Talk:Spice Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spice Girls article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Spice Girls is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 24, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 19, 2005 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2005 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Former featured article candidate

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

To-do:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Justify. After two peer reviews, I have come to the conclusion that a to do list would be preferable since I am approaching the finish line for editing this article. The to do list will hopefully complete the task of making this article a FA. --Winnermario 21:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Move sales minutiae to individual song and album articles. Replace the info in the main article with general sales info (like "the album was the top seller in Britain that year") and back up every piece of sales information with sources adavidw 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Build a "References" section with a list of every source used in the article as per WP:CITE. adavidw 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Now that the references are there, clean up "References" section to make every entry a proper citation as per WP:CITE. adavidw 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Archive this talk page! It's massive! Add inline citations to "Future" subsection. Convert "Career records and achievements" from listy format to fluent, cohesive prose (listy formats fail criterion 1. a. of "What is a featured article?") which ties the section together. Also, the section needs a summarising introduction. Add magazine articles from Emma/Melanie C regaurding reunion

Archives

Archive 1.

Contents 1 Solos 2 Pregnancies? 3 Main image 4 Feminism 5 Year 6 Additions/Edits + Forever sales 7 Reunion??? 8 Touch? 9 Top of the Pops 10 Song articles and sales information 11 Records sales - lets settle this once and for all. 12 "References" section 13 Movie title? 14 "Impact" section - NPOV 15 Spice Girls library 16 Reunion speculation/"meal at Victoria's house" 17 Template 18 Spice Girls and the Beatles 19 World Cup song with Echo & The Bunnymen 20 $30 million blockbuster? 21 "Future?" section. 22 Girl Power 23 "advertisements were placed in The Stage newspaper" 24 New picture 25 unimportant ramble 26 Reunion Going Ahead? 27 Who's really behind Spice Girls? 28 Geri's leaving 29 History cleanup 30 Why the needed citation? 31 Proof Of Mel C's quote on Spice Girls' current status 32 Gay Icons section 33 Band Name, Images 34 Gum 35 Picture Deletion 36 Michelle Stephenson 37 Album images in main article 38 Flag 39 Music samples 40 W.O.M.A.N 41 Geri quote on Reunion 42 Photos 43 14th Single? 44 British?/English? 45 Official Site 46 After the new tour and Greatest Hits... 47 TODAYshow.com 48 Why the alteration to "2 Become 1"? 49 Shome mishtake shurely?? 50 Headlines sales figures 51 Platinum in Spain????? 52 Changed tense 53 Re: Changed tense 54 What do they do? 55 Listing the Girls in Alphabetical Order 56 Thailand?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] $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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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!

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. "Dosh Spice: Fab Five net £10 million each for reunion tour", Mirror.co.uk, Mirror Group Newspapers, 22 June 2007. Retrieved on 2007-06-24. 

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Music samples

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re: Changed tense

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)