Talk:Spice Girls/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Solos

The solos section sounds very subjective and tugs between the successes of Mel C and Geri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.95.191 (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancies?

I have an issue with what is written about the Spice Girls and why 'Forever' wasn't as successful. It is written "Many credit the low success of the album down to the fact the group members were all pregnant" but I do not believe this is true. Melanie C in particular I do not believe was ever pregnant, and Emma Bunton wasn't at that time. Can anyone confirm? Biting mammal 12:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - after discussion with a massive Spice Girls fan it's been decided that this statement is completely false and I have now removed it from the article.Biting mammal 10:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Main image

Please tell Gerry to put on real clothes for once It's very washed out and the background color is close to much of the foreground. It really should be replaced by a clearer image. Daniel Quinlan 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Feminism

• The Spice Girls also served as a catalyst for a new form of feminism where women asserted their independence while maintaining their femininity and sensuality which has influenced popular culture during the end of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Is this fact? Many people would question whether this is feminism at all. The girls' portrayal as feminist icons can also be considered as simply part of their manufactured image. Flagboy 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no denying that "Girl Power" was a big thing insofar as it was well publicised, especially in Britain, but I'm not convinced it broke any mould or set the tone for future outbreaks of feminism. If a good article can be found somewhere that suggests it did then I think it's a much more interesting part of the article than "song X got to #17 for 2 weeks in South Lyon" but it's a bold statement without a reference to back it up. -Hayter 14:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Year

which year did the Spice Girls first form?? I thought it was 1994 but on the article it says 1993... -- Sarz 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

it was 1993 [1]--Hotwiki 14:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They didn't open teh brits,& wannabe was released on the 1st of july —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.40 (talk • contribs)

Actually it was in 1994 they first formed. Read Geri's first biography, If Only. Sarz 06:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions/Edits + Forever sales

Hi guys - im new to Wikipedia, so sorry to the person that tried to contact me!

Ive recently edited the Spice Girls page to include a lot more information - and a lot more accurate information! As it is now, the stuff ive added now is a bit long so where possible i'll remove information myself and if its needed add it to other pages (for example Spice Girls Awards). Im also developing a tour page etc...

To the person that sent me a message regarding when the group formed, according to the girls themselves - in "Real Life: Real Spice - The Official Story", the group went to audition in March 1993 - not 1994 as you suggested.

Another area of contention is the sales for Forever. People who have updated the page before me have been using Spice Discography as a source; the site is run by a friend of mine, and like ive told him Spice Discography has quite a few pieces of inaccurate information! The most notable error is the claim Forever sold 4million copies. It DIDNT. Virgin Records only made one major shipment of CDs and that was just before the album release. The shipment - of just over 1million copies - was sent out internationally; as it was the only major shipment, and as Forever dropped out of practically every chart in the world (if it charted at all!!) like a lead balloon before Christmas 2000 it is pure fantasy to claim the album sold 4million copies! The information I have on shipments doesn’t reflect sales completely tho - a lot of the sales are well before the amount of CDs shipped; for example, 100,000 were shipped in France, but the album peaked at #43 on only sold 15,000 copies!

Another issue with sales; at the 2000 Brit Awards, the group was awarded the Outstanding Achievement award. During that presentation, the video introduction claimed the girls had sold 35.1million albums worldwide as of January 2000 - and 18.1million singles. That would put pre-Forever record sales at aprox 55-56million. Add on Forever-era records and you get a loose estimate of approximately 60million records sold - not 75m or 90m as some people make out!

Regards - Rimmers.

blah, blah, Do you notice how good your contributions are? because I'm not happy on what you are doing in this article?--Hotwiki 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rimmers, if you have evidence to the contrary regarding article content, you should share it with us so it can be reviewed and considered. It's nothing personal, but your word just isn't good enough to warrant changing the facts herein. - Hayter 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reunion???

Whoever posted: "12th February 2006, at 2000GMT The Spice Girls announced that they will be reforming later in 2006, which will include recording a new album and performing a 25 date tour across Europe, Asia and the US."

Can you please put a source, as much as i would love to believe this, i believe a source should be added.

Shakilover

Touch?

The article has two references to "Touch" that are written as if the reader has already been informed that that was the original name. A sentence needs to be inserted further up in the article to explain this so that later references make sense. I'd do it myself, but I don't know if that name was the original, or if the producers or the girls picked it, or what. adavidw 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article also needs to say when the group changed its name from Touch to Spice Girls. 203.34.63.1 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Top of the Pops

Top of the Pops is a TV show. The article refers to it as a magazine. Is there a magazine by that name or is this an error. adavidw 09:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The BBC thinks so [[2]] :) Sfnhltb 14:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a magazine by the same name apparently... at least according to both Melanie B and Victoria's autobiographies. 130.39.138.155 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Song articles and sales information

This article, on the whole, is too long. A lot of that is because of the discussing of minutiae of sales figures for every single and album. Since the major singles and albums have their own pages, detailed sales information would more appropriately be listed there. Here in the main article, we should stick to general statements like "The album was the top selling album in Britain that year", rather than "the album sold 1,253,234 copies in Britain, and 2,029,494 copies in the US, and 403,203 copies in France, and 23,034 copies in Estonia...", etc.

If I don't hear a good objection and can find time to get around to it, I intend to permanently move the detailed sales information to the song and album articles if they aren't already there. Then, I'll fill in the holes in the main article with general sales info. adavidw 10:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to take this on, feel free, by the way. I won't get to it for a while, but it really needs it. adavidw 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Records sales - lets settle this once and for all.

SO SICK of contast arguements over record sales - so lets settle this once and for all.

The combined OFFICIAL sales for Spice and Spiceworld - as of Feb 2000 - are 35.2million. The total singles sales up to that point were 18.1million worldwide. That information was confirmed by the girls own presentation just before they were awarded the Outstanding Contribution award at the Brit Awards in 2000. These two screenshots confirm what I just said (and can be verified by anyone who has seen/downloaded the clip - which is widely available on the net): albums singles

As for Forever - we'll probably never know the accurate sales. But we do know that EMI confirmed - via their website at Christmas 2000 - that 2.3million copies of Forever had been SHIPPED. Not sold, SHIPPED. Many of the shipments went unsold - but its impossible to calculate what was and what wasnt sold - so cant we just agree that the Forever figure stands at 2.3million? Its by far the only reliable source - as it comes from EMI themselves.

Holler/Let Love's global sales are in the region of 1million I think but I dont have accurate data to confirm it.

So total record sales are in the region of 55-57million - which is an outstanding achievement given the bulk of it was within just 2 years!

The best way to deal with it would be to make sure everybody sticks to the standards laid out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Seriously, everybody who's ever worked on this article needs to go back and reread WP:V because verifiability is sorely lacking in this article. You've got, on the one hand, people who want to inflate every number to make their favorite band look better, and on the other hand, haters who want to make them look worse. In the middle, you have a ton of well-intentioned people who want to post info that they believe to be true, but can't be bothered to go look up a source.

According to WP:V, I could just swing right in and rip out every single reference to sales information in the article and be totally justified since it's all unsourced. I'm not intending to do that because it seems kind of dickish. However, without somebody enforcing the rules, this article can never be taken seriously, it can never be a featured article, and Wikipedia as a whole suffers.

In an ideal world, all of the sales information would have an inline cite indicating where that information comes from. It will take us a while to get there, but I'm going to start by gently prodding. If I see something that looks fishy or otherwise unattributed, I may request a cite, or take it out of the article pending proper sourcing. If I do this to anybody's edits, please don't take offense. It's nothing personal; it's really for your own good. Citing a source for your information means that others won't have to doubt if it's true, and your information will most likely stay in the article unmolested for a good long time. Putting your information in without a source is the quickest way to bait someone into coming along and changing it because they think their idea is truer than yours. Without any source, the reader has no reason to believe any of you.

I hereby call all other like-minded editors to pay special attention to the sourcing on this page, particularly of the sales information, and help in moving the article towards a proper encyclopedic format. adavidw 09:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with you on sourcing, your open labels are uncalled for. By their definition, I can't be bothered to look up sources which given the nature of my involvement with this website is something I take umbrage at. Your frustration is understandable and it's likely there have been a great many people who fit one of your three definitions, but not everyone who has edited this article is at the low standard you suggest. Enforcing WP:V isn't a harsh or out-of-the-ordinary thing to do, but don't assume because the majority of an article is unsourced, that all the editors who have worked on it don't care about verifiability because at least one other besides yourself and probably a deal more do. - Hayter 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

^ Here here.

A source often used is Spice Discography; where as the site has a wealth of information, and overall it is a very good site - it is NOT an accurate source of information for record sales. The site is run by a Spice Girls fan (James) so it is effictively a fan site, and information taken from it should be treated with a degree of caution.

But problems will arise; for example, it is completely impossible to find official sources for all sales information - that is true for the Spice Girls, for Mariah Carey, for Madonna, for The Beatles - for everyone. Many discographies on Wikipedia use discographies from fansites are the source for chart information. While chart runs etc can be trusted - sales information must be treated with caution and be backed up with reliable sources. In this case, some of the info on Spice Discography isnt. The album sales for all three albums are inflated. We know for certain that as of Feb 2000 the Spice Girls had sold 35.2million albums and 18.1million singles globally - that is official information that has been confirmed (in the Girls presentation slide show at the Brits 2000. Now many people simply are not willing to believe that - they choose to believe that they sold 45+million albums etc. The biggest cause for contention is the sales for Forever. EMI confirmed on their website in 2000 that 2.3million copies had been shipped. With the sales information we have for all the major music markets (posted on Forever's page) we can CLEARLY see it didnt sell the full shipment - and its as clear as the day is long that it did not sell 4million. Also - the album was not certified by the IFPI meaning the total shipments within Europe were less than 1million...

The sooner the Spice discography is sorted out the better - but its inaccurate and quite frankly its a joke! - Rimmers

The Spice Girls sold a lot of records, but not as many as they claim.

"References" section

Bold texthi i'm new to this, but an i just say that my dad works for virgin records, the spice girls are there highest selling act in the last 20 years apart from janet jackson, they have sold 40 million albums and 55 mllions singles according to my dad, so in total 95 million, he also said that they was shipment of forever of 920,000 copies of which only 72% were sold. not a big fan, but i could see how this was really starting to get you all. Jonathan chapples The "References" section got lost in today's cleanups. The references that were listed in there were indeed lame and should have been moved to external links. However, per WP:CITE, the article should have a "References" section to collect links to all the inline references used in the article. Someone needs to to take each link that's used inline in the article and then also insert it into a "References" section so that we can build it back up. adavidw 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you guys, but you've kinda been argueing over a moot point. I can't speak for any other certifications, but for Billboard, shipped units ARE sold units. Look at it this way. When a new album is put out, a certain amount of units are pressed and shipped out to the wholesalers and retailers that have ordered them. These are sales. Retail sales are an entirely separate matter and an artist can indeed sell less than a million in "retail" and still go Platinum.

So however many units of "Forever" were shipped = units sold to Billboard. But hey....it's your passion, do what you want with it. I don't take anything as fact off of this site and never will. Brian70.187.21.151 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

shipped units are not 'sold units' --- The Billboard Top 200 is based entirely on retail sales not how many copies of an album are shipped to the stores. TheSniperZERO (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie title?

What's the real title of the movie? IMDB says "Spice World". This article used to say "Spiceworld", and now says "Spiceworld: The Movie". Which is it? If anyone can answer authoritatively, we should attempt to stick to that in the article. adavidw 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

- The exact title of the movie varies; one DVD cover states it is "Spiceworld", another states "Spiceworld: The Movie". Their official biography - Real Life: Real Spice - claims the movie is called "Spiceworld", while their 1998 World Tour programme book states its "Spiceworld: The Movie".

Given the fact that the album and tour are also called "Spiceworld" I feel that we should stick with "Spiceworld: The Movie" for the film title; this will avoid confussion and it makes it clear that we're talking about the movie...

-Rimmers

Sounds good to me. I don't really have a preference as to which one. To me, it's more important that it's consistent throughout the article and throughout our history here as well. So, given the above, I'll stick with Spiceworld: The Movie as well. adavidw 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Impact" section - NPOV

The "Impact" section is skirting dangerously close to being able to be seen as not NPOV. That kind of section is pretty difficult to write from a neutral POV, since you're trying to show that the band did something more or better or stronger than others. I think the section is really well-sourced, and can probably hold up. However, I tagged at as potentially not NPOV just because I'd like another set of eyes on it to see if there's any way to improve the wording or any additional sources that are needed to prevent it appearing biased. adavidw 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you remove it?--hottie 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Writing a section like that and trying to remain neutral - or, at least appear to remain neutral is difficult. Some of the information is still uncited, which Im working on, but finding reliable sources is difficult.

What aspects of it do you disagree with - maybe we can work on it together...? User:Rimmers 00:21, 12 March 2006

That's the thing, I don't really disagree with any of what it says. Nor do I think it should be removed. As long as it stays short and concise, I think an encyclopedic treatment of the subject would include the impact the group had on the state of popular music or the world. I'm just concerned that it sounds a little too much like fan praise and a little less like authoritative commentary. Obviously, more sources would help, but there may be better ways to word things as well. I can try to take a stab at the wording in a day or two and see if I can't come up with anything. adavidw 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive made a few alterations which I think tone it down a bit...Rimmers 04.49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Spice Girls library

Someone just created a page called Spice Girls library. It lists Spice Girls DVDs, books, and video. I don't know why it shouldn't integrated into this article. However, I haven't been involved with this article, and it looks like you all have a system in place here and know what you want the article to look like, so I'll let you all have the final say. I just wanted to put the merge tag on the article and post a note here as a suggestion and in case you weren't aware of the new article. Hbackman 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the page - and designed and wrote most of the Spice Girls main article too. The reason I created the library on a seperate page rather than putting the information on the main article is simply because of the size. There will be over 2 dozen books, videos and dvds on the page when its finished and imo it should absolutely not be on the main article...

I did briefly consider adding the information to the Spice Girls discography - but seeing as though that is cluttered with solo information I decided not to add more to it. Also, it would no longer be a discography if it had details about books etc on it.

I am all in favour of merging the two pages though and creating a Spice Girls multimedia page which would detail the album, single, video, book and DVD releases of the group - but solo information should not be included in that imo because a) it would make the page too long and b) its a Spice Girls page - not a Mel C or Geri page...

Rimmers 13 March 2006 04.00 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fine to me. You're the Spice Girls article expert out of the two of us, so I'm perfectly willing to ultimately leave it up to your judgment. I think a Spice Girls multimedia page would be better than two separate pages, though. Maybe separate out the solo discographies into articles for each individual Spice Girl? Hbackman 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Imo there is absolutely no reason why the solo material should be included on a page about the group - so Im all in favour of seperating them. Ive raised the subject on the disccussion page for Spice Girls discography, but all I got is hostility from one certain person. I actually think that a multimedia page - that includes SPICE GIRLS albums, singles, videos, dvds and book would be a much better idea than have two seperate pages (discography and library)... Rimmers 13 March 2006 04.24 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rimmers. This is impartial, I'm no fan nor am I familiar. I suggest you complete the Spice Girls library, make it the discography, and then a note on this page along the lines of "For solo material, see (respective names)" on this article's discography section, and then request an admin delete the old discography page. Two birds, one stone. TKE 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really loving the works of Rimmers, Spice Girls library? that's just a wrong title. It should be Spice Girls bibliography (also don't put empty headlines). Second, Rimmers can you stop complaining about the discography, in the Destiny's Child discography they included the solo stuffs why not here also. There's no need to separate the group/solo, the size of the article isn't that big/long and it doesn't look bad.--hottie 14:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The DC discography may contain solo information - but the discographies for The Beatles, The Backstreet Boys, ABBA, The Jackson 5 etc do not. Also - Beyonce has her own seperate discography page, so its just repeating the same information.

A bibliography is defined as the study of and/or collect of references relating to books. Traditionally bibliographies do not encompass information on DVDs and video's too.

I agree with TKE's suggestion: solo information should be removed from the discography page and information included in the liabrary should be moved onto that page. It prove a good source of information for all the releases by the group. Rimmers 18.34 13 March 2006 (UTC)

R u saying a Library also contains Dvd and video releases too? Beatles, Backstreet Boys, ABBA, Jackson 5's discographies doesn't have a solo stuff part because someone has not put an information about it (FYI I'm the one who created Backstreet Boys discography and of course the Spice Girls discography) You know the Spice girls discography w/ solo stuff is informative and organize.

If you ever step foot in a library, you'd know that it doesn't just contain books - it contains a whole range of sources of information, and many of the good libraries now contain entertainment sections too (where members of the public can borrow movies and music also). A library contains books, obviously, but it also contains journals, audio catalogues (eg. cds, mini-disks, mp3s, cassette tapes etc), visual catalogues (eg. DVDs, video tapes, projectors etc), ebooks, ejournals etc etc.

The discographies I mentioned dont contain solo information because the solo info is contained on the members own pages. To add it to the group discography would only be repeating information - like the Spice Girls page does. Also - the Destiny's Child discography repeates information that is contained in the Beyonce discography.

The solo pages for the Spice Girls are a mess, but they already contain a discography on each of the members page. So the info in the Spice Girls discography is simply repeating existing information. As a few people have already mentioned, myself included, that solo info doesnt belong in the group's discography - so in the next few days, I'll be removing it (actually, transfering it to the solo pages) and merging the information with the library. The discography will thus contain SPICE GIRLS info (not Mel C, Geri or Emma info!) on album, single, dvd, video and book releases. Rimmers 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If's that a mess, then I would clean it right away but it isn't.--hottie 09:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Its been over a week now, and there has been no new comments made. The general consensus seems to be to remove solo info from the Spice Discography and merge the info from the library page onto that. I'll start doing that in the next day or two... Rimmers 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Try to do that, And I will report your "Spice Girls Library" to be deleted, you are making it into a fan page Rimmers--hottie 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Report away...you'll save me doing it. The general consensus here is clear - you disagree, but tough luck its 3:1. The info in the library will be merged into the discography so its not needed, because it will only be repeating info. So I say again: report away. Rimmers 21:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reports to RfD still have to be voted on, and it's by nonpartisan editors for the most part and based on the discussion made here. Personally, I have extreme distast for the Spice Girls and that brand of pop, but it's irrelevent in what I'm looking at. They were/are an international success of multiple brands other than music. With that being said, Wikipedia is going to see a lot of hits on the article and the best cleanups are the ones that separate the information properly. If I'm looking up the band and they have multiple items across audio, print and screen, I'm seeing a hodgepodge of dates and looking at the end to see (DVD) or (Audio). The library is a good cleanup because it takes length from the main article and particles the information properly. It's not a fan page because it's not POV blathering, it's some good solid work with wiki. This is a collaboration, Rimmers and hottie are both protective of the article for sure but remember to show good faith in that protectiveness. In the grand scheme of things it's not even a big deal, so work together here...wow, that was really hippie. TKE 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You know everything will be fine, if only Rimmers would stop planning to move the Solo stuffs on his own article, he just want his article to be bigger. I don't get why he want to move that on the library, everybody knows Album/Single releases should be in a discography not in a library, so stop it Rimmers.--hottie 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All right then guys, don't merge the two if you are deadlocked. It's not a bad idea to keep one just for music, and one for multimedia. Hell, I didn't know they put out that much material. Keeping them separated will preserve the works of both without conflict or make navigation difficult. Make a note on the related articles link what the difference between the two is. The one thing for both of you: there's no such thing as your page on here. Once it's uploaded, it's fair game for anyone to edit and that's supposed to be the fun of the project. And let's not play the game of who's making the bigger article, we know where Freud would go with that ;) TKE 17:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does Rimmers have to take over everything? He's an ass on Denden and an ass here too - throwing his weight around everywhere thinking he knows best.

Reunion speculation/"meal at Victoria's house"

i can't find any refrence to this anywhere online from "The future" section of the article:

"This is best illustrated by the events that followed a meal at Victoria’s house in January 2003 which all five girls attended – the first time all five were in the same room since Geri’s departure five years before. A media frenzy ensued that dominated newspapers headlines that week."

save a couple of blog type entries saying that geri spent the night at victoria's house around january 2006, there is nothing at all about this online. obviously, the newspaper headlines were not dominated by this story if there's not even a legitimate report of it anywhere on the internet. i'm going to remove that bit until someone comes up with some kind of refrence, because i'm sure it's been there forever.

70.95.216.219 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The news was on the front page of every Sunday newspaper that weekend...the column inches and news coverage was immense. So where have you looked for sources? I'll check when I have time...its bound to be on the CNN/BBC archives...Rimmers 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

several search engines. if you can find anything, then we'll restore it to how it was, but i couldn't find anything.

Shamrox 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Victoria talks about it in her documentary "The Real Beckhams" Pazuzu567 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

There are currently disagree's over which template to use for the Spice Girls. Please see Template talk:Spice GirlsRimmers 15:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Spice Girls and the Beatles

I removed the claim that the Spice Girls are commonly and positively compared to the Beatles. The supporting external article link given for this claim is not acceptable as 1) its a casual article written by an undergraduate, not a formally published academic article 2) The article actually emphasizes that the Beatles are NOT comparable to the Spice Girls in terms of talent, quality, impact on music, lasting reputation etc. The writer compares only in discussing in a highly theoretical way (he's a philosophy student), the way their marketing images and superficial qualities of their fame work. He also emphasizes in the article that he thinks the Beatles are outstanding musicians who will have a lasting impact on music, while he says this about the Spice Girls: "I can't see anything else by the Spice Girls enduring; even their most devoted fans will most likely grow out of them. The hypocrisy of the Spice Girls makes them easy to sneer at and this can only get easier as time goes on." Please try to read sources before using them to make sure they don't say the opposite of the claim you're trying to support. Bwithh 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

World Cup song with Echo & The Bunnymen

This release doesn't seem to get a mention. I'd appreciate if you could mention it and use this wikilink: Top of the World (England football song). The link is currently red but it has several incoming links. (Turning the link blue would be even better!). --kingboyk 09:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

$30 million blockbuster?

It seems a bit odd to qualify SpiceWorld (movie) as "a big boxoffice hit".

US $30 million and Worldwide $70 million are very disappointing numbers. As a reference, BoxOfficeMojo's alltime grosses chart stops at the #302th highest grossing movie, which made $200 million worldwide and about $120 million in the US. 83.132.98.149 23:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps citing Spicegirls.com as proof of 'over 100 million in BO and DVD sales'. IMDB Business is more accurate and if changed back I will keep reverting it. TheSniperZERO (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Future?" section.

Upon researching a known vandal, I saw that they had edited this article, removing two paragraphs (regarding reunion rumours, I would assume) in place of a reference to Big Day Out. This article makes no mention of the Spice girls, and the user who added it is a known vandal, so I assumed a bad faith edit. (This edit was also later removed, but the original information was not restored, leaving the section two paragraphs short) I restored the two paragraphs from the history, but it may not even need to be there (content appears to be about rumours and speculation, so I don't know). If it is irrelevent information, go ahead and remove them again. I just thought maybe no one caught it when it happened, and it went unnoticed. Wavy G 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Girl Power

The group of five young women embraced merchandising and introduced the term Girl Power into popular discourse[citation needed].

The OED have references to the use of the phrase by an American convent in 1952 but they then go on to associate the term with popular music particularly with the riot girl movement in the US and "then, in the late 1990s, with the British all-female group The Spice Girls". --jmb 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it's probably a misunderstanding by the public of how the OED works: most people are unaware of the 20-volume edition or the updates, preferring to think of the book (in whatever abridgment) as being a single discrete publication, updated regularly. How little they know... ^_^

In the late 1990's, it was widely reported in the UK that "girl power" had been added to the OED, when what had likely happened was that it had come into such regular use that it had been added to the trimmed-down popular editions, and as usual, British journalists failed to check their sources adequately. 172.159.187.174 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"advertisements were placed in The Stage newspaper"

By whom? This is an encyclopedia, folks. Give us the facts.

By their manager Chris, in the stage newspaper. It was published before the internet!

New picture

Umm...that picture doesn't meet fair use requirements (and of course, isn't free use). I'm sure someone did it because it fits the times, but... isn't there a fan-taken picture on flickr or something? SKS2K6 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which pic are u talknig about? The one with the SNOW flakes or the current one... However, the current pic could be TV screenshot of a promotional segment for the now defunct Channel 5 in UK, when they used to get the Spice Girls to promote their then newly launched Channel 5 in 1996, with the 'Power Of 5' theme song. But since 1999, the channel no longer exists, plus the girls are no longer together. So I believe it does meet the fair use requirements. YuRiPa 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)YuRiPa

Channel 5 is still very much up and running in the UK - and the power of 5 lauch was in 1997. Nevertheless, the picture does meet fair use requirements because its a publicity promo shoot. Rimmers 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the Christmas 2 Become 1 photoshoot photo. SKS2K6 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The christmas 2 become 1 pic is probably taken down i guess by some members. Never mind, the girls are no longer together and Channel 5 is probably using other forms of medium for their publicity. (my bad) That promo pic is old anyway. YuRiPa 09:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace the current picture with album covers or photoshoots that will have copyright issues... Alot of debates and conflicts has been caused. Let's just settle on this picture of the girls, a screenshot taken in 1997, instead to settle the dispute as fair use image ok. It clearly shows the girls in their heydays. No more Christmas pics, album/single covers, or magazine scans please.

unimportant ramble

someone has put a big bold sentence in about the spice girls getting tipsy over water. Isn't that a little unimportant? especially under the heading "spice"? Desertsk8tr 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This and the other silly, ungrammatical additions (which the author helpfully bolded) are clear vandalism. I am deleting them. Inhumandecency 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reunion Going Ahead?

Just found this in today's edition of the New York Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/02282007/news/nationalnews/19m_dash_of_spicy_tv_reality_nationalnews_michael_starr.htm

Of note is this paragraph: "It was (Simon) Fuller who created The Spice Girls in the mid-1990s - and who was then unceremoniously dumped by the British girl group in 1997. They split up three years later. But the group will kick off a reunion tour in the next 18 months."

Thoughts on adding this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.134.168.59 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Take a look at this: http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/?p=458 , apparently they will really reunite :D

Media speculation - which we've seen and heard a thousand times before. It doesnt belong on Wikipedia...Rimmers 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at this. Update about the reunion. http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/03/22/melanie_chisholm_changes_her_mind_about_ Furik 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean update? Its a meaningless media creation. Rimmers 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a media creation. What did you expect? Furik 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Simon Fuller's company said that there's going to be an official announcement on 28th June. More info: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL2285324620070622 --Andrés 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Its looking very likely, but nothing has been confirmed - and until it is, it doesnt belong on Wikipedia because its not a news site...

Who's really behind Spice Girls?

The "Beginning" section doesn't tell who was originally behind the band: who put the ad on The Stage? Who paid for the house the girls lived one year in? Who paid producing the demos? Who's the real inventor behind Spice Girls?

Opossumi 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob and Chris Hebert of Heart Management put the ad in the Stage and formed the band with money from Chic Murphy according to both Melanie B and Victoria's autobiographies. The early demos and the house the lived in were paid for by Heart Management. Later demos made in Sheffield were paid for by Melanie C with the other girls pitching in, according to "Catch a Fire", Mel B's autobiography. 130.39.138.155 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Geri's leaving

In the article it claims that Victoria and Mel B's books both hint at a falling out between Geri and another of the girls (assumed to be Mel B.) that is not the case. Victoria and Mel B. both claim the last time they saw Geri before the break up, they were having a great time flying back to London. Victoria plainly says, "Geri Halliwell left us in the lurch" in her book. None of the girls knew why or even that she was leaving until their lawyers told them the morning it happened. So I'm suggesting that be reflected in the article.130.39.138.155 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

History cleanup

The "History" section of this article currently reads like it was aggregated in pieces, leaving out important information for proper transitions. For example, no one has addressed the failure thus far to explain how and when the band changed its name from "Touch" to "Spice Girls", an issue that was raised (see "Touch?" above) nearly 2 months ago. This should be rather basic "history" for the band. Another element I didn't find was one alluded to in Melanie Brown, which claims "She was given the nickname 'Scary Spice' by the British media". I'd assumed that the band, its label, or a marketing group had come up with the Girls' individual appellations. Yet this information doesn't even appear in this article until the last half, under "The British music scene" in "Cultural impact", a common Wikipedia article section that readers unfortunately have come to expect to be filled with trivia and unsourced analysis and comparisons. (This article's CI section seems a major improvement over this expectation, but shouldn't be the primary source in the article for important developments in the preceding "History" section.)

I'm calling attention to this problem by tagging the section with a {{cleanup-section}}. Could someone look at the entire section (or perhaps even the whole article), identify missing pieces like these, assemble the facts (with citable reliable sources, of course), and attempt to fold in the information and smooth the transitions a bit? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it needs a bit of work. I wrote the original article last year - since then its been edited and information has been lost. I actually started updating the article yesterday (mainly the 'beginning' section, before the tag was added), and I'll be doing more in the next few days.Rimmers 19:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the needed citation?

Why does it says citation needed after where I wrote how they are having a reunion? I provided a citation and now it's gone again. Why? And nobody say 'because it hasn't been confirmed', because it HAS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.19.44 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what you're talking about - but a reunion has NOT been confirmed; a press conference will be held on Thursday, until then, nothing is confirmed.Rimmers 16:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

... Once again, yes it has. All major newspapers have CONFIRMED it. Did you read the citation I provided? I believe that proved there was a reunion. The press conference you're on about is to tell what the 25 dates will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.200.126 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are not confirmation. Newspaper reports are not official. Nothing has been confirmed. The link you provided is media spectulation, not fact and should not be included on Wikipedia.Rimmers 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you both are not quite correct. Newspapers like The Daily Mirror (and its website, Mirror.co.uk) are reliable sources, and may be cited for factual information, even if it is premature or even inaccurate. But it is important not to read more into the source than is there. Nothing in the article says "confirmation", which logically could only come from the principals involved. Since the Spice Girls have not themselves announced anything yet, and there appears to be a specific date at which they will announce, a reasonable way to include this information might be:

Mirror.co.uk reports that the Spice Girls will be announcing on 29 June 2007 that they have signed on to a new 25-date world tour for which they will receive £10 million each… [etc.]

with the following citation:

• Hedle, Caroline (22 June 2007). "Dosh Spice: Fab Five net £10 million each for reunion tour". Mirror.co.uk. Mirror Group Newspapers. Retrieved 2007-06-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This makes clear who is making the claim of a future announcement and its details. Of course, we could just wait for the actual announcement. Unlike tabloids, Wikipedia is more interested in accuracy than splashy rumors, even if they ultimately turn out to be correct. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The article already includes information relating to a press conference set to be held on Thursday and is properly sourced. Any other information is idle speculation - such as a 25 date tour, £10m each etc etc and there is no evidence for this. This is illustrated by the fact practically every British tabliod you pick up has a different story - The News of the World for example is today reporting the group will get £30m each and it will be a 10 date tour. This sort of story has been repeated more or less every Sunday for the past seven year and is groundless, gutter journalism - and thus does not belong on Wikipedia. Nothing is confirmed yet - and wont be until Thursday's press conference.Rimmers 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're all reporting different claims about an event that's only days away, I'd have to agree with Rimmers that there's no point in even properly documenting any of the claims. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof Of Mel C's quote on Spice Girls' current status

First foremost, i always strongly providing facts which comes with evidence and interviews from celebrities themselves. The newspapers and magazines can lie, but remember, TV CANNOT!!! Based on the debate about media speculation and such from newspaper reports which are not accurate, etc, etc - all the printed media are not to be compared to TV media which is the fact why i included a reference to the clip of Melanie C's interview on Loose Women on 15th june, 2007 on YouTube. It is real clip of Mel C relating about the current status of the Spice Girls so the quotes are based from the horses' mouth, not from any printed media. So please do not remove paragraph about Mel C's interview of Spice Girls' current status as it is reflected on actual interview - there is reference citation, unless one can provide a valid reason to remove that paragraph, it is not a big deal, so leave it be... Stealthusa 16:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"The newspapers and magazines can lie, but remember, TV CANNOT!!!"

Huh? --70.234.44.17 16:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icons section

The gay icon section is pointless becaus they are icons to other people as well. So making a section just about being Gay icons is useless. Every artist has gay fans. Why is it more important that the Spice Girls have gay fans. This page is already long enough. Let's just say that the Spice Girls are icons. There is no need to bring up sexual orientation.

1. I find Emma's quote offensive, perhaps it best be left out of the section, which I do find to be somewhat relevant given the rise in gays in the media since the '90s. But Emma's quote generalizes and stereotypes that "gays know about fashion." Come on. 68.7.211.133 01:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

   Never mind offensive; it's incomprehensible. "We were really flattered with having such a huge gay fan base because they know about fashion and they know about songs that." What? Is there a verb missing? I'll remove that bit, until somebody comes up with a reason to keep it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

2. I feel that is un-nesscary. A Gay Icon is probably something that should have it's own page, I mean every artist has gays that like them so why do we need to specifically point out that Spice Girls are gay icons. It doesnt need it's own section but could be pointed out in a section on their carrers, if nesscary. I mean Britney and Madonna are gay icons to many and they dont have a section on THEIR wikipedia page about if their gay icons or not. Not everybody who is gay likes them so it should deffintley be removed.

I removed it, it seems to be some vandal's idea of "fun", by classing the Spice Girls as gay icons. Sebi _[talk] 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object removal, but strongly disagree that it was vandalism. The phenomenon of gay icons is a real thing in gay culture. If you don't think so, ask Tammy Faye. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Band Name, Images

To the person who keeps moving this page to The Spice Girls; Please do not. The band is clearly styled simply as Spice Girls as proven on all merchandising material including official collateral and discography cover art. This person; please note that the images currently on the page are relevant, Cover art has been tagged correctly, if you don't agree discus on the image page, don't just delete them. To pull a quote directly from your history summary dealing with users with egos like a whale's depresses me!. Thanks alot. --Theloon 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gum

Does anybody remember those stickers you used to get in packs of gum? They were all over my school, stuck on virtually everything. I can't remember the details, unfortunately. QBasicer 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! They came from Spice Girl lollipops and gum. I still have two full tins, even after all these years :P But I can't find any sources so I have no idea how to add this to the article :( --TommyDanger 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The lolipop brand was Chupachup... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.146.191 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture Deletion

How does one add a rational to an image? It says the image is a candidate for speedy deletion, but it's so obvi the best one for the article... can anyone fix this? --TommyDanger 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image. It is non-free and is replaceable. I am currently in the process of contacting a Flickr uploader (see the image he or she uploaded at http://www.flickr.com/photos/trixie/654553976/), so hopefully we will have a new free photograph soon!  :-) --Iamunknown 20:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have not yet received a reply from the photographer, and soon intend to contact other Flickr photographers. There were a few images that looked like the uploader was actually the photographer, so we'll see what happens! --Iamunknown 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another update: I have not received a reply. At this point I am editing less on Wikipedia, so I may or may not pursue other images. Sorry for the disappointment.  :-\ --Iamunknown 21:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Stephenson

Should Michelle Stephenson really be under the former members section? The Spice Girls were still known as "Touch" after she left and Emma joined the group so she wouldn't really be a former member of the "Spice Girls". (Truten 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Fair enough. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Album images in main article

These have been replaced in the article for illustrative purposes. They are a crucial element of the content of this page and thus have a purpose. They have all got fair use as an album cover art. Other pop group pages have the exact same format, Backstreet Boys, Sugababes, Five and S Club 7; just to name a few. Please do not remove without discussing here first. --Theloon 13:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for opinions over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Image_use_on_the_Spice_Girls_article.... I've been removing the images as I do not feel that they pass WP's non-free content criteria, points 3(a) and 8. I'm not going to be removing them again until this has been discussed, however. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't misuse WP:NFCC #3 and #8. If you want to see a misuse of album covers on an article that can be removed per those standards see this discography section of the Yellowcard article. The use here on the Spice Girls article is fine. — Κaiba 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. My apologies for being overzealous in this situation. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you were over-zealous at all. The boilerplate text in the album cover licensing clearly states that the image is only fair use on the article about the album, not that about the band. I don't think the images are fair use here and I propose taking them down. They are being used as decoration. --John 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Album covers in band articles, again. --John 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Album images are not acceptable in discographies, especially when individual articles exist and already contain them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Thank you Seraphimblade for backing me up here. I don't see any consensus, or any other good moral, aesthetic or encyclopedic reason given at the centralised discussion either. --John 04:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst you are both correct in stating images in discographies and lists are not allowed, this is an article clearly about the production and history of the albums as well as the band itself, It is encyclopedic. No free for use images have been sourced, album images therefor also serve a aesthetic purpose. Resolution was resolved, People do not appreciate a righteous attitude; Please be more considerate and concise in your history notes also.--Theloon 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images are not allowed to serve an aesthetic purpose, and the question of album covers in discographies has been settled for some time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Once more, This is not a discography! It is an article detailing the band and its music; including the album details. I repeat.. it is not a discography. I am placing them back as they are encyclopedic. We can take this to depute resolution. But perhaps you should read the article before removing them? IT IS NOT A DISCOGRAPHY. Cheers. --Theloon 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

While I have, it makes no difference. Nonfree images are not allowed in band articles. That dispute's already been resolved. They're on the individual album pages, those wishing to see the cover can see them there. You stated above yourself that the images serve "a (sic) aesthetic purpose." Nonfree images are specifically disallowed when they serve aesthetic purposes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Quite apart from the (I believe highly dubious) legal status of our using these images this way under fair use, I also think this is a lazy way to illustrate a band article. Especially for a recent band like the Spice Girls, there must be free images out there that we could use. The continued existence of the album cover images on the article may well discourage people from adding better pictures. Just another reason for taking them down. --John 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place between the Administrators recently and the concensus appeared to allow the continued use of the album covers in the article - which, despite some peoples claims in this discussion, is not a discography. It is also worth noting that several featured articles, especially those relating to music artists or groups, feature album covers in the article. The discussion can be viewed at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive100#Image_use_on_the_Spice_Girls_article...
Those whom removed the album covers had no right to do so until proper discussion had taken place, therefore I am going to replace them in the article and ask an administrator to monitor the article until further discussion takes place. I am also going to ask the admin to wade in an attempt to discourage the edit war which seems to have been brewing today.Rimmers 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The (very brief) discussion at AN/I in no way over-rides Wikipedia policy in this area, which is that decorative use of fair use images is not allowed. Your replacement of the images must surely be seen as contributing to the "edit-war which seems to have been brewing...". I would challenge you to give a proper encyclopedic reason why having these images enhances the article, one which does not consist of "They look nice" or "But article x has images used like this". If you are unable to do this you should remove the images. --John 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see, that discussion involved exactly zero admins, and only a few people total. The comprehensive discussion over nonfree images in band articles took place when the WMF first made its resolution, and overwhelming consensus was that such use is not the minimal use the resolution requires, especially if the image is already used in a separate album article. This issue really is already settled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag

I wonder if anybody can provide an encyclopedic rationale for the inclusion of the small England flag in the infobox. Specifically, how does this flag provide any meaning beyond that already carried by England in linked text? WP:FLAG is a well-developed essay which discourages the indiscriminate use of flags in this manner. --John 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I haven't heard any justification for keeping it, I'm taking it down. If anyone feels like replacing it, it would be good if they could cite a good reason for doing so in terms of the question above. --John 04:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely a union jack would be more appropriate due to the girls' cultural status as British icons if a flag were to be used??? --90.199.148.163 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Music samples

Why was the music samples removed??? Djacku 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

W.O.M.A.N

Would people please stop adding W.O.M.A.N to the singles section and on the Spice Girls template? The single is only rumoured and has not been confirmed to be the girls' comeback.Truten 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Geri quote on Reunion

The quote:

"This was all about making your own city a Spice City and since we launched there have been literally millions of votes for us to play in hundreds of cities including places like Rio de Janeiro, Chicago, Melbourne, Manchester, Paris, Alice Springs, Baghdad (in result from an Internet prank on several websites[27]) and Diss Corn Hall (in Norfolk, England[28]).

Starts off as a quote but then seems to tail off where it has been edited. I don't know the source of the quote so can someone please fix this? Tuwile 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos

There are pretty much NO photos and when you look at all the other sites on wikipedia there are many. There should be a couple photos under the Reunion artical and throughout the entire page. There isn't any showing what they looked like at the beginning middle or end. There should be a couple of Video photos. I suggest for each article:

Beginning: A 1996 photo Spiceworld: A photo from the movie or the "Spice Up Your Life" video. Forever: A photo of them in 2000 without Geri. Reunion: A press photo of them now. (Also I don't understand why the section is called "Reunion/Greatest Hits", It should be Reunion, why would you mention the Greatest Hits in the title without the "The Return Of The Spice Girls Tour 2007 & 2008"). Icons Of The 1990's: A photo of Ginger Spice in her Union Jack Dress.

The page lacks Spice, ironically enough. Most other music pages look fantastic. This one sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.54.196 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, too many cooks spoil the broth and too many opinions about the use of images, non-free, and free blah, blah. We have seen free-use images being put up but yet taken down due to over zealous editors who are jealous of not seeing their own images they put up. If other group webpage can look good, I don't see why this articlw don't. This is absolutely the work of the Wiki-nazis who felt that the success of this band is too greatr that it leave a bad taste in thier mouths. In other words, jealousy! Please try not to dispute over silly things like images and such. The images are necessary to illustrate the article and makes it very useful. Ever heard the saying, a picture worth's a thousand words. Obviously people who insist on removal of images are simply not visual and colrful ppl in life and they obviously lead boring lives. SO get over it! YuRiPa (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Referring to other contributors as 'jealous' and 'Wiki Nazis' does not do anything to strengthen your argument for inclusion of these images. I have once again removed the screencaps - I'm afraid that Wikipedia's non-free content policy is very clear in this case. Read WP:NONFREE#Policy_2, particularly criterion 3. The images are already in use on the articles concerning the individual singles themselves - including them in the main Spice Girls article is no longer 'minimal use' (as they are now being used in two places). Note that the licensing tags on the individual images state that 'identification and critical commentary' (my emphasis) of the music video in question are required in order for the use of the image to qualify as fair use. This is in no way the case in the main SG article. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While I largely agree, I would note that the "critical commentary" criterion is very liberally interpreted. It doesn't take much to qualify. Powers ^T 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

14th Single?

they've just announced they're new 13th single why is there a TBA underneath that one? For all anyone knows it could be their last single ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicesoldier (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

British?/English?

If you described them as "British", that tells what country they're from; but if you described them as "English", that only tells what constituent country they're from. --PJ Pete —Preceding comment was added at 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All 5 are from England therefore their respective nationalities is English - I'm not entirely sure of the ethnicity of the members that may be mixed race however it isn't false by saying they're English--90.199.148.163 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Official Site

In the official site it says that they auditioned Friday March 4, 1993 but that was a Thursday and most sources say that they auditioned including their biographies in March 1994. So their website is wrong im guessing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.14.152 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After the new tour and Greatest Hits...

Haven't the girls stated that this would be the final album they would release together, to kind of put an end to everything and finish off what they began? Should this be included in the article? Or do they plan on recording more material in the future?

It should be if there's a source for it. How can we verify that they said that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Melanie C. stated that in an interview just before they announced they were getting back together. She talked about how all the girls had agreed to get back together and that she was the only one who had yet to agree to come back, so she said she would so they could do it and get it done with. I'll try to find the interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.71.30 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I also read a recent interview with Emma saying that they would continue to do this as long as there was a demand from fans. No idea what she meant exactly, but I think there is no definite end date to the reunion as of now.LPMA (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

TODAYshow.com

their new video "Headlines" was the first ever video premiere on Todayshow.com that should be under career achievments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiceicle (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What does HONEYSUCKEL and FAGS mean in the article? I think it needs to be removed 121.72.15.217 (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the alteration to "2 Become 1"?

Does anyone know why they made the alteration to the "2 Become 1" song? In the original it was "Boys and girls feel good together" and now its "Love will bring us back together". Perhaps it was too controversial to say? If you still dont know what I'm talking about please go to the "2 Become 1" article. Does anyone know why it was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.227.72 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It was, as I recall having heard, to avoid them from losing appeal from their gay fanbase (which was pretty big from the beginning), since the original "boys and girls go good together" sounder sort of homophobic.201.209.76.93 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Shome mishtake shurely??

"In March 1995, because of the group's frustration at their management's unwillingness to listen to their visions and ideas, they parted from Heart Management."

- Next para. -

"In October 1994, armed with a catalogue of demos and dance routines, the group began touring management agencies."

I've tried to make some sense of the timeline to put these two entries into chronological order but I just plain can't. Can someone who has a Spice-history to hand fix it please? Deke42 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Headlines sales figures

Sales figures of 65000 are listed for the single in the UK. Being it sold under 5000 copies in its first week and fell out of the top 75 completely after 4 weeks this is unlikely to be true. could someone please insert a citation for this, otherwise it should be removed Spicefunk (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Real sales of Headlines in the UK to date are 45,000 and, as it is out of the charts, this figure is not likely to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rub rb (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Platinum in Spain?????

Don't know who the hell has been writing that the GH has been certified Platinum or even 2xPlat. in Spain (as well as many other markets) in the last weeks.

That's ABSOLUTELY false, so everytime you put this, it will be deleted.

The only countries where the GH has been certified so far are UK, Australia, New Zealand, Brasil, Canada and according to some sources, US (despite not being updated in the RIAA website). (Rub rb (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC))(Rub_rb)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changed tense

I've changed the tense of the article to "were". Before the last song on the tour, they stated it was the last time we would see them. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 12:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to "Are," because even though they may not still be touring they still can be referred to as a group, called "The Spice Girls." They never officially broke up, and even Halliwell was quoted as saying "Who knows if we'll get together again?" or something similar to that, leaving it open-ended. They didn't say that it was the last time we'd see them in general, but rather, just the last time we'd see them on stage. Plus, there have been reports that they will soon become spokeswomen for L'Oreal, being credited as "The Spice Girls," thus keeping them in the present tense.

Also they said they would like to perform for Nelson Mandela on his birthday this summer. Is this not enough for you? I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.88.2 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb. 28th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.43.88.2 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing the girls in alphabetical order

Who keeps moving Victoria to the bottom? The girls should be listed alphabetically, thus making her first. Even before she was married, she would have been first, as her maiden name is Adams. Why does she keep getting moved to the bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.146.191 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thailand?

Hi. Umh, I just want to ask why it says this in the article?

The Spice Girls are a BRIT Award-winning Thailand girl pop group formed in Bangkok in 1994, consisting of Geri Halliwell, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Emma Bunton and Melanie Chisholm.

Now I don't remember much about the Spice Girls at all, but I know that's not true. Can someone fix that?--Druzilla (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Druzilla (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Viva La Spice: Spice is Back"?

Where are the sources for this said album and single?--Dil (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden Concert(s)

This is in response to the section of the under "The Return of the Spice Girls" which claims that at "one" of the MSG concerts, the girls said that they would be "delighted" to sing at Nelson Demile's birthday party. First, there was only ONE MSG concert. Second, they never said that. I think this part of the section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.146.191 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article

This article is about twice as long as it should be. Looks like the first proper section (History) is about half the length of the article, and details the group's career in detail. Any objections to splitting that of as "History of the Spice Girls" or something? leevclarke (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's Christmas In Spiceworld Tour? Why does it redirect here now??

see headline. I'd like to know the setlist and details of the CIS tour from 1999... and there isn't any of that in the main Spice Girls article. I know there used to be a separate Christmas In Spiceworld tour page... where is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.89.156 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Still together misunderstandings

The introduction paragraph at the top of the article page, epseically the caption of the picture, suggests that they are not together anymore and the reunion was a one off thing, can someone rrewrite this and/or the caption? (the captions read "bow a their final concert". If not a rewrite then can you confirm this here for me? :) --86.7.147.28 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

lost member.....

it states on the official SG website that there was a member of the band that left before they made any songs and she was replaced by Emma Bunton (baby spice). can someone put this in please? thanks --Eigguhs (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, at the end of the article. In the "related articles" section: see Michelle Stephenson.

This is such a good article! You guys should nominate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.224.213.239 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. There are two members-- Michelle Stephenson and Lianne Morgan. They are the first two members of the band. But we cannot considered them as former members because before the Spice Girls, the name of their band was Touch. Therefore, they are the former member of Touch so as Mel B, Victoria, and Geri (Mel C and Emma were excluded because they came late and their band already changed its name to Spice Girls.--Pinakapoging bata (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nasty comments

Someone who cares about this entry should manage it and make sure nasty comments, such as appears in the first sentence now (Korporaal1 (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)) are quicly removed. Someone has put a remark in which says: "The Spice Girls are incredibly racist, it's a fact". This is -whether true or not- something that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.

Citations

[In early 1997, the Spice Girls signed a multimillion sponsorship deal with Pepsi, and earned over £5 million (US$10 million) for the group.[136)

This is not an actual citation. All you are citing is a magazine article that did not list their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.41.99 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect is incorrect

Sorry, I don't know how to fix this, but "Spice Records" redirects to "Spice Girls".

"Spice Records" is a independent record label in Okinawa, Japan and is not affiliated with "Spice Girls" in any way.\

The "Spice Records" -> "Spice Girls" redirect should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.120.228.207 (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong dates?

The dates in this article doesn't completely coincide with the Time line on the official website. Which one is wrong, this article or the website? Seriously confused! help! DoctorStrange7 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lianne Morgan??

I have noticed that the Lianne Morgan page redirects here. I have been trrying to find out soem facts about her but it is all turning to custard! Can someone fix this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.218.113 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree! There should be a section on Lianne Morgan as I would like to know more about her!DoctorStrange7 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lianne Morgan

The above article is up for deletion, if anyone is interested in contributing to its AFD. Dalejenkins | 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no information of this former Spice Girls candidate. As a student trying to record a brief history of the spice girls, I was highly disappointed to find nothing about her. Not even a picture. How can I complete my project. I may have to rewrite the whole thing, making N'sync the subject of my report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.156.91 (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lianne Morgan - reason for departure?

I'm confused. The text states that Lianne Morgan was replaced due to her age by Mel C who "was the same age as the other girls". Lianne's own web site state she was 23. I may be showing my own age to question ho she could have been deemed too old compared to age 20 (mel B), but the other girls were not "the same age" and Geri herself was 22 that year. Was there perhaps another reason? Dainamo (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG just checked elsewhere, that was the management decision - how pathetic Dainamo (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But in the article it says that the Herberts felt that she was more suited to a solo career. Confused?? --DoctorStrange7 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Information

I Found Some Web Sites Contain Information about ( Lianne Morgan ) , anyone wants to make a page about her, This Web Sites will does help you

Lianne Morgan Official Web-Site

Lianne Morgan, My Space Page

Lianne Morgan, Article in Stupid Celebrities web-sites

I Hope That's Helping

Good Luck --Centrino7 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

what did the spice girls ware? and will they get bck togetha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.128.216 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What do they do?

This is a very long article, and yet it never tells the reader who the Spice Girls are or what they do. It says they're collectively "a pop group", but never tells us that the individual members of the group function as singers (as I'm--only--assuming they do). We learn there are five Spice Girls, but we are never told if they sing in five-part harmony, take turns singing solo, or sing duets, trios, or quartets. Presumably musicians accompany them, but we are never told so or who these musicians are or what instruments they play. These are serious omissions. TheScotch (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The normal approach to this is to create an individual page for each member, now that it's clear they all have significant individual careers. That way those with controversial reputations do not impact on the other members of the band.

As a plus for you, Spice was reputedly the landlady's dog in Maidenhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.121.214 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Consecutive Number One Hits

This entire entry is filled with inaccuracies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.139.98 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"In March 1997, a double A-side of "Mama"/"Who Do You Think You Are" was release in Europe, the last from Spice, which once again saw them at number one,[36] making the Spice Girls the first group in history to have four consecutive number one hits."

Was this for a British Girl Group? In Europe? I checked the source of the article - the Spice Girls' own [promotional] website. I think the website misspoke when it declared this "fact", as The Supremes had five consecutive number-one singles three decades earlier in the United States [Billboard], from mid-1964 to mid-1965: "Where Did Our Love Go?", "Baby Love", "Come See About Me", "Stop! In The Name Of Love", and "Back In My Arms Again".

-FQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueArtichoke (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Most successful spice girl as a solo artist

It says that Geri Halliwell is the most successful spice girl, having sold 12 million records as a solo artist. But then it also says, Mel C has sold 13 million? Surely she is more successful then? Yes Geri may of had more number ones solo, but Mel c has still had the same amount of number ones, since she had two more whilst in the spice girls. Also 1 million records is quite a big difference. Someone sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.65.217 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not because you're a Mel C's fan, doesn't mean that she sold more than Geri.. According to19 entertainment, Geri sold more than 12 million.. I was the one who added the "Solo Carreer" section and I am very confident with my researches before typing it here in Wikipedia... Don't be too biased, just accept that Geri sold more than Mel C and Mel C got more number 1 than Geri... Geri Halliwell | 19 Entertainment LtdPinakapoging bata (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Geri may have sold more in terms of records, but you still have to consider that she left early while she was still riding on "Spicemania". So it is pretty difficult to tell who sold more as an solo artist. I mean if they all went their own way altogether, would the sales of Mel C's solo career surpass Geri? We really wouldn't know...--DoctorStrange (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick Names

The nick names should be in the members colum because that is what they where known as when they where part of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.188.103 (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro Revision Needed

The introduction to this article needs cleaning up. It seems more like a fan page citing how the Spice Girls are awesome, rather than an encyclopedic entry. There are numerous uncited superlatives (most, greatest, etc.) that either need source verification or should be removed. 222.58.62.19 (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged a few "citations needed". It still reads like publicity material, though. It needs some bold editting. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the Spice Girls do deserve a lot of the accolades mentioned, simply because they were so dominant in the music business during their first run. And most of the items I saw in the lead paragraphs tagged as needing citation are referenced later in the article. As a result, I've undone the tags. Tabercil (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

British or English

Does anyone have any issue with the group being described, accurately, as being English? Does anyone have any references that suggest that they are in any way not English? There's nothing wrong with being specificic is there? - and if you look at all other UK artists they are described as English, Scottish or Welsh. (I'm wondering why the editor who is reverting my edits is keen to keep the British description, but wasn't quite so interested in reverting the edits that changed the article from saying English to British with no reason given... hmmm)

92.12.80.140 (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have an issue in saying that they were English in that they were considered under the genre of a British pop music, as far as I am aware, having searched this, there is no genre of English pop music, despite Wikipedia having category for english pop music groups. It seems as though Wikipedia is the sole source for this information across the web, via using a variety of search engines. I will continue to peruse this talk page and if there is no further activity for let say, 2 weeks I will see this as a consensus that the spice girls are officialy considered a British Pop group see MTV. Jab843 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have come to an agreement with myself, and I will leave it as stated, as an English group having seen some other articles, and Category:English pop music groups I believe this issue is now closed. Jab843 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

member identification

Which one is Sporty Spice? Posh Spice? Baby Spice? Scary Spice ? Ect? I'm not a 9 year old girl so this info would be helpful...thanx.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.234 (talk • contribs) date

This is actually mentioned in the article here: Fashion trends and nicknames. It also sheds some light on each of how they got their nicknames and such. Hope this helps! --DoctorStrange (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

100 million in bold

Any particular reason why this sentence is in bold in the opening paragraph?

They have sold over 100 million records worldwide

Thank you, Kushal (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It was just IP vandalism. --Shadow (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from "Groundbreaking Success and Spicemania (1997–1998)" section

I've just removed the following uncited paragraph from the "Groundbreaking Success and Spicemania (1997–1998)" section:

The mania continues into current day social celebration throughout Generation Y. Many women relive the phenomenon known as spice mania by gathering in groups of 5, each identifying with a particular Spice Girl. It is regularly seen at college campus during Greek functions or during the Halloween season.

I was originally just going to add a {{citation needed}} tag, but I don't actually think it belongs (at least in that place). The style of the prose feels different from the preceding paragraphs (it feels quite original researchy) and it doesn't fit the chronology of the article. If it is reinstated then it also needs geographical specification - I suspect it's related to the US but I don't know for certain. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite sentence

"Hundreds of girls responded and the applicants were whittled down to a final five that included Victoria Adams, Lianne Morgan[19], Melanie Brown ,Michelle Stephenson and Suzanne Tinker but replaced at the last moment because of a bomb scare with Geri Halliwell." What? This needs to be rewritten by someone who can even tell what's being said. Was Geri going to explode? And who was replaced? 71.127.3.139 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

haha I totally agree - the bomb scare? what in the world is being said here ?? Hopefully somebody can change that/ Lenachka25 (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. I'm the one who added the whole audition story there.. Haha.. Sorry for my bad English.. hope you can help me..Pinakapoging bata (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Waaaaay too long

There's a lot of unnecessary information in here and in long sections. Surely we can scrap some of it and make it easier to read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.30.66 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is basically tl;dr.--Krystaleen 08:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Britpop/pop

"After being shut out by the Britpop revolution that occurred in the early 1990s when bands like Oasis, Pulp and Blur dominated the charts, pop music found a voice again." While I sort of know what this is trying to say, the way it's phrased is awkward. If a type of music dominates the charts, it is "pop music" by definition. Beyond that, it seems odd to say that "Britpop shut pop music out." It might be more precise to say that "keyboard based dance music (or whatever distinction the contributor was trying to make) found a voice again."96.232.48.167 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Rumors of reunion at the Closing Ceremony for London Olympics 2012

There's so many news saying this. It was mentioned by Daily Mail that "A source confirmed the news to the MailOnline this afternoon.". What "source" exactly? I think I'll put this up as a 'rumor' for now until the event actually happens.Masterpeace3 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

They've been seen rehearsing yesterday, so I guess the rumor is true after all.--Krystaleen 16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I say we wait until an official confirmation. But yes, there are indeed pictures online of them rehearsing. Statυs (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just wait until the London Olympics committee officially confirms them or after the closing ceremony had occured. Then we can put all these things in the article. Masterpeace3 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were waiting until the official confirmation, but I see it's been added already.--Krystaleen 04:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We did. Feel free to revert anybody who adds the information. Without, an official confirmation of course. Statυs (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks guys. That was great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpeace3 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Should 2012 be included in years active?

All they've done is have a press conference and a performance. Is 2012 really an active year for them? Statυs (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is okay to include 2012, as long as it's not 2012-present and all members stay as "past members".--Krystaleen 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Last names in the body text

Why does some parts of this article uses their nicknames instead of last names? Like "Mel B stated ..." Pretty sure we're supposed to use last names only.--Krystaleen 04:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Band members and solo careers sections

Are these two really necessary? All 5 members have their own articles, so I don't think a solo career section is really necessary at all. As for band members, I think the table is a bit too much, and if those 2 other girls weren't a part of the final lineup they shouldn't be listed there.--Krystaleen 14:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I also think Other brand ventures should be merged into History. Statυs (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove the solo section and remove the table from band members section now. Not yet sure how to incorporate the brand ventures into the history.--Krystaleen 05:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Who readded the solo career section? Why?--Krystaleen 18:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated picture?

can we have an updated picture of the spice girls, there have been some, but they have been removed, can it be either from the olympics performance or the picture where they launched viva forever the musical earlier this year.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.75.52 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why the present tense?

The group isn't active, is it?--Krystaleen 11:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Most successful British band?

I dispute that the Spice Girls (65 million albums sold) should be billed as "more successful" than Duran Duran (100 million albums sold). DD is the most successful British band since the Beatles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.255.133 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They is one one ref to Duran Duran selling 100million records most sources state 50million with 11 studio albums. Duran Duran didnt have the impact or nowhere near that of the spice girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.41.130 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the time been together, the girls are considered to be more successful as Duran Duran had years of success already etched on to their milestone whereas the girls were together for less than a decade.--DoctorStrange (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are also Queen, Dire Straits and Depeche Mode to be considered. The Spice Girls cannot be considered most successfull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.141.162 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More successful than Pink Floyd or Led Zep to name but two bands??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.183.169 (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I removed a lot of truly horrible tabloid sources from the article, as well as forums and YouTube. Per WP:BLPSOURCES we cannot use sources like this on articles like this one. If better sources can be found for the material, that's great. If not, it can be removed. --John (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

fan's point of view?

The {{fanpov}} banner has been up for over a year. I'm not particularly a fan of the Spice Girls, nor do I particularly dislike them, so I suppose my own attitude toward the "fancruft" question is neutral. As far as I can see, this article is not particularly gushy or squee-ish. There's a lot about how they were covered in the media and in popular culture generally, but that's intrinsic to a highly successful pop group, and it's generally well referenced. I'm taking down the banner.

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep all rumors out of the article

Now that there are rumors that they will be going on a second reunion tour, in which Posh does not wish to be a part of, let's, please, keep all rumors out of this article until they are confirmed true. Statυs (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Happened by due to a reference to them and I noticed that the photo caption says, in effect, that they had an "almost ultimate" reunion. Penultimate means 'next to last', or 'almost' in that a peninsula is almost an island. Is this what was intended, or did the writer think penultimate means "beyond ultimate", or something like quintessence, purest or best?? -- Steve -- (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Spice Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140817102419/http://bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/Search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070608063448/http://www.riaa.com:80/gp/database/default.asp to http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141229230112/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003608469 to http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003608469
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100304163432/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/artists/spicegirls/albums/album/277713/review/5942522 to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/spicegirls/albums/album/277713/review/5942522
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120626202833/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/2215:2797/2/The_Spice_Girls.htm to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/2215:2797/2/The_Spice_Girls.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203015248/http://www.brits.co.uk/shows/archive-71/ to http://www.brits.co.uk/shows/archive-71/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121103021631/http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=946313 to http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=946313
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150223182305/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/spicegirls/albums/album/188922/review/5943248 to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/spicegirls/albums/album/188922/review/5943248
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717040227/http://www.thespicegirls.com/en/index_us.html to http://www.thespicegirls.com/en/index_us.html#
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518223646/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFhdLyTna30 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFhdLyTna30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140203040449/http://www.news24.com/Content/Entertainment/CelebNews/1048/b97b9066727a483d8a95a1141a343f36/13-02-2008-11-26/Mel_B_I_gave_Geri_hell to http://www.news24.com/Content/Entertainment/CelebNews/1048/b97b9066727a483d8a95a1141a343f36/13-02-2008-11-26/Mel_B_I_gave_Geri_hell
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216124427/http://www.cinemanow.com:80/Music/1121,0,5,,0,6,19924/Spice-Girls-Girl-Talk.htm to http://www.cinemanow.com/Music/1121,0,5,,0,6,19924/Spice-Girls-Girl-Talk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121103021703/http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=951809 to http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/search/google/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=951809

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 Tour Reunion

coming soon, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.229.236 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Samantha Kate Barr would like to become a spice girl

Hi Spice Girls my name is Samantha Kate Barr and I would rely like to become a Spice Girl someday in your band I was born on the 3/7/1991 and will be 25 years old this year on the 3/7/2016 just letting you know I love singing spice girl songs.the song I like is something kind of funny and the spice girl Iv loved all my life Is sporty spice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.47.46 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016

Saw a typo. I want to fix the typo. The last word in the following sentence should be "them" and not "then". So please change "then" to "them" in the following sentence in the aritcle. Due to the large interest in the group, the Herberts quickly set about creating a binding contract for then. Keflavik1 (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out Cannolis (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos

It seems odd that every single photo in this article is from the group's 2007 reunion tour...even the photos inset throughout the group's early history. I'd expect an up-to-date picture in the infobox, and a photo of them on the reunion tour in the appropriate section, but surely the photos "1996-7" "1997-8" "1998-2000" sections at least should be representative of the group performing from that era. Is there a reason they're not? 90.218.237.14 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As for the reunion tour pictures being used in the incorrect eras, there are not any fair-use photographs available of them as a group pre-2007 as of now, and we won't be able to put any in the article unless an owner of images from those eras makes them available under fair use. The best we can do with what we have is use images from the reunion tour of them performing songs from those respective time periods. Traveltoromantis (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

There's a very good new article on BBC discussing the Spice Girl's legacy. Someone might like to use it to add information to the article: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.215.200 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"most successful British band since The Beatles"

How is this possible when Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Genesis, and many more have outsold the Spice Girls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.147.78 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who wrote that meant their success in the singles chart over a limited period - neither Floyd nor Zep were singles acts after their very first years - but if that's the idea, it should be noted that singles have become a much less vital medium on the pop music scene. Already around 2000, novelty songs and joke tracks like Crazy Frog or Barbie Girl had taken over much of the singles charts because frankly, few people over 17 were buying singles anymore. In the sixties and seventies, the singles charts were a key battleground and competition between all kinds of major and minor artists for singles hits was a cut-throat match every week. So it was much tougher for a band back then to score hit singles than it would be for Spice Girls, Rihanna or some novelty act in more recent years. 83.251.164.50 (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture

Hi. Previously I removed a subsection on "Spicy Crispy Chicks" because I didn't think it deserved its own subsection in the "Impact & Legacy" section, especially compared to the other broader and far more notable legacies. I'm thinking of adding an "In popular culture" subsection, either on its own or under "Legacy". It would mention things like the previously removed "Spicy Crispy Chicks" and other notable parodies/tributes of them in the media e.g. "Friendtopia" in Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. If anyone has any comments or objections to this, feel free to discuss here. Also, if you have any suggestions/sources (especially for older and/or non-US/UK examples) to help with this, please let me know. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Founded in 1993

The band's very detailed timeline describes the founding of the band in 1993, with descriptions of what the girls were doing in various months of 1993.

Other writers echo the February 1993 advert publishing date, the March 1993 audition date, and the fact the girls were living together in Maidenhead during 1993 while training:

• Brian Southall, Pop Goes to Court: Rock 'N' Pop's Greatest Court Battles, page 265.
• Paul Taylor, "Spice Girls: The Interview", 24 January 2008, Manchester Evening News
• Chris Heath, "Spice Girls: Too Hot to Handle", 10 July 1997, Rolling Stone
• Caroline Sullivan, "Spice Girls form", 10 June 2011, The Guardian
• Tracey Savell Reavis, The Life and Career of David Beckham: Football Legend, Cultural Icon, page 56. Rowman & Littlefield, 7 August 2014.
• David Mansour, From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century, page 455. Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1 June 2005.
• Colin Larkin, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, page 3047. Omnibus Press, 27 May 2011
• Simon Frith, Will Straw, John Street; The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, page 209. Cambridge University Press, 16 August 2001
• BBC News. Obituary of Bob Herbert, 10 August 1999.
• Allyson Lieberman, "Spice Girls Guy Dies – Death Casts Doubt on Fate of His Prefab Five", New York Post, 12 August 1999.

On the other hand, David Sinclair's biography of the Spice Girls, published in 2009, says they auditioned 4 March 1994. Note that the audition date of 4 March falls on a Friday in 1994 but on a Thursday in 1993. In her biography, Just For The Record, Halliwell writes that she first auditioned for the band in May 1994.[4]

My view is that Halliwell is wrong or is trying to lose a year, and that Sinclair is mistakenly basing his timeline on hers. Too many others note that 1993 was the year the band formed. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The first audition was in 1994. Halliwell, Brown and Beckham's autobiographies all agree on this. The confusion from those above articles (especially those from the 90s) is probably due to the group "lying" about when they started, along with their ages, when they first came onto the scene in 1996 (probably to seem more "credible"). They gave incorrect dates and ages in their first official magazine/book. Here's the Virgin promo for "wannabe" where they "misrepresent" their ages (Halliwell says she's 21 but she's actually 24; Emma says she's 18 when she's actually 20; Melanie C claims to be 20 when she's actually 22). I know they did that in some interviews in 1996 too, possibly in press packages hence the media's confusion. Since then however, they've been consistent about the year in their autobiographies and documentaries.

Also, one of those sources you cite actually points out that they've lied about the year they formed:

(Chris Heath, "Spice Girls: Too Hot to Handle", 10 July 1997, Rolling Stone):

"In essence, much of this appears to be true, but when you nose around, a few pieces don't fit. For instance – though I'm not entirely sure why they would lie about this – they were actually brought together a year later than they claim: in March 1994. When I point this out, they don't disagree; they just try to make a joke out of it."

As for the official website's timeline, everything in that time line was copy-and-pasted from other sources. Those 1992/1993 stuff is in fact copy-and-pasted from their first official magazine/book where they "lie" about the date they started and their ages. I can only guess that it was copy-and-pasted by an underpaid intern and the information wasn't vetted.

As for Halliwell writing in her autobiography that she first auditioned for the band in May 1994....I don't see the contradiction in that? Several rounds of auditions were held, the first starting in 4 March 1994. Halliwell didn't attend the first auditions, and only joined in the last rounds.

Articles saying 1994:

• http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/spice-girls/biography
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6251176.stm
• http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a63018/spice-girls-timeline/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1997/11/02/pop-tarts-spice-girls-take-over/b44a04ff-38dd-40f9-bcc5-c6a82d5251a9/
• https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandhealth/gallery/2007/jun/28/celebrity
• http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-spicegirls-idUSBRE85P0ZB20120626
• https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/29/mel-b-x-factor
• https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/nov/20/posh-to-classy-how-victoria-beckham-won-over-fashion-world
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/3b409e2d-04a0-4cfd-94d0-6c00e21c06b9
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9709663/Brian-Masters-Why-I-love-the-Spice-Girls.html
• smashinginterviews.com/interviews/musicians/mel-b-interview-i-think-all-five-of-us-are-interested-in-a-spice-girls-reunion (Mel B says 1994 in interview)
• http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a21505/geri-halliwell-spice-girls-story/ (article written by Halliwell also saying 1994)
• http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-bob-herbert-1112346.html (Obituary of Bob Herbert)
• Interview with Chris Herbert

The original stage magazine ad for the auditions also states that the audition is to be held on 4 March 1994. Bennv3771 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I had considered the angle of the girls lying about their age but usually that entails moving dates forward, not backward. They should have been talking about forming in 1995 to seem younger. Anyway, your explanation is satisfactory to me. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the civility. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the upper link is dead. Does someone know a site where the exact content is copied?

Also, I have read Sinclair's book, and I believe he made a few errors in some of the details. A bit sloppy, I suppose. IContribute7238 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Can you please add World Music Awards winners category please? 2600:6C4E:580:46B:0:E653:2549:B879 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Worth having? Yellowxander (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Most succesful band since the Beatles

How exactly is this true? If its by record sales, how about bands like Queen? Please sort this out before removing the tag 123.255.21.127 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

They became the most successful band since the Beatles in terms of success and not records sold. I can't explain this thing because I'm not fluently speaking into english but please, analyze the sentence before complaining please!Pinakapoging bata (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How is "success" measured then? Not records sold. Not number one hits. What then? I too think this phrase should be removed until someone can qualify it, it puts the believability of the whole article in question as it's such an obvious untruth. LordMairsil (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)