Jump to content

Talk:Chloë Agnew

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

Sub-standard

[edit]

This article is sub standard, No date of birth just promotional material.

I'm sure you can have a biography without a date of birth - in fact, I've read in Wiki procedures that they recommend that a date of birth NOT be included in a biography of a person who is still living because of identity theft problems. Hubblegal 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article must conform to the principles below:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of ..
 (from the 5 pillars of W..) 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at other artists and music articles. Discography tables are perfectly acceptable, because they inform the reader as to the works that the artist has produced in a linear and easier to read format. Citations are also valid because they back up the information that has presented in the article. I might get rid of the Oboe King link because it doesn't add much, but in my reworking of the article it was already present and I was more concerned with cleaning things up. Another thing deleted was the labels the performer was signed to. Obviously, it seems, the field is provided, so there is no problem with it being used. Please do not continue to delete this material. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is promotional and is not acceptable. see [1] There are 2 links to the Celtic woman website on this short article, clearly promotional. The names of the albums are duplicated also.

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Disallowed are links that:
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

Above is a straight quote from guideline. Reinsertion is inappropriate.

su 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you don't listen. 1) The discography is not publicity material, simply a table laying out the artists' work in an easier to read format (information at a glance). 2) The CelticWoman.com link is in two places for a reason: it is used as a reference, thus, its placement there. However, it is also a valid external link to the profile. When a user is reading an article, I've found, most of the time they pay no attention to citations and the links within. So, the link is also placed in the External links section to catch those that breeze by References. Not ideal, but it was a considered placement. 3) The MySpace page is not some fan profile or otherwise random thing. Like all MySpace Music pages, this page is an official presence of the artist, created either by the artist or a representative of hers (probably the label).
I don't really care that the MySpace thing is deleted, because while it is official, it doesn't have a lot of information. However, I feel very strongly for the inclusion of the other two points. You also accuse me of trying to promote this artist. I barely know who this person is, and don't even own a CD; I'm not a fan. I happened across the Celtic Woman article, and saw that the related material needed desperate attention, so I set out to do so. Please don't accuse people of something unless you can back up your claims, eh? -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image

[edit]

The added image is merely a tracing of a copyrighted image. See, for example http://chloeagnew.googlepages.com/chloe2a.jpg/chloe2a-full.jpg KameraObscura 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this. I was attempting to locate the original photo last night, but since I couldn't I assumed good faith and left the image up. I'll start taking care of the image itself now. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user is just being perverse. Now he's added a crude line drawing that looks nothing like Chloe Agnew. Isn't there some rule that an image of the performer in the entry needs to at least have some measure of quality? KameraObscura 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user KameraObscura posted this about my image: "I think the user is just being perverse. Now he's added a crude line drawing that looks nothing like Chloe Agnew. Isn't there some rule that an image of the performer in the entry needs to at least have some measure of quality?" Is it a joke? I am a great fan of Chloë and I think wikipedia is free. I will prepare another image with more quality to satisfy any art critic.--Mitthus 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the situation, it was incorrect for Kamera to make those comments.
  • To Kamera: I know of no such rule, other than that biography articles should not attack or otherwise libel the individual. Neither of these images have broken this, and I would hardly describe an attempt to spruce up the article with an image as "perverse". My issue here is that we should not use non-free images here, nor should we use images that are derived from non-free media.

Okay, because it doesn't seem to be getting through, let me reiterate: you cannot upload an image and claim free use on it if it is merely a stylised depiction of an existing image or piece of video. To quote a line from the link I gave directly above: "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing." In this situation, these photoshopped images and alterations fall under this status and thus are no different than using a publicity photo, which we are trying to avoid here. I repeat, do not simply alter or copy an existing image and claim it as your own. Please, do read the Image use policy link above, and the entire page, not just the section I point out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Chloë

[edit]

Ok, you don't seem to be understand. This image is not a copy or photoshop image. How many designs (or pictures, images, drawning or I don't know how name si)I have to do that satisfy you...--Mitthus 00:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read again "the Image use policy" (all page) and I didn't find any problem to post an image (I think it is a drawning...made with my own hands) created and made by me. Anyway, I will make another image and, so that non exist any doubts I go draw her as the Monalisa (by Leonardo da Vinci). I only want to contribution to wikipedia, nothing more. Thank you for your help.--Mitthus 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By de way, I'm in contact with John Flanagam of the Celtic Woman Ltd and he is trying to arrange free documentation licenses for some photos to put here (sorry for my english...it is not very good). He ask me wait for a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitthus (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, 1) The reason these images are not appropriate is because you copied an existing image. It does not matter that it was drawn or painted or anything, it is a copy of that image. 2) If Mr. Flanagam has the right to release copyrighted Celtic Woman material, and is willing to do so, that would be utterly fantastic, and you can pass along my great thanks. We really do need decent images of all the girls for their respective articles. However, to do this, he will have to expressly release the chosen images into the public domain. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to understand what has to be done, and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for some examples of what letters other editors have sent. You may want to pass those links along to Mr. Flanagam as well.
Basically, pay very close attention to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed, this will tell you the steps that must be taken. If you would rather me or someone else handle this, let us know and we can pick up the process after permission is given. I have a lot of experience dealing with images here and on Commons, so this would not be a problem.
I certainly understand that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, and believe me, we want you to contribute! But you must understand, copyright laws must be followed, and it is a tricky thing. Please don't see these reverts and conflicts as us trying to drive you away, but see it as a learning process for how things have to be done. We sometimes tread a very fine line here, so we must be careful not to break U.S. law. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English and Irish

[edit]

This article says that she sings in Irish and English. It could mention whether her first language is English or Irish. Vorbee (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic

[edit]

Hi. I restored the Catholic mention and category. A couple of things apply here.

  1. No citations are needed for the lede section, because citations are all furnished in the body.
  2. The citation to her Catholic faith is in the BeliefNet interview at bottom.
  3. The mention of her faith was improperly confined to the lede only; the lede is designed to summarize the body, so anything found in the lede must be reiterated in the body and it wasn't, so I couldn't expect the other editor to find the citation that backed it up.
  4. She is indeed notable for her Catholic faith, because she sings about it onstage regularly. What better witness to her own belief about God than Agnew singing "Pie Jesu" or "Ave Maria" or a Christmas carol? Celtic Woman attracted people of faith because of the subject matter of their music, just as much as the aesthetics and the technical prowess shown by musicians and singers alike. So yes, her notability hinges on her faith, it is a defining characteristic of the subject, and this article is worthy of the category. Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. She's a singer. That's what her notability derives from. See the category description, WP:BLPCAT, and WP:CAT/R. Religion categories are not for "everyone who happens to have said they're a members of a faith and says the occasional prayer", religious categories are for people who have stated they are members of a particular religion and whose notability derives from their religion. She's famous as a member of Celtic Woman, that's it. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DOB

[edit]

For future reference, please see WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive321#Chloe Agnew. Unless something changes, full birthdate should not be published. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The Twitter link is not sufficient to establish this, per WP:BLPSPS Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chloë_Agnew&oldid=1258929992"