Talk:David Archuleta/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Gasping?

Resolved

 – Until a reliable source covers this it's just speculation which e can't really use. Banjeboi 08:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is he always gasping for air mid sentence? Does he have really bad asthma or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.44.2 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This could come from incorrect breathing (while he's singing). Also, any sort of problems wit the vocal cords (he had vocal cords paralysis) could cause this. Or that could just be the way he is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.60.225 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

I am reverting back the date formatting on the article for the second time but with an explanation on here. Per WP:MOSDATE, there are three simple guidelines to determine whether to use the international or American format: 1) Consistency within articles, 2) Strong national ties to a topic and 3) Retaining the existing format.

1) Most of the dates in the article use the American format. 2) American citizen has strong national ties to the United States. 3) The article used the American format in the early stages and the development of the article. For these three simple reasons I am changing the date formatting back to the American date format. Aspects (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you're mistaken on all but one count. Archuleta is tied to United States. However all the dates were in international format, the one that is the default for wikipedia - see your signature, for example - until you changed them. I know because I wrote most of what's here and I always use the format common to the rest of the world except United States. So by your reasoning you just broke 1 and 3 and the only reason you're changing it is your preference because he's from United States. Not the greatest reason and per WP:MOSDATE you should probably change it back. Also, as I mentioned both times, you might be happier simply changing your personal preferences so that dates always appear as you like them. Banjeboi 09:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the dates were not in the international format. The dates in the infobox and the opening paragraph were and still are in the American format. As for the third point, there were 225 edits made before you added a source with an international date format, the first one for the article. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting: "In the early stages of writing an article, the format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." CoolKid1993 made the first major contribution [1] using the American format. Since you already admitted Archuleta is tied to the United States there is no strong national tie to use the international format. My preferences are to see dates both ways so the American format can be shown for American articles and the international format can be shown for international article, so I feel you should take your own advice and change your personal preferences so that dates always appear as you like them in the international format. Aspects (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aspects, you may consider that the majority of English-speakers are not in the United States and the wikipedia writes articles for the world. I won't write what i want to as it would border on uncivil but i encourage you to consider that the United States' way of formatting dates should not not dictate to the rest of the world how we view them. That;s imperialism and it's not as noble as it sounds. Banjeboi 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually with imperialism, it would be world's way of enforcing it's views on the US. Many nations have their own peculiarities - such as the UK describing personal weight in stone, speed in miles per hour, yet distance in kilometers. Since 'American Idol' is 'American' in origin, I'd say it should be left in that format. --MartinezMD (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have chosen a better word but this issue, IMHO, boils down to He's from America therefore it has to be formatted our way. I'll just press hope that soon enough all articles will be required to use international date formatting unless an exceptional case can be made to show it would be detrimental to the article to do so. Banjeboi 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Official Album Title

Resolved

It has been confirmed by Jive Records itself that David Archuleta's debut album will be named 'David Archuleta' and will be released November 11, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraz1206ablao (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In article. -- Banjeboi 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Internal Link

Resolved

The final sentense of the Musical Influences section begins, "Like Yamin and another singer...". I would suggest that Yamin be hyperlinked to Wikipedia's Elliott_Yamin page. 64.47.42.66 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The release date for the new album is: Nov 11 - 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimheibe (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cameo Appearance

Resolved

Correct the "cameo" link. It links now to Cameo, the carving method, instead of Cameo_appearance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammenidis (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is done; thanks for pointing it out. You could've done it too. ;-) --MartinezMD (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Table changes

Resolved

I am making a few changes to the American Idol performances chart and it would take longer than the edit summary would allow so I am explaining it here. First, I removed the mentors since they are not encyclopedic to this article. Second, I changed themes from "Songs of ..." and discography wikilinks to artist wikilinks because these seem clumsy and unneeded. Lastly, I added result column because although we might know the results know future editors might not. Aspects (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed here. In short the mentors are encyclopedic as if they weren't the mentor that week those themes would be something else. Mentor X=songs related to mentor X. Also the results are hardly needed as it's clearly spelled out in the lede. And those clumsy wikilinks take readers to other articles of interest, that's why they're there. -- Banjeboi 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For an American Idol contestant's article the mentor's for the week having no encyclopedic value. The weeks could have been the artist's songs even if they were not the mentor. The theme is what is important to the contestant's article not the mentor. That information is better suited for the individual season's article. Just because some people might know the individual weeks results now does not mean future readers will know this. Nowhere in the article, let alone in the lead, clearly spell out the results. It says he made it to the finale, that does not mean he was never in the bottom 2/3. Aspects (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that the theme is important. I don't see how 'never in the bottom 2/3' or most permutations of order (third from last but only on a Tuesday when the moon was full etc) are important in an encyclopedic article. We don't need minutia either. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen similar discussions on other reality-show articles - the order they are called, what seat/position, etc they are in, often/never in the bottom two, etc. I have no problem including that information if we have a reliable source that says this is notable - which a comprehensive biography about him might include. Instead the more notable information seems to be tied to information we already have, or in the case of his singles, is being added as it goes along. I generally like the main AI article chart as it's somewhat clear and accessible - however I think the present version on this breakout article concerning the AI performances is better than this. The finals notes look somewhat encyclopedic but are actually more appropriate to a good fansite and the only reference is for IMDb which is not reliable. -- Banjeboi 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, MartinezMD for your third opinion. Since we all agree that the theme is important, I would like your opinion of the mentor being listed seeing how Benjiboi and I are on opposite sides of the fence on the issue. I find it hard to believe that the mentor is "more notable information" than the result placement of the individual's performance for the week for the individual's article. The result placement is based on how they performed that week while the mentor is indirectly related to the performance. Aspects (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking hierarchy, simple placement (eg first place, third place, but not derivative permutations like in the extreme example I used earlier) certainly exceeds mentor imo. If there is room however, it would be nice to see the mentor too because the songs and styles were influenced by them in the contest/show.--MartinezMD (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out i very much appreciate Aspects' work here and know, from my experience on an America's Next Top Model article that these articles are volatile and constantly corrupted by fans - who are generally well-meaning - and those who despise the content. So it's not always easy work and i understand the desire to keep them standardized. -- Banjeboi 19:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and just want to note the discussions on here are far more thought out and fruitful than most of the discussions I see on here. Although the chart is not how I would like it to look, I know it is not my Wikipedia and will abide by the consensus found here. Since this article is on my watchlist I will be keeping my eye on it to prevent any random vandalism that might find its way here. Aspects (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I started watching a couple of these articles initially as a joke for my family. So there is at least another adult paying attention to keep the vandals and well-intentioned fans from getting carried away. GA status would be reasonable I believe. We could get their input (to achieve GA status) if nothing else if someone wants to propose it to the admins.--MartinezMD (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GA

Resolved

 – In process. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time to take it to GA? It certainly has plenty of sourcing and is relatively stable. -- Banjeboi 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Per comments I'll nominate - part of the process, FYI, is it should be off semi-protection, so for the next few weeks we'll have to watch for the garden variety vandalism stuff and just deal with it. -- Banjeboi 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Album

Resolved

Why was the album page deleted and redirected here? --GBVrallyCI (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. It's due in like three weeks? No reason to crush it now. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sara Bareilles

Resolved

We should amend and source her as a musical influence instead of adding her to the list of those sourced to his AI page. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Banjeboi 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft?

“ Beginning with his performance of "Angels", Archuleta responded to requests of his fans on the American Idol Forums to signal them by putting his hand over his heart. ”

I've removed the above as it has yet to be reliably, or otherwise sourced since July 2008. It sounds like fancruft and possibly isn't true. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. I believe I was the one to add the "citation needed" tag at that... --MartinezMD (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discography

It seems to exist a discordance regarding how the singles' performances should be displayed. Some want to separate the download only performances or the A.I. performances, for their particular character of not being released as a regular single, in a "other charted songs" table, some don't. Other artists have some kind of separation (Taylor Swift, David Cook, Chris Brown come to mind now). Why not do the same for David Archuleta? Rodze (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for starting this thread. I had asked that editor to do so but that obviously didn't take.

I think anyone will have a very hard time proving a track was only released in one format or another. That is, even if a song is launched digitally, copies can still be physically produced. Even if only used as promotional items they could easily number into the hundreds or thousands. It's rather silly to pretend we know or could figure out which tracks are exclusively digital. I'm inclined to think it's rather unverifiable in most cases. More developed discographies don't seem to do this. The other editor's main issue, as far as i can tell, is that they were Idol performances released digitally first. Well, even they produce compilations thus rendering such a system rather flawed. -- Banjeboi 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

It's not much a issue of being released only digitally, but more of not being singles in the traditional sense of tracks used to promote the album/artist, which were sent by the label to radio stations (what can be verified through FMQB and All Access) and distributed as that. With the advent of digital downloads any track from any album can be easily bought separately and can chart based on its sales alone. That's a new characteristic of the music industry. That's why I brought examples of artists with prominent production in past couple of years--they have this separation (Justin Timberlake and Beyoncé are other examples).

Now, Billboard does not make that differentiation--a song is a single for them, period--but, being an informative channel (and having the necessary reference to validate it), making that kind of separation between singles that were treated as traditional singles by the label/artist and songs that charted from digital sales or unsolicited airplay would be another way to provide a more detailed view of the discography, and also a way to maintain consistency with the "singles chronology" used across different songs' articles (and, again, seems to be common practice). Rodze (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I support how both (Justin Timberlake and Beyoncé have been handled. Those systems cover a large amount of singles over many years. We don't have that many at all. Also neither of them differentiate based on digital - they use section delineating featured performer, soundtrack, etc but not digital. Perhaps to get past this we could separate based on delineating something that alludes to his professional career instead? That would put all the singles from Idol and prior into one chart and the rest into another chart. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, a song that charts, is not always a song that was released as a single. The singles section is to list exactly that, singles. Not every song that ever charted by the artist, that's what stuff like other charted songs are for. And this is how it's always worked on wikipedia, so I have no idea why it's problem here. Check almost any other artist, and you'll see that their non singles that charted are not listed under their singles. So until someone can give me a reason why this should be any different from all the other articles on wikipedia, I'm changing it back to the singles/other charted songs format. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To Benjiboi. Sorry for the late answer. Justin and Beyonce have the "other charted songs" table. The fact that David's songs are charting because of digital sales is a detail here. The intended separation is because they have not been released as traditional singles. "FutureSex/LoveSound", by Justin, charted because of its digital sales; "Diva", by Beyoncé, charted because of unsolicited airplay. Nevertheless, these two songs are in the "Other Charted Songs" table because they have not been released as singles. The method seems common and widespread, I don't know why this is being a problem in this article. And to answer your question, I'm in favor of, not only separating the American Idol performances, but any other track not released as a single, what so far means only "Angels". Pretty much the way it is as of the writing of this response. Rodze (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This, as far as I can tell amounts to original research, if you have a reliable source that states these songs are only digitally released then please present them. Both "traditional" and "digital" are subjective and unhelpful here. I've suggested another scheme that may make sense and there might be others but first let's find consensus of what makes sense then we can change the formatting into multiple charts. Frankly I don't see the need but if we have a scheme that is verifiable and somewhat intuitive then by all means. Consensus first though. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Singles are promoted, singles are sent to radio stations. There's no secret here. There's evidence of "Touch My Hand" being sent by the label to radio stations, while "Angels" is not. There's no written evidence of David saying "Touch My Hand" will be the "next single after Crush", despite there being videos of him saying it; Billboard reports[2] "Crush" as the only single. Frankly, you're making this a way too bigger of a deal than it really is for this specific article. The consensus is out there in several discographies (Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, T.I). Have fun reverting and undoing them. I'm done here. Thank you for your time. Rodze (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input but we're still in a messy area. We will likely never have proof that a song wasn't promoted to radio - or elsewhere - or that a song was only released digitally, etc. What are singles are currently being redefined by the music industry as well. promotions are done on YouTube, television appearances, blogs, etc. We are diving into the deep end of fancruft again. I'm OK calling them all songs or separating them by those that have charted and others, which would make sense. But there really isn't that many and we should avoid original research. I guess we're just making a mess that will have to be cleaned up later. That seems like a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet ...

Now we have Singles and Other charted songs; still no compelling proof of which is which but let's move onto the deletions.

In 2002, Archuleta had "Dream Sky High" and "Don't Tell Me". Not sure where these went but his article should include them yet we've managed to squeeze them out. As his actual first songs any suggestions where these go? They seem to predate or are sandwiched in his Star Search years. -- Banjeboi 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added these in the Star Search section. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"A Little Too Not Over You" - Next Single

Resolved

 – Item and ref added. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

David stated on a Myspace blog (Wikipedia won't let me post the link, but you can find it at myspace.com/davidarchuleta) that "A Little Too Not Over You" will be the next single from his self-titled debut album. Could someone please add that in? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgitsdale (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC) he loves molly r —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.16.159 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia won't allow a MySpace link, you can find another notable/reliable source to include the data yourself. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

legal documents

David Archuleta was suspended for the talents serch because of legal documents he did not send. Later the government will release this documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderg.13 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure i don't know to what this refers. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore him. He is a vandal. Review his posts and you can see for yourself.--MartinezMD (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's shovel a bit of newby good will in hopes they improve instead. -- Banjeboi 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be hopeful. --MartinezMD (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can! Lol! -- Banjeboi 04:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Isn't he Mormon? I don't have a link to that but I remember something like that. 98.112.82.113 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's already in the article. Currently reference #24--MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

What change, exactly, are you proposing? Hermione1980 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has something to do with [3] the "Muscles song". -- Banjeboi 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to OP: Sorry, unsourced edits are not welcome, if what Benjiboi is speculating is correct. Additionally, we're not clairvoyant. We can't gaze into our crystal balls and figure out what it is you're wanting to add if you don't tell us. Hermione1980 03:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the new editor will eventually figure out how to post here and make a specific request. Don't fret anyone.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)