Talk:Billie Eilish

singles off debut album

hello all, not entirely sure how editing on here works but i wanted to bring to your attention that “everything i wanted” is not a single off of “when we all fall asleep, where do we go?” though it is listed as such. have fun doing your thing on here, and sorry that i most likely did not point this out appropriately! Mango Overlord (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

argh, meant song, not single** Mango Overlord (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh you’re right, it was a bonus track that appears to have been released as a promotional single or something like that but not one of the official singles of the album. I will put a note. Trillfendi (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It is specifically listing songs from the album. "Everything I Wanted" has nothing to do with the album so it shouldn't be there in the first place. Even if a note is added, it will just result in more confusion. heyitsben!! ^talk 13:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Age

Someone really should update her age to 19 - Deepabysm (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepabysm: The system will do that when she turns 19...in December. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the main image be changed?

There is a clear consensus to use the previous image, File:Billie Eilish 2019 by Glenn Francis.jpg, instead of File:Billie Eilish at Pukkelpop Festival - 18 AUGUST 2019 (08) (cropped).jpg. There is no prejudice against discussing the use of another image such as those suggested by Koavf.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To avoid a possible edit war, here is an RfC regarding the main image. I personally think this image that was previously used File:Billie_Eilish_2019_by_Glenn_Francis.jpg is more suitable. Should we change it to that one? Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support previous The previous image is the better of the two, it depicts her in a more realistic way and seems less staged. - HAL333 23:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support previous It's preferable to me because it's in color and her head doesn't look like it's floating like the current pic is. 100cellsman (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support change to File:Billie Eilish @Pukkelpop 2019 (48590443241).jpg or File:Billie Eilish at Pukkelpop Festival - 18 AUGUST 2019 (01) (cropped).jpg. The current image is fantastic but being in black-and-white makes it much less recognizable. The previous photo is fine but not very engaging. The suggestions I've posted show her performing music, which is appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated above. Johnrichardhall (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support whatever you do, don't use a black-and-white photo, which is a disservice to her image and music-video aesthetics. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name in early life section

Hi @Trillfendi - would you mind expanding on why you undid my edit to the early life section? Of course, she was born with the last name O'Connell, but the entire article, when not using her full name, refers to her as "Eilish" rather than "O'Connell." Is there a compelling reason to keep referring to her as O'Connell in this section? Other notable people who go by a different professional name are referred to by that professional last name throughout their articles (for example, Martin Sheen or Cary Grant). I had thought that changing it would add to the article's clarity, but happy to keep as is if that's more in keeping with Wikipedia in general. Leyarburns (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

During that time, she was just O'Connell and she hadn't established herself as Billie Eilish yet.100cellsman (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for clarifying! Leyarburns (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Bill English"? Seriously?

I removed it yet one of these dodos “reverted” it, for no valid reason. It’s nonsensical. ⌚️ (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, dodo is a featured article... if you actually read it you’ll find nothing about “personal attacks”. ⌚️ (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the hatnote is nonsensical and ridiculous. Hatnotes are not for promoting anything remotely resemblant without a real need, and this one is even worse than that. — Mike Novikoff 19:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to call people names, this isn't elementary school, we are all adults here. LanHikari64 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No “names” were called, people just want something to overreact on this uneventful Thursday. None of that changes how idiotic it is to lead people to believe Billie Eilish would be confused with a random politician who isn’t even in office, when there’s no evidence of that happening. ⌚️ (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but there is no reason to be rude about it. You called someone a "dodo". That is an insult. Wikipedia is no place for playground insults. If someone did something you didn't like, that doesn't mean you have to make a rude comment.LanHikari64 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Does no one realize the irony that said bird doesn’t even exist? ⌚️ (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And? LanHikari64 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. You’re choosing to get upset about something nonexistent. ⌚️ (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It is extinct, not nonexistent. It's more the secondary meanings of the word, being "one hopelessly behind the times" or "a stupid person". It's rude, and again, this is no place for that. LanHikari64 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, kindly do not revert my messages, Davey. LanHikari64 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Resetting the discussion: Is there really cause to have a hatnote in the article distinguising Eilish from Bill English? —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. LanHikari64 (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm from NZ. I can't imagine anyone would really confuse the 2. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section

It seems like there should be a criticism or controversy section. Isn't anyone critical of anything about Billie Eilish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t Miley Cyrus. Unless you have reliable sources for such criticism or controversy, which seems to manifestly be the opposite, it won’t go here as there must maintain neutrality. ⌚️ (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't ignoring criticism, on the contrary; only noting praise is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Critical commentary is valuable where relevant, and that includes criticism. However, a controversy section for its own sake is discouraged. Notable criticism from reliable sources should been integrated in the article, in the relevant section(s). I'd come across a couple articles critiquing the artist's public image and style, for instance (such as [1]). This should be included in that section especially as she's received a lot of media attention for her image. Lapadite (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding a criticism section just for the sake of the idea that people might not like her, which this IP was inferring, is not neutral. ⌚️ (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, everything/one has someone that dislikes them. We can't go putting criticism sections on everything. LanHikari64 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Father in infobox

It seems odd to me that there is this page restriction:

"Do not add father until / unless he gets his own Wikipedia article"

I suggest this restriction be removed. The omission suggests that his name is not in there for family reasons.
Bkengland (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bkengland: Her father is named in the article prose already. I'm not certain on the MOS/guideline around having unlinked topics in infoboxes; I know I've seen it before, so unless there's a good reason (a MOS/guideline) to omit the name from the infobox, I would lean towards inclusion. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Very odd restriction. Of course it should not be redlinked, but otherwise there should be no objections, as long as it's supported by the RS. — Mike Novikoff 03:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

Billie Eilish recentaly published a new song called No Time To Die for the new james bond movie Gap-Jacket (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

@Gap-Jacket: Please provide sources that the song has been released. Until we have verification of that, the article will just say that she is scheduled to record the Bond theme. —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Are you being serious? She released that last week. It’s out for the world to listen to. This has been news. ⌚️ (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Then providing a source for the release date should be trivial. —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting the single this far ahead of the movie, but Billboard reported it was released on Thursday. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

At the end of the Career section currently, the release of the title track for No Time to Die as a single on February 13 precedes the awards she won at the Grammys ceremony (on January 26). I guess this part of the article came to be written like this because the announcement that she was the artist who recorded (or was going to record) the title track was made before the Grammys ceremony. I suggest removing mention of the announcement, as it is no longer noteworthy now that the single has been released (if I'm wrong and it remains noteworthy, the article should explain that) and moving the rest to follow the Grammys, or separating the sentences about the title track into their own paragraph. —⁠173.129.235.246 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think the announcement caused more furor than the song itself. So the announcement should be mentioned. (I'm not saying the song isn't good. I like it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Moscow Connection raises a good point, in that the announcement itself is noteworthy. feminist (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

I want to add more info LazyDog10120 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• @LazyDog10120: You'll need to be more specific. What info, and based on what reliable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request April 9, 2020

I request that the first line of the article be changed to "...is an American singer, songwriter, and director." Billie has directed two of her music videos.

Under the Artistry heading, it should be included that Billie directed the music video for her song "everything i wanted" which was released 23 January 2020.

Additionally, most of Billie's song titles are stylized using all lowercase letters, yet this article capitalizes all her song titles. This should be changed.

Goat Billie (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Goat Billie: Regarding the styling: we typically don't stylize titles, per the MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the main image be changed? 2

The RfC initiator has withdrawn the RfC. There is no consensus in this RfC to change the main image with editors roughly evenly divided between the two image choices.

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 
  First (current) image
• 
  Second image (performance at Pukkelpop)

Should the main image be changed? RFC withdrawn - Alexis Jazz 22:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed that the second image is better: it shows her performing. Both are good for representing her and the first image shows a very direct shot of her face but the second one is more dynamic and still gets across what she looks like. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you want this to actually be a request for comment you have to use the request for comment template. ⌚️ (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Trillfendi: like this? I don't know if RfC is required, but considering this was decided with an RfC last time I figured it may be. - Alexis Jazz 22:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• It looks alright. Just not a fan of the bangs on her face, personally. 웃OO 23:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Second image. The main thing I will say is that her hair color and look change frequently, and the Pukkelpop image captures that updated look well. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Second image is better as per discussions made above by Justin (koavf)❤ & Elizium23. Idealigic (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• First image is better in my opinion. I feel like it gives a better sense of what she looks like. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• First image per Aitch & Aitch Aitch. She is more identifiable in the first photo. However another good alternative is File:Billie Eilish at Pukkelpop Festival - 18 AUGUST 2019 (08) (cropped).jpg. It may not show her current true hair colour but she is more indentifiable in this one than in the second image (eyes are tense/flexed; hair in face; open mouth) and gives it a better representation of her face shape than in the first image (hair hides jaw and teeth; head is at an awkward angle). heyitsben!! ^talk 12:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aitch & Aitch Aitch and HeyitsBen: I don't know if it makes a difference, but a narrower crop is possible, see the added square crop. HeyitsBen, that black and white photo is exactly the one that was rejected in the previous RfC. - Alexis Jazz 12:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  HeyitsBen, there was a discussion a while ago to decide against using that photo. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• First Image I still think that one's better. ~ HAL333 18:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Second image, I can't really say why, I just like it better than the first one if I'm being honest. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• First image (the current image) since you can see more of her face. 2nd image has her head turning sideways, with bangs covering part of her face and a microphone to her face; it belongs more in the body of the article, not as a lead image. Some1 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Some1: I see your point, but do keep in mind that those bangs don't appear to be an accident. Just Google billie eilish performing and you'll find a lot of photos with her bangs all over the place. Arguably those are part of her image. Second, on the current photo her cheeks and ears are entirely obscured by her hair, and that is not typical for her appearance. I'd argue you can see less of her face on the current photo. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: "Google billie eilish performing", but what about when she's not performing, such as in interviews? Search any interview of her on YouTube (or even her music videos such as Bad Guy, When the Party's Over, Xanny) and you can see that her ears are typically hidden by her hair. Some1 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Some1: but she's not known for her interviews, she's known for her music. Also, her ears, yes, sometimes. At Jimmy Fallon her cheeks are clearly visible and her ears are obscured.. until 1:48 when she adjusts her hair, though it falls back a bit later on. But the lower part of her ears remains visible. Vanity Fair has three interviews in one. In all three her cheeks are clearly visible. Her ears are also visible in the 2018 interview. In her Capital FM interview it varies, sometimes you can see her ears, sometimes not, sometimes only partially or only part of the time, but her cheeks are always in the picture. And her music videos, well, it varies there as well. Bury a friend, Ocean Eyes, watch show her ears in varying degrees. But her cheeks are basically always visible. - Alexis Jazz 19:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: "1:48 when she adjusts her hair, though it falls back a bit later on", "show her ears in varying degrees". So her hair covers her ears the majority of the time, then. And her typical hairstyle is hair down, not hair up (and with her hair covering her ears). Her right cheek doesn't even appear in the 2nd image, so I'm not going to touch on that point. I think we've already made up our minds which image we prefer, so us debating further on this matter isn't going to change each other's minds. I'm going to disengage; other editors who find this RfC can judge for themselves which image is the better lead image (look at her interviews, music videos, pictures, etc. if they need to). Some1 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Some1: indeed we will have to agree to disagree. That's fine. Her hair may be typically down, but I haven't seen this "oval" hairdo anywhere else. Her right cheek not being visible in the second image is IMHO not as big of a deal as you make it out to be, it's not a matter of square inches visible. The human brain can interpolate. We see her left cheek, we can guess what the right cheek looks like and what shape her face has. When we see no cheeks (first image), we have no clue. But indeed, we'll agree to disagree. Supporters of both images have valid points but we weigh them differently. - Alexis Jazz 20:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Second image - Both aren't what I would consider to be great however with the second one you can see more of her face and she doesn't have an awkward look/stare like the first one. –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think there's any awkward look or staring going on in the first image; her eyes are like that. [2][3][4] Some1 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fair point, Google Images is filled with more similar images, gives me the creeps either way. –Davey2010^Talk 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• This edit by Alexis Jazz (talk · contribs) has changed a not-very-good RfC statement into a bad one. To see just why it's bad, follow the link Biographies in the RfC banner. Please provide a brief and neutral statement, in line with WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: unrelated to this RfC I already have a headache. I don't do RfCs normally. I'm used to simply discussing stuff, I only made it an RfC because this was previously decided by RfC. (and I have no idea why that had to be an RfC either) It seems clear to me there is no consensus to change the main image. Can we just close this and get it over with? - Alexis Jazz 21:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Because people were disruptively changing the lead photo on an almost daily basis. ⌚️ (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  It just gets worse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  How is that worse? - Alexis Jazz 11:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• According to WP:RFCEND I can withdraw the question. So it is hereby withdrawn. This isn't productive. There is no consensus. - Alexis Jazz 11:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 5 May 2020

Change "Use mdy dates|date=April 2020" to "Use mdy dates|date=May 2020"
Change "access-date=2020-04-20" to "access-date=April 20, 2020"

Request to unify date format. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96: Which refs have the ANSI access date formatting? —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

One ref: "<ref name="Sunny">{{Cite web|title=Billie Eilish & Finneas perform "Sunny" {{!}} One World: Together At Home|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJuHn8JzhP0|language=en|access-date=2020-04-20}}</ref>" Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done access-date tweaked in that ref. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC 3

Which image should be used if any?, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Current image
• 
  Second image
• 
  Third image

• RFC was withdrawn after only 6 days so am starting a fresh one, Pinging everyone who participated in the last RFC. @Alexis Jazz, Koavf, 100cellsman, Elizium23, Aitch & Aitch Aitch, HeyitsBen, HAL333, QueerFilmNerd, and Some1:, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Davey2010, #2 is best, I think. #3 close behind. #1 is bronze by far--a fine photo but doesn't display the subject as a musician, which is pretty important. That's my take. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Predictably I say #2, #3 close behind, same as Koavf. - Alexis Jazz 12:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: This is a much better RfC. Davey2010's statement is brief and neutral, goes straight to the point, and doesn't disrupt the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Current image / #1 per my previous comments in the above RfC. Some1 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Second image - The 3 images aren't great however with the second one you can see more of her face. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Current Image /#1 - I've been mulling over this since yesterday - The strand of hair in #2 just looks awful imho, Not her fault at all but for me it just doesn't look right... whereas atleast with #1 her hair looks better, Although you can see more of her face in #2 than you can in #1 but meh. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Current Image /#1 Her face isn't obstructed. Out of the other two, I think the second image is preferable to the third. ~ HAL333 16:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Current image / #1. She is most instantly recognizable in the first photo. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Image #3 this is a rock star who is known for putting on high energy stage shows, so a little hair in her face shows that she is flailing around actively. She is also known for music videos in which blood and other bodily fluid streams down her face, so I don't think we should let a little hair stand in our way. Finally, she is one to change her look often, and so the sedate goth in Image #1 is no more, and has not existed for years. We have an obligation to display a current representation of the artist, and that is #3. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic

Instead of doing 3 RfCs on this in 5 months, why don't we just leave the image alone. ⌚️ (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC) User:Trillfendi Maybe you should get yourself some (new) glasses as had you read the above RFC you would've seen it was actually withdrawn and therefore If an RFC is withdrawn anybody is entitled to start a new one, No one's asking you to participate infact you wasn't even pinged!, If you have a problem with this RFC then fuck off and don't participate in it, Simples. –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC) @Davey2010: But get this... I was the one who suggested the first Rfc because you obsessed people were changing the image daily. Check yourself before you check me. The second RfC was withdrawn because people couldn't simply decide to keep one image for more than 2 weeks. If you're telling me to "fuck off" over a picture, get off Wikipedia for a few days and get some help. ⌚️ (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC) WP:CIVIL "Participate in a respectful and considerate way." Wikipedia is still an open encyclopedia where anyone can edit, invitations are not required. Civility is required. Current image -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Current image not perfect but a clear and recognizable image, entirely appropriate for the Infobox. Fully expect her image to continue to change, image 2, might even be outdated already by the time you read this. It is a good image but it does not seem like the best choice for the Infobox. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Billie Eilish 2020 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to figure out for myself what was going on here, so I'll explain what I learned and maybe it will save other some time.
The image is supposed to be from the 2019 Grammy Awards, and shows Billie Eilish against a plain background, wearing sunglasses, and a mask over her mouth, hair hair is dyed bright green and black.
The image comes from Voice of America "the official external broadcasting service of the federal government of the United States". As a government publication the images might be Public Domain, but it might also be republished from the Associated Press and subject to copyright. It is not clear if this image can be freely used by Wikipedia, and it might need to be deleted. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Image no longer used in article, better to play it safe anyway I guess. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)