Talk:Spice Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spice Girls article.
To-do list for Spice Girls: 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [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.
Peer review Spice Girls has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

I can't believe the comment I sneaked in about Geri Halliwell being "damn hot" is still there. That's pretty funny. Someone can change it because I guess it's not NPOV. dave 14:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] US-centric

I've tried to tone down the US bias (especially comparissons between "international" and "US" results) in this article, but it needs more work to the same end. Andy Mabbett 20:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is so US-centric it's unbelievable. Statements like "this single was a flop, although it reached number one in the uk" abound. Pomp My Socks... To Da Max 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I intend to remove all the hash signs, there are not used as a symbol for 'number' in the UK, & as this was a British band the convention is to use standard English Markb 10:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diverse class backgrounds??

This statement is quite erroneous. Despite one of them being monikered Posh Spice for reasons beyond me, all five members of the Spice Girls would typically be considered "Working class". Class-wise, they were not diverse at all.--Zoso Jade 21:18, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


Actually Victoria's (Posh Spice) was quite well off. Although she wasn't called Posh Spice because of her family, but because she liked expensive clothes and fine dining, like the posh upperclass.

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] change of cat

In the Girl groups category it is said: "This category is specifically devoted to the second meaning, and as such only includes all-female pop-soul groups from the early 1960s" and so I moved this article to the category All-women bands instead.

I'm afraid I don't understand the logic of that other page. There was a movement in the 60's but I'm not sure whether that would be an accurate way of defining girl groups today. I have put my grievements up on that board. I believe the category "Girl Groups" not only fits them perfectly, they are almost the dictionary definition. Instead you have them lumped in with people like Joan Jett and Heart which I believe is completely inappropriate.--Zoso Jade 20:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree but I thought that the definition on that category was actually real. I could change it back.

[edit] Commercial

How do I put up a picture of the Spice Girls in a British commercial from '96?

Upload the picture from your PC using the 'Upload file' tool on the left of the screen and then follow the steps.--Speedway 12:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peculiar edit history

I've just come to see what comment was added, went into the history, and saw that the most recent entry was my revert of User:Pacian's edit — though there was no sign of his edit in the History, and I didn't revert anything. My apologies to Pacian, and could he or she re-add the comment? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mysteriously disappeared comment

WhenI went back to the page History, Pacian's edit had reappeared, so I've retrieved it and added it below. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is full of non NPOV comments ("fantastic debut album" comes to mind.) The punctuation and grammar are also hideous. I'm making revisions now. Pacian 12:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reunion?

http://www.mtve.com/article.php?ArticleId=5615&from=rss

I am highly skeptical on the reliability of the news though. So Unless there is another source to vertify this, I am putting it here. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick google news search apparaently shows that it is real. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAC

This is pretty good - is someone aiming at FAC soon? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'd like that! But not yet... I think the article still needs some more information. For some reason, I think that another image needs to be added. But that's just me. Let's try and make this article as true blue as possible, then we can go ahead and nominate it for FAC. :) DrippingInk 12:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia moved here

This looked really odd where it was. It belongs in a trivia section I suppose, but there isn't one (and I don't really like them in an encyclopædia anyway; they're more suitable for fanzines and the like). Any ideas?

"The platform shoes brand Buffalo Boots model 1310-2 was made popular by the band wearing it in lots of different colour combinations."

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Even I did not know that, and I was and still am quite the Spice Girls fan. And I too don't prefer trivia in the sections. Maybe we should just remove the trivia altogether. DrippingInk 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It can stay here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally I would say stuff like that would be encyclopaedic in an article on either the brand or make, if someone considers them notable enough to make an article, but not on an article like this, as it really isnt anything that fundamentally defines or explains the Spice Girls and the various other topics that spin off them. It works more like advertising than anything else in an article like this, unless you were to link it into their greater cultural impact by talking about how strong their brand as a group was that they were more successful than most artists at commercialising themselves. In that case more examples would be needed of other items they popularised in a similar fashion to make a supportable point. Sfnhltb 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunt for the image

I still think that the section requires one more image before we put it up for FAC. Can anyone think of one that would be suitable? And no, not a scene from one of the music videos, though I really do like the "2 Become 1" shot of Emma's head. Uhh... yeah. Any image ideas? 64.231.161.71 01:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find a suitable image, so I re-added the Channel 5 one (after going through numerous copyrights). The bottom of the page looks kind of plain, though. If anyone finds one that would be perfect, feel free to add it. :) DrippingInk 15:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Australian chart peaks

I can't find the Australian chart peaks for "Say You'll Be There" and "Too Much". Can someone help out? DrippingInk 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Too Much" peak has been found. Keep an eye out for "Say You'll Be There". DrippingInk 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article nomination

I think it's time. Who wants to nominate this article for FAC? 64.231.73.125 23:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check out what this guy wrote:

"Object 1) the lead section is too short and doesnt adequately summarize the entire article. 2) cite your sources. 3) It's an article about a music group, but there are no samples of the group's music. slambo 20:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)"

When people like to object to why an article shouldn't be the featured article, I'd really like them to speak in damn English. The third bit doesn't even make sense. 64.231.118.203

Perhaps slambo would like nuggets of the music in written form -- with minims, quavers 'n' stuff. The article does say very little about the music. But then does anyone care about the music? (One might add: Does anyone care about the Spice Girls? But they do have a certain morbid fascination, I suppose.) -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The article does not require a huge sample of the music - this is not HMV or Music World. If he wants samples, he can go download them, otherwise he has no reason to object. And I care about them, as you might have noticed. The Spice Girls could be considered classics now, I mean, if you're called the biggest British export since The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. DrippingInk 13:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have officially cited two extra parts of the article. Someone care to help? ;__; DrippingInk 13:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 18 or 19 million?

The sales for Spiceworld are so close to 19 million copies worldwide (currently 18.94 mil.). Wouldn't it be reasonable to just put in 19 million copies? I mean, I understand why someone would not want to, since it isn't accurate information, but this one is so close, I don't see why it shouldn't count. Winnermario July 7, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

I personally don't see why 19 million shouldn't be put up. And where did you get such an accurate number for Spiceworld's sales? 64.231.115.123 21:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I saw it somewhere a few months ago. It was on a fan forum of some sort, but I can't remember which one it was. DrippingInk 15:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Leave it the way it is for now. 64.231.154.102 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay then. I still think it would be reasonable though. DrippingInk 18:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Spiceworld has sold eighteen million copies worldwide. Once it reaches nineteen million (if it ever does), we will change the stasistic. Winnermario 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recording new single

This could be worked into the article: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds22508.html Peter S. 14:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! They are planning to release a few new songs? This is earthquaking if you ask me! But it's all exciting at the same time! Yes, that bit of information does need to be added to the article. Only one year remaining for that greatest-hits release... 64.231.131.197 15:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I am quite content hearing this news too, but I think this information requires more than one source. Since the Spice Girls like to hold back when a particular event they've been waiting for finally arrives (Eg: Mel B and the Live 8 performance), them recording a new single, even if it is in different places in the world, may suddenly be dropped. So I'm going to be looking for other sources. You may help if you'd like. DrippingInk 14:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been changed. Are the girls not recording a single anymore? DrippingInk 00:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brackets information

The following line: "the director of The Goodies, Fawlty Towers, Press Gang, and Absolutely Fabulous among other, notable British comedy successes" vexes me greatly. This is an article about the Spice Girls, not a bunch of comedy programs. I nominate to rid of at least two of these shows. Anybody second that? DrippingInk 13:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is; they're there to indicate the background and style of the director, and I'd have thought that hey did that pretty well. If you think that they don't belong, why keep two of them? If you think that they do, what's wrong with all four? (Three of them, at least, are equally prominent, so the choice would be pretty arbitrary.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think DrippingInk is trying to say that having four of them up there sort of takes you out of the Spice Girls article you're reading about and takes you into a world of "Bob Spiers" (pardon me, I'm not British) comedies. Yes, I can see what he means, having four of them up there just drags on his commercial success, perhaps we should only have those three prominent ones up there? Which are they? 64.231.129.30 14:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd have left out Press Gang (but only because I've not seen it (it's a children's programme), which is my ignorance rather than a good reason). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Then I think it would be wise to remove it. The other three can stay, since they're prominent. DrippingInk 16:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
An old debate, I know -- but do yourselves a favour and see Press Gang! (actually, I think the wikilink makes the entire list redundant!) The JPS 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The dash

That long dash in the "Further decline" header is a bit of an eyesore. That's why I originally put in the smaller dash. Can we compromise about this? Actually that would be rather difficult to do. But any ideas? DrippingInk 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objection, I'm afraid; it's standard typography (see the MoS). The only alternative would be a colon. Would that look better to you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This dash (–) over this dash. (—) DrippingInk 23:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The first one is known as the en-rule, the second as the em-rule. The em-rule is correct here, but as I said, it could be replaced by a colon. I'll do that now, and see if you prefer it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I see, fine. We can return it to the dash. The colon bothers me heavily. Okay, the "em-rule" can be returned. DrippingInk 14:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's this?

I don't like this article — it doesn't bring out the Spice Girls as the group they were. Well no, that'd be a lie. The part from the release of Spiceworld to the release of Forever is good, but the parts succeeding and precceeding are too rushed. Also, the "current status" bit of the article should be turned into an actual section documenting the solo releases leading up to the greatest-hits release that will be available to the public in July 2006. Also, why is the "Say You'll Be There" Australian position missing? It peaked at number two (for an unbelievable number of weeks, never reaching number one). Winnermario 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There are no references! How could this be? It's no wonder the original article nomination failed! Come on people, this isn't as difficult as it seems! Most of the information comes from Spice Girls Discography anyways. Winnermario 20:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
God, you are ignorant. At least I've attempted to improve this article. DrippingInk 21:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

To the user or anon. who listed the awards in the article: please tidy it before re-adding it to the article as it is very difficult to follow.

Here are the awards:

  • Brit Awards (Grammy UK) 97. (UK).
  • -Best Single . (Wannabe).
  • -Best Video . (Say You'll Be There).
  • MTV VMA 97. (USA).
  • -Best Dance Video. (Wannabe).
  • MTV VMA Europa 97. (Europa).
  • -Best Group.
  • Ivor Novello Awards 97. (UK).
  • -Best Selling British Written Single – Wannabe.
  • -International Hit Of The Year – Wannabe.
  • Amigo Awards (Grammy España) 97. (España).
  • -Best Newcomer.
  • World Music Awards 97. (Mundial).
  • -Best Female New Comers.
  • Billboards Awards 97. (USA).
  • -Best Album. (Spice).
  • -Best Newcomers.
  • American Music Awards 98. (USA).
  • -Favourite Pop / Rock Album – Spice.
  • -Favourite Pop / Rock Band, Duo Or Group.
  • -Favourite Pop / Rock New Artist.
  • Brit Awards (Grammy UK) 98. (UK).
  • -Outstanding Achievement.
  • Juno Awards (Grammy Canada) 98. (Canada).
  • -Best Selling Album (Foreign or Domestic). (Spice).
  • ASCAP Awards 98. (USA).
  • -Best Single . (Wannabe).
  • MTV VMA Europa 98. (Europa).
  • -Best Group.
  • -Best Pop.
  • World Music Awards 98. (Mundial).
  • -Worlds Best Selling Pop Artist / Group.
  • -Best Selling British Artist / Group.
  • Billboards Awards 98. (USA).
  • -Top Billboard 200 Album Artist - Duo/Group. (Spice World).
  • Brit Awards (Grammy UK) 2000. (UK).
  • -Outstanding Lifetime Contribution.

Thank you for your cooperation. Winnermario 11:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Step to Me"

User:Winnermario has pointed out that "Step to Me" is listed as a single from Spiceworld, though it doesn't in fact appear on the album. Does anyone know why it's there, and where it should go? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Step to Me" was most certainly a song the Spice Girls performed and used as a promo for Pepsi—unfortunately it does not appear on any of their albums. If it has a useful place to go in this article, could the person with this knowledge move it there? Winnermario 20:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Step To Me appeared on the Japanese version of Spiceworld as a bonus track...Rimmers 15.50, 12 Mar 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solo careers

If you look at the Destiny's Child section, you will see that there is a section of the article called "Solo projects" with informating leading up to their reunion in 2004. I think we should do the same thing with the Spice Girls, ridding of the "Current status" section, and adding information on single releases and their poorly-fairing solo albums leading up to the 2006 greatest-hits release. And although the compilation has not been released yet, I still find it acceptable to add this to the article. Any ideas? Winnermario 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. DrippingInk 22:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I will begin expanding the solo projects section this coming weekend. The order that the girls are listed in will begin with Geri due to her leaving the group, followed by Melanie B., as she was the first to release a solo single. Next will come Mel C., then Emma, and finally, Victoria. --Winnermario 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature album

I have made my reference to the "Spiceworld receiving higher ratings from music circles and fans". So I see User:Mel Etitis did not remove this fact. However, I have not yet found one for Spice being the girls' signature album. This is fine, as I had not referenced it, but please keep it in the image thumb and I will search for a source immediately. Winnermario 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What do editors on these articles mean by "signature" (as in "signature song", "signature album", etc.)? Its usual meaning in music (apart from "signature tune") is a piece that's used by an artist or band at the beginning and/or end of concerts as a sort of signature. It seems to be being used here to mean something like "most popular" or "best selling" or the like. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, people in general consider "signature songs or albums" as a song or album that stands out from any other work the artist has made. Winnermario 22:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that claim? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't. However, User:OmegaWikipedia can. Winnermario 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be helpful if he'd provide it here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you asked him to provide it here. Winnermario 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] date formats

the article needs a run-through to conform date wikification to the wikipedia MoS. i'll be happy to do this, since i love the spice girls, but wanted to give notice here; sometimes it's a shock to those who believe that every month and year should be wikified. crazy, i know. Wbfl 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Having just read the article in its entirety, I've added the neutrality tag to the top. Whilst the data represented is for the most part good (and accurate, as far as I can see), the language of the article throughout tends to read as it has been written by avid fans of the group. This is probably true, but shouldn't show in the reading. There's nothing major, but a great deal of small comments and questionable use of adjectives ("unfortunately" appears here and there - the non-success of a solo album doesn't need such comment) throughout. - Hayter 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a general problem with articles on musicians: they are tended by fans more often than by people who are disinterested or who think the musicians suck. One way to address it in this case would be to find examples (especially 1990s examples) of eminent music critics describing the Spice Girls music as soulless pap (which is probably quite easy, given the media's natural attraction to anyone deriding popular taste). -- Mpt 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this article isn't neutral, having just read it myself. The "unfortunately"'s have been removed, and for the most part anyway the language is unbiased. As far as inserting critics' opinions, I don't see their function unless it's just one line that tries to explain why an album failed, since it shouldn't be Wikipedia's function to "prove" an artist's music is bad. Besides, critical opinion in music means next to nothing- many of the pop groups (including the Spice Girls) succeeded and the critics hated them.-RomeW
I'm going to remove the neutrality tag, unless someone disagrees. The article seems fairly balanced, and the neutrality tag doesn't seem necessary. --betakate 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time now, but I'll try and re-read it tomorrow and offer my opinion. I think it's fair to say it's a deal better now for the efforts of those over the past couple of weeks, but I'll have a closer look tomorrow. - Hayter 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made some wording edits, and I don't think NPOV is as big a problem as it was, but I can see the suggestion of a need for a clean-up tag. The article continually references their sales (#1 in UK, #8 in US #3 in Canada & #14 in Australia) which are only really pertinant if they relate to a bigger statistic eg. "The single peaked at #2 becoming their first not to sell 3 billion copies." What does it matter if "Too Much" peaked at 7 in Australia? The article's a deal better, but it's not as good as it should be yet and mostly that's because of the nature of the content. "Girl Power" - arguably the group's most memorable contribution to pop culture is barely mentioned alongside all these stats. Halliwell's leaving the group is quite well covered, but did they ever voice a political opinion? Did they affect subsequent girl groups such as All Saints and Girls Aloud? Was their music received well critically? Also, there are numerous parts of the article where it's said, "the song did well and got great airplay" - how is this WP:V? It's entirely likely an editor has just remembered hearing it a fair bit on the radio - it might be accurate but it needs to be sustained by a source. - Hayter 10:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do

Suggested items for the to-do list:

  • Tighten up the writing. "'Out of Your Mind' did not enter the U.K. charts at number one, but at number two, preventing Beckham from achieving the top position" is merely the worst example. "Say You'll Be There" was not "their massive debut"; "ultimately, there was no stopping them" is manifestly untrue; it was not Melanie Brown who performed "When You're Gone"; "November's end" has passed; and so on.
  • Make the solo career sections much shorter, as full detail is available in the articles for each member.
  • Merge the "Spice Girls" section into the intro.
  • Talk more about musical style and influences, tours, etc, and less about (eventually tedious) chart rankings.

-- Mpt 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, but should the solo sections even exist here? Once the remaining four 'broke up' to pursue solo careers, the Spice Girls effectively ceased to exist. As such, I'd suggest a solitary paragraph along the lines of, "In (x year), the girls left each other's company to pursue... etc. Bunton began work on her first single, Y, whilst Chissolm concentrated on Z etc." The article's clearly long enough at the moment, and doesn't need padding out with advanced solo details that are avaiable elsewhere. - Hayter 16:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, how about being bold and trying it. Just move the stuff to the individual members and leaving one paragraph. (To do lists are nice, but in general nobody does anything except for some minor edits) KittenKlub 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed the entire section after checking the individual pages. So far as I can tell, most of them had the same information presented there as well (in some cases in the exact same style). The two that didn't were Beckham (which was badly written on this article in any case) and Melanie Brown which I've since edited to include the extra details. A version of this page with the solo section still included can be seen here. Reading the end of Forever and the Beginning of Spice's Future now, I'm not sure an additional paragraph is required. The article mentions their solo careers and summarises that their popularity has now waned. We could always include a Further details can be found at the member's individual pages but I'm not overly keen on that idea, and I'm not sure the inclusion of a section with a small blurb for each member is really worth the time - it's just repitition of data and in the case of members such as Brown, the individual article isn't really big enough to warrant an 'outside' summary. - Hayter 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put the members in the member list. I think that there is a chance that somebody will put long stories back in if you don't mention it, but we can just sit and watch the page as well. KittenKlub 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of removing the Record Sales Controversy entry. It was put in at three pages with exactly the same story and it is non-verifiable flamebait IMO. And is impossible to get it verified or somewhat neutral. KittenKlub 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems rather well written for someone who's just trying to start a flame war; in my experience such people are generally illiterate and much less subtle, but I think if it can't be verified then it should go. I don't like the idea of 'gutting' an article, but the above warrants removal. Regarding the list of the members though, is it needed what with the "See Also" further down the page which lists all five members as well? - Hayter 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It is well written but the original version concluded that nobody could claim the title and it triggered an edit war at TLC (and DC seems to have deleted it as well). I've just put the girls at the See Also. So that's a recent addition. KittenKlub 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record Sales Controversy

It was confirmed from various sources that "Spice" sold 23 million copies to date. "Spiceworld" sold 18 million copies (including over 7 million copies in its first 2 weeks of release) and "Forever" did approx. 3,5 million (including 1 million in its first week of release).

There was some edits back and forth about the Record Sales Controversy entry at TLC and after looking at who put the story in, because there was already a remark of staying clear of discussing record sales so it was to delete the controversy because it leads to unwanted reverts.

It seems like one person put the same story here (except that the group name in the first sentence was changed) as well, so it's upto you to decide what to with that story, but it sounds like somebody wanted to start a controversy. KittenKlub 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The record sales of 75 million are not factual. In 2000 it was confirmed that the debut album only sold 19 million. Since 2000 it has NOT sold another 4 million copies, the spice girls records sell nothing these days. This article is far to bias. - 69.204.1.97

  • (I added the IP sig above for identification.) I've reverted the two edits that change the article to favour this position. The provided 'source' if you want to call it that is not an officially recognised sales recorder, and does not account for the five/six years that have passed since 2000, nor does it account for the fact that there was more than one Spice Girls album. Even working from the assumption that it is correct however, you need to provide a reputable source confirming the Spice Girls have sold no albums since 2000. - Hayter 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • how about looking at sales charts and seeing no spice girls albums in there - yet you claim they still sold millions? I guess you know nothing about the music business (or any other business, if you think sales come from nothing). Take a look at music stores - no spice girls albums being stocked - that's all the evidence needed. Furthermore this other edit contained NO sources, so any source i provide is far better than nothing! - TonyLeigh
  • No, it's not. Inside ten minutes I can make a page on Geocities that states the Spice Girls sold 50m copies of Spice - it doesn't make it true. Take note that I'm not saying you're wrong, but your reasoning is flawed and your source, suspect. Insulting me will not make your position any stronger - finding and citing evidence will. You should also sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~) to better identify your contributions. - Hayter 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You can try and talk down to me all you want. However Hayter, you're the one who threw the perosnal attacks around first, as can be seen above. So don't even try and make out you're the one who's all cool and collective, with authority, it won't work.

69.204.1.97 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I affronted the source, not you. Unless you created the source, I don't see how you can take offence. I do not pretend to have any more authority that the average Wikipedia user, but that does not change the fact that I, and others have been unconvinced by your reasoning. If you believe you are correct, spend time finding a legitimate source and provide it for the rest of us to review. If it helps, assume I am an openly biased Spice Girls fan and not to be trusted with deciding the neutrality of this article. Post your newfound source here, and even if I am unable to see past my bias, there will be others who can. If this does not aid you however, realise the truth. I'm not a Spice Girls fan and I am the one who said the article was biased in the first place. If the article is incorrect I would like to see that situation rectified, but I do not want one incorrect statement replaced by another. I would hope you share the same wish. - Hayter 16:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed that while there is a mention Spice Girls were assembled because of ad in newspaper, it is not mentioned who paid for that ad - all the SG answered to the ad, so it wasnt none of them, also it is later said that SG searched for agent and record company later on, which rules out the usual suspects. IJusten 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

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)

Spice Girls Forever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.19.55 (talk • contribs) - Hayter 14:53, 6 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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] ><!!

I like your song very much !!Can you sand some more photos for me ?My e-mail is (agneshwko1994@hotmail.com)thank you -.-219.78.37.41 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[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)

[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)

[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

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)

[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 2006 which all five girls attended – the first time all five were in the same room since Geri’s departure eight 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] Space Wenches

Is there a reason that throughout the entire article they are reffered to as the "Space Wenches"?

[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)

[edit] "advertisements were placed in The Stage newspaper"

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

[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/i/Talk%7ESpice_Girls_4267.html"