Jump to content

Talk:Katy Perry/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Voice type

Voice Type: Mezzo? Sung Range: D3-B♭5 Total Range: D3-C♯7

Significant high notes: C♯7 ("I Kissed A Girl" live) F6 ("Last Friday Night" video) B♭5 ("Hummingbird Heartbeat") A5 ("Whip My Hair" live) G♯5 ("Last Friday Night" video) G5 ("Long Shot") F♯5 ("Last Friday Night") F5 ("E.T.", "Firework", "Teenage Dream") E5 ("I Kissed A Girl", "The One That Got Away") E♭5 ("E.T.", "Firework", "Hummingbird Heartbeat", "Last Friday Night", "Not Like The Movies") D5 ("California Gurls", "I Kissed A Girl", "Long Shot", "Part Of Me", "Teenage Dream", "Who Am I Living For?", "Wide Awake") C♯5 ("E.T.", "Hummingbird Heartbeat", "Last Friday Night", "Not Like The Movies", "The One That Got Away",) C5 ("California Gurls", "E.T.", "Firework", "I Kissed A Girl", "I'm Still Breathing", "Long Shot", "Not Like The Movies", "Part Of Me", "Who Am I Living For?", "Wide Awake")

Significant low notes: B3 ("Who Am I Living For?", "The One That Got Away") B♭3 ("Last Friday Night", "Not Like The Movies", "Teenage Dream") A3 ("I Kissed A Girl", "Who Am I Living For?") G♯3 ("Firework", "Last Friday Night", "Not Like The Movies") G3 ("I'm Still Breathing", "Not Like The Movies", "Who Am I Living For?") F3 ("I'm Still Breathing", "Not Like The Movies") D3 ("Damn")

77.44.232.141 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Record sales

where is it ??? you deleted it from this page why ??? she sold 11 million albums and 75 million singles please pay attention 77.44.232.141 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

According to what source? —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

C.Fred

77.44.232.141 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC) OK PLEASE give me your opinion on this subject Katy Perry's sales she sold 75 million singles ABC news said it Forbes said it Billboard said it EMI her record label too selling more than 74 million digital tracks and mobile products, and well over 10 million albums. http://www.emimusic.com/news/2012/emi-music-and-panasonic-partner-for-katy-perrys-first-3d-music-video/


and that not the first time you change things and I said one time you have to put her ranks in forbes katy perry maid 44$ million 2010 - 2011 forbes : magazine http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eegi45lfkk/14-katy-perry-44-million/ katy perry made 45$ million 2011 - 2012 forbes : magazine http://www.forbes.com/profile/katy-perry/

please just I am Ahuge fan of her and I just wanna know if you will change this mini lines

77.44.232.141 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

US sales

http://www.emimusic.com/blog/2012/katy-perry-is-billboard-woman-of-the-year/

as of 2012 she has sold 48 million tracks in the US according to EMI Katy's record label I posted the link thanks 77.44.232.141 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Would any other editors care to chime in? I know as a rule we tend to be skeptical of what a label says about its artists, due to the conflict of interest and desire to make them look better, but I'd like to hear some other voices. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 album

she also collaborated with DI-Dilpo and Adam leviene 

http://perezhilton.com/2013-06-07-adam-levine-katy-perry-recording-session-possible-collaboration#.UbY60uel7Ec

77.44.232.141 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

forbes

katy perry maid 44$ million 2010 - 2011 forbes : magazine http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eegi45lfkk/14-katy-perry-44-million/

katy perry made 45$ million 2011 - 2012 forbes : magazine http://www.forbes.com/profile/katy-perry/ 77.44.232.141 (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

wiki help me

I am waiting for the change I told u about plzzz it is important for us Katy Cats Come on plz


77.44.232.141 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

KATY PERRY forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2011/12/14/the-top-earning-women-in-music-lady-gaga-taylor-swift-katy-parry-alicia-keys/

2011 #3


and

http://www.forbes.com/profile/katy-perry/

  1. 8 in 2012


77.44.232.141 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

why you ignoring me ??

katy perry maid 44$ million 2010 - 2011 forbes : magazine http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eegi45lfkk/14-katy-perry-44-million/


katy perry made 45$ million 2011 - 2012 forbes #12 : magazine http://www.forbes.com/profile/katy-perry/


Katy perry mafe 39$ million 2012-2013 forbes #13 : magazine http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mfl45efglk/katy-perry-6/


77.44.232.141 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The image again

I would like to revert the Katy Perry picture to the one of her at her premiere as it is more significant to her life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.171.232 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, that's not an important criteria when choosing the infobox image: File:Katy_Perry_UNICEF_2012.jpg is a newer image of Katy Perry is closer to her face than File:Katy_Perry_5,_2012.jpg is; it's common for people to complain about an image "not being recent enough", and in this case we were using a relatively recent image before it was changed. Besides, how is one image "more significant" than the other? Acalamari 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
An image that has significance to a point in her life would best be placed in that section of the article. The image in the infobox should have as good a view of the subject's face as possible and be representative of the subject. The most recent image may not necessarily be the most representative (think young Elvis vs. old Elvis). —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Update Image

Ms. Hudson's profile picture here could use an update. Here are some photos I would recommend. They are from yesterday's premiere of Smurfs 2:

Option A: http://photos-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/18397_500554396687969_69555558_n.jpg

Option B: http://photos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/992938_500570166686392_1556054105_n.jpg

Option C: http://photos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/534191_500568586686550_260872451_n.jpg

Which seems the most suitable? 174.236.35.141 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

KATY'S NEW ALBUM NAME

Johnny Wujek, her stylist has confirmed her new album is called "PRISM" and is to be released Tuesday October 22nd, 2013!!! http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/GR4CdrDh-F9l.jpg http://www.hypable.com/2013/07/29/katy-perry-new-album-2013-release-date/ DewK357 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

At long last we have answers! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Is her stylist really a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Although her stylist is not a reliable source, she did announce the album on her twitter, as well as various credible media outlets are reporting on the story.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitol records honoring katy perry

http://fotpforums.com/index.php?/topic/58569-capitol-music-honoring-katy-for-her-71-million-singles-and-10-million-albums/


selling 71 million singles and 10 million albums

77.44.232.141 (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

I'd like to update Katy Perry's photo, she has a more recent one on her website. [1] Joeycriscione (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. The image we currently have is under a free licence and that is always preferred to Non-Free. If you can find a freely licenced current image, then it can be considered for including in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if gay activist is right word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.132.166 (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

roar

I think someone should write about Roar being #2. 2.31.120.83 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates and commas

I've noticed that XXSNUGGUMSXX continues to change date formats and remove commas separating names despite edit summaries from others informing them that their edits are against established conventions. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is the relevant page for the dates in headers, but as for the commas, in grammar, "The album's lead single "Roar" is set to be released on August 12, 2013.", should have commas separating "Roar" from the rest of the sentence; names are separated this way in the rest of the article, on other articles and on other websites. I don't understand the focus on "Roar" and "Killer Queen". Acalamari 08:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And constantly adding unneeded things to the subheadings. Arre 11:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless I misread that dates article, there is nothing against having a section with something such as 1938—1943: *insert text describing era*, especially since there is 1999—2006 in this article. I was keeping consistent with the "1999—2006" format. Also, listing something such as "1753—57" comes across as ambiguous, as the "57" in that instance could be from any century. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
From WP:YEAR: A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986). For clarity, years with fewer than four digits may be written in full (355–372). Acalamari 10:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Image needs update

The profile picture needs an update, but the ones I use keep getting reverted. How am I supposed to update it without going against the "Unacceptable uses" policies? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2013‎ (UTC)

The short answer? Go to a public appearance by her and take a picture of her yourself.
The image in the infobox must be a free image. This rules out essentially all screenshots of music videos, pictures from her website, scans from magazines, and any image attributed to "Getty" or "AP". It also rules out about 99% of the images you find of her online—that's why the rule of thumb is, if you found it somewhere else on the Internet, don't upload it to Wikipedia.
The only way to be sure the image is free is if the photographer has clearly licensed it under Creative Commons or GFDL licenses or has placed it in the public domain. (Uploading it to a website is not the same thing as placing it in the public domain!) Some photographers do that, but if you find an image like that, you must provide the link to where you found it. If you have taken the image yourself, then you can license it yourself.
The other option is to wait for her to play a concert at a US military base. Images taken by federal employees in the course of their work are in the public domain. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That's quite limiting, but thank you for answering. It's really frustrating when my updates get reverted. Can I upload a friend's pic if he/she is perfectly fine with others using it? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I should note that there's no obligation to constantly update the infobox picture. File:Katy Perry UNICEF 2012.jpg is dated to November 2012, which isn't that long ago at all. In addition, any new image would have to have a clear view of Katy Perry's face, as the current one does; a new picture with something obstructing her face (such as a microphone) or a side view with only half her face shown would be a drop in quality from the current image. Acalamari 21:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It's been nearly a year, and is coming close to the point where it could be counted as "old". It probably should minimally be updated once a year. If nobody can find a new pic before November 2013, I'll have to go looking again for a new one. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, there is no obligation to replace the image every year; "old" is a subjective view, not policy. I could see the need to update if Katy Perry adopts a permanent new look (such as maintaining short hair) or has obvious aging, but until then, the current image is fine. If a new, better one comes along then I think that'll be great, but the image doesn't have to be replaced for the sake of it. Acalamari 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Aside from having a clear view of the face and image resolution, what criteria would make certain photos better than others? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is there always such a fuss about having an updated image for this particular article's infobox? The current one is fine. It was taken less than a year ago — Arre 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Saying there is "always" fuss about it is an exaggeration. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)



SON TODOS UNOS PUTOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.81.43 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 album title

Lately, word has been going around that Katy's upcoming album is called "Hold Back" or "Back to werk". Has anybody found a credible source yet to verify its title? Thesomeone987 (talk)

I found this was true! check it out here! http://www.contactmusic.com/news/katy-perry-starts-work-on-new-album-for-summer-2013_3373249 She and Miley Cyrus are going to do the album together. --Elmille3 (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of Katy collaborating with Miley in that article. The album's name was already revealed to be Prism this past July, anyway. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally believe so, not sure why that status was removed. @Acalamari:, @Kww:, any input? Also, how does one nominate/renominate articles for GA?? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The nominations page is at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and anyone may nominate, not just administrators; however, the more relevant page to visit first is Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The article is fairly decent but might still need a little more work before trying for a Good Article nomination. XXSNUGGUMSXX, you might want to consider dropping a note on Kww's talk page and any other user you think might be able to help out; for some reason I did not receive any notification despite your use of the "ping" template and it's possible that he might not have received one, either. Acalamari 21:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, I just pinged you and Kww because you are both admins who know quite well how such criteria works. What I'm not sure of is this: What work could the article need before nomination? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that but in reality I'm probably not the best person to ask when it comes to GAs. Kww is a good person to ask, definitely, but besides him I'm not sure who else would be worth asking; many of my GA-familiar friends are no longer editing or involved with GAs. :(
What I can say, however, is that this article seems to be stable now; there haven't been any edit wars over the image lately, which is a relief. There aren't any clean-up tags cluttering the page and the article is fairly broad in its coverage, although there might still be some trivia and original research to cut out; you've done quite a lot of work in doing that. I'll think some more about this one. Acalamari 11:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy to help :) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

KATY PERRY UPDATE

I loved the as pf November she has sold ..............ect and I think her Roar single sold almost 5 mil units which makes her overall certificated units 56,2 mils and she will fit in the best selling artists on 70 million section right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.232.141 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Just a quick note to mention that "philanthropist" really isn't an appropriate term to use in reference to Ms. Perry. While one or two of her causes may meet the Wikipedia criteria for such a title, it's more appropriate to refer to her donations as 'charitable giving' or some other term. The standard being applied here could apply to essentially anyone that has ever given a dollar to any charitable organization.

The use of the term strikes me as the work of a fan that wants to cast her in the most generous light possible. Katy Perry is clearly a generous person and gives to various causes... But while laudable, that should not earn her the descriptor "philanthropist".

It's overkill by any reasonable measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.123.207 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be oversimplifying the standard used for the "philanthropist" description. She is listed as a philanthropist not for one or two donations or "charitable givings", but for a series of such acts. However, she certainly isn't as active in philanthropy as, say..... Bill Gates. While philanthropy is seen as an act of generosity, there are some philanthropists who don't at all come across as generous. While Katy is well-liked (though has faced controversy/attacks at times), not all philanthropists are likeable or cast in "generous lights". For example, while Vincent Astor did set up a foundation and made donations, he was quite greedy with money when it came to family- he absolutely refused to give his sister or half-brother even a cent of the fortune that he inherited from their father colonel John Jacob Astor IV. He also was a very disliked man who was notoriously impatient, irritable, arrogant, and rigid. Louis Auchincloss, a friend of Vincent's widow Brooke who was convinced she only married him for his money, once said about Vincent "Only a twisted person would have married him for love." Overall, I do see where you're coming from, and felt I should explain why she is listed as such. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Public Image edit or addon?

I've overlooked some other contemporary musicians that have a more 'sorted' article about the 'Public Image' article. The current one is a bit 'dumped' in a way, it doesn't sort out her musical background, ACTUAL public image, etc. So I made a previous edit before of sorting it out, but was reverted. So I was wondering, would this be alright to add or consider ANY parts of the edited version to be added to the current public image article?? Thank You! GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is my version that was reverted: [2]

Much of that edit had trivial/excessive info as well as some biased/unencyclopediac statements. That's why it got reverted. For example, describing someone/something as "eccentric" or "irregular" comes across as an opinion/personal interpretation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

KATY PERRY UPDATE # 2

I think you should improve the main article like include the

Forbes ranked the 3rd earning 44$M http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2011/12/14/the-top-earning-women-in-music-lady-gaga-taylor-swift-katy-parry-alicia-keys/

and The Spotlight Award the only artist beside MJ http://perezhilton.com/2012-05-20-katy-perry-spotlight-award-winner

and her Special Achievement Award http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amas-american-music-awards-winners-katy-perry-264203

and the star on WALK OF FAME http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/matthew-mcconaughey-tupac-katy-perry-573431

and instead of saying she is the 3rd best selling according to RIAA why not according to BILLBOARD she has sold \49,897,000 million digital units which make her the 1st in US singles sales http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5657799/ask-billboard-whos-sold-more-katy-perry-or-lady-gaga


77.44.232.141 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

To get this article to GA, it would be ideal for an editor who doesn't frequently edit it to do a review and highlight its problems; however, there are still things that we can do in the meantime. GregJackP mentioned to me about some of the sources needing improvement; I've seen two that I think need replacing:

  1. http://katyhudson.ca/facts.shtml
  2. http://ethnicelebs.com/katy-perry

The first appears to be a fansite, which isn't reliable; I don't doubt the good intentions of the site's owner but it's not a suitable source for Wikipedia. As for the second, I'm pretty sure I've seen links to ethnicelebs.com be removed because of site's unreliability and original research; unless I'm much mistaken, it appears to be hosted by WordPress, which would make it a blog. Acalamari 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If needed, I could request sources used on the first link from the site owner and use those. From personal conversations with the owner, I can say the owner did extensive research (though probably could use a bibliography section). As for EthniCelebs, it sometimes contains poor references but certainly isn't a site based off of original research.
If you could do that to address the first source link, that would be excellent; again, I don't doubt her (or your words about her, fot that matter) but were this article to come to a GA nomination or a peer review in its current form, that link would have to be replaced. As for ethnicelebs.com, it's reliability is questionable and if remains it will hurt this article's chances. :/ It will need to be replaced. Acalamari 23:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done should be good now :) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Order of genres

I feel like the order should be in order of most to least relevant rather than in alphabetical order, listing Christian first (even though it's first alphabetically) almost makes it seem as though that's her primary genre although her music now is far from it.

I'd personally list it as: Pop, rock, electronic, dance, Christian. That seems to be a logical order to me in terms of how much of her current material fits each genre. What are anyone else's thoughts on this? Samjohnzon (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Trivial but understandable. Another possible arrangement would be from earliest to most recent (which would be Christian, pop, rock, dance, electronic). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have an official policy regarding the order of genres? Assuming there is no official policy, I agree that it makes sense to list her primary genre first, which should be pop.
However, I would not say that "her music is nos far from it [Christian]". Her most recent album, "Prism", does include Christian influence, especially in her song "By the Grace of God". Even her previous album, "Teenage Dream", did contain a Christian-influenced song, "Who Am I Living For". So, even today, Christian is a genre that should be listed for her and needs to be mentioned, but should probably not be the first one listed.

68.193.17.157 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there's any policy about it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Musical Styles and Themes

This section says "Her fourth album, Prism, prominently features Swedish dance music.". Later, it says "Prism is predominately influenced by Swedish pop music, with Perry citing ABBA and The Cardigans in particular as influences." While Swedish dance / pop music is clearly a major influence for that album, it is not the album's only or even primary focus. The article for Prism itself says "Much of Prism revolves around the themes of living in the present, relationships, and self-empowerment. Several songs on Prism also include elements of Contemporary Christian music." That should be added to the section. I'm not authorized to edit this article, so I can't edit it. Can somebody add it? Thanks. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done it isn't exactly prominent in the album. I've corrected that part in the album. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say that? The album clearly has more than just Swedish dance music. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it certainly isn't all Swedish dance. However, Christian theme is only really incorporated in "By the Grace of God" and "Unconditionally". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
What about themes of living in the prsent, relationships, and self-empowerment? shouldn't those be included? I still argue that Contemporary Christian should be mentioned, since there are other songs that could be interpreted as having a religious meaning ("Legendary Lovers", "Spiritual"). Even if those don't count, I still say a theme that is in 2 songs (including the second single) is notable. How many songs would you say are Swedish dance songs anyway? 68.193.17.157 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
In that case.....  Done. Also, the Swedish-influenced songs would be the ones that Max Martin co-wrote (though not "Roar") XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Kanye West (from E.T.), Snoop Dogg (from California Gurls), and John Mayer (from Who You Love) should all be added. Along with others that I am probably forgetting. TBWarrior720 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of them meet the criteria for associated acts, as defined at Template:Infobox musical artist, for they're all one-time collaborations. Acalamari 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

the following should be entered into the personal infobox:

82.18.177.13 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox type

With respect to your answering of the recent edit request, XXSNUGGMSXX, the changing of the infobox type is a major edit that I don't really support, at least not at this time anyway. Despite her other occupations, Katy Perry is primarily a musical artist and that aspect of her whole career does take precedence over everything else; she isn't yet (to me) like Jennifer Lopez, whose acting and singing careers are on equal par and justify the use of Template:Infobox person. Template:Infobox musical artist still seems like the most appropriate template to use on this article and the fields about her education, spouse and relatives seem excessive.

Still, I'm open to change. I would appreciate it if other editors would give their input on this one. To begin with, I'll ping C.Fred, given his past work on this article; and JennKR, who provided some excellent suggestions in the section above this one (thanks!). Acalamari 09:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Beyoncé Knowles is primarily known for her music, yet she has the "Infobox: Person" template (and is also where I got the coding and such from for this). What seems excessive about adding those fields, though? With the "person" template, it allows the inclusion of her brother and uncle, too (which have their own established notabilities). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I definitely don't think her parents or relatives are notable enough for the infobox. I think it's fine to keep the spouse section as her relationship with Russell was very notable to her life/career, but none of her relatives are particularly well-known enough to be included in my opinion (and it stretches the infobox too much). I'm not sure why singer and songwriter was changed to recording artist as well, especially as Perry is a songwriter in her own right too - having written for Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, Selena Gomez etc. I think her occupation as a songwriter is more important than her occupation as a philanthropist or businesswoman for example, so it should be included. Samjohnzon (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
There is way too many fields that are impertinent to her. As I said in my peer review, the lead (which I see as including the infobox) should summarise her career—the "Other names", "Education", "Parents" and "Relatives" fields present excessive detail and do not have a bearing on her as a recording artist. I'm torn: there is a danger by keeping the Infobox person that unnecessary fields may begin to crop up, however her marriage to Russell Brand (his middle name should be deleted) could be deemed significant enough to have the field. Considering this as a whole, is it worth adapting a whole new infobox for the access of one field, especially when that information is considerably less notable as they are now divorced? In response to your comment about Beyoncé, note that her marriage has been a huge part of her public persona for some time, and also that her wealth is significant for her breadth of other ventures. The Beyoncé article features lengthy sections about all of this. —JennKR | ☎ 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the excess fields, as suggested here. I haven't touched the infobox type itself, as there isn't yet any consensus to change that yet; however, I do favor the use of Infobox musical artist, as that one seems more specific to her. To XXSNUGGUMSXX, for you and I to get this article to GA, it would be best if we carry out the recommendations that JennKR makes; I've seen her work elsewhere and I hold her in high regard. I only wish I had asked for her help here! Acalamari 18:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If any relatives, I would personally suggest including her brother and uncle since they have articles of their own. I used "Recording artist" to combine "singer" and "songwriter" per Beyoncé article (which is GA). I'd suggest Infobox person because it can include spouses, children, parents, siblings, and other relatives. It also can include networth (which I've been trying to find). What would be wrong with including her ex-husband's middle name, though? The marriage certainly brought him more fame (I knew of Katy herself since "I Kissed A Girl" became a hit, but personally had never even heard of him until after the two had married). The marriage affected her life but not really her career. Sam, I'd be surprised if you took out (or supported taking out) "philanthropist" given how much you added to her philanthropy section (including being appointed as UNICEF ambassador). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

People's Choice, TV Awards (tonight on CBS)

Headline: "Katy Perry, Sandra Bullock, 'Glee' poised for People's Choice Awards"

Has a nice picture of Katy Perry; pictures in our Article here are not as nice. — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry was nominated but didn't win. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, she won two out of her five nominations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

KATY PERRY UPDATE # 3

most followed person on twitter you should mention it on the main article

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5778180/katy-perry-tops-justin-bieber-for-most-twitter-followers


77.44.232.141 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done..... just yet..... Unsure if regarded as trivial or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

the girl has 50 mils followers so 77.44.232.141 (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of how she has millions of Twitter followers, but like Facebook fans I'm unsure if Wikipedia regards that as trivia or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Divorce from Russell Brand?

Apparently the divorce was finalised in 2012 according to sources, however in her infobox it says 2011. Was it 2011 or 2012?


Miss.Indecisive (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

December 30, 2011 is when they ended. Some sources mention a "finalization" occurring in July 2012, but most sources (including Katy and Russell themselves along with both of their fanbases) describe December 30, 2011 as the end of the marriage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk)
Divorce or the dissolution of marriage is a legal concept. When you separate you are still legally married until, in the case of the United States, a judge (or similar authority) dissolves your marriage. If sources say that there marriage was dissolved in July 2012, then that is the date that should be inserted into the infobox, the date they separated is irrelevant unless you explicitly state that is when they separated. —JennKR | ☎ 02:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The vast majority of sources state their marriage ended in divorce on December 30, 2011. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No, they separated on December 30, 2011, their marriage does not legally end until it has been dissolved—something which neither Perry or Brand have control over. There is a clear distinction between separation and marriage. —JennKR | ☎ 02:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Separation is not the same, but they both have stated that they divorced December 30, 2011, as have most reports when talking about how they ended. Some say they had been essentially over long before that, but the two were first revealed to be apart about one week before that day. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I see the evidence of a judge (or similar authority) dissolving their marriage on that date? —JennKR | ☎ 08:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The closest I have would Russell stating on that date "Katy and I are ending our marriage". Their finances and such are said to have been settled in February 2012, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)



I agree with XXNUGGUMSXX :) I think they split in 2011 but officially ended their marriage in 2012. I don't think their marriage legally ended so rapidly- there are several court processes and financial issues that need to be settled before the divorce is finalised. Hence, it would be viable to keep it as "2010-2012". However, if JennKR can find a number of sources that state otherwise, I am more than happy to concede :) Miss.Indecisive (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've confused who is supporting what, XXSNUGGUMSXX believes the infobox should read 2010—2011, I believe it should read 2010—2012. —JennKR | ☎ 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say 2010–2011 for the following reasons:
  1. The two have not even spoken since December 30, 2011
  2. They have both emphasized that things ended between themselves on said date
  3. Couples don't really see their marriages as continuing past the day they separate, unless perhaps they legally separate without divorcing one another
  4. Society as a whole tends to be much more concerned when couples go their separate ways than when things become "finalized"
  5. The sincerity of the "irreconcilable differences" has been questioned/complained about in the past when an editor once gave an edit summary with something along the lines of "Infidelity is a reason for divorce, being an asshole is not a reason for divorce" and made the point that the two ended altogether in December 2011.
  6. The flaw with saying their marriage ended in July 2012 is that July would be seven, not six, months after December 2011..... so if anything, wouldn't the finalization have been June 2012?
  7. Once a couple has filed for divorced, their families, friends, and society regard their marriage as officially over right then and there
  8. If either of them dated other people between December 2011 and July 2012, it would not be seen as cheating (this also applies to couples in general) Russell is known to have dated multiple other women during that time frame without cheating on Katy while she remained single until August 2012, though whether or not he cheated on her between September 2009 and December 2011 is disputed.
XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to say anything other than the State of California dissolved their marriage on 16 July 2012, hence they are divorced. I feel I've repeated this point to you a number of times on this talk page and you're either genuinely confused about what divorce is or just ignoring what I'm saying. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of facts. —JennKR | ☎ 18:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What confuses me is:
  1. Why it would be declared over in July rather than June? July is seven months after December and not six.
  2. If a couple states their marriage ended on a certain date, why not go with that?
XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The six month waiting period is the minimum time a couple must wait for their marriage to be dissolved in California. For example, Kim Kardashian's marriage to Kris Humphries was dissolved just under 2 years after her filing for divorce. To answer your second point, marriage and divorce are formal concepts that have actual definitions and time periods. This is different from separation which couples can determine. Brand separates from Perry in December 2011, the State of California dissolves their marriage in July 2012, hence they're divorced. Neither, you, I or anyone for that matter, in that jurisdiction, can determine when you are divorced. To see a working example of this on Wikipedia, see Courtney Cox (previously Courtney Cox Arquette) who separated from David Arquette in June 2012, and were divorced in May 2013, thus the infobox lists her as married (1999—2013). —JennKR | ☎ 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you brought up the Kardashians, Kim is notorious for her "72-day-marriage", so the idea of it ending two years rather than several months after filing is surprising. As for "minimum time period", I'm just not sure why it wouldn't have been declared over June 30 rather than July 16. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Kardashian/Humphries went through a lot of litigation, after separating after the 72 days, Humphries avoided being served with divorce papers and was awkward about finalizing a settlement. The extra 16 days is circumstantially normal—in fact Brand/Perry did well to divorce so quickly. When I say your marriage is dissolved after 6 months, that means Brand/Perry or their legal representatives must appear before the legal authority, and so backlogs may be common. Think of the 6 months as a limitation period, rather than a qualification period—as in after 6 months you aren't automatically divorced, it is from that point onwards where you are permitted to divorce. Obviously you're allowed to litigate in the 6 month period between you filing for divorce and being divorced—to sort out finances, children, etc. —JennKR | ☎ 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello, I noticed there has been some discussion as to making this article GA and I thought I'd offer some pointers that could be ironed out before nomination. From a glance, it's looking pretty good so far! —JennKR | ☎ 05:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead
  • "...businesswoman, philanthropist, and actress"—I would delete all of these and have Katy Perry's listed occupation as a recording artist solely. She is not notable for her business ventures (which seem to not go beyond perfume), the inclusion of "philanthropist" among celebrities is considered non-neutral and redundant nowadays as they almost all give to charity and she hasn't acted much beyond some voice roles and TV appearances.
    •  Not done- to quote a previous section, "You seem to be oversimplifying the standard used for the 'philanthropist' description. She is listed as a philanthropist not for one or two donations or 'charitable givings', but for a series of such acts. However, she certainly isn't as active in philanthropy as, say..... Bill Gates. While philanthropy is seen as an act of generosity, there are some philanthropists who don't at all come across as generous. While Katy is well-liked (though has faced controversy/attacks at times), not all philanthropists are likeable or cast in 'generous lights'. For example, while Vincent Astor did set up a foundation and made donations, he was quite greedy with money when it came to family- he absolutely refused to give his sister or half-brother even a cent of the fortune that he inherited from their father colonel John Jacob Astor IV. He also was a very disliked man who was notoriously impatient, irritable, arrogant, and rigid. Louis Auchincloss, a friend of Vincent's widow Brooke who was convinced she only married him for his money, once said about Vincent 'Only a twisted person would have married him for love'. Overall, I do see where you're coming from, and felt I should explain why she is listed as such.", and actually the amount of celebs who donate isn't as exactly high as you make it out to be. Her business also extends into being the spokesperson for Popchips. She also will likely have more acting roles in the future in addition to Smurfs 3.
      • I'm going to apply the idiom baking a cake does not make you a baker, and what I mean by that is that celebrities (often singers) will often have the chance to tread many paths: acting, theatre work, philanthropy, modelling, film-directing, producing, writing, fashion design, enterprise, A&R, etc., however Wikipedia is only interested in what that person is most notable for. Perry has given, and generously, but the fact she is liked is not rationale to be called a philanthropist, in fact, it's not for anyone. I think her business and acting ventures are seriously lacking to be given these titles, I expect she will in the future, but now it's not significant enough. When considering if it is notable, you have to ask questions like, how significant is the size of her businesses? How much profit has she made? How extensive is it—domestic? International? When concerned with her film career, how many films has she been in? Has she won awards or been nominated for such? How much coverage has she received for her acting skill? There is a tendency to add too much here on popular artist bios, but Katy Perry, for now, is most known solely for music. —JennKR | ☎ 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I suppose business could be taken out of lead. However, given her numerous philanthropic actions (which is why I included it in the description to begin with), I'm going to say keep it- especially given her alliance with UNICEF. It had nothing to do with whether or not she is well-liked, though. There are widely disliked philanthropists (i.e. Vincent Astor), too. That phrase could definitely be applied to her modeling- she's been featured in photoshoots for several magazines, but hasn't made modeling part of her career. She has so far been in 3 films: Smurfs, her autobiographical movie Katy Perry: Part of Me, and Smurfs 2. As for other acting, she received lots of comments for her SNL appearances, particularly the night she hosted it (and was featured in a number of the episode's skits). There should be enough sources available to expand that if need be.
          • What I'm trying to say is it shouldn't come to the point where you look for sources to prove a point. If they do it, and they are notable for it then it should be a non-controversial addition and a wealth of sources providing critical comment on these aspects of Perry's life. The WP:FIRSTSENTENCE is an important part of any article, and considering other editors have expressed similar feelings about the "job titles" (see below), I believe that this should be changed.
  • I noticed that the lead follows an album/month/year format (e.g. "Katy Hudson, in February 2001", "Prism, in October 2013") this is not standard formatting across Wikipedia and I think it preferred if album's were listed as Katy Hudson (2001), Prism (2013), for example. The month isn't really adding anything of value.
    •  Done
  • She attracted media attention with the November 2007 online release of "Ur So Gay"—Why?
    • Because it was the beginning of her breakthrough
      • No, why did that song attract so much media attention? —JennKR | ☎ 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Probably because of Madonna saying in March/April 2008 it was the "most played song" on her iPod
          • Not what I'm getting at, what I'm saying is there a reason why the song did so well? Was it provocative? Was it the production? To me this seems like the beginning of songs with shock value, followed up by "I Kissed A Girl", it might be important to mention this. —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
            • removed
  • Again, "Michael Jackson's August 1987 album Bad" > "Michael Jackson's Bad (1987)
    •  Done
  • The lead is very focused on albums and singles, consider talking about the music, themes and circumstances of the albums. There is lots to say about the provocations of One of the Boys, the post-divorce context when Teenage Dream got re-issued and also how much more personal Prism is. When I say this, I don't mean pad it out to extremities but some mention of it goes a long way.
    • Not that much available yet for Prism, but One Of The Boys shouldn't be a problem.
      • I'm taking this as a work in progress? —JennKR | ☎ 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes
          • I don't believe this has been done, in fact, I think you've misread what I've wrote. Steer clear from information about albums and singles, move towards discussing the actual music. Is it pop? Is it R&B? Is it a fusion of genres? Was One of the Boys significant for its sexual lyrics? Is Prism's darker themes because of her divorce? At the moment the lead reads X album was released in X and X single got to X on this chart—I'm not saying get rid of this completely, just remove some of it for a discussion of her work. —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
            • My mistake. Much of it is addressed in the "Musical style and themes" section. How does it look now?
              • Still too focused on singles. What I would do is remove the mention of the tours as she's about to embark on her third and it's got the point where there are more interesting things to discuss (and tours often come along with albums, which are already mentioned). I would remove mention of quite a lot of the singles, except for the ones from Teenage Dream which are significant for the record they hold. But you need to think of the lead as a sum of the articles parts, it needs to be focused on music, but it needs to dip into every section a bit more. Yes, singles should be mentioned, but each single mentioned in the lead probably has 1/2 sentences in the body, and that doesn't add up. Also, it would be preferable if the lead was 3 paragraphs long, as opposed to 4.—JennKR | ☎ 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of Infobox fields that aren't really adding anything. Remember per the guidelines from the infobox page: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject." Based on this, I'd definitely remove other names, education and parents.
    • Question: Do you mean the removal of "Katy Hudson" from infobox?
      • I mean the removal of the "Other names", "Education" and "Parents" fields. I'd also add in "Relatives". Have her whole career in your mind when you write a lead (and this includes the infobox)—these aren't notable details that should be included here. JennKR | ☎ 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
      •  Done (Talk page consensus to r/mv) —JennKR | ☎ 19:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Does Katy Perry play piano on tour or make her own music with the instrument? I think this needs to have pertinence to her career.

I hope you don't mind, but I've intertwined our comments as standard in GA/FA reviews, this makes responding to each other much easier, and also my ability to strike off what is done and not done. —JennKR | ☎ 16:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Life and career
Early life
  • Ref #10 (getreligion.org) is broken
  • Perry's father is called "Maurice Kevin Hudson", but later referred to as "Kevin"—is this intentional, if so, explain it.
    • His full name is Maurice Keith* Hudson, but is listed as "Keith" because he goes by that name.
      • Make this clear in the article, i.e. find a source.
        •  Done- included a link to Keith Hudson Ministries
  • "Growing up I wasn't really allowed to listen to a whole lot of what my mom would call, secular music," > Convert this intro prose, something like "She grew up listening to gospel music, as she was forbidden by her mother to listen to "secular music"."
    •  Done
  • "Perry initially started singing "because [she] was at that point in [her] childhood where [she] was copycatting [her] sister and everything she [would do]." > This is an awkward sentence, I'd convert it into straightforward prose.
    •  Done
  • There is a quote in Ref #15 (toonage)—the response to "PP: Didnt your E.P. Ur So Gay shock your family?"—which I personally think, paraphrased, would go great in this section in expanding on her religiously conservative background.
    • Her background (as well as religion in general) isn't quite as conservative as some people make it out to be.
      • The interview is Katy Perry's words, you don't have to say it is religious or conservative or both, you can just quote it or closely paraphrase it. This is my inference I have drew from the article, if you think this is wrong, I think you might want to do more research around her background to counteract this reading. —JennKR | ☎ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Katy Hudson and The Matrix
  • The first sentence of this section needs sourcing.
  • There are sentences in the second paragraph that need sourcing, such as the last one and the middle one about her not knowing which artists to work with (is this from the Part of Me-doc?)
  • First few sentences of the third paragraph need sourcing, where are all the stuff about her labels coming from?
    • Will search for sources
  • Ref #21 (allmusic.com) intends to link to the Biography page, but it links to the Overview page. Change the URL.
    •  Done
  • "While the album was shelved,[21] she caught the attention of the music press."—Why, you say she receives media attention at X point in her life/career but never explain it.
    • Sentence adjusted
  • "Her burgeoning music career led to her being named "The Next Big Thing" in October 2004 by Blender magazine"—Blender should be linked and in italics, this is also unsourced.
    •  Done- sourced now
  • "While waiting to find another label, she worked in an independent A&R company called Taxi Music. In early 2006, she was featured in the end of the video to P.O.D.'s single "Goodbye for Now"—Both of these sentences need sourcing.
    •  Done
  • "...which won the 2005 Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song.[20]"—Ref #20 is really not a good source and difficult to discern, I don't think "books.com.tw" meets the criteria as a reliable source. Find something else.
    •  Done
Breakthrough with One of the Boys
  • The entire first paragraph is unsourced, is it part of Ref #27? If so, put it at the end of the paragraph.
    •  Done
  • You link the bible belt in a quote in para 3 of this section, per WP:LINKSTYLE you should not use links within quotes.
    •  Done
  • "The single was a commercial success, peaking at number one for seven weeks on the Billboard Hot 100." Source??
    • removed due to lack of source
  • There's quite a lot of unsourced sentences in the last 2 paragraphs of this section that need references. I think you need to take a good look over the article and tighten things up in terms of in-line citations.
  • "was later released via the team's label "Let's Hear It" during her solo tour..."—remove the quotation marks around "Let's Hear It".
    •  Done
  • When you mention her cameo in Get into the Greek and her kissing Brand, mention the fact it was her then or future boyfriend/husband of the time.
    •  Done
  • "In 2009, she was featured on two singles: in August, a remix..."—This sentence is clumsy and needs to be restructured, I'd split it into two if needed.
    • Is this satisfactory? It was a tough one to reword. Acalamari 14:25, 9 January 2014‎
      • I just split it into two sentences for simplicity sake.
Teenage Dream
  • Sentence on replacing Minogue on The X Factor' is unsourced.
  • Can you find a different source for her first week sales, sohh.com looks questionable.
    • removed questionable source
  • "The album has since sold over two million copies in the United States, being certified Platinum by the RIAA."—Source??
    • remove due to lack of source
  • "and she tied with Michael Jackson's record." > "tying Michael Jackson's record"
    •  Done
  • "friend Rihanna"—seems journalistic, delete "friend".
    • The two are quite good friends in real life, but.....  Done
  • Artist of the Year should not be in italics, and neither should MTV in the citation.
  • Billboard should be italicised (second to last sentence).
    •  Done
  • This section was far better titled simply Teenage Dream.
    • it now says just that
Prism
  • Paraphrase the quote from L'Uomo Vogue, just say the album's titled Prism because of x and y.
    •  Done
  • In the John Mayer ref, Rolling Stone is typed RollingStone.
    • fixed
  • "Like its predecessor, it received many negative reviews from critics."—Link to the Rotten Tomatoes page for The Smurfs 2.
    •  Done
  • Mention that John Mayer is her boyfriend (if this changes, use "then-boyfriend")
    •  Done
  • "in a special performance under the Brooklyn Bridge"—Why was it special? Expand/clarify this or delete "special".
    • removed
  • Spend some time talking of the music of Prism, this section is a little focused on singles. What does it sound like? What was the critical reception?
  • Similarly, the MTV ref (#82) lists the publisher Viacom, yet the rest of the article chooses not to list any publishers (this is fine, but just remove Viacom).
    •  Done
  • USA Today ref (#90) should be italicized (i.e. USA Today)
    •  Done
  • Billboard ref (#95) should be italicized (i.e. Billboard)
    •  Done
      • Now this ref (and several others) read "Billboard (Billboard)", this should just be Billboard.
Public image
  • I'm confused as to whether the Rolling Stone source in this section (first sentence) is meant to be funny or its a genuine error (click it). Also italicize Rolling Stone in the ref.
    • fixed URL
  • "...by American film actress Dominique Swain's portrayal in the 1997 film Lolita."—All of this is great but it needs sourcing.
  • Ref #109, Telegraph > The Telegraph
    •  Done
  • I think it's evident that Perry's religious beliefs have changed, I posit that you include some of the material from the Marie Claire interview that some editors suggested on the talk page to be done. However, if you believe this point is made by the Toronto Star adequately then perhaps don't. What are some other people's thoughts? Samjohnzon?
    • If they have changed, then it isn't as drastic as some people make it out to be. As recently as October 2013, she reaffirmed that she has maintained her Pentecostal faith, and repeatedly disproved rumors about giving up religion or "selling her soul to the devil" prior to that. The Marie Claire article is misleading on that since it is quite unlikely one would so quickly change his/her mind within two months on something like that (probably was misquoted and/or misinterpreted). Toronto Star is sufficient by itself- it has quotes which sound more like her general way of speaking and word choice (subject not withstanding).
  • "Perry is a gay activist" > "Perry is a LGBT rights activist"
    •  Done
  • "She confirmed that she voted no on Prop 8 (California's November 4, 2008, amendment that would legally define marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman)" > "In 2008, she voted no to Proposition 8, an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman in the State of California." (or words that effect)
    •  Done

*Ref #115 has a few problems, it needs an access date and Billboard needs italicizing.

*Ref #118 could do with replacing, The Hollywood Report isn't a good source.

    • Replaced

*Last sentence of that section needs sourcing.

    • Removed due to lack of source
Musical style and influences
  • Her first album is within the gospel... > Perry's first album is within the gospel...
  • Actually, this entire first paragraph would be a lot better integrated into the relevant sections of the article.
  • She also described Morissette's album Jagged Little Pill as... > She also described Morissette's 1995 album Jagged Little Pill...
    • I made this change, but I also noticed that Jagged Little Pill is mentioned in the "1999–2006: Katy Hudson and The Matrix" sub-section. Would it be prudent to change this instance to specify "1995 album" as well, or would it be better it specify it for the first mention and leave it out for the one in "Musical style and influences"? Acalamari 09:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "She is artistically involved in her projects, especially in the writing process"—is this adding anything? I get what you're saying, she actually writes her music which is becoming frequently less-common for pop artists, but perhaps say this in a different way and with a source. Otherwise, I'd get rid.
  • "Her mother, Mary, once reportedly told tabloid Daily Mail that she disliked her daughter's music, calling it "shameful and disgusting".—Is this significant in the sense it was particular controversial, as in, you think readers would come to the page to seek clarification? Otherwise, I'd get rid, tabloid rumours aren't useful in Wikipedia.
  • Perry has written songs recorded by other singers—all but one of the songs subsequently mentioned need sourcing.
    • Now sourced
Philanthropy
  • The references in this section need to be looked over as they are lacking a lot. Make sure all have access dates, authors where possible and italicized publications (Billboard not Billboard).
    • How is it now?
Personal life
  • Perry previously dated...rapper Travie McCoy—source?
    • now sourced
  • The concepts of filing for divorce (which generally entails separation) and being divorced in this section are confused. I've decided to correct it myself. Although I have explained the difference between this, feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you seek further clarification.
    • The vast majority of sources (including Katy and Russell themselves) indicate that their marriage ended in late December 2011, and disregard anything that happened between them afterwards (except maybe arranging finances and such) as trivial.
      • Although I feel like I'm repeating myself, here goes. Divorce is a legal concept and it refers to the dissolution of marriage by an authority. Separation can be a legal concept, but here it is an informal concept, that refers to when two people end a relationship. In December 2011, Brand separated from Perry and filed for divorce. In July 2012, after a six month waiting period that is required by the State of California, their marriage was dissolved and they were divorced. Although Brand and Perry can choose freely when to separate and to file for divorce, they, and no one other than a legal authority, can not decide when they are divorced. It doesn't matter whether Brand or Perry, publications, newspapers or their fan bases consider them to be divorced in 2011, the State of California's six-month waiting period means that their marriage was dissolved in July 2012. Thus, every day from 30 December 2011 to 16 July 2012, Perry and Brand stay legally married, but informally separated. I'd like to add, I don't appreciate my edits being reverted without notice—you must disregard your personal views on the issue, it's not a matter of opinion. —JennKR | ☎ 01:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It was only because the public tends to find "finalizations" insignificant compared to when couples split. This wasn't based on my personal views/opinion(s), though. Some reports indicate courts ended it February 2012 due to all arrangements being settled then despite the marriage was declared over December 2011. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
        •  Done (by reviewer) —JennKR | ☎ 12:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Awards and nominations
  • This could do with expanding, and this should be done before the article is nominated for GA status.
    • may as well remove it since it hardly has any content to begin with
Media check
  • checkY All images OK
  • ☒N Part of Me (sound sample)—this lacks pertinence to the article and should be removed. Sound samples should represent some sort of critical commentary or discussion in the article. —JennKR | ☎ 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    •  Done

Katy Perry is no longer a Christian

The categories of the article should be changed in order to reflect this. --186.182.145.234 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources:

  • Christine Thomasos (2013-12-27). "Katy Perry Talks Not Being Christian Or Believing In Heaven Or Hell". The Christian Post.
  • Zachary Stieber (2013-12-31). "Katy Perry 'Not Christian' Anymore, She Says". The Epoch Times.
  • Gina Meeks (2013-12-30). "Katy Perry Rejects Christianity, Heaven and Hell, but Believes in 'a Higher Power'". Charisma News.
 Not done given her Jesus tattoo, she probably wouldn't just leave the faith and was likely misquoted and/or simply meant she doesn't live by the label of religion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So she admits on three different sources that she is not a Christian, and you keep her a Christian because of her tattoo? Not only is that original research, that is just dumb in a general sense. TBWarrior720 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly..... it all came from one source where she quite likely was misquoted and/or misinterpreted, given her general actions and persona. If she was literally "not Christian", she most definitely wouldn't have done anything for this past Christmas. Also, please don't call things "dumb". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well a lot of people still celebrate Christmas despite not being Christian or even religious, just as a tradition. Still, I think it's fine to leave those categories unless she explicitly states in a future interview that she no longer identifies as Christian, because if so it'd be unfair to categorise her as something she doesn't identify as. If that happens we can be absolutely sure she wasn't just misinterpreted in that one interview, but until then it's probably best to leave it just in case. Samjohnzon (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I would wait as well until we have her explicit word that she is no longer Pentecostal or any other branch of Christianity. Since she had repeatedly emphasized in the past (the most recent being October 2013) how the rumors of her giving up religion or "selling her soul to the devil" were false, I seriously doubt she would change her mind so suddenly. We should have a video clip—not just a written report—of her saying she is not religious if in fact she is not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and added it to the article. This is a very explicit statement ("I’m not Christian") given in an interview, and widely reported in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be too soon to add that since it is not verified that she meant that literally. As mentioned, it was likely her being misquoted and/or misinterpreted given her general actions, persona, Jesus tattoo, and repeated disprovals of giving up religion or "selling her soul to the devil". I'm not questioning the reliability of sources that seem to feel she isn't one, but their basis comes from something that was likely misleading. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "not official"? And what do you mean by "too soon"? What sort of official confirmation would satisfy you? What sort of time frame would it be appropriate to wait? Is there any indication in the interview that she did not mean her statement to be taken literally? Obviously, the 2013 interview contradicts the 2010 Rolling Stone interview, but clearly that can be attributed to a development of ideas/beliefs. StAnselm (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
By "not literally", I meant she could simply be saying she doesn't live by religion as a label. Seeing to it that the most recent time she reaffirmed her Pentecostalism was in October 2013 (which also had a video of her giving oral responses), it's very unlikely she would change her mind so quickly. It would be better to have a video/audio clip of her saying it rather than written report since such clips are less easy to misconstrue or distort. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be able to give me a link to the October 2013 video? StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It is included in the "Public Image" section and is from W magazine. The video doesn't contain much transition from question to question, which is why the link also has her responses in text along with the questions. Unlike the Marie Claire issue, the link from W provides full non-speculatory context of things she says, so Marie Claire could quite easily have taken things out of context. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
In the W interview Katy says that she believes in God but she doesn't mention being Christian or Pentecostal, and you can absolutely believe in God and be a spiritual person without being Christian. If indeed that is the case (we probably should wait until/if she mentions not being Christian in at least one more reliable source) then the Christian/Pentecostal categories should be removed because otherwise it would fall under WP:OR. If she says that she's not Christian again, it's wrong to list her as such based solely on the fact that she still believes in a God, as believing in a God or higher power doesn't necessarily mean that you are a Christian. Katy frequently says that her religious views regularly change so it's possible that she has retreated from the Pentecostal views she was raised under as a child and no longer identifies with them, but still believes in a God. Samjohnzon (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
She doesn't mention Pentecostalism or Christianity by name, though likely implied them. After mentioning that her Katy Hudson album was based on God and religion, she is asked whether she still follows the faith she grew up with and responds that she still tries to maintain a connection to it. I'm not sure what else it would be. Whether she ever converts to another sect of Christianity is another story. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Well the question is simply "are you religious?" which could be interpreted as simply being spiritual or still belonging to the Christian faith; it doesn't necessarily mean she identifies as Christian. Regardless, I agree it's best to wait until she specifies in a future interview that she no longer identifies as Christian (if that ever happens, that is) before changing anything. Samjohnzon (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
True..... though yes we should wait. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not been able to read the W interview as the website keeps on crashing my browser. But I would think it's very significant that it doesn't mention the word "Christian". Obviously, a persona can believe in God and be spiritual without identifying themselves as a Christian - just as they can celebrate Christmas or have a Jesus tattoo without identifying themselves as Christian. There is a serious BLP issue here - we are going against Perry's latest self-identification. And the "public image" section has become massively undue weight - including the Eckhart Tolle bit from the Marie Claire interview, but excluding what everyone has considered the most important thing - that Perry says she is not a Christian. Remember, this has nothing to do with people think she acts like a Christian or has Christian beliefs - this is about how she identifies herself. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
While one does not have to be Christian to believe in God, it's still unlikely she would change her mind after repeatedly disproving rumors about giving up religion, so the accuracy of Marie Claire issue is questioned. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not for us to say whether or not someone is likely to change their minds on religion - is there any other, objective reason for doubting the source? StAnselm (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Marie Claire and InStyle and other magazines of the sort aren't always that accurate compared to things like Vanity Fair, Vogue, Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan, and MTV. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we've reached an impasse here. An RfC is probably the way to go. StAnselm (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
RfC = ? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No need for an RfC. One must take her statement at face value. The brand of Christianity in which she was raised values self-profession of faith as the only determining factor as to actual faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not everything can be taken at "face value", though- some statements are not made literally. In this case, it's unlikely she would literally mean she has given up the faith since she and her family repeatedly disproved rumors in the past about her abandoning it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and posted the RfC (see below). Walter Görlitz, feel free to participate. StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

main article

you should mention this

Katy Perry, hit a major milestone today, now counting more than 50 million followers on Twitter in total.

she is the 1st

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/5893809/katy-perry-hits-50-million-twitter-followers

77.44.232.141 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Whether she still identifies herself as a Christian

YES
I've reviewed this discussion in response to a request at WP:AN/RFC. Consensus is clear the Marie Claire source is reliable so the statement should be included. NE Ent 00:17, 2 February 2014 (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.

Should the article include a statement that Perry no longer identifies as a Christian, per this interview with Marie Claire, in which she says "I'm not Buddhist, I'm not Hindu, I'm not Christian, but I still feel like I have a deep connection with God"? 07:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how much my input counts, but I'm going to say the article is misleading for the following reasons:
  • Since she repeatedly disproved rumors in the past about giving up the Pentecostalism she was raised under, why would she stop so suddenly?
  • The general accuracy level of magazines like Marie Claire and InStyle is higher than that of things like People Magazine, Us Weekly, InTouch, or Daily Mail, but is still questionable..... especially when compared to things like Vogue, Cosmopolitan, GQ, and Vanity Fair
I don't think you should point "accuracy" here, as it is an interview. They obviously wrote what she said to them. They wouldn't make up stuff. prism △ 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
By "accuracy", I was referring to reliability. Magazines such as this one that advertise that they're providing interviews are at times misleading/misconstrued. I also doubt the sincerity of this issue of the magazine since much of its quotes didn't sound like her general way of speaking or word choice (subject not withstanding). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • She likely would not have her Jesus tattoo anymore if she was no longer Christian
  • Religious elements are said to have been incorporated in her October 2013 album Prism (notably in "By the Grace of God")
If anybody else has reasons not to believe she has given up Pentecostalism (or Christianity itself), feel free to add to my list. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That she hasn't rushed out to have a tattoo erased isn't very strong evidence. Did the lyrics of "By the Grace of God" specifically mention the belief that Jesus Christ was either the son of God or an aspect of God? That's pretty much the defining characteristic of Christianity. Even if it did, that's evidence of a Christian song, not a Christian performer. I've been known to sing "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" despite my atheism, simply because I appreciate the meaning behind the metaphor.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
"By the Grace of God" isn't evidence of her Christianity, it basically just supports the belief that she frequently expresses (that she believes in a "God" or "higher power") but it doesn't contain any reference to Christianity. Samjohnzon (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, that statement should be included somewhere in the article, though not writing anything definite. I mean, add the quote, just don't say "Perry is no longer a Christian". prism △ 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems like the best thing to do to me, rather than paraphrasing it or interpreting it ourselves it's probably best just to quote Perry's actual words if the interview is to be mentioned. Samjohnzon (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, then, how about: In a December 2013 interview with Marie Claire, Perry said "I'm not Buddhist, I'm not Hindu, I'm not Christian, but I still feel like I have a deep connection with God."[3] StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with including anything from the Marie Claire article is its overall authenticity not only due to uncertain reliability of magazine itself in general but also the phrasing style used in its quotes, which don't sound much like her general way of speaking or type of word choice (without regard to subject) XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm very dubious about our ability to form generalisations about her "general way of speaking". In any case, we have multiple reliable secondary sources confirming that this is what she said. StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds appropriate. Everyking (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The basis for her way of speaking used was interviews and video clips that came out before that article did. Upon comparing it to those, its phrasing and tone sounded quite different, which made me suspicious..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I was invited here by the RFC bot, and agree with Prism/StAnselm in this regard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, the questioned sincerity of the Marie Claire article (nor the reliability of Marie Claire itself as a whole) has not been validated by Katy herself or any other source. Wait until we have verification from a source with a higher credibility reputation (a video/audio clip of Katy herself saying so if possible). Magazines such as this type often advertise that they have interviews but contain info that is taken out of context and/or not necessarily true. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Marie Claire is not a tabloid or of questionable veracity like US Weekly. It's a Hearst publication, and all appearances are that it has basic editorial standards. While I probably wouldn't use them for political reporting, I'm unaware of any history it has for bad culture reporting. As long as we're properly attributing, I think we'll be fine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Good to know it's not a tabloid. I certainly would agree things like this are more reliable than gossip sources such as People, Us Weekly, InTouch, Star, or Daily Mail. However, we should wait for more reputable things like Vanity Fair, Vogue, or GQ, since much of the phrasing used in this edition's quotes don't really sound like her general way of speaking or word choice (subject not withstanding). However, in early December 2013 she did mention to Toronto Star that she doesn't fully know how to describe herself since she's still on a journey of some sort. It's best to stick with Toronto Star.
I checked at the Reliable sources noticeboard and was not able to find any discussions about Marie Claire specifically. Since the U.S. version is a Hearst publication with a 20 year history and a team of corporate lawyers who don't want to see the magazine sued, and since we have no evidence so far that Perry has repudiated the interview, I would consider it reliable at this time. We expect a religious identification in a Biography of a living person to be sourced to a direct quotation from the subject. This seems to be exactly such a case, based on current evidence. That being said, we should be "matter of fact" about this, rather than making a big deal about it, as some in the blogosphere are doing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Good to know Hearst hasn't faced controversy or anything, though the publishing industry is separate from writers. It seems rather unlikely she would just drop Pentecostalism after repeatedly disproving rumors of her giving it up in the past. She once indicated that her Jesus tattoo signified that Pentecostalism will always be part of her. In September/October 2013, she also had cross-shaped earrings in Prism photoshoots. The idea of her leaving it only 2 or 3 months later would be rather abrupt. Given how in early December 2013 she mentioned to Toronto Star that she didn't fully know how to identify herself, that Marie Claire but may have been from her going through a temporary phase. Until we have a video/audio clip of her verifying she no longer identifies as Pentecostal (or any other sect of Christianity), it would be best not mention anything about her giving up faith. From what my KatyCat friends (who do not have accounts on Wikipedia) say about this, she wouldn't give it up so abruptly. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Your comments here are entirely Original research based on your personal opinions and what you report as what your friends say. We do not base Wikipedia articles on what fans sincerely think but what reliable sources say. Shifts in religious identity sometimes occur gradually and sometimes occur abruptly. The history of religious conversions is full of abrupt shifts and that is not at all uncommon. A person's own words are vastly more important than trivialities such as jewelry or tattoos. People who are not Christians sometimes wear jewelry with crosses, and I personally know a Jewish couple who collect and display Mexican Christian art in their home with no religious identification whatsoever. It is a cultural appreciation thing. This article must be based on what reliable sources say, not on the speculations of fans. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
As I stated above, the form of Christianity that her parents adhere to, and in which she was raised, relies very heavily on both self-identification of adherence and external practices to determine whether one is or isn't a Christian. With four sources (Marie Claire and the three above that parrot it) and no retraction by the artist or her publicist, and no correction from the publication, I think it's a safe assumption that she no longer associates with any organized religion. While it's important to have a RS, it seems this meets the threshold and it should be discussed in the article. As for tattoo, all that we can say is that she is reminded that "you came from this and you can always go back to it." [4]. Clearly, if she is still a Christian, there would be nothing to go back to since she never left Jesus. Finally, just because she no longer identifies with any organized religion, it's clearly a topic of discussion for interviewers, and the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
However quick one might change minds on things, it's unlikely she would just leave the faith after repeatedly emphasizing in the past that such rumors were false. Wait until a video/audio clip with her explicitly stating she no longer follows it is released before mentioning anything about leaving faith. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely NO requirement in our standards for reliable sources that a video or audio clip is needed for a statement of religious identification. A direct quote is sufficient and we have that in this case. Please tell us which policy or guideline requires audio or video in such a case? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It isn't because of policy. I suggest video/audio clip because those are less likely to be misleading/misinterpreted than lone text. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2014 (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.

Not a contralto

"Perry has a contralto vocal range" isn't backed up by a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.219.77 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is backed up by a source. The source is no longer online, but that does not invalidate it as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's cached at [5]. Supporting quote: "Some of the best musical moments came with the simplest production, and one prime example would be the torch song 'Who Am I Living For,' where Perry’s contralto voice was stunning." —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure The Patriot Ledger is credible in this situation, seeing as it's not a music-themed website and whoever wrote that article doesn't display any knowlege/experience in the field of classical music. Words like "contralto" and "soprano" are usually reserved for opera singers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.219.77 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally would say her range is contralto, particularly after listening to tracks like "Pearl" from Teenage Dream. This video indicates she also has had a fairly deep speaking voice since her teenage years. A quick google search of "contralto Katy Perry" brings up numerous results, so we could perhaps use one of those instead if needed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


here is a video for her vocal range

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fK6hs1-O5s

don't tell me there is no " news agency " said she is a Mezzo-soprano but here is the "live" notes she hits so she is not a contralto

thx

77.44.232.141 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If she was a contralto, her low notes wouldn't be so quiet and whispery. That being said, the fact that she isn't an opera/classical singer is enough reason to remove "Perry has a contralto vocal range". There should be no mention of vocal fach on any pop singer's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.219.77 (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I discussed this very topic on a message board about Katy Perry. It degenerated into a flame war. But the general consensus is that pop singers do not have official vocal ranges, since a micorphone can amplify notes that would otherwise be too weak. However, Katy has had operatic training, so she would have had a vocal range assigned to her when she had that training. What that vocal range is, I do not know, and no reliable source has ever stated it. Whether or not that would even apply nowadays, I do not know; it was also said in that same thread that singing pop songs ruins your ability to sing operas, since the vocal techniques are so different. Also, Katy Perry clearly has a very wide vocal range that incorporates notes in all 3 female vocal ranges. But I have been told in that same thread that your official vocal range is whichever range you are most comfortable singing in. We would have no way of knowing what range Katy is most comfortable with, unless she says so herself, which I do not think she has ever done. She appears to be able to show strength across a wide range, for what it's worth. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katy_Perry/Archive_3&oldid=1136868915"