Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
R&B and Soul Music portalThis 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
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rihanna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rihanna 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.RihannaWikipedia:WikiProject RihannaTemplate:WikiProject RihannaRihanna articles
'Christopher Maurice Brown (born May 5, 1989) is an American singer, songwriter, rapper, dancer, actor and family violence perpetrator.
A lot of people know Chris Brown as a result of his assaulting Rihanna. Further, in the case of individuals such as Harvey Weinstein, the description refers both to their profession and to their offending. It seems to me the same should be done here. To do otherwise may be to downplay the significance of Brown's offending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.5.228 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😂😂😂 Are you seriois rn? You can't conceal your hatred, huh? Joszy6 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His domestic violence issues, which he is widely known for, are barely mentioned in the lead.
As the title says. This is the the main thing Chris Brown is known for and it's barely mentioned in a single sentence in the lead. It should be discussed how to implement this into the lead. TheXuitts (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a stretch to say that is main thing he is known for, he was widely known before the incident for his music and he still is mainly known for his music after. If you personally only know him for this, then I do believe you are in the minority. If you want to discuss adjustments to the lead feel free, but you aren't going to get many people to agree with your statement imo. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also uncomfortable with the way that his violence issues are treated in the article. I think the assertion that it's "the main thing he's known for" is a bit hyperbole and not really relevant to analyzing the treatment of domestic violence in the article. Hyperbolic pretention aside, I do find the treatment of the acts that he's responsible for is a bit lackluster and euphemistic.
In the lead:
> In 2009, Brown pled guilty to felony assault of his then-girlfriend, singer Rihanna.
Is in the middle of the second paragraph (I missed it on first read while specifically looking for it), and accounts for one sentence out of four paragraphs.
Furthermore, in the "Legal issues" section:
> At around 12:30 a.m. (PST) on February 8, 2009, Brown and his then-girlfriend, singer Rihanna, had an argument that escalated into physical violence, leaving Rihanna with visible severe facial injuries which required hospitalization.
So taking the same sentence, it's the "argument [... left] Rihanna with [severe injuries]", not Brown. While in fact, the physical violence and injuries were direct actions perpetrated by Brown. The second paragraph in the section will relate how Brown justified his actions are a result of his upbringing (and implicitly, not of his responsibility).
I understand that previous contributors have done the best that they could covering the subject, but I wish to highlight what I find lacking in the current verbiage in the hopes of finding a better way to document the topic on an important issue.
From an informal perusal of previous talk page comments, it seems several contributors have also expressed a level of discomfort with the way the subject is touched, without necessarily knowing precisely how to improve it as a practical matter, or how to do so in a way that makes some forms of consensus. I'm hoping we can find those ways to improve the article and to give the issue the treatment that it deserves. Bert Macklin (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also a lack of any reference either in legal issues or personal life to the fact that he was served a 5 year restraining order for violence and threats against his ex partner Karrueche Tran. Sarcastathon (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the "argument beating Rihanna instead of Chris Brown" sentence DollysOnMyMind (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Polyhedric"
The article states that "his musical style has been defined as polyhedric", with no citation. I wonder where this came from - it's a highly bizarre adjective to describe music. I guess maybe it means "multifaceted"? Unless there's real evidence of people using this word in reference to him, I think it should be changed to something more comprehensible, like "versatile" or "crossover". CWMcGee (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these lines need to be removed. As far as I can tell, that word has never been used to describe his music or anyone else's. A Google search of "chris brown polyhedric" simply brings up a bunch of aggregator pages quoting this very article. Honestly, I think it's clear that this entire article has been written from a fan perspective and should be rewritten for bias.172.87.33.194 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed that part. Galobtter (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change birthday May/5/1989
Change it to August 28 1984 170.63.193.135 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jamel
Friend back with me and how to my girlfriend keep trying to break up with me if you got another dude on the sidelines and how to care attention she messing with somebody else and I miss my girlfriend can you please help me jamelwilliams@ 2601:407:8680:2E90:54D:14EC:CAA4:FB34 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sales data in lead is not accurate
Recently the sales data in the lead was changed from 217 million to 140 million. And then from 219 million to 140 million. All based on an albany herald source [1] reporting an outdated certifications tally from the list of best selling music artists wiki article and the language from this article. Brown has certified up to 219 million units. Sales can't fall below that figure, if certifications confirm minimum of 219 million. Using outdated sources to challenge that is nonsensical. Here is another more recent source from Yahoo reporting a figure of 197 million, but this source is also using an outdated certifications tally from the list of best selling music artists wiki article and the language from a previous iteration of this article, similar to what the albany herald article did. It's like arguing that the artist has not released any albums after their debut because an outdated source from his debut era confirms he's in his debut era.
For the time being I've changed the figure in the article to 197 based on the Yahoo source, although this isn't the most accurate either. But since this argument is based on using a secondary source as opposed to certifications tally then lets at least use a more recent one. The source has also been updated in the best selling music artists article. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little improvement but still highly inflated. Look the matter in the following way: You used a reference saying he sold 219 million records, and his certifications are 219 million. It is remotely closed to the reality, if we use de facto procedures to the most artists, contemporary, newer or older than Brown. If the artist has release more records since then, remember that many of the certifications and sales are highly based on streaming. See "Breezy", in it's opening week sold 5K pure copies compared to the 72K equivalent-album units.... His other records follow similar performances, during and after the opening week. Other similar R&B/Pop artists have the same performance, or have more streaming figures than pure units... including big ones... but relies much in the era music industry is now. They count as sales, because IFPI or Billboard do, but these lists are tied more to the real physical/digital copies sold... Otherwise, I don't think you would agree Drake sold more and double than other related artists in this matter like Michael Jackson... --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a roundabout argument and not the same precedent being used for other artists. For example, Britney Spears has her sales listed as 150, the same as the certifications tally which includes physical, digital and streaming equivalents. The Albany Herald figure and the Yahoo source you included repeating also listed a certifications tally, albeit an outdated one from a previous interation of this article and the linked article. So arguing against certifications tally while including articles that report an outdated certifications tally is contradictory. 197 is an improvement, albeit it a minor improvement. Streaming equivalents tally to 219 which is neither 197 nor 140 and his US lead certifications are outdated anyways. So 219 is actually a much lower figure than what the actual is. Instantwatym (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's evident that the landscape of music certifications has evolved, no longer directly correlating with record sales. Otherwise, we risk misrepresenting true artistic impact; imagine listing Drake as the best-selling artist instead of the Beatles. Take Britney Spears, for instance, a stalwart in the music industry since 1998. The bulk of her certifications stem from releases predating 2013, a contrast to the trajectory of Chris Brown. Consider his album "INDIGO," certified for 1 million units by RIAA in 2019, yet with only 84,000 copies sold. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our business as Wikipedia editors to engage in original research. The argument being made is that one figure (197) is inflated and the other (140) is not when neither source goes into detail about the sales figures and what percentage is attributed to streaming equivalents. The original argument was that 140 is accurate because a secondary source said so. Now that another more recent source lists a higher figure of 197, the goalpost has been shifted to streaming equivalents and what percentage can be attributed to that, when that never came up with the 140 figure and its hard to establish the percentage for either figure. Even if we did, it would be considered OR. Also as stated previously, this precedent of ignoring certifications is not even being adhered to across other articles (e.g., Britney Spears, who has her sales reported as the certified tally which includes her streaming equivalents, the same goes for Usher and Mariah Carey), so what is actually is the standard for reporting sales on these articles because its not consistent. Streaming equivalents exist for a reason and are weighted accordingly, where you need a signficant amount of streams to log a single sale or an album sale. Every new update for claimed sales in the linked article has some percentage attributed to streaming equivalents anyways. By no means is it all pure sales. And I personally don't find it that hard to imagine that Drake has sold more than the Beatles (pure + weight streaming equivalents). Instantwatym (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record sales are difficult to measure, and it is not a Wikipedia thing. Both are secondary sources, so the original research can be applied to both sides. Certifications for instance, are sometimes not updated by record labels for all of their artists. Take as example Michael Buble's Christmas (2011), as took their label almost 10 years certified its U.S. sales (2021), as we can see figures from Nielsen (more than 5 million pure units) vs RIAA. Some acts have almost inmediately updated their certifications. And add that in the post-2013, many are streaming-generated ones. Take the example you brought, Carey, as you might be familiar with her: firms like Nielsen give us the idea the differences between both streaming/pure sales and in her case, she didn't even have successful sales for albums since 2014 in the US, for instance, or back to 2009 if we take gold/500K sales compared to platinum. Nor millionarie sales for singles (dominant format now), as we can see by Nielsen. Streaming are counted to sales, at some extent. And this is applied for all artists by the community. Hence you're the one that made the change and more than 3 users have disputed it, per Wikipedia's guideline, you're the one that need to seek for a consensus, because your reversion could considered edit war. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument for changing from certified units of 217 to 140 was that a secondary source claims sales of 140. Now a secondary source, a more recent one, claims 197. Since then no argument has been presented as to why 140 is more accurate than 197. I could use the same argument to lower claim sales for any given artists, using outdated claimed sales, due to percieved inflation in the digital/streaming era.
- Per Wikipedia guidelines of
WP:ONUS its up to the editor changing information that is status quo to present a valid argument. If we assume that claimed sales reported by any given secondary source claimed is a valid argument, then changing from 140 to 197 is also valid. I don't see any reason to reinstate 140 anymore. Doing so would be a contradiction and you have contradicted yourself with your last revert in the linked article using a edit summary that I reverted a source claim, when you revert a more recent sourced claim from a secondary source of equal quality. This is editorial bias. Instantwatym (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The source you provide for your 197M claims is nothing but a figure from the 2022 version of Wikipedia and can’t now be used as a source on Wikipedia per
Your repeating what I stated originally alleged about the 197 and 140 figures being taken from Wikipedia (as can be seen by my original comment above when opening this discussion) doesn't make the 140 figure valid either. This is getting comical. Instantwatym (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a real stickler for getting rid of CIRCULAR references, but I'm not seeing it in the cited Yahoo! News source. They don't reference Wikipedia at all.
I don't see any value in keeping an old reference with an old number. Chris Brown has released a bunch of music since that reference was published, and he continues to do so. His sales figures keep climbing. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I figured out that the 197 million figure was added without reference in July 2022. I agree that a later news item might very well be citing Wikipedia without attribution. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I differ a bit to what is considered outdated vs the "now". Some sources with 5 years of differences can give a different and contradictory figure: an older one with a high estimation vs a newer with low estimation. Is not an user opinion, but are secondary sources. Certainly there is no problem with updates, but need to be weighted. I saw similar cases from another user with Mariah's seasonal track based on certifications-streaming, but still wonder if this is ethic. I appreciate the resonability and contributions, but certainly, doing this (another example), and adhere to that view, seems to goes against to our guidelines or push a POV, in my opinion. I might be wrong. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you known, various artists have secondary sources claiming higher sales to increase their current ones, ranging from the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley to Elton John and Madonna (top current five) + plus there is evidece of various uncertified records. We can use analogies both for and against to. It is difficult. But then, we've sources, and some might contradict each other, and both sides could be considered original research. If you are convinced that your argument is the most right choose for this case, or you see a bias from other editors, might you can consider easily open a consensus. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIRCULAR source, especially considering it merely mirrored your unsourced addition on August 8, 2023, stating the figure as 217 million. Your repeated pattern of behavior, dating back to July 18, 2021, when you initially altered the claimed sales figure from 140 million to 160 million, then to 193 million, 197 million, 217 million, and 219 million subsequently, all without providing any sources, is concerning. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems fairly obvious that you use WP:CIRCULAR interchangeably with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. As evidence by the edit history of this article where you keep reinstating the Yahoo Finance you have previously deemed to be in violation of WP:CIRCULAR. Interestingly, you keep reinstating the one Yahoo finance source with the lower sales figure despite both of them supposedly being in violation of WP:CIRCULAR (as agreed by you). Would you care to explain how this pattern of editing is not consistent with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT because you havent done as so thus far, neither on this talk page nor in your edit summaries. Available certifications are listed with appropriate sources in the linked article and at one point the lede read that he has certified 219 million units, which you also reverted to reinstate 140 from the Yahoo finance source you have previously deemed to be in violation of WP:CIRCULAR.
Now youre going off an assumption that any publication, even reliable publications such as GQ, are violating WP:CIRCULAR if they arrive at any figure which reflects his available certifications at the time. Logically editors of reliable publications could arrive at the same figure by tallying his available certified units. At the very least you would concede that the source listing 217 accurately reported his available certified units at the time. Instantwatym (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all nowhere in this above discussions did editiors reach a consensus that the Yahoo News article used for Chris Brown's 140 million claimed sales are WP:CIRCULAR. Binksternet expressed the Yahoo News article for 197 million claims are WP:CIRCULAR. Your are deliberately mixing the two articles of same publication.
Secondly you are copying the available certifications of Chris Brown from the List of Best selling artists. Certifications are not equal to sales and
Wikipedia is not a reliable source to cite. If editors of reliable publications could end up with the same figure by tallying his available certified units on the list of best selling artist, why do they always do it after you add that figure to the Wikipedia page of Chris Brown?. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Certifications are commonly used as an indicator of unit sales. I quickly checked the Usher (musician) article, and his sales are directly supported with the RIAA website. I think that same formula should be used here DollysOnMyMind (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certifications may not directly correlate with sales figures. For instance, the RIAA awards Platinum status to songs that achieve 1 million units, based on metrics like 150 million streams in the US, and Diamond status for those reaching 1.5 billion streams. This recognition, equivalent to 11 million units (10M for song + 1M EAS), showcases an artist's impact beyond traditional sales channels. Regarding Usher, this is another example of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and the figure of 150M was added by an editor without providing any sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It was deemed that Yahoo finance as a source for sales figures concerning this artist is violating WP:CIRCULAR, which would apply to both articles. The basis for that argument was the articles were reporting certified totals previously listed in this Wikipedia article, which includes 140 and 197. So either both Yahoo finance sources are violating WP:CIRCULAR for the same reason or neither is. If its the latter, then 197 is the appropriate figure to reinstate per the Yahoo finance source. Deliberately choosing the lower figure from a source supposedly being in violation of WP:CIRCULAR is indicative of an agenda.
As for your point about the best selling artists article, that article is updated based on available certifications at given times. Wikipedia not being a reliable source would be a valid argument in situations where reputable sources are not being cited for claims made within articles. If it were otherwise and everything reported on Wikipedia was not reliable, then there is no point for you, me nor anyone else to update any article with reliable sources. Nor is there any reason to argue about claims made here and the sources cited. As for editors of publications arriving at the same figures, they could simply do so by researching his certified totals prior to publishing their articles. Whether someone on Wikipedia accurately reported those totals before a publication is irrelevant, so long as what is being reported is factual. For example, if someone were to list the approval date of FDA approved drug or medical device in a Wikipedia article prior to another source reporting the same date, would that source be automatically violating WP:CIRCULAR and/or reporting false information? Obviously not, they could simply search up the same database and report the same fact. The same applies here.
As for your comment below about certifications not correlating with sales, streaming equivalents exist for a reason and are weighted to correlate with sales. If that wasnt the case, then there would be not point of certifying anything in the streaming era or reporting updated sales figures for active artists in the streaming era. The only adjustment for inflation is the weight already applied to streaming equivalents upon certification. If someone were to apply your subjective argument about inflation (all the while ignoring certifications which already account for inflation through weighting applied to streaming equivalent) site-wide, then they could simply choose to accept or reject any sales figure for any artist and cite percieved inflation as the reason. In fact you have done this already done this with the 140 and 197 figures. Both of these figures are in fact his certified units totals at different times (which includes certifications in the streaming era) but you accept 140 and not 197 due to percieved inflation. Instantwatym (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, it's imperative not to simply extract certification figures from a Wikipedia page and present them as record sales elsewhere without credible sources. There are numerous independent sources supporting Chris Brown's claim of 140 million in record sales, with even Sony Music corroborating this figure. Failure to adhere to proper sourcing protocols could lead to misleading conclusions. For instance, copying certification figures from Wikipedia could inaccurately elevate artists like Drake to the status of best-selling artists of all time, while others such as Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Justin Bieber, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Lil Wayne, Post Malone, and The Weeknd might rightfully claim higher sales figures than Chris Brown. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also numerous independent sources citing 217 million. Youve been trying to selectively label sources with figures you dislike as violating WP:CIRCULAR and now you cited a Sony Music artist page, which takes verbatim the sales excerpt from this Wikipedia article, as well as the occupations from the first line of the lede. It is more of an obvious mirror than anything else cited to date. So again its indicative of your agenda and violation of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. 140, 197 and 217 are ALL his available certified units are different points in time. So saying that certifications dont align 1:1 with sales and then referencing his previous available certifications of 140 nullifies any argument youre trying to make here.
Also, whataboutism as it concerns to you perception about claimed sales of different artists is not a valid argument. You even suggested as much in response in another user above citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:WHATABOUT. This is why certifications exists to provide objective sales information and serve as a point of comparison. Instantwatym (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The market shifted. Physical copies and digital sales are obsolete at this point. The music industry is now a streaming based world, and unit sales are neither less or more valuable than physical copies. That's what's counted as copies sold for every artist from the mid 2010s on (on their Wikipedia articles too). DollysOnMyMind (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Streaming and sales are not the same even though certification bodies convert streaming into sales by using different parameters for their certification purposes. Streaming is free to one extent where sales are not. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Streaming and sales are not the same, but unit sales are as close as what the music industry now gets. I would say that it would be accurate to explicitly mention both sales and streaming to the number provided, but both have to be counted to give a complete information DollysOnMyMind (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to edit his sales as its been reduced when it originally being at 217M units sold worldwide is overall his entire statistics which his streaming does generate into units which makes his sales 217M units worldwide Ronnyron05 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the fourth paragraph it says "He's gained a cult following." It should be "He has gained a cult following. 750h+ | Talk 07:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)]
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)