Jump to content

Talk:Can't Be Tamed/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Genre war free zone

Genres are usually the subject of heavy debate and constant reversions/edit warring. However, genre warring and over-opinionated contributions can be reduced by following one simple rule: as subjective as genres are, they must be sourced by reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:RS. Unsourced genres will simply be removed. I hope fellow editors who agree will help. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You already have the links of genre, she says that is going to be "more rock" I translated into Hollywoodrecords language "Pop-Rock" and Techno...translation "Electropop" and "Synthpop" like Can't Be Tamed song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.197.53 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject (in this case Cyrus) is considered an unreliable source when it comes to genre. In this case, she wasn't describing a genre anyway, just the direction of the music. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Third full-length studio album

The third/fourth studio album reversions (because of the EP) is going to be a genre war risk for all eternity, so let's decide here and now what the opening phrase will say. I've currently changed it to "third full-length studio album"; the "full-length" keeps the EP out of the discussion. But so far there have been about four variations of this sentence. We need a consensus as to what the phrase should be and this will allow all future changes to be reverted according to the consensus. Thoughts? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the second album. Breakout was her first, EPs do not count and and Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus is only a soundtrack. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding was that Meet Miley Cyrus was her album piggybacked onto the soundtrack HM2. There were some discussions about it, I think on the talk page over there. I don't actually know if any of the songs off her Meet MC album were even performed on the show. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It is her Fourth studio album. Her debut, Meet Miley Cyrus, was put together with the Hannah Montana 2 soundtrack. Meet Miley Cyrus is her debut album as it was created with Hollywood Records. None of the songs from MMC were ever featured on Hannah Montana, because it is not the soundtrack for that show. Her second album is Breakout, and now Can't Be Tamed is the Fourth. The Time of Our Lives is Her Third album. Azula17 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus studio album discussion

Umm, think about it. It wasn't sold separately so it's not really a studio album. Breakout was the first time she released a studio album. Also, Hollywood Records has released soundtracks, proves nothing. It was advertised as Cyrus' first release as herself, but not as her debut album - and if you see in Allmusic, Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus isn't even listed. And songs from a soundtrack do not need to be performed or shown in the TV series to be part of the soundtrack. Furthering on that, Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus is listed as a soundtrack See link. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi ipodnano05, thanks for replying. First of all, a studio album is an album that was recorded in a studio, as opposed to, say, a live album. For the sake of semantics, we'll say a studio album is not a soundtrack album, which would clearly include the Hannah Montana discs. But if you'll take a close look at the Hannah_Montana_2/Meet_Miley_Cyrus article, you read: "The CD has two parts, as it serves a dual purpose: disc one features ten songs by the character of Hannah Montana as the show's 2nd season's soundtrack, while disc two features ten songs by Miley Cyrus as her debut solo album." Also, the article clearly separates the two discs with two infoboxes: the first infobox lists HM2 as a soundtrack in the genre, and it uses the "soundtrack" type color-coding for the infobox; the second infobox uses the "studio" type color-coding. The packaging was clearly a marketing decision to help boost sales for one or the other (probably so the MMC disc would sell just as well as the HM2 disc). Despite the deviant release method, there's no question that MMC is its own "studio" album, and should be counted as such. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
In response to your link, Allmusic is actually not a reliable source for that sort of information (genre). Besides, in this case, the album is sold as a single unit and from what it looks like, Billboard tracks it as a single album as well. Therefore, "soundtrack" is just a blanket term for the two-disc release. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying makes no sense. You say Allmusic isn't a reliable but the Wikipedia article, which is mainly fancruft, is? And your definition of a studio album would make soundtracks studio albums as well since the songs were recorded in a studio. In fact, you mentioned Billboard. It only mentions the EP The Time of Our Lives and Breakout. See here. The release method is what makes it a soundtrack since two albums cannot be sold in one. There's no such thing. That would make it a whole new album in itself, a box set to be exact. Take Shakira's Fijación Oral Vol. 1 and Oral Fixation Vol. 2, which were eventually released in a box set named Oral Fixation Volumes 1 & 2. It was released together and therefore becomes its own album. I know this is a weak example but there really isn't really an album like what you guys are making Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus be. Just to make sure, it's two discs, not two albums. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Dude, don't add a sub-heading to my post, that's altering my original header and message, which is against Wiki policy, and completely alters what I'm trying to say. Why on earth would I count her "EP" as part of the full-length studio albums in my discussion? I wouldn't. Your header makes me look like I have no clue what I'm talking about. So I removed it. This discussion has nothing to do with the EP. And yes, the studio album would include the "soundtrack" because it's recorded in the studio. But like i said above, for the sake of semantics, we would separate the two: soundtrack and studio album. Anyway, we're just going in circles since no one else is getting involved, so there's nothing more I can do here. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you should probably go change the main Miley Cyrus article: both the Can't Be Tamed section and the Discography go against your edits, as does the Breakout_(album) chronology, and these contradictions are nice and blatant. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that and I would never try to make someone else seem like they have no idea of what they are talking about. I just did it for the sake of organizing the talk page and since I saw the EP mentioned there, I figured I could use it. If you feel like that I'm sorry as it as not my intention. And I am aware the rest of Wikipedia articles relating to Miley Cyrus say such, but I'm planning to change it soon enough. Thank you for your input and, again, I didn't mean any harm. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request
Note: This responds to your recent third opinion request. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal; I am merely a fresh pair of eyes and my opinion has no special authority. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and don't count towards consensus. If you require any follow-up specific to this specific opinion, please feel free to contact me (I may not have placed this page on my watchlist). However, if you need further dispute resolution assistance, click here to read what Wikipedia now suggests you do.

Opinion: As Meet Miley Cyrus wasn't sold separately, it seems the correct classification for the Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus CD would be a double album. The question then becomes how to classify same? Tori Amos, for example, released a double album that was one part studio, one part live. To call that a studio album or a live album would both be incorrect; it's a hybrid. In this case, I'm thinking the most accurate analysis is that the album is a hybrid of film soundtrack and debut studio album -- to halve it into two separate albums (despite the slash-based title of the album) seems factually incorrect, and to label it just one genre (soundtrack) or the other (studio album) seems factually incorrect as well. Still, the "no original research" maxim has to be respected, and given such, I think how the article is labeled by other sources (Allmusic, Hollywood Records, etc.) needs to be respected more than my own amateur analysis just now. Given all this, I'd end up calling it a soundtrack and Breakout her debut -- as it was the first album that was entirely a solo album. If it helps conceptually, imagine that instead of two discs of physical media, it was one CD, tracks one through umpteen being the soundtrack, tracks umpteen through googol being the Meet Miley Cyrus tracks. In such a case, would it be primarily a soundtrack? Yes. It may or may not be on point, but there you go, that's your requested third opinion.

Also, three procedural notes: (1) A Wikipedia article can't serve as a source for other Wikipedia articles when trying to determine facts. (2) Altering content is wrong, but refactoring a talk page for clarity isn't. (3) I'd suggest that you both take a deep, cleansing breath! WCityMike 20:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it was greatly appreciated. I think the issue is proven to be a complex one. As I've mentioned earlier (here or on Ipodnano05 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, I'm technically on the fence because I can see the validity of both sides of the argument. I suppose original research is a huge factor to consider. While I know that Wikipedia articles aren't a "legal" source for arguing one way or another, I was merely trying to bring in the consensus reached through previous editors' decisions, although, without pointing to (or finding) specific, previous, discussions on the matter, I think it's safe to admit I had no valid argument. In defense of the removal of the level 3 header placed above my original post, which was "Including The Time of Our Lives", this actually would alter the meaning of what I was trying to say, because I was specifically not including the EP in the discussion (to make matters more unclear, I mentioned the EP in order to numerically boost the phrase "third studio album" to "fourth studio album," which is again an oversight on my part). Ipodnano's slight refactoring was left alone for the most part, but I had to remove his addition above my original argument as, to the uninvolved reader, it (unintentionally) served to slant the argument in his favor, and as if I were the one doing so.
That said, I think we've both been pretty civil, and I am only arguing the matter in order to find a consensus either way. Like I was hinting at in the original post, the "second" or "third" could become a source of disagreement in the future, and I had to choose a side. I am not against Ipodnano05's reasoning at all; it makes as much sense as the alternative. What really needs to happen at this point is for this discussion to continue, but with the insight of other editors. Once a consensus is reached, I will firmly support it and help prevent altercating edits in the future! Until then, I will step off from any reversions (I only reverted Ipodnano's edit once and I believe one other editor's once). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I really think this should be considered the sophmore album from Miley Cyrus, and Breakout the debut. Meet Miley Cyrus is part of the soundtrack from Hannah Montana, and as a soundtrack, it shouldn't be counted as studio album. OAVJunior (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking for a third opinion and as it seems, I think we are reaching a consensus here. Taking original research into account, it seems the discussion is cooling down. I also think we were civil. We never offended each or each other's point of view. We just discussed and explained our ideals. Keraunoscopia, I honestly did not mean for that subsection header to offend you. And setting the discussion in favor with that was not my goal, at all. As I previously stated, it was a mere subsection header, which I only put due to the mentioning of the EP The Time of Our Lives. It's up to you to believe me. With all of this being said, I think the proper thing to do is to move this discussion to Talk:Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus, the talk page of the real subject at matter here. That way we can properly reach consensus and determine, once and for all, if Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus is a soundtrack or a studio album. Also, please invite other editors to join the discussion so we can handle this well and not base our decision only on what Keraunoscopia or I or the few people that have left a single comment in the discussion here might have to say. Agreed? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries on the sub-header thing. I wasn't sure of the intentions, that's all. You're obviously an avid contributor to MC's articles, and you have my total respect. I would love for a consensus to be reached, so I think moving the conversation over to "where it all began" sounds fine. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Great :) -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 06:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No references have been given to prove that Meet Miley Cyrus is her debut album. I have never heard this and have no idea why anyone would claim it. I've always been told Breakout was her debut album. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rock Mafia writing credit

The writing credits for "Can't Be Tamed" say Miley Cyrus, Tim James, Antonina Armato and Rock Mafia. Antonina and Tim are Rock Mafia. So either you should cut that out, or cut their individual names out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.111.97 (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be done. I didn't do it, and I don't know you did though. Graceannhill (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article namespace should not be moved without consensus

I never made a note on this talk page regarding page moves. Because Cyrus's album and song title are the same, in late April, I held a discussion on the WikiProject Albums talk page regarding Can't Be Tamed and Can't Be Tamed (album), and the result was to leave Can't Be Tamed as the main target (the album article) with a hatnote pointing to the song article, Can't Be Tamed (song). Supporting this decision, a similar discussion took place earlier this year, in February that resulted in the same consensus: the album becomes the main target with a hatnote pointing to the song. Because of the consensus reached at these discussions, any future page moves for this article need to be discussed on this talk page, and a consensus must be reached before the move is made. My apologies for not making note of this sooner! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't Be Tamed track list (unconfirmed)

  1. Liberty Walk
  2. Who Owns My Heart
  3. Can't Be Tamed
  4. Every Rose Has It's Thorn
  5. Two More Lonely People
  6. Forgiveness and Love
  7. Permanent December
  8. Stay
  9. Scars
  10. Take Me Along
  11. Robot
  12. My Heart Beats For Love

Source: www.mileyphilippines.com/?p=2149

Nicholascma (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MileyPhilippines is a fansite, which is not acceptable for source information. Whether or not the track list is real isn't the point, unfortunately. Besides, the website has been asked to remove the track list (which does not confirm anything) by Universal Music. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Release date

{{editsemiprotected}} It will be released in Germany on June 18, 2010. Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softonic (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be released in the UK on June 21, 2010.Source.Softonic (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be released in Japan on June 23, 2010. Source Softonic (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  21:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Removed extra release dates as only the first is needed, which would be the Germany release. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it also important to release multiple release dates in other large markets? Especially in the U.S., since it is Miley's home country. Tcatron565 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Release history" section

I have removed the existence of a "Release history" section as, I believe it's irrelevant and useless. In fact, it is a list that is impossible to complete (and if completed, would be overly extensive and irrelevant). It has been re-added, stating that WP:Albums requires the use of it. "Albums are often released on different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions. This information can be included in a table. Note that the infobox should only include the first release date and label," says the guidelines. And it just suggests it can be used, at no point does it say it is needed. Many FAs like Control (Janet Jackson album), Halo 3 Original Soundtrack, Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Thriller (album), and Tragic Kingdom done not done such sections and I don't think this article should either. A "Release history" section is also not used on other numerous FA articles. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it will be released first in Germany despite being a US album is interesting, in my opinion. That should probably be mentioned in the lead and prose. liquidluck✽talk 01:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Soft oppose From what I've noticed and read around here, albums are sometimes released earlier in foreign countries depending on music charts timing. Because in this instance Can't Be Tamed is being released in Germany first, then the infobox date needs to reflect the earlier date (WP:Albums). The Release history chart, while obviously impossible to complete, is still helpful in clarifying certain issues, like this. One could argue that many of Wikipedia's entries and articles are impossible to complete. However, I seriously have doubts that a Release history section would ever be overly extensive and/or irrelevant. If a table isn't included, then I agree with Liquidluck: this needs to be mentioned in prose. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like something worthy of including in the "Background" section since Cyrus is an American artist. Will do soon. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 06:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of this section and the stance that it shouldn't be used for the article. A "Release history" section is permittable per the WP:Albums guidelines. Granted, it doesn't say it must be there, but that's doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Pointing to the fact that several (or even all) of the Featured Articles lack such a section doesn't justify it's lack of use on this one. The only way pointing to Featured Articles as an example would be relevant, is if in the evaluation for FA status, an article was either denied because it had a "Release history" section, or had it suggested that it be removed, which I doubt has occurred. Some FA's have an Accolades section whereas others don't, but because an article is a FA without such a section, doesn't mean the rest shouldn't have one. So long as it carries sources for the dates and information, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed into the article. – Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 05:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Track listing — deluxe edition

Okay, I'm cool with the CD and DVD being listed together, since that clarifies the two-disc issue. But I still think it's redundant to actually repeat the track list for both the standard CD and the deluxe CD. What if the deluxe edition section were to have the CD tracklisting removed, but the "headline" for the CD remaining, with a parenthetical explanation, like this:

Deluxe edition

CD[15] (same as Can't Be Tamed)
DVD[15]
No.TitleLength
1."Breakout" 
2."Start All Over" 
3."7 Things" 
4."Kicking and Screaming" 
5."Bottom of the Ocean" 
6."Fly on the Wall" 
7."Let's Get Crazy" 
8."Hoedown Throwdown" 
9."These Four Walls" 
10."When I Look at You" 
11."Obsessed" 
12."Spotlight" 
13."G.N.O. (Girl's Night Out)" 
14."I Love Rock 'n' Roll" 
15."Party in the U.S.A." 
16."Hovering" (feat. Trace Cyrus) 
17."Simple Song" 
18."See You Again" 
19."The Climb" 

– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No takers, eh? :D Ah well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I also don't see why it's necessary to duplicate the CD track listing for the two issues if they are identical (if the times vary slightly between the two pressings, then it might be beneficial to leave both). Otherwise, I think the "Deluxe Edition" section could see the CD track listing removed and then a short sentence between the header and the DVD track listing stating that the deluxe edition added a DVD to the standard edition. – Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 05:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the tour?!

I need to know about the tour! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.184.36 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anything's been said about a tour. Miley just finished her Wonder World Tour, she'll be filming LOL: Laughing Out Loud this summer. After that she might go on tour, or she'll do another movie, possibly Wings. If you've seen a reliable source discussing a tour, link to it here. liquidluck✽talk 04:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Allaboutmusic, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} One songwriter's name is spelled incorrectly. Please change "Marek Pompetzi" to "Marek Pompetzki" throughout the page (missing letter "k"). source: http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=10654

Thank you!

Allaboutmusic (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.61.81.177, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please correct the spelling of names John Fase and Michael Mgginnis to: J. Read Fasse and Michael Mcginnis. Thank you!

174.61.81.177 (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thank you! {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Professional Reviews

I was just wondering where is the Cirtical Response to the album? it was released yeaterday, so I assuming all the major sites like allmusic, slant, rolling stone have completed reviews on her album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colette89 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It won't be released in the US until the 21st, and that's when most publications will review it. I've added one from Newsday, and feel free to add any you've seen. liquidluck✽talk 00:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
EW and Allmusic are already available, if someone wants to take the time to add them properly. – Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are nine critical of the album please put them

I also think the criticism of the Globe and Mail this but now that is almost never taken into account new criticism here http://www.starletinc.com/2010/06/review-cant-be-tamed/ "The strong points on the album however prevail for me, it's just a good mix of pop music, no way around it, it's Also Than music more grown up her previous album. What will Miley Musically eat up with next? We'll Have to see her music After break, however long it May take. While Personally I hoped for something better, Still she managed to get to four out of five score " http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/review--miley-cyrus-cant-be-tamed-201076 "Us Rating: ***" http://www.seattlepi.com/pop/422086_137569-blogcritics.org.html Mixed review "she's not doing anything on Can not Be Tamed That Any Other Modest teenager with talent and resources comparable Could just as well pull off." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxpack (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Day-and-date release?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a day-and-date release for an album mean that it is released everywhere in all formats on the same day? That isn't true for Can't Be Tamed (right?) so perhaps that's outdated info? Maybe we should just use the vauger "Normally our records are staggered throughout the world because of the availability of the artist," Konowitch says. "In this case, we'll be able to roll the single out on the same day, the video premiere virtually the same day and the album the same day." quote instead? liquidluck✽talk 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Hollywood Records

Someone should change that because Miley is no longer with Hollywood Records and is now signed with Universal. and YES, this album is with Universal, not Hollywood. Proof:

http://www.universalmusic.com/artists?filter0=M

Look under album releases on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.221.235 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Records is distributed through Universal, so the fact that Universal displays the album isn't proof. Sites such as Allmusic and Amazon have it filed under Hollywood Records. – Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I just picked up the album yesturday and on the side and back it has the Hollywood Records logo and rights. --74.32.30.44 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood is distributed by Universal, that is why. Candyo32 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New changes

I saw that there have been a lot of editions to Can't Be Tamed. I want to say that I think we should keep the "Development" section strictly about the the process of coming up with the songs. There is new info there that I thought would be good for the "Transition" section since it is about her changing her sound and image. As for the "Critical reception" section, I think it should be based on the critics opinions of the album overall and not mentioning any songs (then the text might grow too long), but that's just my opinion. See Breakout if you can't exactly picture what I'm talking about. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a transition section is a really good idea---or maybe it can be "background", the current background can be "development" or "release" and the current development "writing and inspiration" (with some tweaks). I'll work on making the review section more direct, it's true it'll get much longer (and probably messier) as reviews are published. liquidluck✽talk 06:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I would really like that. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Im not sure who is deciding the album is generating negative reviews. As indicated on metacritic the album holds a 59/100. Anything from 40-60 is mixed. Adding together all the reviews on the cant be tamed wiki page and averaging them, the album has 44/100 which indicates mixed reviews, so someone needs to change negative to mixed to be non-biased. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck

What's up with Donald Duck's appearance at 1:07 to say, "I'm not a brat like that"? Tisane talk/stalk 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not Donald Duck. It's Miley's voiced picthed higher than usual. That's all. Graceannhill (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, her voice was extremely auto-tuned on that line. Either way, if I was going to compare that to a cartoon character, I'd say it was one of the Chipmunks (Alvin, Simon, or Theodore), not Donald Duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.41.61 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Can't Be Tamed

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Can't Be Tamed's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "acharts":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Second single

Two More Lonely People was chosen to be the next single. It's getting played on radio. Also, it was confirmed on http://mileyhq.com Josh (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to sound rude, but that's a fan site and everything can't be trusted off of fan sites. Untill we get offical news, i.e. mileycyrus.com, I say we remove that and keep it until we get offical news. Graceannhill (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Two More Lonely People is being played on two Top 40 radio stations and is listed on allaccess.com. Rag107 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, if Two More Lonely People is the second single, why does it say "Stay" is on the top?

Protection

I think this article should be protected. It is exposed to constant vandalism and I don't see why it isn't already. KingdomHearts25 (talk

  • contribs) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, KindonHearts. It really should, considering ALOT of people are looking at this page. We don't want it to be deceiving. Graceannhill (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

    needs locking

    im constantly having to remove false info from the article, many people are vandalising it, and putting certifications that are false and uncited, they put it went Silver in AUS, when you can only get a silver certification from the BPI, its a joke now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.103.93 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    remove this line from the lead

    'It is Cyrus' second full-length release that is not affiliated with the Hannah Montana franchise' seriously we dont need to know everytime she does something without the hannah montana brand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.24.128 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

     Done Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

    Gypsy Heart Tour page

    Personally, i think the sub-section about the Gypsy Heart Tour should be a whole new page. Don't we have enough information for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.91.2 (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

    Edit request from 187.6.196.149, 19 April 2011

    In the singles section, the line that say "covered from Poison's song" should link to Poison (band) and not Poison. Also the reference #50 (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b231580_miley_cyrus_every_rose_has_its_thorn.html0) should be taken, as it gives a not found page error.

    187.6.196.149 (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

     Done I fixed both links MorganKevinJ(talk) 06:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

    Poland

    As of July 2010 The album went gold in Poland. http://www.zpav.pl/rankingi/wyroznienia/zlote/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.31.14 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

    Charts

    it charted on the billboard digital albums at #3 http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/miley-cyrus/chart-history/772285?f=400&g=Albums and tastemaker albums at #24 http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/miley-cyrus/chart-history/772285?f=407&g=Albums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.90 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

    Australian certification

    the album is only Gold in Australia, check the source that lists it as platinum, it says it is gold, please change it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.28.56 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Can%27t_Be_Tamed/Archive_1&oldid=1136589224"