Wikipedia

Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 8

< Talk:Kelly Clarkson
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Tbhotch in topic Requested move 18 February 2022
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kelly Clarkson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kelly Clarkson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Record Producer Category

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am trying to clean up the Women record producer Category and Kelly's article has zero mention of her being a record producer. I understand that she might produce her own records (artists can do that), but I am not sure about purely taking that role. I would like to remove her from the record producer categories. Lyrelyrebird (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oxford Comma in the WP:LEAD?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There has been a lot of fighting back and forth between users, me included, and an IP editor with multiple IPs. The conflict stems from the Oxford Comma currently used in the WP:LEAD section. What I am trying to do now is building a consensus for either maintaining the comma or removing it entirely. Keep or delete? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Norrington, Bill. "Much Ado about Commas | UC Geography". geog.ucsb.edu. Retrieved 27 May 2019.

Image change

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Personally, I feel the one without the mic in her face is clearer, better. But we will need to establish consensus before changing the infobox image. Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Support for the latter - Though I actually uploaded both images, the latter is the better representation. But since we are on the subject of changing the infobox image, shouldn't it be restored to the original proposal by Chaheel in this talk page (Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 7#Lede image), before Aspects changed it without discussing it first. Not only did the original proposal not receive any objections, it has been discussed nonetheless. It may not be the most recent, but it shows the subject of the article the best way possible, per MOS:IMAGELEAD. Chihciboy (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chihciboy: is this the one? The change predates Aspects's edits. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I did not change the file, it was LaVozSA with this edit, [1]. I added back the inauguration file back into the article, but this time into the body section describing that time period. The previous discussion was four years ago and the inauguration was taken seven years ago, so I think a more recent file would be preferred and if the microphone is not acceptable, then the middle one from 2018 seems a good compromise. Aspects (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be patronising at this point, but when discussing images for articles - especially the lede - there is only one real question that needs to be answered: "Is this the best representation of the article subject?" If the answer is "No" then an alternative needs to be found until the answer is "Yes". It doesn't matter how old the chosen image is, only the suitability. This is the criteria I applied last time, the comments in the archive are still applicable now - and to the choices above. I therefore still advocate the use of the third image that has been in use the longest - the cropped 57th Presidential Inauguration jpeg.
The first warrior games image is inappropriate as the microphone is covering a portion of her face. I admit there is not much between the latter two images, but the composition, lighting and contrast seems better on the 57th image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens, you are using an invalid criterion because "best" is completely subjective. If you would please clarify what metrics are used to measure "best" then we could begin the conversation about which image fits those metrics. Elizium23 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, not invalid at all. I agree that it's subjective which is why I included my criteria above as to why I think the 57th image is "best". The "best" image is arrived at by discussion, which is what we're doing now. I've outlined my reasoning for the 57th image, but if you want absolute clarity, here they are again:

  • First image has her face partially obscured by the microphone
  • Second image is full face of article subject, but low resolution
  • Third image is as above, but high resolution. As I also mentioned above, the composition, colour - and especially lighting - of the third image seems preferable to me making it a better actual photo

A quick look on commons shows that there is no shortage of images of Clarkson, but almost all of them are of her singing and hence with microphone obscuring her. Others (Blue Angels which IIRC used to be the lede image at some point) show her well enough, but are old and she has changed her look since then so could be misleading. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just commenting again, but the responses above seem to support the fact that the microphone image is unacceptable, and opinion seems split between the two alternatives.
If we're agreed on that, can we comment on which of the two we'd like to use? I've already made my case above for the 57th image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The third image of the inauguration is the clearest and does not have her face covered at all.
I'm okay with either the second or the third. Chihciboy (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much the same as last time the image was discussed - there is opinion that the current image is not the best, so I'm reinstating the inauguration. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to interject; I'd suggest the inauguration photo is certainly the most appropriate looking out of the three, in that it appears to be of higher quality and it's more flattering to Clarkson herself. That is just my personal opinion however. It might be some time until a new one of a similar level of quality is uploaded, which is unfortunate in terms of that particular image now being seven/eight years old. But it seems the best choice. BrotherDarksoul Blether 12:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@LaVozSA: has proposed to change the infobox image, but consensus is against him. Let us discuss this further a bit. Elizium23 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe having a more updated picture and not one from 7 years ago would be good for this wiki page LaVozSA (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It is useful to have a recent photo especially of an ever-changing young pop star. But there are other criteria besides age, and some of those criteria are more important. So why besides its age should we change the photo that is currently there? Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

1) as you said age is a big reason 2) she looks kinda diffrent now than she did 7 years ago 3) having more updated photos will be useful for anyone visiting Clarksons wiki page LaVozSA (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

LaVozSA, there are currently 8 photos in the article. There is nothing preventing you from adding your preferred photo in an appropriate place other than the infobox. I didn't say age is a "big" reason. Other reasons are bigger. I would say quality is number one. You have offered no compelling reason to change the infobox photo from the very high-quality one already there. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Marital status

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It hardly bears mentioning here, but since an edit-war is on, I will stress that Clarkson is currently separated from her husband with a divorce in progress. That does not make her single and we do not erase that relationship from the infobox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Whistle Register vs. Head Voice

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the vocal part, I believe her G6 is in super head voice rather than the whistle, which is airier. In Dialogue withThe Rover  paths 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Her 3 Grammy Awards wins should be mentioned in the opening... those wins are more important than any of the other awards listed. Andriko8 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: - @Andriko8: Glancing at the talk page history I see this has been discussed in the past, and apparently the consensus reached about doing this for biographies in general seems to be against this due to a potential conflict with WP:NPOV (1 2). However, as you can probably tell, this happened quite awhile ago. If you would like, you are free to open up a discussion and change consensus via this talk page. But that consensus existing, alongside this not being in "change X to Y" format, makes me uncomfortable fulfilling this request. Happy editing! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that a better defense of not revising this is that her Grammy wins are referenced throughout the opening section; however, such information is easily missed (not to mention the general structural expectations of information writing as a genre). As for the comment on the "change X to Y format," I have no words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriko8 (talk • contribs)
I will agree, in retrospect, that my dropping of the "deviation from format" comment of nowhere after talking about policy and precedent for a bit wasn't cool. It probably came off as quite rude; that was not my intention! Back on topic, I still think the edit you are requesting probably necessitates some consensus building first. I can't say that I agree the information about her Grammy is easily missed. That said, this page only necessitates autoconfirmed permissions, which realistically isn't that hard to achieve. It's entirely possible you can make your desired edit yourself in the near future, and then you can see where it goes from there. I could be overestimating how controversial the edit may be. Cheers! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Christmas Isn't Canceled (Only You)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christmas Isn't Canceled (Only You). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 29#Christmas Isn't Canceled (Only You) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit. The matter seeking consensus is the use of TopHit.ru as a source for song release dates. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago23 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson → Kelly Brianne – Many sources say that her name is legally changing. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kelly-clarkson-marking-her-post-164235684.html Georgia guy (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of entertainers who use a professional name that differs from their legal name. Let's just wait and see if going forward she uses her new legal name as her professional name. Maybe she will and we can eventually move the article, but moving an article like this too soon will run afoul of WP:ASTONISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
But your own source that you cite in support of this move says that it is currently unknown if she will use her new legal name as her stage name, and her official website is still kellyclarkson.com. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Rreagan007, that statement is consistent with the comment it was a response to; specifically the words "might still be using her dated name professionally". Georgia guy (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The various news sources I've looked at about this say she has filed a petition to legally change her name, so her name hasn't even legally been changed yet. So you want us to move her article now when it isn't even officially her legal name yet, isn't the name she's most commonly known by, isn't the professional name she is currently using on her own official website, and we don't know if she will use it as her professional name going forward. In no way would moving this article now be appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
And the name she prefers to use is not even what matters. What matters is what name other people primarily recognize and use to refer to her. Also consider Cat Stevens and Stokely Carmichael. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, #1, her legal name hasn't changed yet. She only filed a petition to change it. #2, on Wikipedia we use Common Name, not Legal Names. For example, Betty White's legal name was Betty Ludden, as she changed it when she got married in the 60s. It is noted in her page, but the page is still called "Betty White" DonaldD23 talk to me 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Considering the petition was just filed in court on Wednesday, it's way WP:TOOSOON to consider moving the page. We don't even know if it's going to be granted or how long it's going to take, and even then, I think it shouldn't be moved, cause the general public knows her more as 'Kelly Clarkson', WP:COMMONNAME. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. She just filed the petition to change her name several days ago. For all we know, Clarkson may back out of the name change. Even if the name is changed, it is unclear if she will stop using "Kelly Clarkson" professionally. That said, if she changes her legal and professional name, then changing her page would have to be another discussion. Looking at other examples on Wikipedia, there is Australian actress Pia Whitesell (formerly credited as Pia Miller), who had a discussion last year which saw the change of her page name. The main reasoning was that recent and sufficient enough sources referred to her by her new name. In contrast, you have Kanye West, who legally changed their name to "Ye" but the discussion argued on WP:COMMONNAME and sources still generally referring to him as "Kanye West". Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Clarkson's 2023 song "Snowing on Wikipedia". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previously voiced arguments of common name. Also, WP:CRYSTAL is applicable in that the change is being suggested on what might happen. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Hard oppose since Clarkson only filed for this legal name change a mere few days ago and has not been granted by court for it to take effect effective immediately according to multiple news outlets that reported on the matter. Plus, per WP:COMMONNAME, the general public has always known her professionally and still does to this day as Kelly CLARKSON. mediafanatic17 talk 14:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Kelly Clarkson is still her WP:COMMONNAME so she is more recognizable under this name. She just filed for her legal name to be changed so it would be ideal to wait until it actually takes affect, but even when that happens, there would need to be evidence that coverage shifts towards her new name and away from her more recognizable Clarkson surname. I can understand why this discussion was opened, but WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear with cases like this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This request is premature, until she starts using that title for her music or her TV show then we can reconsider. JE98 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelly_Clarkson/Archive_8&oldid=1241726624"