Talk:Savannah Outen

Reverting

I'm nor sure, why this was reverted. On Youtube Savannah Outen says, that she is from Portland Oregon. Also you can read the same here: Radio Disney. (Not in the "Quick Facts", but in the text below.) Only in the "Quick Facts" they wrote, that her hometown is Hillsboro, Oregon. What ist correct?
And why is it not possible, that the pictures were shown in the article? Is this only allowed, if there is an article about the singles? --Brackenheim (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check the source cited in the sentence about her hometown, you will see it says Hillsboro. The national sources (YouTube & Disney) likely list Portland as people know where that is, but most likely don't know where Hillsboro is. It makes it easier for readers across the country to know where she is from (and Hillsboro is a suburb of Portland). As to the images, yes, unless there is commentary on the songs/album, then these images are decorative on this article. An article on the songs would work, but the songs are unlikely to be notable enough for their own article, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). And from searching for sources to expand this article and make it meet notability guidelines, I don't recall much commentary on the songs. Also, the images you uploaded would also fail as low resolution, which is required per the WP:NFCI, and is mentioned on the image page's fair use notice File:Savannah Outen - Goodbyes.jpg. You might ask here about what level of commentary is needed for inclusion on this article, as those people deal with musicians everyday and have more experience on what qualifies as "critical commentary". Aboutmovies (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! It seems to be more dufficult than such things on the German Wikipedia. (Do I have to say on or at Wikipedia?)

A few weeks ago I asked Levosia, whether they have some suitable pictures for Wikipedia. As an answer they sent me that two pictures. Maybe it was not a good idea to upload them. However, wouldn't it be better, if they were deleted again? Two days ago I questioned Levosia, if they have some pictures under the following licences: [1] or [2]. Perhaps I'm in luck and they have... Greetings --Brackenheim (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On or at Wikipedia both work. And yes, the German Wikipedia and German copyright laws are likely different than in the US/English Wikipedia. As to the pics, yes, they will need to be deleted, and they will be soon. Now, I'm guessing Levosia is some sort of manager or press agency for Outen? But yes, we need the images released under Creative Commons 3.0 or the GFDL (though GFDL may no longer be used). Either way, basically the copyright holder is allowing Wikipedia to re-use the image in a wide variety of ways, including further use by others that may include commercial usage. This is normally a problem, as record companies don't care so much if Wikipedia uses the image, but they don't others making money of the images or some other use they don't want. If you want to contact them again, see if you can get a headshot from them that they can release under the Creative Commons 3.0 licensing. Or even better yet, have them upload the image. Or if need be, have them contact me via email (go to my talk page and use the email this user option along the left side) and I can go take a picture of her one day and avoid any copyright issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer! I'll tell them that in the next email. --Brackenheim (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

I removed "c.1992<ref>http://www.myspace.com/savannahoutenofficial</ref>" because there is no indication when the statement that she "is" 17 was written. My removal was reverted with the statement, "Since other parts of the same text have been updated, it is reasonable that something as obivious as an age has been updated. Thanks..."

While I take no comfort in it being "reasonable to assume" something, let's take this apart.

1) We are asked to assume this is actually her official page. This certainly would not be the first time an "official" MySpace page has turned out to be anything but. 2) We are told "other parts of the same text have been updated". Really? What parts and when? Is that verifiable or should we trust you, whoever you are? 3) Is it reasonable to assume that her age would be regularly updated? Maybe her MySpace page (if it is hers) is updated by someone on her behalf. Maybe they are concentrating on updating other info than her biographical details. 4) "c.1992" Well, yes, if she is 17 today she was born in 1992 or late 1991. "c.1992", though, indicates she might just as likely have been born in 1993. And since "circa" is an indication that she was born "around" 1992, it might mean she was born in 1990 or 1994 or some time before or after that.

In short, the source does not "unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.". "c.1992" assumes that the source is up-to-date today, it calculates a date then it blurs the range calculated. I am removing the info for now, pending further discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we have the Hillsboro source from August 2009 saying she was 16 at the time used to cite "c.1993". This cited does not "unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." It unambiguously supports that she was 16 on that day in August. 1993 is a crap shoot. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy... ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the source is not from Hillsboro, the newspaper is from Portland. Secondly, you do know what c. stands for right? Circa, or roughly around. And we do not use your option, see WP:MOSBD. If a source says someone was a certain age at a certain time, then we can interprate that, that is not WP:NOR, as anyone with basic math skills can come to the same conclusion. That is to say, if a source says someone is 16 and the date of the source is 8/6/2009, then the person could only be born between 8/7/1992 to 8/6/1993. See, if they were born on 8/6/1992 to 8/7/1991 then they would be 17 on 8/6/2009 (which since the source says 16, thus they were born on or after 8/6/1992), and if they were born after 8/7/1993 they would only be 15 on 8/6/2009. If she was born in 1994, even the earliest possible date of 1/1/1994 would mean she is 15, and again, the source says 16, so no dice. If she was born between 8/7/1993 and now, she again would not be 16 at the time of the story. So we have a one year time frame that can be determined by simple math, thus we use c., which again = circa, which again equals about, and 1993 is about when she was born, with 1992 the earliest, which is why we use circa. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I really wonder, what you're doing in that article! Firstly she is born in 1992. The exact date you can see on Youtube: 10-14-1992. As you can see above I've contactet her management to get a picture. They confirmed me that date: "Savannah was born in Hillsboro, Oregon on October 14th, 1992". If you don't belive this, I'll send you that email or you can contact her management: Removed e-mail information ttonyb (talk)They also wrote, that myspace-site is really the official one! --Brackenheim (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Relax, it is only an article. ttonyb (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try =) Why did you remove the e-mail information? Is it nor allowed to write it down? Greetings --Brackenheim (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

8-)...email addresses can be harvested by spam-bots. I removed it to save the user from getting unsolicited e-mails. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of what "circa" means. The source, however, did not say "about 1993". Yes, 1992 is "about 1993", but so is 1994. So is 1991, 1995, etc. by saying "c.1993" (or any other date), you are not saying what the source says. You are calculating based on the source then saying the source says something that it does not. Youtube as a reliable source? No. An e-mail you say you got from whoever? Oh, right. I'll tell you what, copy that e-mail to me and I'll copy the e-mail God sent me stating that the moon is made of green cheese. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, we can calculate, that is not not original research, and the source does back that up, thus passing WP:V. Again, simple math/interpreting a source is OK, if all reasonable editors can come to the same conclusion. To quote WP:OR, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." Here, that she was born circa 1993 is evident, thus not OR. And, we cannot say exactly what a source says, that is copyright infringement (assuming copyright applies to a particular source). We can express the ideas present in the source, as copyright in the US protects expression and not ideas, and here the idea is her age (16 at the time of publication), and one expression of that idea is that she was born about 1993.

As to the specific date and emails, I'm not involved with that, that's somebodyelse's issue. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I've made a few photos of Savannah Outen available under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons license. Taken last weekend by myself in a public outdoor location. Feel free to use... http://www.flickr.com/photos/altuwa/tags/savannahouten/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbarre (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops sorry apparently non-commercial licenses are not allowed, my bad. I just read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BD-propagande-2_%28en%29.jpg example and I disagree with it; frame 3 is, for example, a dishonest statement.

As far as many photographers I know are concerned, an entity can use our photos for commercial purposes whenever they ask: in the past I have either "sold" them a license, or granted them use for free on a case by case basis, as I would have done for the Wikipedia *specifically*. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to license these photos with a second/double license that would grant commercial use to Wikipedia only; I might be wrong, so I'll leave this paragraph above if somebody can clarify that case for me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbarre (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Solo Albums

Anyone would think that Savannah Outen should've released some albums of her own, and not just music from other CDs. According to a YouTube video, a news reporter claims Savannah's "album is planning to be released at the end of the year", referring to 2008. I am wondering if she had because it did not claim any sections on her Wikipedia page that she did. She has featured her own songs on other soundtracks, of course, and singles have been out, but what about normal solo albums? I could've sworn I had witnessed gossip about the subject for a solo disc to be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avril Lavigne Wiki Fanclub (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)