Talk:Alizée/Archive Jul 2007

This link was recently added. I reverted it, as I felt it matches point #4 of WP:EL Links to Avoid guidelines. Not sure though. Neither, I felt, it added any encyclopaediac value to the article. I am open to talking it out if someone feels otherwise. --soum^সৌমোyasch 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there is no point adding a link to a list of videos by Alizee, whether it includes YouTube videos or not. The article already contains a list of her singles, so adding the list will only add redundancy to whatever encyclopaediac value it has. --soum^সৌমোyasch 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure of this video, coz I have not seen the original copyrighted material. Nor would I advocate its deletion myself. So if you would want it deleted, go ahead. --soum^সৌমোyasch 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture

The main picture used in the article shows her in an unnatural pose. Thats why I think it should be replaced. I know it is hard to find a good enough free image of hers to use here. Thats why, as a better alternative, I uploaded this image (see the archived version of the article with the previous image and with the newly uploaded one) which also is taken from the same music video but shows her in a more natural pose. If you feel the the newer image is better suited, please update the fair use rationale on the image description page. Thanks. --soum^সৌমোyasch 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've removed the temporary notice and deleted the old image. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-16 13:49

Thanks. --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a free picture ASAP. Did nobody take a good picture of her during any of her concerts or backstage? --soum (0_o) 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soum, it looks like camera's weren't allowed at the concert, so nobody was able to snap a picture. However, there's another question. Why are we so strict about the main picture being free, while we have non-free images scattered about the article? I think we must not take fair use for granted.Eli ^espire 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair use states that an image can be used only if the context related to it is being discussed. Since the albums and the songs are discussed in the article, it is perfectly okay to use a screenshot from the video to accompany them. But the article is not about any particular song, thats why a video screenshot is not applicable as the poster pic for the article. Same goes for album covers - since the article is not about any album cover, we cannot use a picture of it. Hope you get the idea. --soum ^talk 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to email@moi-alizee.com regarding an image for us to use. Here it is:

Je ne sais pas si on va lire cet émail, mais l'article au sujet d'Alizée (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliz%C3%A9e) sur Wikipedia a un problème : Il n'y a pas d'image libre à utiliser. Nous aimons Alizée et cette page est importante pour nous. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous donner une image d'Alizée avec la permission pour l'utiliser sur Wikipedia ? Merci beaucoup et bonne chance avec le troisième album !

"I don't know if anybody is going to read this email, but Alizée's article on Wikipedia has a problem; it does not have a free image to use. We love Alizée and this page is very important. Could you give as an image of Alizée with permission to use it on Wikipedia? Thank you very much, and good luck with the third album!" Eli ^espire 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it is going to work. Maybe contacting Universal will have a higher chance of success. --soum ^talk 06:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that getting a permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough, as Wikipedia content license allows use of it for any purpose outside wikipedia. As such, the permission has to be in sync with that use as well. --soum ^talk 12:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I haven't received a response, and I doubt that anybody's going to read that email until the third album comes out. Perhaps I will try to contact Universal at some point in time. Eli ^espire 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J'en Ai Marre outfit

"The stage costume for the same performance is considered by many to be inspired by a blue sailor outfit seen in the 1997 remake of Nabokov's Lolita, due to a noticeable similarity in design." I remove this as I couldn't find any sources for it. BJ^Talk 11:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support you on this one. Quite sometime back, I removed that line as well as "A dance that can be performed by the female Night Elf avatar in the computer game World of Warcraft, published by Blizzard Entertainment, contains an animation that closely resembles the choreography of a section of her stage performances for J'en Ai Marre" because no reputable source seemed to back it up. But it was reintroduced. Later I stopped making the changes leaving it to others to decide. I still don't support inclusion of the WoW bit. --soum^সৌমোyasch 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I also removed it from the J'en ai marre! article pending a source. BJ^Talk 12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include it? Both the male blood elf and male draenei dances are mentioned in the respective Napolean Dynamite and Tunak Tunak Tun articles. Further, from the Night Elf article, it notes both the originations of the male and female dances, those being from Michael Jackson and Alizee. 70.113.203.123 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since all those information isn't attributed to any source, I am against following their lead and including it in this article. --soum^সৌমোyasch 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... random wiki-browser. For starters, I have played WoW for a few years now and find it curious that there is no reference between Alizee's dancing style and that of the female night elf dance within WoW. It's pretty clear that the inspiration used for the female night elf dance routine is Alizee's style during some of her performances (from the videos I've seen), or at the very least since that cannot be factually sourced, something should probably be noted about the similiarities. Like I said, it is strange that there's no mention of it in the article; I could see a small trivia section or pop-culture reference being added. I'm not sure if you will ever find an "official" source, but it's a pretty clear conclusion to make; its right up there with "water is wet". Considering that WoW is still pretty mainstream and there are about fourty billion videos of people using fraps and other recording software to make dancing night elf videos, it'd be pretty easy to quantify the similarities as fact. Would links to the two seperate videos (one night elf, one Alizee) for comparison be sufficient?

Also, I'd be willing to bet that there could be other things besides WoW that could be attributed to Alizee. In addition, the article seems to be somewhat woeful in describing her particular dances, especially considering the article states dancing is her real passion. I'm from the US and info on Alizee is very rare (essentially what I've been told and Wikipedia), so there's little I could add to the article that is varifiable. Just making some observations that are some food for thought.... --70.109.135.181 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, we do not add our own opinion to articles, we only add facts. Even if a billion people (who browse or edit Wikipedia) play WoW and think there is a similarity between the two dance styles, it is still their opinion, and thus qualify for being classified as Original Research. And being editors, we have to follow the policy of attributing our sources and cannot merely add own own thoughts. We have to give a reference for any information that we state, and cannot add anything which is Original Research. We have to refer to other sources which state the same. But, as you yourself state, ther will probably be no official source claiming the inspiration for the elf-dance was indeed Alizee's performance. Almost all references will point to blog entries. While these are indeed verifiable, they are classified as Primary Sources. Wikipedia Policy on Reliable Sources advise against using Primary Sources, which do not come from reliable and notable sources. Most blogs which indeed state this information do not classify as notable.

Also, linking to the WoW video is not enough, as it would be out of context. If you link to both the J'en Ai Marre video and a game video of WoW, if would still be lacking context. If you tell what to look out for, it would be deliberately attracting attention to one's Point of View and thus not allowed. Also, it would be without attribution.

Regarding your other suggestion that Trivia section being added, well, it is generally discouraged. Also, you could say that something on this lines of ...many people note that the videos are similar...' could be added. But Avoid Weasel Words policy guideline suggesst avaiding such (some people say or many people note or widely regarded to be) statements without a citation. Keeping, all these restrictions, policies and guidelines into note, I do not see a way to add the bit of info. And anyone who is interested in such trivia, can readily get it from the fan-sites that are already linked to. The links are kept to allow for people to find out trivia, rumors and other stuff that cannot be added here.

And as you properly noted, the article lacks a bit regarding her dances, but it is because not much information is publicly (verifiably, reliably) available. Also, the article can do with a bit more discussion on her albums, concerts and charity work. Be assured we are working on them. Chip in with whatever (info or suggestion) that you can. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, and cheers. --soum^সৌমোyasch 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the dance is mentioned in the Night Elf article. "The female dance is based upon Alizee in her concert performance of 'J'en ai marre!'." Its obvious its based off hers. Take a look at said video and how the female Night Elf dances. Oh, wow, Blizzard hasn't said they based it off her. Are we to assume the Orc made up the dance, and it so obviously isn't Mc Hammer's "Can't Touch this"? The Night Elf does do that thing where she waves around her butt, and the spin Alizee does near the end of the song. Just because she doesn't (from what I've seen) do the part where she bends her knees and dances down doesn't mean its fake. I'd be willing to bet you and a few select people are the only ones who disagree, because it comes so close to some precious rule. Lets just take away the dances from all pages because we can just assume the dances are based off something. Blizzard hasn't said any dance is directly based off a person's, I believe. Till then, a possible "her dance may have inspired the Night Elf female dance" isn't hurtful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.178.218 (talk • contribs).

I already said, taking a look and figuring what the source is is Original research and thus it has to be avoided. lease give a reliable source stating the same and it would be without any objection inserted. Plus what encylopedic value does it give to the article? Also, saying it should be noted is deliberately drawing attention to one way of interpreting — thus not npov and not allowed. And, not hurtful is not a valid justification against all wikipedia policies. The policies are here for a reason - reventing an article from turning into the front page of a fansite.

Please do not from inserting the info unless some attribution or consensus for including it without attribution can be shown. --soum (0_o) 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But still, why should it be allowed on the Night Elf page and not Alizee's? It makes no sense to have it on that page and not this one's. Also, the other dances, such as Orc and Blood Elf, refer to MC Hammer and Napoleon Dynamite. It also says its based off them. It should be said on the Warcraft character pages that it may have been based off, or removed, according to your logic. Encyclopedic value? Its information. If little trivia sections, with just a little bit of information that may not be directly affiliated with a movie or actor or video game, I don't see why its such a big deal to include it. If you really want a source so bad, I can ask on the WoW forums and see if an employee replies. Though, I doubt it. --138.89.178.218 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what I am saying. I am not a regular editor on those articles, thats why I cannot say whats the general consensus among the editors is, on this issue. As I am a regular editor here, I can say about this only. Why not ask the editors of those articles about their rationale? As for me, I am against inclusion anywhere, without a cite. But I will not go against consensus to pprove my point. --soum (0_o) 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for encyclopedic value, I am not against trivia, but would rather not include something just for the sake of it without any reference. And as for your comment about asking on WoW forums, a forum is generally not considered a reliable source. If some Blizzard employee blogs about it, it can be used though. --soum (0_o) 14:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closest that Blizzard has ever come to in terms of saying where they got the inspiration for the various dances in World of Warcraft is found at the following link: http://www.blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/6216209.htm The Blizzard poster in question does not exactly come out and say they took at least some of the frames of animation from Alizée, or other famous persons, but does imply they "studied" live motion. The quote is as follows:"You'll notice that almost all dances in the game are taken from real life in some capacity. Take a look at the Human Male, for example... Night Elf male and Orc Male are two other dances taken from very specific, famous people in the music industry. Or, heck, the Ogre Dance? All I gotta say is Chippendale dancer from a certain show... ;) Obviously the dance in question was inspired by a certain real life dance; what I'm pointing out is that it's far from the only one, and studying live motion is an excellent way to breathe life into your animations. ;)" This implies that they may have used Alizée's videos as reference, but that the particular move in question is a fairly common piece of choreography. However, I think it would be foolish to assume that they used someone else for the "inspiration" as the videos of Alizée performing the choreography have been fairly popular since they were first shown in Europe. Forums may not usually be considered a source, but good luck finding another semi-authoritative source about anything to do with anything from a Blizzard game from an employee of Blizzard out there.UncleThursday 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize finding sources is gonna be tough. But filling up blanks in publicly available info, extrapolating something or interpreting something in a way to make a point is original research, and thats not allowed either. The problem with this bit of information is that its absolutely non-existent outside blogs or forums. Even if there were at least one gaming review magazine or pop magazine saying the same, it could have been used as a source - even though such magazines are generally avoided from being cited as much as possible. I do not see any way to include this by staying within the confines of policy - Attribution to a verifiable and reliable source. --soum (0_o) 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soum is absolutely correct. Unless Blizzard says that the Night Elf dance was based on Alizée's, nobody can say that it was. And who's to say that it's Alizée's dance in the first place? (just playing devil's advocate here) Eli ^espire 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free use image

Not one free images exits of her? It might be kinda of hard to get one till she returns but wouldn't hurt trying. I have already checked flickr with the creative commons search and nothing on commons. BJ^Talk 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried for quite sometime, but failed to get even one good photograph of her. Have given up now. :( --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

Why isn't this page showing up on [1]? --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question... BJ^Talk 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) --soum^সৌমোyasch 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list isn't in alphabetic order; Alizée is on the third 500 item subpage... --Derlay 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alizee Search

An external link to Alizée Search ( http://www.alizeesearch.com/ ) was recently added. However, that is just a specialized search engine and aggregator. ~~And its operated by http://www.alizee-fanpage.com/~~ (which is already an external link). Since we neither link to more popular search engines, nor do we link to news aggregators, why should we link to this one? And if the Alizée Search article is deemed noteworthy enough, I think just a See also link to that article would be better (as the external link to the site does not have any (verifiable) information that could not be incorporated into the article, as per WP:EL). --soum^talk 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the external link and created a See also section that links to the Alizée Search article. --soum^talk 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I still give a response to your first remarks here? Allow me to do that pointwise:

1. Why do you think it is operated by Alizée Fanpage? To my knowledge it is not.

2. Linking to results pages of search engines is indeed discouraged in point 9 of the "Links normally to be avoided"-section of WP:EL, because of the "Longevity of links" (WP:EL). The external link to Alizée Search is not a link to results pages of a search engine. It is better covered by point 2 of the list of "Links to be considered" in the "What to link"-section of WP:EL.

3. If I understand it correctly, in your opinion WP:EL says that an external link should contain "verifiable information that could not be incorporated into the article". I think that the external links are fine, but if that is the criterion, then why does the article link to:

two internet forums (Alizée Fan Forum & Alizée America);
of which Alizée Fan Forum is operated by Alizée Fanpage (which is already an external link);
the official site which is unavailable;
it's archived version, which is outdated?

4. To me WP:EL says that an external link should have "meaningful, relevant content". Furthermore, WP:EL says that links to Web sites with "objectionable amounts of advertising" should be avoided, that copyright issues are important, and that freely available Web sites should be preferred. Notice that Alizée Search does not contain advertisements, nor is it copyright protected. Therefore it seems to fit the spirit of Wikipedia. Isn't that the actual criterion that is raised throughout WP:EL?

Could you therefore reconsider your edit or clarify your opinion? Thanks, Ekna 12:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all sites puts the copyright or ownership information at the bottom of the page. So, I looked there and the alizee-fanpage copyright notice was put up. So, I assumed it ran the site. But now I see that it was the aggregated content the copyright notice was for. It was a mistake that I initially said it, and I retract my statement.

Point 9 of Links normally to be avoided says Links to search engine and aggregated results pages (emphasis mine) should be avoided. The Latest News section is an aggregateion of the most recent search results (plus maybe some other criteria, but the point is it IS an aggregation and thus very short lived).

Point 2. of Links to be considered states a web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories can be linked. However, a search engine (topical or not) can not be defined as a directory. A Directory (Web directory) is an organized collection of links to other websites. True, a search engine has a collection of links to other websites - the database of links is highly focussed in a topical search engine. But it differs from a directory. In a web directory, it will just give me a list of links pertaining to the category of the page or the subject of the directory (if its a topical directory). But a search engine does not provide any link (or for that matter, any useful information), per se. It only returns relevant hits when I search something. So, for a search engine to be useful, I need to know what information I want for it to be useful. And if I know what I want more information of, I (or anyone else) can very easily use generic search engines as well.

What should be linked states that only sites or articles that contain meaningful material about the subject of an Wikipedia article should be linked. Since a search engine does not host the content myself, it fails this basic necessity. IMO, links should be to repositiories of information, not to tools that help find the information.

Also, websites that host content that infringes-copyright should not be linked. However, it is hard to say whether by linking to a search engine, we are linking (albeit indirectly) to copyright-infringed content or not. Giving the benefit of doubt, its better left out.

Also, as per point 9 of Links normally to be avoided, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject should not be linked. A topical search engine is only indirectly related — it is related to articles, which in turn are related to the topic. This also indicates the link should not be there.

However, since there is a relation, I thought it might be worthy of a mention. Wikipedia:See also#See also states the See also section is for internal links to articles that are related to this one (direct or indirect, irrespective). Thats why (and because Alizee Search has an article), it is a better place. In the context of that article, a the Alizee Search website is directly related and thus a very important candidate to be linked in the External links section.

As per point 2 of Links to be considered, I have linked to the Open Directory Project, which is intended to be a linkfarm (something Wikipedia is WP:NOT). Out of the two categories candidate for linking - http://dmoz.org/Kids_and_Teens/International/Fran%c3%a7ais/Divertissements/Groupes_et_artistes/Aliz%c3%a9e/ and http://dmoz.org/World/Fran%c3%a7ais/Arts/Musique/Genres/Rock_et_Pop/Pop-Rock/Francophone/Artistes/Aliz%c3%a9e/ - I linked to the one that is more populated and time invariant (Kids and teens? She is neither kid nor teen. Not anymore). They can be developed.

When the links were incorporated into the article, the WP:EL guideline was to have a maximum of three fan-sites/fan-forums - provided they were popular enough. Following that, we have kept these links. Only these three because te alizee-forum is a multilingual one, and the Alizee America one is a English-only one (English sites are given prominence in English wikipedia - thats why it scored over Nidalizee. The discussion can be found in talk page archives). However, since then the EL guidelines have changed. You are right they need to be updated.

Starting with point 10 of Links normally to be avoided (Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET), the Alizee forums and Alizee America links should be removed. And I support their removal. However, the Alizee-fanpage link, it can be argued that the link is directly related to the subject (it hosts content about Alizee, including summaized news snippets) (Point 13, Links normally to be avoided - Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject [should be avoided]: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article). As such it should be kept in the article. (I endorse this one as well). However, to comply with more restrictive guidelines in case they come up in the future (interpreting related as being endorsed by the subject), I suggest the link directory be developed. Also, I would like others views on this.

As for the dead links, the references are dealt with the guidelines mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". As for the offline official site, it is kept because point 1 of What should be linked states Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any should be linked. While a dead link does not provide any information, it is of historical importance - to show that she had an website, which was once first hand source of information. And it is this information that can be partially retrieved using the archive. This follows the guidelines in WP:EL#What can be done with a dead external link. --soum (0_o) 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I recently expanded the article (changes). --soum^talk 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the expansion. Hopefully her new album will start being talked about in the press soon, so that we can take the article to the next level. JACO PLANE • 2007-03-20 22:31

Thanks, I am waiting for that before trying an FA candidacy :) --soum^talk 06:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I removed links to the forums as per the rationale above:

Starting with point 10 of Links normally to be avoided (Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET), the Alizee forums and Alizee America links should be removed. And I support their removal. However, the Alizee-fanpage link, it can be argued that the link is directly related to the subject (it hosts content about Alizee, including summaized news snippets) (Point 13, Links normally to be avoided - Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject [should be avoided]: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article). As such it should be kept in the article. (I endorse this one as well). However, to comply with more restrictive guidelines in case they come up in the future (interpreting related as being endorsed by the subject), I suggest the link directory be developed. Also, I would like others views on this. --soum (0_o) 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert me if you disagree. --soum (0_o) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WoW Night Elf

My earlier concerns still hold true. Unless it is attributed, it is original research, and per WP:BLP, it is being removed. Please provide a reliable citation that backs the claim up. --soum (0_o) 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is entirely obvious doesn't count? How do you cite something like that? Original research my ass. Do links to video count for you? God damn, every article has different standards based on how fanatical that article keeper is.Caligi 04:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not here to report our opinion. We do not present any way of interpretation, we simply present facts. The interpretation is up to the readers. Even if we link to the video of the dance and say that there is a similarity between the dances, we are drawing attention to one way of interpretation, which I am afraid is unacceptable by wikipedia policies. Yes, it is true that many articles have stuff that do not adhere to this strictly. But on articles that are (or close to an) WP:FA status (like this one), it is strictly enforced. WP:V states a citation is required "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Since perceiving a similarity is subjective and not written in stone, it means that it is likely to be challenged, and thus requires a cite. Please read WP:BLP, which guides biography articles, which strictly states that there must not be any original research and everything must be attributed. Actually, Even quoting a reference in favor of the statement will still draw attention to one way of interpretation, thus it will still not be WP:NPOV. With a ref we can say that, "this person thinks of a similarity". We cannot say, "may people note" or similar due to WP:AWW. I will repeat again, without a reference this violates a lot of policies, the most prominent being that it presents an opinion of the editor, and as such unacceptable. Anyone is most welcome to add it with a reliable citation. Someone mentioned earlier other articles including Night Elf, Tunak Tunak Tun and Napoleon Dynamite which mentions the similarity (in fact in the latest revision, the Napoleon Dynamite articles also does not mention it). But this article is different from them because those are not biographical articles. WP:BLP requires that policies are enforced on bio articles more strictly than others. Also, please be civil in your wording against any editor. Comment on edits, not on editor. --soum (0_o) 12:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fanatical Wikipedans such as yourself are why people edit one or two articles then run away with their tail between their legs after being spanked. You win. I'm done here 24.61.171.53 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a question of winning or losing. The policies are here for a reason. When it is subverted, there must be a good reason why we should do it. I do not see any solid reason for doing so being given by anyone of the proponents of including it. --soum (0_o) 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like more people are in favor of adding it than excluding it, but you are far more dedicated to your cause. So, you win. Bask in the glory of your hard-fought victory. Go on. Bask.24.61.171.53 23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I sourced it. Besides the fact that Alizee comes up at the top of the list in a Google search for "Night Elf Female Dance" it is also on WoWWiki - the most exhaustive and respected source out there for everything World of Warcraft. Mentioning that this dance is based on Alizee is neither slanderous nor dangerous. In fact, it's probably introducing millions of Americans to Alizee, so I don't see any need for the knee-jerk OMG response asked for in the biography of living persons protocol. If you delete this, it would be a very arbitrary thing to do, and I may or may not see it as a challenge. I rather relish a challenge.Caligi 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you relish a challenge, here's one: find a reliable source that says that Alizee is the inspiration for the WOW dance.. The WOWwiki is not a reliable source... it's a wiki.. JACO PLANE • 2007-06-6 01:12

So nothing short of a statement from Blizzard will satiate you kids, it seems. If it's elsewhere on the internet, it isn't original research. Other people have considered the rather obvious evidence and come to that conclusion. It's probably the only reason any American has even heard of Alizee. If Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, why isn't WoWWiki?Caligi 03:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. We do not cite enwiki articles or articles in other language wikipedia articles. And "other people" is not a reliable source. Get any non-blog or non-forum source stating the same and everything will be fine. Otherwise its pure speculation, which, I am afraid is not the basis for including anything here. Also "many people" regarding it so isnt also usable per WP:AWW. --soum (0_o) 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't going to be a "published" source that backs this up, and I did not see anything anywhere that said wikis could not be used as a source, only that we should not cite other Wikipedia articles and that wikis "generally should not" be used as a source. For something so small and neutral I would imagine we could make a reasonable exception. There are many other unsourced statements and claims in this article that are far more weighty than pointing out that a video game character in an American game dances like a French pop star. The only controversy over this is that which a certain self-ordained article guardian has lent it. It's no more speculative than pointing out that the sun is bright. Shall I go through and remove every single unsourced statement in the article? It will shorten it significantly.Caligi 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how would you define "reasonable"? However, thats not the point. The point is why should we make that exception? How does it help Wikipedia by making the exception? If we exempt it here from being eveluated by the policies wikipedia have set us, people will start to use this as precedent for doing the same in other articles, for incrementally more severe issues. And soon it will turn into an inferno, and wikipedia will turn into what the policies were safeguarding. As for wikis not beng used as sources, no user generated content is considered canonical reliable source. That includes blogs and forums as well. And if you want to remove unsourced statements, by all means do so.

If you are so irritated by our handling of this, why dont you invite some other editor, who is totally unrelated to editing this article, but has contributed significantly to GAs and FAs and ask for his opinion. Or call a formal RfC. --soum ^talk 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speak jargon there, son. All I'm saying is that, while not ideal, the source at least provides a link to something that makes the claim and cites its sources, which is all you can ask of a source. Seems silly to ignore something just because it's an emerging medium. If you can direct me to a policy page that says wikis are verboten, I'll walk away, but I didn't feel like anything I read said they were never okay.Caligi 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure just being a wiki does not mean we have to be prejudiced against them. There can be few which maintain a high quality of content. But there are also many with a poor track record. But since they are freely editable, they are not inherently reliable. You gave a wiki as a source. I can just go and delete it from there. Then? Thats why they are not considered a very good reference. In the absense of anything, I will not be deleting it myself. But it does not mean it has my support. If someone else wants to delete it, I will be taking his side. Even a semi reliable non user editable source (which is not a fan forum; it can even be blizzard forum with an employee's comment or a blog of a semi reputed person) will be enough for me. --soum ^talk 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True you could just go and delete it, but WoWWiki being as popular as it is, someone would fix it pretty much immediately, like Wikipedia. I know there is a "blue" post on the WoW forums about this, I'll see if I can find it, but I don't think they archive their forums too far back.Caligi 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward Language?

I notice that there are many occasions in this article where sentences could be restructured for better flow. For example, "Her first album was Gourmandises, which received Platinum certification within three months of release" is written in the passive. It is generally a good idea to write this fact as "Gourmandises, her first album, received ..." (active voice), but since this article is about Alizée, I was wondering if it is better to keep her as the subject in most sentences. What do you guys think (English buffs, especially)? Eli 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have such problems (fixing it is on the radar of the editors; see the to do box above). I am currently a bit busy. So, if you wanna lend a hand, you are most welcome. As for the voice, either is fine as long as it is consistent. The current version mixes it at will it needs to be fixed. --soum (0_o) 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video List