Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cleanup

This article is very informative, and the author(s) has/have done well but the layout and quality is poor. Therefore I have given the article 'Needing cleanup' status. Now at a glance the article looks fine, but when you read closely you will see where I'm coming from. In the intermittent period, Lohan starred in two Disney Channel Original Movies: Life Size and Get a Clue. or

In the intermittent period, Lohan starred in two Disney Channel original movies; Life Size and Get a Clue Get A Clue.

(By the way, articles in titles [Get a Clue] are not capitalized [exception: Lead word always is, even when alphabetized (e.g., Godfather, The)]. In this case, anyway, it has since been fixed.) RadioKirk 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added links, got rid of unnecessary capitals and italicised movie titles. As of 2004, she is considered by many to be a teen idol. Its 2005 now! Plus, she was never a teen idol. She isn't even that famous. In December of 2004, Lohan released her debut album Speak. She had previously flirted with the music industry by recording some singles for her starring role in Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen and Freaky Friday. This information was previously stated before. Its the same info dressed differently.

I will edit these myself if no-one else agrees, I just wanted to let you know what my reasons were. Andy, 19:50 (GMT) 10 Feb 2005

I'd say go ahead and make your clean ups, most seem reasonable though what you quote "she is considered by many to be a teen idol" is POV as is what you say "She isn't even that famous". zen master T 19:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll go ahead. Andy 20:43 (GMT) 11 Feb 2005

A cursory glance at the graduating to movie section seems like there are too many wiki links there. Why mention that Mean Girls was developer by Paramount and wikilink Mean Girls? The point of wiki linking is "for more information" so, instead, users can click on the Mean Girls link to learn who developed the movie, it is redundant to both wiki link and add in extraneous info that can be found via the wiki link in my opinion. Also, there are a fair number of red wiki links in this article. Also, the graduating to movies section title can be improved, do you agree? zen master T 21:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, celebrity's parents names are not generally wiki linked presumably because they aren't notable enough, right? Does "Summer 2003" really need to be wiki linked here? I am borderline about whether it is necessary to mention that Lindsay reprised "Haley Mills" role from the original Parent Trap, that sort of information can/should be found by clicking on the Parent Trap link, unless Hayley noted Lindsay's performance or the connection is otherwise noteworthy which in this case I assume it's not, it's redundant to put information that can be found by the following wiki link in an article in my opinion. Also, my personal preference is not to wiki link random dates not directly related to an article, but perhaps that is just me. zen master T 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I'm not one to suggest section titles - you probably know better than me. Andy 21:49 (GMT), 11 Feb 05

This article needs to be cleaned up a lot! First of all, the grammar is a bit off, and even in attempting to fix it, I have to go back and re-correct it. Secondly, there are way too many footnotes to sources for irrelevant quotes. Third, there are several things in the article that have been stated before in previous and later paragraphs, such as mentioning Lindsay's brief career as a Ford Model. This article is definitely going to need some help from the admins. How this ever got to be a "featured article" is beyond me. Stephe1987 00:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is that picture liscensed, etc? All that's noted is that it's a publicity still... Rhymeless 04:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, seeing that it's a publicity still, I assume it's free use (or at least fair use). Those are made so that media organizations can have something in their stories. I think it's more than fine. Cookiecaper 05:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Style and news

Hi. I was reading this article and a couple of passages caught my eye:

1. I found the part about the roommate deal not really well-written (sorry). It sounds like: they are living together but they don't live together. Either they do or they don't, or maybe the whole thing is just a façade, but the text really doesn't state anything.
2. Statements such as "(...) is currently dating (...)" are more on the side of a news page, not an encyclopedia. When I read "currently", I have to check the page history to know when this was written, so I can know when "currently" actually takes place, not to mention the fact that once the situation changes, it's no longer current, which makes the article wrong.

I hope this is of some use. Regards, Redux 12:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parenthetical phrases and commas

Since this has been incorrectly "fixed" more than once, I thought I'd include a note about what comprises a parenthetical phrase.

I've since changed it so it's no longer an issue, but this article previously contained a sentence reading, "... the film's director, Angela Robinson, and Lohan both strongly denied the rumor." In hindsight, its structure is poor, in that the first person's name is a parenthetical and the second is not. The word "director" serves as written as the noun subject; a following proper noun becomes a further explanation of the noun subject, and is therefore parenthetical ("... the film's director (Angela Robinson) and...").

However, "... film Director Angela Robinson and Lohan..." is not parenthetical as the word "Director" is both an adjective, and a title (notice the capitalization) attached to the proper noun which, as structured, is also the noun subject.

Any explanation of a preceding noun ("her debut album, Speak, reached...") is parenthetical, including years following months (or seasons) and states following cities, and is both preceded and followed by commas (I know, I'm anal, but it seems like no one ever does this right any more...). Example structure: "Lindsay Lohan was born in July, 1986, (or "on July 2, 1986,") in New York City, New York, to Michael and Dina Lohan."

However, prepositions supplant commas ("... was born in July of 1986 to..."), and commas are not used in the European date style ("... was born on 2 July 1986 to...").

I hope this helps. RadioKirk 19:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Album reviews

Everyking, are you sure it has nothing to do with your Ashlee Simpson bias? -- Chuq 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What bias? It has to do with the fact that calling other artists' lyrics cheesy is not acceptable. If it's cited, fine, but the way it's stated makes this questionable, and in the actual review it doesn't seem to say anything negative about those artists. But anyway, another user has gone and removed the whole review, so don't look at me. Everyking 22:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Number of external links

Does anyone else think the number of external links are getting excessive? obviously the 'official' site and fan sites are important, as is perhaps the imdb filmography. But there are probably millions of Lindsay Lohan sites on the web - i don't think we should be including lots of fansites, the official one will probably just do the trick. Tkessler 19:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This tends to happen with articles like this: people come along hoping to promote their own favorite fan site. My opinion is that you keep it trimmed back to the official site and maybe two of the most popular fan sites. Everyking 02:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Clay Aiken article links issue was resolved by just referencing one fansite, and that fansite then listed the several hundred or so Clay related sites. [1] This site would include any "online magazines" such as discussed below. Now you just need to get a fan to volunteer to start such a site for Lindsay. LOL. -- Michigan user 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, right idea. That's why we eventually settled on the Yahoo! listing. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan: Judy Garland of the 21st Century

Is Lindsay Lohan the next Judy Garland?

Compare Judy Garland, Sandra Dee and Drew Barrymore

apples vs carrots. zen master T 00:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I thought Lohan aspired to be the next Hayley Mills. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

I know good and well "Rumors" did not get to #4 and "Over" to #3 on the Hot 100. I don't know what chart those numbers are from. They should be indicated, if they are even real. The songs did not do particularly well; I'm not even sure Over made it onto the Hot 100 at all. Everyking 04:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I think it is, and that a recent picture would illustrate for everyone who thinks it's not. Nothing too large or speculative, but with celebrity articles I think the notability criteria trumps the encyclopedic criteria. --Mister Tattle 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think lip syncing allegations are relevant

They should be cited though. For comparison, the Ashlee Simpson article has an entire section devoted to lip syncing. The music industry seems to be increasingly desperate. zen master T 20:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should create a Punk'd episode guide article

I think we should move all Punk'd synopses (after cleaning up for accuracy) to a new Punk'd episode guide article, what do people think? zen master T 12:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed status

I have read through the article, and there is a fair bit of disputed writings which need editing NOW. 65.98.99.136 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples? Note that you can tag a certain section or sentence as being disputed, or needing a source, if appropriate. Such localized tags are often more informative than just saying the whole thing is disputed. Friday (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

someone changed the picture to that of some ugly guy, and i have no idea how to revert picture edits. =\ just fyi so it might get noticed.

Yeah, just some crater-faced emotional nine-year-old who thinks he's funny. I'm trying to keep an eye on it... RadioKirk 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes

I prefer the link, rather than the merge. This already is the largest article for anyone under 20 that I've seen so far... RadioKirk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Article quality

I think that the article is good, but it could really be elevated. Including more in-depth detail about her influences, film and music career would be preferable. Perhaps even a note about her Parent Trap to Just My Luck rise to fame. Really, there could be so much enhancement done with the article. I can't really cope with its current quality. Anyone care to help me improve it? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may? I recently purged a lot of information from this article, for two reasons: Most of it simply was not encyclopedic, and this article had become an elephant—easily the longest article for any 19-year-old I had come across yet. I, for one, would certainly appreciate any improvement within the parameters of encyclopedic—and brief—information. RadioKirk 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes deletion discussion

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes to discuss whether List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes should be kept, deleted, or merged/redirected into this article. --Rob 20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Per the vote, request for deletion was made this date. RadioKirk talk to me 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Attractive

Lindsay Lohan is so bloody attractive, I cannot think of one other woman who even comes close to her... maybe Kate Winslet in Enigma but even then Lindsay kicks her ass. I heard a rumour that she is getting married, any comments? (The previous unsigned comment was offered by 220.239.134.165 (talk · contribs))

Um... okay. Thanks for that. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Awkward phrase

"their breakup that November made the gossip columns, forcing actors such as Bruce Willis to refer to their relationships as "purely professional."

What does this mean? Is it referring to Willis' relationship with Lohan? Or to Willis' statement on Lohan's relationship with Valderrama? JackO'Lantern 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed in a moment RadioKirk talk to me 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)