Feedback (support, opposition, comments, etc.) are appreciated; hopefully, we can promote articles to GA status. Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

icu term3 124.192.80.129 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Latina Magazine: The 50 Best Latino Singers of All Time!

Christina Aguilera #1

http://m.latina.com/entertainment/music/best-latin-singers-pop-stars-all-time --189.172.29.7 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Occupation

Christina Aguilera isn't actress. She is just singer-songwriter and record producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.28.29 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Xtina has launched!

Hi everyone, WikiProject Christina Aguilera has just been launched! It's a lot of work getting the project started, so anyone willing to help get it going is welcome and their help is greatly appreciated. And don't forget to join! Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Time Magazine: The world's most influential people

TIME presents its annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world, from artists and leaders to pioneers, titans and icons:

"Without a doubt, she’s one of the most talented artists the world has ever seen and heard, and I think she’s going to continue to amaze us for many, many years to come." Céline Dion, a five-time Grammy Award–winning singer, has sold more than 220 million albums worldwide. http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/christina-aguilera/

--189.172.6.62 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Profile Picture

can use pictures of her most recent even?, she looks beautiful

http://xtina-web.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=3718

--189.172.3.120 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity and figuration are poetic devices.

Some writers sometimes use poetic devices so professionally. The first line of the second paragraph: "Displeased with her lack of "INPUT", Aguilera parted ways with her management and assumed creative control for her fourth album "STRIPPED" (2002);" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.119.157.58 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Weight loss

Her weight gain a couple years ago garnered a lot of criticism, enough to add a mention of it in the article. Since she's lost a considerable amount of weight recently, should there be a (brief) mention of this in the article? I don't want it to read like a tabloid, but a little update might help to, in a way, transition the periods of her career. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dominguez source is unreliable, should no longer be used

I made a number of proposed revisions to this article, including the removal of a few citations, one fact that had no other citations, and a reference to a book in the bibliography. My reasoning for this is as follows.

The work in question is Christina Aguilera: A Star Is Made: The Unauthorized Biography by Pier Dominguez. While Dominguez appears now to be a doctoral student pursuing serious academic work, I am concerned about the reliability of this particular source (which was published when the author was 19 years old, before the bulk of his academic career had begun). For one thing, parts of its contents read like a fan publication (consider, for example, the following: "The fact that [Madonna] approached Christina instead of Britney for a contribution to her [The Next Best Thing] soundtrack says something about whom she really respects."). Works such as these are generally not considered reliable unless the specific cited material was itself from another reliable publication, such as a newspaper. A close examination of the bibliography to this work reveals that, while some sources cited are indeed reliable, a number of them are gossip media, Internet chatrooms, other unauthorized biographies (such as this particularly confidence-inspiring one) and the like. A newspaper review points out some of the work's factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Perhaps most concerning is that personal emails from Shelly Kearns, Aguilera's mother, are frequently cited as sources. However, The New York Times points out that Kearns dismissed the work; if this page, published earlier the same year, was NYT's source, then, even more troublingly, it appears the author did not even attempt to contact Kearns, despite repeatedly citing correspondence with her ("No, I've never heard of these people ... A true journalist who supposedly 'researched' something so well, you'd assume, would have tried to contact us at least once to ask questions..."). Additionally, it is perhaps worth noting that his only previous publication at this point had been released by Writer's Club Press, an author mill with no editorial oversight. This work is published by Colossus Books, which is owned by Amber Communications Group, Inc., which also allows authors to self-publish work for a fee via its Quality Press imprint ("a special service-book packaging imprint for authors who wanted to self-publish their books instead of waiting to gain an interest from mainstream publishers").

In light of these troubling facts and Wikipedia's policy on unreliable biographical information about living people ("Contentious material about living persons ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."), particularly the policy on self-published material ("Never use self-published sources ... unless written or published by the subject"), I have suggested appropriate deletions. 98.155.5.150 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have a good case to remove highly controversial statements that rely on this source, but the one you were attempting to remove doesn't seem all questionable: According to author Pier Dominguez, Aguilera stated that it was Carey and her debut single, "Vision of Love", who had the biggest influence on her vocal style. At least, it didn't seem questionable enough to toss out immediately before having a discussion. This is a published source merely reporting something that Aguilera said. It is not making an assumption or giving an opinion. I've reverted it for now, but if the consensus here is to throw it out, then feel free to do so. You may want to consider taking it up at the WP:RSN if you feel the source shouldn't be used in any capacity on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the link to WP:RSN; I am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. And yes, you're right, the statement in this article linked to this source is not highly problematic. I did make similar notes on articles for Aguilera's early work in which large sections of the Background were cited from this source. I suppose these would not be "controversial" either, but at least in those cases it would pose more of a problem if the bulk of an entire section of an article were false/invalid. 98.155.5.150 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Legacy Section

Artists like Britney Spears, Beyoncé, P!nk, Lady Gaga and Rihanna having a legacy section why don't Christina? always was deleted --189.172.48.32 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this section in the article is new, it still has its problems, however great job to everyone who actually contributed to this. I do notice a few things, primarily the flow of the article. There's some mention of her music videos in one paragraph, then another about her winning VMA Awards. The first paragraph goes into her commercial success, then the second paragraph has an article that notates her commercial success. All of these sources and facts should be lumped together so we're not reading about the Dirrty music video then her music videos are mentioned again in the following one. Second, the article does a good job of pointing out her influence on pop culture and music, but I also think there should be a mention to her contributions to fashion and the gay community. I would also suggest adding a sub section many popular entertainers have: In popular culture. Considering she's been mentioned in the past decade in countless songs, TV shows and parodied, covered, praised, etc. This should be added as further acknowledging Aguilera's influence in popular culture. Lastly, the image of her Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (in her 2010-2011 section) would be better placed here, I will hold off on this until we get a new image of Aguilera for the main article and shuffle the pictures around. It makes more sense placing it here. Since this was added just a few months ago, I don't see an urgent things and this article will continue to expand. By then, hopefully it would be sorted out better and not have subjects "jump around" the article. DeadSend4 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A new photo, for god's sake

Well, as I have noticed, many artists have recent photos of good quality, while Aguilera has an old photo, in which the show totally different than now. I really think that for better understanding of the article, or even the singer, would need a good new image to make the article more updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.10.254.24 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If a recent and free image with good quality is uploaded, we may change the current image, otherwise it is not possible. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

More contributions (legacy section

--189.172.25.7 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the Nicki Minaj link, doesn't really notate that she is influenced by her and she lists herself as number one. Link to Amsterdam wax figure does not work, cannot add. Included Marc Jacobs and the display of her Burlesque costume. DeadSend4 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

songs

During her interview with ryan secret she also confirmed song SING FOR ME.

Ridiculous layout

Having everything lumped into one huge "Life and Career" section is silly. Her career should be solely laid out in a "Career" section while everything having to do with her personal life should be put into a "Personal Life" section? (duh). I'm not gonna change it because I simply do not have enough interest in her to do so, nor do I wish to put in all that work only to have it reverted by some fanboy editor, who feels only regularly contributing fans editors should determine the layout.

I only came by this page in passing, to have a quick look at something about her personal life - which I didn't find because I can't be bothered hunting through the entire article to find it. I'm sure this will affect other passing readers as well which in turn affects the effectiveness of WP. This is why we have these sub-sections. To organize info and make it easier to find. - thewolfchild 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC) This

Mosts artists articles have their personal life mixed in with their career, I don't see why this should be any different. I actually find it easy to locate the personal events in the article since they all seem to be seperated in a single paragraph. I do remember the article having a personal life/public image section but from what I remember, this current layout is the standard. DeadSend4 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Um... sorry, but this is not "the standard". While some bio's now have everything lumped together, many do not. You advised on your talk page that you were "told it had to be this way". - By who? - thewolfchild 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to go back 2+ years to find out who told me this. DeadSend4 (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sooo..., other than an unconfirmed "somebody told me 2 years ago", and a handful of articles that have made this change, this is not really standard, is it? And it is certainly not policy (at least that I can find). So you and the rest of this little gang of article-messer-uppers don't really have a leg to stand on. This wholesale dumping of personal info across and entire "life & career" sections is a pain in the ass and it needs to stop.
If you or anyone else has an opinion on this, feel free to comment here. - thewolfchild 18:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how you go about life in general if this is "a pain in the ass", do you not see the mentions on the article headlines such as "marriage" or "motherhood"? Also, I'm not in a "gang of article messer-uppers" or whatever that is. Look at my history and then come back to me to see how much I've "messed up" this article. DeadSend4 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"Life in general ", huh? Well, for example, when I get dressed, to get a shirt - I go to the drawer that has my shirts, to get pants - I go to the drawer that has my pants. Like everybody else. You on the other hand... I suppose you have your entire wardrobe in one huge pile on the floor, and you like to go sifting through the entire pile just to find what you want to wear. In my cutlery drawer, my fork, knives and spoons are divided in the drawer. Do your meals go cold while you are digging thru a huge pile of utensils to find something to eat them with? Do you see my point yet? All around us, in our 'lives in general', we keep things organized with dividers and sections. (Otherwise, good luck finding someone in the phone book.) It makes "life in general" easier. It's no different here on WP (except for a handful of bio's that have been changed, in good faith I'm sure, by editors like-minded to yourself). And, relax... I said "you and", not "you are in". - thewolfchild 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I stopped reading after the first sentence, so I have nothing else to say (or waste anymore time here) other than: read the headers. If not then you'll have to learn to live with the layout as it is, like everyone else. It's not going to change. DeadSend4 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"I stopped reading after the first sentence..." - Right, sure you did.
"It's not going to change." - We'll see... - thewolfchild 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life

This article needs it's Personal Life section back. Please see discussion here - thewolfchild 01:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

The current photo on the page is 3 years old and we already have a complaint above. There is a newer photo available, File:Christina Aguilera 2, 2012.jpg, that looks good enough. Anyone agree? Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page. If it is cropped as a headshot, I might agree. Other than that, I think 2 years difference is not a reason to change the image. Nymf (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'll crop it further when I get home and get back on my PC. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Cropped versions exist: File:Christina Aguilera 2012 (Headshot).jpg and File:Christina Aguilera 2012 (Cropped).jpg. wctaiwan (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Great. The IP or anyone else hasn't come here yet to fiercely object anything, so I'll add it (along with a notice). Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The IP has proposed two photos to use on my talk page. I oppose the use of them, anyone else in opposition? Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked as sockpuppet. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Not to be a pain and all, but I'm not sure if I'm feeling this newer picture. Granted, it's a better headshot than the last one, but she doesn't even really look like herself in the new photo. I'd suggest going into Commons and looking for a picture from the late 2000s, as I would imagine the way she looked around that time is how she is most recognizable. Thoughts? WikiRedactor (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I found some photos that may be of interest from Flickr: [1] [2] My personal preference is the last one, which is licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed the last photo is best. I'll upload that one and add it. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That looks like "Flickr washing" to me. The credits are "Charley Gallay/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images", whereas the owner of the Flickr account is "YayA Lee" - someone who runs a Chinese fan site. Nymf (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
So the person has used a Getty Images request to get the image, then sneakily switched it to a CC license? Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Something like that. Happens all the time. Either way, we cannot use it. I have speedied it at Commons. Nymf (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about this, I'll be more vigilant in future. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to change the picture at least let it be from this year and not a cropped version of one we already have. Let's just leave it as is until we actually find I picture that would work. It seems desperate at this point to recycle a picture only because she "needs" a new one. I agree that she does but how about we wait until someone contributes a new one. DeadSend4 (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning her weight

For someone whose career has been so highly impacted by her appearance, I'm surprised that there is no mention of Christina's weight gain and loss. We talk about her public images from all different eras of her career, yet we don't get more specific than her "appearance" when discussing her weight in recent years. And since there has been considerable criticism regarding that fact, I think there needs to be at least a brief mention of the gain and loss in their respective sections in the article. I'd go ahead and do it myself, but since I've been met with a little bit of opposition when I did before, I'd like to see where other editors stand on this matter. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think every female's weight is scrutinised, and while she does receive criticism, I don't think it should be mentioned. Melonkelon (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed split / Trimming

In its current form, this article is far too long to comfortably navigate. Being almost 180k (yikes!), the article has to be split. My first thought was to follow the GA form that the Britney Spears article has, and separate Xtina's filmography into a new Christina Aguilers filmography. Still, the page would be quite large, but it's a start. Thoughts? WikiRedactor (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The filmography section is way too small for a separate article. The problem seems a little bit irremovable. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't need split, it needs edited. There's enough crap like "Aguilera was rumored to have dated MTV VJ Carson Daly" and "Aguilera later dyed her hair cherry blonde" to remove that the article could easily shrink by 40%.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
How is the "too long to comfortably navigate"? Is this some kind of first wold problem I'm not aware of? Do you not consider the header titles a general idea of what the article and paragraphs contain? This is a little bizzare to me considering artists who have been in the business for half of Aguilera's career have if not the same amount of information/length as this one. Why is this article suddenly too long? If we are going to "trim" the article as you say, I would like a detailed explanation per change. As to why this part of the article needs to be shortened and why it isn't needed. I have to know why it is essential to remove sections of the articles that have been there for YEARS and why now they need to be removed. I'd also want an example as to how "easier" and "more comfortable" you feel nagivating through the few paragraphs compared to how the article was previously. Explain to me why this is uncomfortable to you because I really don't see how it is and why this is even a discussion. How is it that your previous edits are an attempt to shorten the article but no clear reason is given. Until then I will continue to revert the changes since it makes no sense to do so, yet the only notes in the edits says "trimming". Be specific and explain why the article needs to be shortened and why you find it so hard and difficult to navagate through a page other Wiki readers wouldn't consider this "uncomfortanble too navigate". She may not be a world leader, famous author but she's a worldwide popstar. I don't see how this is any difference than any other pop artist. Do not test me. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That's uncomfortably close to declaring an intent to edit war, DeadSend4. You haven't quite done so, but you are extremely close. Removing trivia from an article is a normal part of editing, and declaring that you will resist all edits to trim unnecessary material isn't constructive.—Kww(talk) 05:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We've already got one complaint below. Readers are actually interested in stuff like who dates who and what hair colour she has, however dire that may seem to you and me. Consider the target audience of this article. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate repeating myself but it seems like I have to on here for some unexplained reason. Unless I get some kind of detailed reason why these edits are being made I'm going to revert it. I make my edits and try to be precise as to why I'm removing or adding information. Why should this be any different and why am I having to repeat myself? DeadSend4 (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure the headers are fine, but you tell me how easy it is to sift through all the clutter and get to the main information. Tell me why the average reader cares about Max's circumcision, her piercings, and her rumored romances. (And the nickname Xtina was not removed.) We need to clean out the junk and hone in on the valuable details of her career. You do not own this article, yet you continue to revert edits that have the potential of improving the article. Through your edits and comments, you continue to show a hostile attitude that is completely unneccesary, that is clearly not appreciated by other editors. WikiRedactor (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with anything that is not directly related to Christina herself being removed (i.e. circumcision of her son). Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 11:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The main point, DeadSend4, is that no one owes you in particular an explanation. You are not special. You do not have any particularly different role in respect to this article than any other editor. If other people trim material, they do not have to sit around and figure out an explanation that will make the mighty DeadSend4 happy. Removal of trivial material is a normal part of the editing process, and you should not reflexively revert such edits.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems like none of you can't read. Yes, an explanation is needed as to why the article needs to be trimmed. Since when is making large edits with no notes whatsoever acceptable. You also don't need be telling me I'm mighty and own this page, save that stupid rhetoric for yourself. I'm here talking about the article not how much "power" you think I'm displaying. For starters the header reads "new image" it is essential to put in info as to how her image change, this was a major part of her career. You seem to be the only person who has such a "difficult" time reading through this article. How did you make it through school and text books!? Since I need to repeat myself to you people, I will say it again. Do NOT test me. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Watch your tone, we don't need your attitude. You have three editors that are actually trying to improve the article, while you refuse to allow for any kinds of changes that would actually benefit the page. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Simply, the article is too long. The article, if I've been counting correctly at Special:LongPages is the 821st longest on Wikipedia and the fifth longest page about a pop musician. Other stuff exists; compare the content to Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey. Most of the content on them two pages is clear and consise, not about circumcisions or piercings. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC

As evident in the discussion above, some editors disagree if/how to address the size of this article. At 180k, it has been suggested that the article be trimmed to remove unnecessary/trivial content, while another recommendation was to leave the article as-is. Clearly, we haven't been able to get anywhere so far, so I would appreciate input from outside editors on if/what to do about the article's size. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll get what tone I'm giving you. How am I refusing? Have you not seen the last 3 edits done by me where I have removed parts of the articles that has been mentioned here? Or are you just too eager to harp on me not knowing what is going on? What part of my last sentences in the talk page regarding this matter do you guys not understand? Or are you just going to bypass it and continue to tell me how you view me? I was harped on before for not putting notes when making major edits yet somehow because I'm asking for them, they aren't needed all of a sudden? DeadSend4 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a detailed explanation to the exact parts of the articles that need to be trimmed and why. So far we spent the last day harping on me and letting me know what you guys think of me. Nothing else other than "remove the circumcision part" or "this article is listed at x number for the longest article", but not what I asked for. I've done some edits as request from you people but my request aren't made and I'm viewed as demanding? My only conclusion to this is that none of you can read. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not open this RfC to continue the argument, because we're obviously not getting anywhere. The most effective way of getting this addressed is to get some input from editors less involved in our conflict. And as of the first posting, you had only trimmed one piece, so don't try to turn this on me.WikiRedactor (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Should I provide you a link to the last edits I just made? I don't mind doing so but it's a easy as clicking the "history" button. We are not going anywhere because of you. You started this trimming project and now you're dealing with me. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your trimming edits, and they are appreciated, I'm just saying that you had not made two of them when the first RfC posting was made. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't appreciate not getting any reasons from you. So you want other editors to make a point you can't even tell me other than "this article is uncomfortable to navigate" "remove the circumcision part" "it's too long". How is it I'm the one compromising, who cares if the edits were just made, you have yet to give me reasons. Do I have to go back and copy and paste what I asked of you? Anyone find it bizarre that I have repeated myself many times and yet it's being ingnores? DeadSend4 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting...DeadSend4 (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What the hell happens to the article?

What the hell happens to the article? The "Back to Basics" has peaked? The article is a mess. I believe that an artist with over 10 years of career would be natural contain an extensive article that takes the reader to delve more about the career of the singer he is researching. Example: Stripped and Back to Basics has many important things unsaid, but who edited the article only cared to say about the performance of musical disks in the table and their relationships. Many people who want to know about gossip and relationships go directly to the artist gossip sites (like PerezHilton). I believe career Aguilera is missing in the article, but the editors are concerned with the size of the article, and not their own quality. The majority of the wikipedia article on Portuguese was translated this wikipedia, but contains a much higher quality than is seen here. We will improve this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.110.142.87 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's because of this ridiculous new "Life and Career" super-section, that mindlessly lumps everything about the person into chronological paragraphs. Corners get cut and some info gets neglected. Before, when there was simply a "Career" section, just the career info was focused on and more detailed and thoroughly laid out. There is a discussion on this issue here. - thewolfchild 00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Aguilera/Archive_8&oldid=1075755370"