# Talk:SZA

I noticed that most of the sources out there say or indicate that she was born in 1989, however some of them, particularly AllMusic, says that she was born in 1990. Is there any reason for this? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Request a better picture from 2024 to represent SZA. Her current photo is barley recognizable. 108.48.181.224 (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. To what? We can't just use any picture off a google search, see WP:Image Use Policy Cannolis (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting there to be a Personal Life Section.  142.114.86.163 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done, I've created the section. Feel free to add more relevant details (with valid sources of course). jolielover♥talk 16:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Recently, @750h+ has endeavored to bring this article to GA or FA status. Expect a greater volume of edits than usual. I have decided to tag along a bit as well; feel free to do the same! Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 11:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PSA:, I've done quite a lot on the article, I haven't completely finished (I haven't added much on her public image) but what are your current thoughts? 750h+ 08:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)


### SZA
After working on this article for the past month I and @PSA: think it is almost ready for FAC but we'd like to get some feedback for the nomination. Best, 750h+ 10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


#### LunaEclipse
Source review coming soon. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits)  12:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse: ? 750h+ 04:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
750h+, I'm sorry 😭 School's been taking up taking up a lot of my time recently. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits)  10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
no problem! take your time. 750h+ 10:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
[2]: OK
[4]: It says he was a video producer during his time at CNN, not an editor. Other than that source is OK
[48]: OK
[46]: "On last year's 'Teen Spirit,' her first single under the auspices of Top Dawg Entertainment, she added a couple more tags: 'Glitter Trap' and 'Not R&B.'"

this is talked about later in the article
My bad.
[60]: OK
[93]: OK
[63]: OK
[168]: OK
[188]: Needs to be updated.

fixed
[278]: OK
[305]: OK
[289]: OK
[296]: OK
@750h+ and PSA: ping. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits)  22:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

LunaEclipse all done! 750h+ 01:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)


#### FrB.TG
I'll be along for a review soon. FrB.TG (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: ? 750h+ 04:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for making you wait so long. I'm afraid I won't be able to review this anytime soon due to limited time. FrB.TG (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
No problem. 750h+ 02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@750h+, I will have to disagree with some of your changes to the article. First, with regards to merging these paragraphs, I believe they should be separated. The first one discusses why SZA is passionate about writing songs; the second discusses how SZA uses songwriting to reflect. That seems like disparate-enough themes to me.
Second, I also see you used the refn template to replace the topic sentence for the genre paragraph. I understand this was done to not clutter the prose with a bunch of references. Regardless, I am curious if we need five references just to show critics have always said she's an R&B singer-songwriter. The succeeding paragraph already implies that the narrative comes from the media. Additionally, "singer-songwriter" is not needed here because it has to be discussed in the succeeding "Songwriting" section. Currently, the topic sentence is unnecessarily unwieldy, and I think these editing choices have something to do with that. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 06:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Just seeing this, my responses will be listed below. 750h+ 06:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
okay, if that's what you think about paragraphs then we can unmerge them, i think for the most part i needed a bit of clarification on this one considering both sentences have pretty similar starting points.
in regards to your second concern i think we could reduce the number of references and remove "songwriter" but i do think we current sentence structure is superior, especially considering "for years" is somewhat vague, but i hope we can come to a consensus 750h+ 06:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@PSA: what do you think about the current state of the article (given your changes to it)? i think it is much better now, but do you think your concerns have been addressed? For the most part your changes look really good, i feel like this will easily pass FAC. 750h+ 13:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@750h+: no. Some things are still missing; for example, you removed these details from the lead about SZA exploring certain genres for which projects, which does not abide the structures of already-existing musician BLPs like Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga. For a lead that says she incorporates multiple genres and has influenced R&B, I think it is fair to explain what sounds she has explored across her discography. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 05:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page
the thing is, with articles like Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga, they have around one to three words explaining their genres of each album in the lead. sentences like "With the three projects, she explored psychedelic and lo-fi music, resulting in what she called 'glitter trap'." as well as "Disillusioned with being reduced to R&B by the media, she experimented with a large range of genres which included rock, hip-hop, and pop." are not included in their article otherwise the leads would be far too long. i don't think belong in the lead (as per MOS:INTRO, "greater detail is saved for the body of the article").
i'd be happy with any shorter alternatives, where we can include both some genres  while not making the lead excessive in detail and size. best, 750h+ 06:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@750h+, considering you were the one to revert, what would you suggest as an alternative then? Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 03:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@PSA: think the current size of the lead is somewhat okay. However, i think we can remove a bit of info and add genres to not make it too long. I'll make some edits to it and you can tell me if you like it or not. 750h+ 08:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@B33net: i was the one who brought it to GAN, not Tomobe03, and you are not a major contributor, may I ask why you are nominating this? 750h+ 02:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@750h+ The person who improved it to Good Article status was Tomobe03. While you nominated it, the DYK nomination specifically asks for the reviewer who assessed and upgraded it to that rank. I nominated it because it was one of the most recent GA articles. Per DYK nomination rules, an article must be newly created or recently upgraded to GA, among other criteria. This nomination follows those guidelines, as it is a newly assessed GA article. Hope this clarifies things. 🐝 B33net 🐝 03:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@B33net: please show me where it says that. Because from what I know you must be the one who brought the article to GA status to nominate the article for DYK. I, the main contributor and the one who brought it to GA status, had absolutely no knowledge of this being up. I see on the articles Naide Gomes and Seokjojeon that the GA nominators are the same people who nominated it for DYK so I'm very confused as to where your version came from. Also pinging coord @AirshipJungleman29: for his say on this. 750h+ 05:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. According to WP:DYKELIG, an article qualifies for DYK if it is either newly created, newly promoted to Good Article status, or expanded fivefold within the past seven days. There is no requirement that the same person who nominated it for GA must also nominate it for DYK—only that the article itself meets the criteria. In practice, many DYK nominations are submitted by users who did not write or review the GA but noticed that it meets eligibility. That being said, I understand your concern, and if you’d prefer to handle the nomination yourself, I’d be happy to step aside. 🐝 B33net 🐝 06:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
B33net, while you are correct that you can nominate articles expanded by others. It is polite to ask the other editor(s) before. Please do so in the future. In this case please withdraw from the nomination and let 750h+ take over. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 @B33net @750h+ I do not get the impression from the DYK Nomination form that the GAN reviewer should be listed at the "Improved to Good Article status by ...". While it seems obvious to me that the primary author of the article (usually the GAN nominator) should be listed, it is not specified either. Could you clarify? Tomobe03 (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that bit. Yes, 750h+ should be listed as article improver. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
i'm happy to let the nom continue, i was just confused as to why a DYK was put on an article i took to GA. 750h+ 09:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I will happily accept this advice. 🐝 B33net 🐝 15:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

hi @PSA:. i initially wanted to start work on the article solo, but you offered several helpful suggestions off-wiki and have made several great edits to the article, so it's been nice collaborating on it since then. that said working together doesn't mean reverting or changing several of my edits back to your preferred version because you dont like them so i'm a bit confused as to why that's happening (especially considering you mentioned off-wiki that you wouldn't have worked on a biography yourself if i hadn’t started it).
you've also made mention of wanting the article to look somewhat like other biography FAs like Taylor Swift but to get there i think some trimming will be necessary. right now the article is over 6,300 words for an artist with two albums, two EPs and one rerecording. by comparison, taylor swift's article has only about 3,300 more words, despite covering 11 albums, four rerecordings, five EPs, and four live albums. 
if we want this article to look somewhat like taylor's article (or just musician articles in general) then several changes may have to be made. one of these may have to be the prose. parts like "she overheard him making a beat from the next room", "SZA later deleted the post, admitting it was a 'childish' move", "she posted a series of images that contained a parental advisory sticker, hinting at potential cover artworks" or "The year ended without any releases" seem like things that could be mentioned in the articles of the albums rather than the biography itself. i think we could also remove any mentions of music videos (unless something actually notable happened in them; for example SZA previewed "Blind" at the end of the "Shirt" music video).
best, and i hope a consensus can be came to :). 750h+ 06:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @750h+. Thanks for noting your concerns. The edits were reverted to their previous revisions because they happened to be inevitable byproducts of edit conflicts. In short, we unfortunately happened to be editing the article at the same time, so some changes were unintentionally undone. I apologize that it gave you the impression I dont like [several of your edits]. Still, I don't think it's entirely fair to assume that was my intent, considering I was already trying to resolve those ECs before I even happened upon your message.
Re. your second paragraph, I agree that it does need some trimming. Though I think we should consider the fact that, even if this article is a GA, important facts from the Ctrl and SOS eras are still missing from the article, hence the recent expansions. We for sure need to balance these two goals and I am willing to hear out what suggestions you have in mind. Thanks, Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 07:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alousybum @750h+ alright that's enough both of you. If we are to go somewhere with improving the article it's best to continue the discussion here. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

it's pretty simple; everything (except obvious basic information) should be sourced per WP:CITEEVERYTHING and WP:V (These similarities are also more apparent in SZA's subsequent two EPs than in her more recent studio albums. isn't cited). also we don't need to include every single singer the album has similarities to. i could possibly see genres be included but everything else just no 750h+ 01:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm relieved someone else is paying attention here besides the self-appointed arbiter of "excess". I cede the point about verifiability of the conclusion that distinguished the EPs from albums; listeners can figure that out for themselves, if we're going to insist on the rules from A to Z. In turn, I insist that someone show me the official guidance on "excessiveness" that justifies persistently removing verifiable information that is already cited properly. This felt to me as well like an extremely subjective edit war to start over next-to-nothing (that's MY subjective judgment), and I see no reason to agree with or otherwise legitimize persistently inaccurate, catastrophizing straw man arguments. Expanding the list of similar artists from 2 to 6 is no slippery slope – that is the end of the verifiable list from the cited source. If my guy can "possibly see genres be included" then why remove it for a third time? These reversions are as careless as their justifications. Alousybum (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
if you want information on the topic, perhaps take a look at WP:TMI and WP:SS. as well as removing the number of singers, i’d also consider removing the genres the article “was compared to” and replacing them with its actual genres; the See.SZA.Run article states neo soul and hip hop. Best, 750h+ 00:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Both of those articles establish very subjective guidance, so if that's all you've got, this is your opinion on "excess" vs. mine. I already justified greater inclusion in my first edit; you can engage with those arguments instead of insisting on your opinion without justifying it and continuously reverting my edits indiscriminately.
I do not oppose the inclusion of neo soul and hip hop, but the microgenres you keep removing are verifiably cited and important points of connection to other music that was trending at the time of SZA's EPs, which are themselves important contributions in the scope of what actually constitutes the microgenres. (Emphasis on "micro"!) SZA's albums have since moved on from those microgenres IMHO, which is why I contrasted them with the EPs, but since we're apparently insisting on a dumb edit war here, I offered to accept the overapplication of the verifiability standard to exclude what was pretty self-evident...in my opinion. Now why don't you also play by the rules per se and stop pushing your opinion on what is excessive? It's 189 bytes of info you're warring over FFS. Alousybum (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
this isn’t about byte counts or who’s self-appointed it’s about keeping the article readable with all the important information mentioned—not the few artists and “microgenres” the album was compared to (your additions to the article say the EP was COMPARED to the genres not explicitly WAS this. WP:TMI and WP:SS uboth reinforce the idea that not everything verifiable needs to be included. citing a source doesn’t automatically make something due or proportionate.
if there’s a policy that says “ include everything a source says as” i would absolutely love to see it! calling my trimming “careless” doesn’t change the fact that your additions have been redundant. also it’s pretty ironic that you’re saying It's 189 bytes of info you're warring over FFS when you’re quite literally doing the exact same thing! maybe let’s not pretending only one of us is pushing here. best, 750h+ 03:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@Alousybum @750h+ I can sense that there is still some heat in the discussion... but at least we're headed somewhere more productive.
If you want my take, I think we should leave out the microgenres and list of names. This information is for the EP articles. If we want to keep it, well, we already have a section way down this article about SZA's music genres. We can just talk about her music's evolution (and how her roots have always been in alternative and R&B) there. Putting it on the Career section disrupts the paragraphs' flow. See, we must ensure that most details in that section are placed in their proper context. A good/featured article keeps the article/article section's topic in focus; if we're writing about a person's music career, we want most of the details to be related to her career.
Inevitably we are going to talk about stats and genres and critical assessment of her music, of course. All of these things mold SZA's public image and commercial success. But notice how mentions of genres, stats, or reviews in other subsections of the Career section tie them back to SZA's career and accomplishments. We say that "Good Days" is her first non-solo top-ten, that SZA mixed several genres in SOS because she was tired of critics pigeonholing her, that a main point of praise for SOS is that it was worth the five-year wait, etc. Listing the names of her contemporaries and her associated microgenres in the Career section is very out of place; we already do some of that in #Music and #Reception and legacy. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 02:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Please change “Bamileke ethnic group” to “Cameroonian origin” when describing SZA’s maternal heritage. There is no substantial or verifiable proof that SZA’s mom is from the Bamileke ethnic group. The “evidence” cited stems from a post on instagram referencing a screenshot in which SZA mentioned her mom is Cameroonian, with no specified ethnic group. The distinction is particularly important as Cameroon has been facing an ongoing ethnotribal tensions aimed at dividing the people and upholding tribal supremacy narratives. 125.253.50.7 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SI09 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
The source doesn’t say that her mother comes from a particular tribe. The information is simply not there. So, the tag  should be introduced - or better, the detail should be taken out. 217.65.132.23 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

it should be R&B alternative R&B pop neo soul hip hop 74.14.154.34 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)