Talk:Charli XCX

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charli XCX 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

The contents of the Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX) page were merged into Charli XCX on 31 May 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 May 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Charli XCX. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Watch: Charli XCX Corrects Her Own Wikipedia Page". Capital FM. 13 September 2019. Retrieved 10 October 2020. Charli XCX's new album 'Charli' available to her legions of fans, we thought it would be a great idea to get the lady herself to breeze through her Wikipedia page to make sure it's all up to date.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Charli XCX. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Charli XCX at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) 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.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). East Anglia: Essex Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Essex task force. Hertfordshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles Pop music Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mainly because if using the lowercase then multiple things will then have to be changed and moved such as song articles.

It's also not that big of a difference. Let's just keep it uppercase to avoid confusion. 67.230.43.70 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

um i agree 80%, it's hard to change also im afraid that if her name will be changed to XCX again after 7th album. but we don't know when chali's 7th album will be released, like it can take 1~2 years. then people will confuse abt it, even tho it's not that big of a diff Arismauve (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like people have not seen this talk page section before committing to lowercase the three letters. Also doing it in every part of the article does not work properly, e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Charli xcx is a red link. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we need other people's opinion too.. hmm what's your think? I'm neutral opinion. If they change to "xcx" then i'll agree, or if they want to keep it as "XCX" i'll agree too. But i'm afraid that if there are more people who want to change to all lowercase. Arismauve (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to wait to see if media actually begin referring to her as Charli xcx, and right now that hasn't been clear. There's no need to change, as I also don't see any statements from her saying that she prefers lowercase. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you're right, till yet Charli didnt state any opinions on her name. also if we change this document's name from XCX to xcx, i think it can cause a lot of works. Arismauve (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

CRASH is listed as her highest debut of her career, when her most recent album BRAT was double the sales of CRASH its first week. It also has a metacritic score of 95, making it her most acclaimed album to date. 2600:4808:5AF1:FC00:ACCE:B21A:1CE3:50C3 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The final sentence of the "Musical Style" section states that "Charli XCX's has been described as a figurehead of the 2010s 'hyperpop' style, though she rejected the term on social media, stating that she does 'not identify with music genres.'"

The possessive of "Charli XCX's" should be changed to "Charli XCX". Cabrac (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good catch, done. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change her dad’s occupation to agent as this is what got her noticed. The attempt at hiding her nepotism defeats the transparency that Wikipedia was built off 86.188.31.156 (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the album was released, I was trying to add it but someone knows it's unnecessary. What do you think? Ahri Boy (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states "Studio albums", therefore we don't list every album release. ภץאคгöร 11:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reddit thread about how the current image is ugly and also it looks like the image is likely copyrighted as it's for a samsung x snapchat advertisement. could we find a cuter/more legal image 188.30.133.232 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 188, I agree that it's not a great pic, but the options aren't great. Look through this category if you want to try to find something else, but it's a lot of blurry concert pics and other non-posed photos in which she's making awkward faces. As far as the copyright status, the guy who made it appears to have released it under a free license. I'm very happy to change it, but until we have a better photo I prefer something that at least shows her face. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A photographer has recently posted images of Charli XCX performing in New York. I have messaged direct contact on Reddit with the photographer personally who agreed to let Wikipedia use his images of Charli, and has promptly sent an email to the response team of Wikimedia Commons to grant the correct copyright status.

I changed the lead image in the meantime, I think this photo is great, well-lit and very updated for the times. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PHShanghai, in general for articles of people, preference is given to photos where we can actually see their face/what they look like. While this is a really nice photo in a different, it is much worse for seeing her face/identifying her in the infobox. Please let me know what other photos get uploaded. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo: This is how Charli looks like however? Photos of performances have been used as lead images in other musician articles for a long time. As an example off the top of my head, Katy Perry, a featured article, has a photo of her performing as the lead image right now. Michael Jackson and Madonna are two other notable articles with lead photos of artists performing live. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PHShanghai The issue is not that she's performing, the issue is that it's not cropped to her upper body, she's turned away from the camera, and she's wearing glasses. None of those are true for the Katy Perry pic. If you can find one that's more equivalent to the Perry pic, I would be much happier changing to that. Please don't change the pic until you have consensus to change, and with all due respect, reddit comments aren't consensus. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see a similar discussion, look at the Michael Jackson talk page for a typical discussion and a look at what people consider. The current Charli pic does not come remotely close to portraying what the Jackson pic shows, artistically or otherwise. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there is an ongoing discussion to change the Michael Jackson pic. Point taken. However, I am confused as to how it does "not" portray what the Jackson pic shows. My point is, both are just simple images of them singing and performing live. This best illustrates the article topic, which is Charli XCX. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo: Charli has been performing with sunglasses live for a very long time now, it is part of the "Brat" brand. Furthermore, the consensus to keep the 2018 pic is very weak, seeing as it is not only older but also way lower resolution than the current 2024 pic. Per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, the image best illustrates the subject matter, which in this case is Charli XCX. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are Wikipedia, we do not care about her Brat brand, and our job is not to be her publicist or conform to her PR desires. That is explicitly barred by our policies, please understand that. Our job is to show our audience what the topic of the article is, not the specific costume/style she is performing with/as. Sunglasses hide the subject's face, therefore we prefer pictures without sunglasses. Here, the resolution of the older photo, while obviously not ideal, is perfectly fine when it's cropped this close on her face. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY also swings the other way, against using a photo where the subject is too small (the new photo!) or not facing the camera (also the new photo!). "Quality" in this case does not literally mean number of pixels. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it was a PR thing or publicist thing nor did I intend to edit that. My only point has been that the topic of the article is Charli XCX, and this is a high-res photo of Charli XCX performing. It is very common amongst pop musician articles to use lead images of the main topic performing live. A good example is Olivia Rodrigo or Chappell Roan. Furthermore, many pop musician article also have photos that aren't necessarily looking directly at the camera, most notably Beyoncé. There is a strong pattern of lead images of artists being taken while they are performing or directly singing. Moreover, this also doesn't explain why there is policy-based reason that a video screenshot (not a photograph) is better from a six year old 30 second ad. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of the articles you're mentioning has a photo that more clearly shows the person's face? I would be happy if the photo looked like those. If you find me any free picture at the level of Bey or CR or OR or KP or anyone else you want to find, I would instantly change it. Every single one of those photos is a good resolution when cropped to their upper body and shows their entire face/facial features. I repeat, I do not care about the fact that Charli is performing in the new photo, I care about the fact that she is facing almost perpendicular to the camera while wearing sunglasses that obscure what few facial features we can actually see. Hell, if you can just give me a picture where she's looking straight(ish) at the camera while wearing sunglasses, that might be ok. But this new photo just isn't better than one where she's facing the camera, old as it may be.

Video screenshots (when free) are treated as photos for the purposes of Wikipedia, there's no difference in our policies. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I have replaced it with a photo that shows more of her facial features. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's still facing almost 90 degrees from the camera, but sure, no mic so maybe it's marginally better. We should still be looking out for something better. Finally, please be aware that changing the lead image of singers is on the more contentious side of edits you can make, so in the future try to come to consensus on the talk page first, rather than making unilateral edits and then immediately edit warring. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another editor of edit warring is a personal attack when you were only reverted once, not even close to breaking the bright-line 3RR rule, let alone the lesser but still mentioned 1RR rule. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, so when I revert to the 2018 photo because you don't have consensus, and are the only person supporting the change in this talk discussion, you're not going to immediately revert the edit? Alyo (chat·edits) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS. You cannot "predict" what I will do when you make that edit because you haven't made it yet. Being reverted once is not edit-warring as per the rules, if you decry it as edit-warring then that's your perspective, but it really isn't, under the policy. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new one of her looking right at the camera is great. Let's leave it here if the copyright requirements are met. I have spoken. 104.129.198.54 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please change it back. The old one is so much better and iconic. 2600:8800:E010:310:6D3A:A04F:3AEE:119F (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This picture from 2018, does look better.[1]. I agree with what the ip users and @Alyo: have said. Hotwiki (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting personal attacks off-wiki is frowned upon and quite rude. If you want to make changes, then go and make a Wikipedia account yourself instead of hurling insults at article editors. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PHShanghai:, if someone is personal attacking you, you could bring this to ANI. Does "off-wiki" mean outside of Wikipedia? I'm confused about what is happening in this talkpage. Hotwiki (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I saw a lot on r/charlixcx about discussions on lead image on the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R/charlixcx? Is that a reedit page? Then why does it need to be mentioned here? Hotwiki (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I had to inform everyone out there to refrain from WP:CANVASSING. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charli has chosen to look right down the barrel of the camera to you, the Wikipedia article reader. To show her eyes looking away from the camera is erasing her, and that is just deeply hurtful. ^[sarcasm] PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? I've looked at @PHShanghai:'s contributions page, and seeing these "odd" talkpage comments? How is this supposed to help the article, and it looks like they've changed the lead picture several times recently? Hotwiki (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I checked the article history, PHShanghai changed the lead picture trice in more or less 24 hours.[2][3][4]. @PHShanghai: it appears you're having an issue with the current lead image and changing trice does seem disruptive. You should perhaps discuss this first with the other editors and gather a consensus. Hotwiki (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PHShanghai, stop changing the image every few hours. This article isn't your little sandbox plaything. I'm so very close to just reverting to the old image just because it was stable. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm so very close to just reverting to the old image just because it was stable"

You will do no such thing. I have spoken. 104.129.198.54 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You directly asked me for a copyright-free image where Charli XCX is staring at the camera showing her face. Since you mentioned no problems with video screenshots, I obliged. Feel free to revert it if you must, but I am very confused because it seems now that there has been a natural consensus and solution reached with the discussion on the talk page. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's already a consensus here, as there seems to be heated discussion. I personally think this image[5] looks fine for an infobox image. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a drama/personal attacks happening in other websites like Reedit, please don't bring it here in Wikipedia talk pages. This talkpage edit right here [6] is very unnecessary. Hotwiki (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this [7], I was just confused, which person, PHShanghai was addressing that message for. But lets end it right here. Hotwiki (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we certain this new image isn't copyrighted? The original video was posted in 2023, and doesn’t have a Creative Commons license. The version the editor linked is just a clipped version uploaded last week, posted by a different account.

Regardless, even if the picture is legally usable, the date is incorrect. This image of Charli is from 2023. 2603:8080:6BF0:A90:69D1:3BC0:8D4E:E39C (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, British Vogue still likely owns copyright on that. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If using an image taken way back in 2018, is an issue. Then this picture from 2021 [8] would be a good option, just crop Addison Rae. Hotwiki (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the preference from @PHShanghai is for something that shows more of the current artistic look that Charli is going for (and in the broad sense that we should depict what she currently looks like, I agree). I'm not sure the 2021 photo is particularly better in that regard. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo: Vogue Taiwan is not copyvio, and is an official channel of Conde Nast/Vogue that republishes some of their content regularly under a CC license. Prominently, fellow Charli collaborators Ariana Grande and Billie Eillish also have lead images from Vogue Taiwan.

Vogue Taiwan has been used as a source for many celeb images for years now on Wikimedia Commons without complaint, as CC licenses are non-revokable and there is even a dedicated Vogue Taiwan template on Commons because they frequently provide content for Wikipedia. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, let me ask at the copyright desk about this then. I'll self-revert if so. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bold edit and reverted it. Apologies if that is seen as aggressive, that is certainly not my intention and I assume you were just trying to avoid copyvio in good faith, nor was I trying to edit war. Vogue Taiwan is just very common in BLPs and I extremely doubt big articles like Ariana Grande would purposefully include copyvio. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I searched around and didn't see any discussion about Wikipedia, but this isn't promising. Have you seen any discussion anywhere that has actually confirmed this as an acceptable practice? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that later 2021 discussion, however in the same year there was already an earlier consensus [9] that Vogue Taiwan has a right to release under CC-BY, given that all editions of Vogue are under Conde Nast. This was confirmed as recently as 2022 by a Commons template edit here. [10]

Per Verbcatcher's words, the copyright is held by Conde Nast and being released under CC by an official Conde Nast subsidiary.

The precautionary principle (COM:PRP) might be being taken too far here, as thousands of "celeb" photos and media regularly come from Vogue Taiwan and I extremely doubt that Wikimedia Commons would continue to host copyvio for three years straight. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence against this being a copyright violation seems flimsy at best. The original British Vogue video does not appear to be under a Creative Commons license and a re-upload of the video (not even a re-upload, only clipped segments from what I can tell), by a related source under a different license does not, to my knowledge, change the original license. Furthermore, use of similar images in other articles does not necessarily determine the appropriateness in this situation.

Although a more recent image with better quality like the one provided would likely necessitate a change, I an reverting back to the longstanding lead image until such a time that there is a clear consensus on whether or not this image, or another, should be used and does not constitute a copyright violation. RedBaron12 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a better screenshot of the subject in which she is posing rather than one taken mid-sentence. For your consideration:

Freaking heck (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RedBaron12: Please see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia: Media copyright questions regarding this issue and Charli specifically. I am still of the opinion that Vogue Taiwan is a credible and valid source for images, content, and media. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may very well be the eventual consensus, but until then, the longstanding lead image should remain until the consensus is decided.

It is not whether it is a credible or valid source, but how that builds on the current copyright without a CC license on the original video. The fact that Vogue Taiwan in this case re-posted the video in its entirety without a license and only clips of that video have CC licenses makes me very skeptical. RedBaron12 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RedBaron12: Then this would be an issue for you to ideally discuss at MCQ under the appropriate topic, that was just set up right now. I encourage you to make your opinions known at that sub-forum over there; we can discuss the intricacies of Conde Nast the conglomerate on that place. Because this issue not only applies to Charli, but several dozens of BLP articles currently using media from Vogue Taiwan. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The file was manually reviewed by a Commons license reviewer, which marked the file as under the stated available Creative Commons license. [11] PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall we change the lead image today? Ahri Boy (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an IP editor did it, but restored it under the wrong year, 2024, when it was actually taken in 2023. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead picture should be returned to the banana photo for the following reasons:

• She is looking at the camera with a neutral smile, allowing us to see her natural facial features;
• The banana conveys her artistic style and personality in a way the current picture does not;
• If necessary the banana can be cropped out if that is the consensus;

Let me know your thoughts

194.233.155.162 (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly does the banana convey her artistic style and personality? Are bananas brat? Is potassium bumping that? ^{[just kidding]} PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That banana looks rotten right to the core, presumably from all the things passed down from all the bananas coming before.

But seriously, I think it's a more flattering picture as it's not taken mid-sentence, and as OP said the banana can be cropped out if too distracting.

167.98.155.149 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]