Talk:Christina Aguilera

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christina Aguilera article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 21 days

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Template:Vital article

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Christina Aguilera was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 3, 2005 Peer review Reviewed August 22, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 28, 2005 Good article nominee Listed March 19, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted August 6, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 13, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 19, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed December 5, 2010 Peer review Reviewed December 6, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed January 31, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christina Aguilera B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christina Aguilera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christina Aguilera on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christina AguileraWikipedia:WikiProject Christina AguileraTemplate:WikiProject Christina AguileraChristina Aguilera articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pop music B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. R&B and Soul Music B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ecuador B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies: Person B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disney B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latin music B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin music (music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and the languages of Ibero-America, see project scope for more details) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin musicWikipedia:WikiProject Latin musicTemplate:WikiProject Latin musicLatin music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women in Music B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pittsburgh B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As seen the past few days, I've made some changes trying to make the article more fluid, more encyclopedic, highlighting only the most notable events in Aguilera's career, as well as her achievements and legacy. I adapted the whole article and its sections inspired by those of Cher and Madonna. Here some points:

• Particularly I don't see the need for a whole section about The Voice's back and forth, an album that didn't produce hits (Lotus) and participation in soundtracks that don't have any notable importance in her career. I tried to make it more fluid by grouping as "Bionic, acting debut in Burlesque, and Lotus". Not every album needs its own section. In Mariah's and Madonna's page (a feature article and a good article, respectively), it has section to two - and even three albums.
• Excessive sources and details for certain events. Example: "The album was promoted through the EU / UK Summer Series promotional tour, which consisted of five festival shows throughout Europe and three arena concerts in the United Kingdom.[222][223][224][225] The promotional tour received critical praise.[226][227][228][229][230]". In fact, I think this only occurs in this article. Like, I want this to be promoted to a good article too, or even a featured article. But as it is, maybe it can be difficult.
• The 'Public Image' section is full of information that is already covered throughout the article. In my edit, I tried to mention only the notable and emphasized 'Fashion' - which she has been known for since the beginning of her career.
• About 'Public image' again. Is a section really needed to cover how she dressed and dyed her hair for each album release? It makes no sense.
• All my edits were supported by reliable sources, mostly in the 'Fashion' section which is supported by leading fashion magazines. In changes to 100 million records sold I used a source from NME - the former was claiming sales of 90 million and supported by "AppleTV" (I opened it and it not even mentions 90 million or her worldwide sales) and NFTEvening (I don't think this is reliable). And even so, you all returned to the stats of 90 million with both uncertain sources. I don't understand it. Both sources were even removed in List of best-selling music artists due its unreliable.
• None of my edits removed notable events in Aguilera's career. I only removed excessive details to make it fluid and encyclopedic. Note: The current article is longer than several other featured ones.

I'm not wanting - and I don't want to - that only my edits prevail, so I opened this discussion to point it. The article's final result - with the parts I added to the main article - is in my sandbox. I was excited about the possibility of helping to promote the article to feature here in the future, as I was able to do on Wikipedia in Portuguese. I will not make new edits in the article due my poor grammar. Unfortunately my English is not good - as you've noticed - but I think some changes could be fixed than just deleting everything and going back to the previous version with other of its notable problems. Anyway, feel free to use and adapt any part of the article in my sandbox, if you want to and get interested. Thanks and good luck! Melketon (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Actually a lot of what you wrote was really insightful - I think the main issue or problem was the delivery. Some of the wording was good but a lot of it wasn't grammatically correct. So rather than going through the whole page, 204060baby and I went through most of what you wrote and added back in / removed unnecessary details. I know they have been trying to cut down the lead / some of the other sections for a while now so thank you for your work. No work is ever wasted after all. We will take what you wrote into consideration! Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 07:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First of all, please don't refrain from editing this article, that's what Wikipedia is all about. A lot of what you wrote was actually very helpful, particularly the Personal life section, which I had been trying to make work for a while. As for combining the Bionic and Lotus sections, @Maxwell King123321 and I discussed this on my talk page and we originally agreed to merge both sections since neither albums didn't have tours and both sections mentioned The Voice. However, it turned out that merging both sections would have created a section that would have been too long. After that we thought about merging Liberation and Aguilera, but the same thing happened.

I looked at your sandbox and it is very helpful. I think a section about her performance style and music videos would be necessary, seeing as there has been a lot of coverage of both over her career, with Dirrty being criticized and banned, and her receiving a lot of acclaim for her tours and performances overall. However, it would have to be a much shorter section, since it could be difficult to read.

I liked the sections about her being a fashion and gay icon, seeing as she's been recognized by fashion magazines and by GLAAD multiple times. Again, they would have to be much shorter for the same reason as I gave earlier. Some of the the gay icon section can be also written in the Gay icon article, which lists some artists that are recognized as gay icons. Christina's not listed there at all, which is surprising.

We are still working on the article, and you can also join the discussion we had in my talk page. I will also be using some of what you wrote on your sandbox as inspiration, because I think there are a lot of necessary changes there. Again, please feel free to continue editing this article. Just remember to be concise, seeing as her article already has a lot of problems with WP:PUFFERY. If you think that our work also suffers from this problem, please feel free to edit. 204060baby (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]