Talk:Spice Girls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial comment

I can't believe the comment I sneaked in about Geri Halliwell being "damn hot" is still there. That's pretty funny. Someone can change it because I guess it's not NPOV. dave 14:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

US-centric

I've tried to tone down the US bias (especially comparissons between "international" and "US" results) in this article, but it needs more work to the same end. Andy Mabbett 20:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is so US-centric it's unbelievable. Statements like "this single was a flop, although it reached number one in the uk" abound. Pomp My Socks... To Da Max 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I intend to remove all the hash signs, there are not used as a symbol for 'number' in the UK, & as this was a British band the convention is to use standard English Markb 10:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Diverse class backgrounds??

This statement is quite erroneous. Despite one of them being monikered Posh Spice for reasons beyond me, all five members of the Spice Girls would typically be considered "Working class". Class-wise, they were not diverse at all.--Zoso Jade 21:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Actually Victoria's (Posh Spice) was quite well off. Although she wasn't called Posh Spice because of her family, but because she liked expensive clothes and fine dining, like the posh upperclass.

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

change of cat

In the Girl groups category it is said: "This category is specifically devoted to the second meaning, and as such only includes all-female pop-soul groups from the early 1960s" and so I moved this article to the category All-women bands instead.

I'm afraid I don't understand the logic of that other page. There was a movement in the 60's but I'm not sure whether that would be an accurate way of defining girl groups today. I have put my grievements up on that board. I believe the category "Girl Groups" not only fits them perfectly, they are almost the dictionary definition. Instead you have them lumped in with people like Joan Jett and Heart which I believe is completely inappropriate.--Zoso Jade 20:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree but I thought that the definition on that category was actually real. I could change it back.

Commercial

How do I put up a picture of the Spice Girls in a British commercial from '96?

Upload the picture from your PC using the 'Upload file' tool on the left of the screen and then follow the steps.--Speedway 12:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Peculiar edit history

I've just come to see what comment was added, went into the history, and saw that the most recent entry was my revert of User:Pacian's edit — though there was no sign of his edit in the History, and I didn't revert anything. My apologies to Pacian, and could he or she re-add the comment? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mysteriously disappeared comment

WhenI went back to the page History, Pacian's edit had reappeared, so I've retrieved it and added it below. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is full of non NPOV comments ("fantastic debut album" comes to mind.) The punctuation and grammar are also hideous. I'm making revisions now. Pacian 12:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Reunion?

http://www.mtve.com/article.php?ArticleId=5615&from=rss

I am highly skeptical on the reliability of the news though. So Unless there is another source to vertify this, I am putting it here. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick google news search apparaently shows that it is real. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAC

This is pretty good - is someone aiming at FAC soon? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'd like that! But not yet... I think the article still needs some more information. For some reason, I think that another image needs to be added. But that's just me. Let's try and make this article as true blue as possible, then we can go ahead and nominate it for FAC. :) DrippingInk 12:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Trivia moved here

This looked really odd where it was. It belongs in a trivia section I suppose, but there isn't one (and I don't really like them in an encyclopædia anyway; they're more suitable for fanzines and the like). Any ideas?

"The platform shoes brand Buffalo Boots model 1310-2 was made popular by the band wearing it in lots of different colour combinations."

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Even I did not know that, and I was and still am quite the Spice Girls fan. And I too don't prefer trivia in the sections. Maybe we should just remove the trivia altogether. DrippingInk 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It can stay here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally I would say stuff like that would be encyclopaedic in an article on either the brand or make, if someone considers them notable enough to make an article, but not on an article like this, as it really isnt anything that fundamentally defines or explains the Spice Girls and the various other topics that spin off them. It works more like advertising than anything else in an article like this, unless you were to link it into their greater cultural impact by talking about how strong their brand as a group was that they were more successful than most artists at commercialising themselves. In that case more examples would be needed of other items they popularised in a similar fashion to make a supportable point. Sfnhltb 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunt for the image

I still think that the section requires one more image before we put it up for FAC. Can anyone think of one that would be suitable? And no, not a scene from one of the music videos, though I really do like the "2 Become 1" shot of Emma's head. Uhh... yeah. Any image ideas? 64.231.161.71 01:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find a suitable image, so I re-added the Channel 5 one (after going through numerous copyrights). The bottom of the page looks kind of plain, though. If anyone finds one that would be perfect, feel free to add it. :) DrippingInk 15:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing Australian chart peaks

I can't find the Australian chart peaks for "Say You'll Be There" and "Too Much". Can someone help out? DrippingInk 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Too Much" peak has been found. Keep an eye out for "Say You'll Be There". DrippingInk 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article nomination

I think it's time. Who wants to nominate this article for FAC? 64.231.73.125 23:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check out what this guy wrote:

"Object 1) the lead section is too short and doesnt adequately summarize the entire article. 2) cite your sources. 3) It's an article about a music group, but there are no samples of the group's music. slambo 20:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)"

When people like to object to why an article shouldn't be the featured article, I'd really like them to speak in damn English. The third bit doesn't even make sense. 64.231.118.203

Perhaps slambo would like nuggets of the music in written form -- with minims, quavers 'n' stuff. The article does say very little about the music. But then does anyone care about the music? (One might add: Does anyone care about the Spice Girls? But they do have a certain morbid fascination, I suppose.) -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The article does not require a huge sample of the music - this is not HMV or Music World. If he wants samples, he can go download them, otherwise he has no reason to object. And I care about them, as you might have noticed. The Spice Girls could be considered classics now, I mean, if you're called the biggest British export since The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. DrippingInk 13:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have officially cited two extra parts of the article. Someone care to help? ;__; DrippingInk 13:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

18 or 19 million?

The sales for Spiceworld are so close to 19 million copies worldwide (currently 18.94 mil.). Wouldn't it be reasonable to just put in 19 million copies? I mean, I understand why someone would not want to, since it isn't accurate information, but this one is so close, I don't see why it shouldn't count. Winnermario July 7, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

I personally don't see why 19 million shouldn't be put up. And where did you get such an accurate number for Spiceworld's sales? 64.231.115.123 21:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw it somewhere a few months ago. It was on a fan forum of some sort, but I can't remember which one it was. DrippingInk 15:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is for now. 64.231.154.102 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay then. I still think it would be reasonable though. DrippingInk 18:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Spiceworld has sold eighteen million copies worldwide. Once it reaches nineteen million (if it ever does), we will change the stasistic. Winnermario 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Recording new single

This could be worked into the article: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds22508.html Peter S. 14:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! They are planning to release a few new songs? This is earthquaking if you ask me! But it's all exciting at the same time! Yes, that bit of information does need to be added to the article. Only one year remaining for that greatest-hits release... 64.231.131.197 15:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am quite content hearing this news too, but I think this information requires more than one source. Since the Spice Girls like to hold back when a particular event they've been waiting for finally arrives (Eg: Mel B and the Live 8 performance), them recording a new single, even if it is in different places in the world, may suddenly be dropped. So I'm going to be looking for other sources. You may help if you'd like. DrippingInk 14:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The article has been changed. Are the girls not recording a single anymore? DrippingInk 00:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Brackets information

The following line: "the director of The Goodies, Fawlty Towers, Press Gang, and Absolutely Fabulous among other, notable British comedy successes" vexes me greatly. This is an article about the Spice Girls, not a bunch of comedy programs. I nominate to rid of at least two of these shows. Anybody second that? DrippingInk 13:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is; they're there to indicate the background and style of the director, and I'd have thought that hey did that pretty well. If you think that they don't belong, why keep two of them? If you think that they do, what's wrong with all four? (Three of them, at least, are equally prominent, so the choice would be pretty arbitrary.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think DrippingInk is trying to say that having four of them up there sort of takes you out of the Spice Girls article you're reading about and takes you into a world of "Bob Spiers" (pardon me, I'm not British) comedies. Yes, I can see what he means, having four of them up there just drags on his commercial success, perhaps we should only have those three prominent ones up there? Which are they? 64.231.129.30 14:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd have left out Press Gang (but only because I've not seen it (it's a children's programme), which is my ignorance rather than a good reason). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Then I think it would be wise to remove it. The other three can stay, since they're prominent. DrippingInk 16:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

An old debate, I know -- but do yourselves a favour and see Press Gang! (actually, I think the wikilink makes the entire list redundant!) The JPS 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The dash

That long dash in the "Further decline" header is a bit of an eyesore. That's why I originally put in the smaller dash. Can we compromise about this? Actually that would be rather difficult to do. But any ideas? DrippingInk 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objection, I'm afraid; it's standard typography (see the MoS). The only alternative would be a colon. Would that look better to you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This dash (–) over this dash. (—) DrippingInk 23:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The first one is known as the en-rule, the second as the em-rule. The em-rule is correct here, but as I said, it could be replaced by a colon. I'll do that now, and see if you prefer it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I see, fine. We can return it to the dash. The colon bothers me heavily. Okay, the "em-rule" can be returned. DrippingInk 14:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

What's this?

I don't like this article — it doesn't bring out the Spice Girls as the group they were. Well no, that'd be a lie. The part from the release of Spiceworld to the release of Forever is good, but the parts succeeding and precceeding are too rushed. Also, the "current status" bit of the article should be turned into an actual section documenting the solo releases leading up to the greatest-hits release that will be available to the public in July 2006. Also, why is the "Say You'll Be There" Australian position missing? It peaked at number two (for an unbelievable number of weeks, never reaching number one). Winnermario 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There are no references! How could this be? It's no wonder the original article nomination failed! Come on people, this isn't as difficult as it seems! Most of the information comes from Spice Girls Discography anyways. Winnermario 20:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

God, you are ignorant. At least I've attempted to improve this article. DrippingInk 21:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Awards

To the user or anon. who listed the awards in the article: please tidy it before re-adding it to the article as it is very difficult to follow.

Here are the awards:

• Brit Awards (Grammy UK) 97. (UK).
• -Best Single . (Wannabe).
• -Best Video . (Say You'll Be There).
• MTV VMA 97. (USA).
• -Best Dance Video. (Wannabe).
• MTV VMA Europa 97. (Europa).
• -Best Group.
• Ivor Novello Awards 97. (UK).
• -Best Selling British Written Single – Wannabe.
• -International Hit Of The Year – Wannabe.
• Amigo Awards (Grammy España) 97. (España).
• -Best Newcomer.
• World Music Awards 97. (Mundial).
• -Best Female New Comers.
• Billboards Awards 97. (USA).
• -Best Album. (Spice).
• -Best Newcomers.
• American Music Awards 98. (USA).
• -Favourite Pop / Rock Album – Spice.
• -Favourite Pop / Rock Band, Duo Or Group.
• -Favourite Pop / Rock New Artist.
• Brit Awards (Grammy UK) 98. (UK).
• -Outstanding Achievement.
• Juno Awards (Grammy Canada) 98. (Canada).
• -Best Selling Album (Foreign or Domestic). (Spice).
• ASCAP Awards 98. (USA).
• -Best Single . (Wannabe).
• MTV VMA Europa 98. (Europa).
• -Best Group.
• -Best Pop.
• World Music Awards 98. (Mundial).
• -Worlds Best Selling Pop Artist / Group.
• -Best Selling British Artist / Group.
• Billboards Awards 98. (USA).
• -Top Billboard 200 Album Artist - Duo/Group. (Spice World).
• Brit Awards (Grammy UK) 2000. (UK).
• -Outstanding Lifetime Contribution.

Thank you for your cooperation. Winnermario 11:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Step to Me"

User:Winnermario has pointed out that "Step to Me" is listed as a single from Spiceworld, though it doesn't in fact appear on the album. Does anyone know why it's there, and where it should go? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Step to Me" was most certainly a song the Spice Girls performed and used as a promo for Pepsi—unfortunately it does not appear on any of their albums. If it has a useful place to go in this article, could the person with this knowledge move it there? Winnermario 20:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Step To Me appeared on the Japanese version of Spiceworld as a bonus track...Rimmers 15.50, 12 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Solo careers

If you look at the Destiny's Child section, you will see that there is a section of the article called "Solo projects" with informating leading up to their reunion in 2004. I think we should do the same thing with the Spice Girls, ridding of the "Current status" section, and adding information on single releases and their poorly-fairing solo albums leading up to the 2006 greatest-hits release. And although the compilation has not been released yet, I still find it acceptable to add this to the article. Any ideas? Winnermario 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. DrippingInk 22:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I will begin expanding the solo projects section this coming weekend. The order that the girls are listed in will begin with Geri due to her leaving the group, followed by Melanie B., as she was the first to release a solo single. Next will come Mel C., then Emma, and finally, Victoria. --Winnermario 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Signature album

I have made my reference to the "Spiceworld receiving higher ratings from music circles and fans". So I see User:Mel Etitis did not remove this fact. However, I have not yet found one for Spice being the girls' signature album. This is fine, as I had not referenced it, but please keep it in the image thumb and I will search for a source immediately. Winnermario 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What do editors on these articles mean by "signature" (as in "signature song", "signature album", etc.)? Its usual meaning in music (apart from "signature tune") is a piece that's used by an artist or band at the beginning and/or end of concerts as a sort of signature. It seems to be being used here to mean something like "most popular" or "best selling" or the like. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, people in general consider "signature songs or albums" as a song or album that stands out from any other work the artist has made. Winnermario 22:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that claim? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't. However, User:OmegaWikipedia can. Winnermario 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if he'd provide it here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you asked him to provide it here. Winnermario 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

date formats

the article needs a run-through to conform date wikification to the wikipedia MoS. i'll be happy to do this, since i love the spice girls, but wanted to give notice here; sometimes it's a shock to those who believe that every month and year should be wikified. crazy, i know. Wbfl 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Having just read the article in its entirety, I've added the neutrality tag to the top. Whilst the data represented is for the most part good (and accurate, as far as I can see), the language of the article throughout tends to read as it has been written by avid fans of the group. This is probably true, but shouldn't show in the reading. There's nothing major, but a great deal of small comments and questionable use of adjectives ("unfortunately" appears here and there - the non-success of a solo album doesn't need such comment) throughout. - Hayter 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a general problem with articles on musicians: they are tended by fans more often than by people who are disinterested or who think the musicians suck. One way to address it in this case would be to find examples (especially 1990s examples) of eminent music critics describing the Spice Girls music as soulless pap (which is probably quite easy, given the media's natural attraction to anyone deriding popular taste). -- Mpt 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this article isn't neutral, having just read it myself. The "unfortunately"'s have been removed, and for the most part anyway the language is unbiased. As far as inserting critics' opinions, I don't see their function unless it's just one line that tries to explain why an album failed, since it shouldn't be Wikipedia's function to "prove" an artist's music is bad. Besides, critical opinion in music means next to nothing- many of the pop groups (including the Spice Girls) succeeded and the critics hated them.-RomeW

I'm going to remove the neutrality tag, unless someone disagrees. The article seems fairly balanced, and the neutrality tag doesn't seem necessary. --betakate 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time now, but I'll try and re-read it tomorrow and offer my opinion. I think it's fair to say it's a deal better now for the efforts of those over the past couple of weeks, but I'll have a closer look tomorrow. - Hayter 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made some wording edits, and I don't think NPOV is as big a problem as it was, but I can see the suggestion of a need for a clean-up tag. The article continually references their sales (#1 in UK, #8 in US #3 in Canada & #14 in Australia) which are only really pertinant if they relate to a bigger statistic eg. "The single peaked at #2 becoming their first not to sell 3 billion copies." What does it matter if "Too Much" peaked at 7 in Australia? The article's a deal better, but it's not as good as it should be yet and mostly that's because of the nature of the content. "Girl Power" - arguably the group's most memorable contribution to pop culture is barely mentioned alongside all these stats. Halliwell's leaving the group is quite well covered, but did they ever voice a political opinion? Did they affect subsequent girl groups such as All Saints and Girls Aloud? Was their music received well critically? Also, there are numerous parts of the article where it's said, "the song did well and got great airplay" - how is this WP:V? It's entirely likely an editor has just remembered hearing it a fair bit on the radio - it might be accurate but it needs to be sustained by a source. - Hayter 10:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To do

Suggested items for the to-do list:

• Tighten up the writing. "'Out of Your Mind' did not enter the U.K. charts at number one, but at number two, preventing Beckham from achieving the top position" is merely the worst example. "Say You'll Be There" was not "their massive debut"; "ultimately, there was no stopping them" is manifestly untrue; it was not Melanie Brown who performed "When You're Gone"; "November's end" has passed; and so on.
• Make the solo career sections much shorter, as full detail is available in the articles for each member.
• Merge the "Spice Girls" section into the intro.
• Talk more about musical style and influences, tours, etc, and less about (eventually tedious) chart rankings.

-- Mpt 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, but should the solo sections even exist here? Once the remaining four 'broke up' to pursue solo careers, the Spice Girls effectively ceased to exist. As such, I'd suggest a solitary paragraph along the lines of, "In (x year), the girls left each other's company to pursue... etc. Bunton began work on her first single, Y, whilst Chissolm concentrated on Z etc." The article's clearly long enough at the moment, and doesn't need padding out with advanced solo details that are avaiable elsewhere. - Hayter 16:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, how about being bold and trying it. Just move the stuff to the individual members and leaving one paragraph. (To do lists are nice, but in general nobody does anything except for some minor edits) KittenKlub 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the entire section after checking the individual pages. So far as I can tell, most of them had the same information presented there as well (in some cases in the exact same style). The two that didn't were Beckham (which was badly written on this article in any case) and Melanie Brown which I've since edited to include the extra details. A version of this page with the solo section still included can be seen here. Reading the end of Forever and the Beginning of Spice's Future now, I'm not sure an additional paragraph is required. The article mentions their solo careers and summarises that their popularity has now waned. We could always include a Further details can be found at the member's individual pages but I'm not overly keen on that idea, and I'm not sure the inclusion of a section with a small blurb for each member is really worth the time - it's just repitition of data and in the case of members such as Brown, the individual article isn't really big enough to warrant an 'outside' summary. - Hayter 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put the members in the member list. I think that there is a chance that somebody will put long stories back in if you don't mention it, but we can just sit and watch the page as well. KittenKlub 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of removing the Record Sales Controversy entry. It was put in at three pages with exactly the same story and it is non-verifiable flamebait IMO. And is impossible to get it verified or somewhat neutral. KittenKlub 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather well written for someone who's just trying to start a flame war; in my experience such people are generally illiterate and much less subtle, but I think if it can't be verified then it should go. I don't like the idea of 'gutting' an article, but the above warrants removal. Regarding the list of the members though, is it needed what with the "See Also" further down the page which lists all five members as well? - Hayter 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is well written but the original version concluded that nobody could claim the title and it triggered an edit war at TLC (and DC seems to have deleted it as well). I've just put the girls at the See Also. So that's a recent addition. KittenKlub 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Record Sales Controversy

It was confirmed from various sources that "Spice" sold 23 million copies to date. "Spiceworld" sold 18 million copies (including over 7 million copies in its first 2 weeks of release) and "Forever" did approx. 3,5 million (including 1 million in its first week of release).

There was some edits back and forth about the Record Sales Controversy entry at TLC and after looking at who put the story in, because there was already a remark of staying clear of discussing record sales so it was to delete the controversy because it leads to unwanted reverts.

It seems like one person put the same story here (except that the group name in the first sentence was changed) as well, so it's upto you to decide what to with that story, but it sounds like somebody wanted to start a controversy. KittenKlub 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The record sales of 75 million are not factual. In 2000 it was confirmed that the debut album only sold 19 million. Since 2000 it has NOT sold another 4 million copies, the spice girls records sell nothing these days. This article is far to bias. - 69.204.1.97

• (I added the IP sig above for identification.) I've reverted the two edits that change the article to favour this position. The provided 'source' if you want to call it that is not an officially recognised sales recorder, and does not account for the five/six years that have passed since 2000, nor does it account for the fact that there was more than one Spice Girls album. Even working from the assumption that it is correct however, you need to provide a reputable source confirming the Spice Girls have sold no albums since 2000. - Hayter 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• how about looking at sales charts and seeing no spice girls albums in there - yet you claim they still sold millions? I guess you know nothing about the music business (or any other business, if you think sales come from nothing). Take a look at music stores - no spice girls albums being stocked - that's all the evidence needed. Furthermore this other edit contained NO sources, so any source i provide is far better than nothing! - TonyLeigh

• No, it's not. Inside ten minutes I can make a page on Geocities that states the Spice Girls sold 50m copies of Spice - it doesn't make it true. Take note that I'm not saying you're wrong, but your reasoning is flawed and your source, suspect. Insulting me will not make your position any stronger - finding and citing evidence will. You should also sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~) to better identify your contributions. - Hayter 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• You can try and talk down to me all you want. However Hayter, you're the one who threw the perosnal attacks around first, as can be seen above. So don't even try and make out you're the one who's all cool and collective, with authority, it won't work.

69.204.1.97 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I affronted the source, not you. Unless you created the source, I don't see how you can take offence. I do not pretend to have any more authority that the average Wikipedia user, but that does not change the fact that I, and others have been unconvinced by your reasoning. If you believe you are correct, spend time finding a legitimate source and provide it for the rest of us to review. If it helps, assume I am an openly biased Spice Girls fan and not to be trusted with deciding the neutrality of this article. Post your newfound source here, and even if I am unable to see past my bias, there will be others who can. If this does not aid you however, realise the truth. I'm not a Spice Girls fan and I am the one who said the article was biased in the first place. If the article is incorrect I would like to see that situation rectified, but I do not want one incorrect statement replaced by another. I would hope you share the same wish. - Hayter 16:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed that while there is a mention Spice Girls were assembled because of ad in newspaper, it is not mentioned who paid for that ad - all the SG answered to the ad, so it wasnt none of them, also it is later said that SG searched for agent and record company later on, which rules out the usual suspects. IJusten 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)