Jump to content

Talk:Kimberley Walsh

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

This article

[edit]

I do not like it, I DETEST IT. Please just get it back to basics, you're making up a load of nonsense in this article. --Kimberley Walsh 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to source most of it at the moment; the only problem I immediately see is the relatively large amount of text devoted to the so-called "cannabis controversy", when it seems to be a rather minor blip in actuality. Any objection to paring it down? —bbatsell ¿? 03:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a minor blip, but the media made a big deal of it because otherwise there was no "dirt" on Kimberley like with Cheryl and her assault conviction/marriage to Ashley Cole. It might be a bit overly-covered on the page, though.
And I am seriously skeptical as to whether User:KBWalsh is actually Kimberley Walsh. It does not seem logical that she would join Wikipedia, blatantly reveal her identity, try to delete her own article, make this kind of statement in a random AfD, and not touch articles on Girls Aloud or any other subject matter. Fabricationary 04:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the media made a big deal out of it at one stage is IMHO irrelevant. Per BLP and NPOV, we have to be careful not to give undue coverage to minor negative incidents just because the media made a big fuss out of it at one stage. The article seems fine to me, but note that BLP doesn't just cover sourcing. While unsourced material is one of the specific no-nos under BLP, NPOV and also noteability of information needs to be considered. Nil Einne 08:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced the question as to KBWalsh's identity on the Administrator's Noticeboard (here). I will monitor this user's edits, but as of right now I'm inclined to block the user for impersonation, pending evidence to the contrary. -- Merope 09:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it?

[edit]

It seems like a pretty typical article about a current pop singer to me. Are there factual inaccuracies in it? What, specifically, do you object to? -FisherQueen 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's considered a reliable source for this page?

[edit]

The line about Kimberley Walsh dating Justin Scott was recently removed from the page because it is uncited, which I can understand. However, the sources I know of that state this are:

Does this count as sufficient for its reinclusion into the article? Fabricationary 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word currently is of particular issue with me, because even if a source demonstrates it to be true, there is no guarantee it will be true tomorrow. WP:RECENT goes into detail about what I am talking about. Regarding your sources, no offense but they seem like gossip rags. Correct me if I am wrong, please. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloid magazines/websites are what I would consider "gossip rags," but I would consider Girls Aloud: Off the Record a reliable source since it featured interviews with the band members and footage of camera crews following them around for several months. I can understand your issue with "currently," but can we settle for a phrase like "In an May 2006 episode of Girls Aloud: Off the Record, a documentary which featured footage of and interviews with Girls Aloud, Walsh was filmed at her residence with boyfriend Justin Scott of Triple 8"? Fabricationary 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did they say he was her boyfriend in the episode or did they just say/show they shared a residence? These are not the same, and if they only said the later, then we can only report the later. The fact that it's rather likely is irrelevant if we don't have a source for the claim he's her boyfriend. BTW, I think you might be missing the point of WP:RECENT. As I understand it, it's not just the wording (although that was a problem) but the significance. Is the fact that she shared a residence with Justin Scott in May 2006 likely to be that noteable or significant 1-2 years down the line if their relationship doesn't work out? Nil Einne 08:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both. The introductory quote to that segment was "Kimberley heads home to spend some precious time with boyfriend Justin." Later, they show Kimberley and Justin at their residence while the narrator says "Kimberley and Justin have been living together in London for a year." Then they cut to an interview with Justin, where a caption introduces him as "Justin Scott - Kimberley's boyfriend."
I'm not saying that this is going to be notable in the future - but I think this is proof enough that Justin and Kimberley are/were a couple as of early 2006. I think that deserves a brief mention on the page, given this citation. Is that agreeable with everyone? Fabricationary 08:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we editing an encyclopædia or eHello! magazine? Why should the transient romantic liaisons of a couple of deeply uninteresting "celebrities" feature here? There's not only a question about its notability in the future... OK, she's a singer, so let's have an article about that. Her personal details are irrelevant; leave them to fanzines and television.

AfDs are resulting in the deletion of articles on people who write and publish books, devote their lives to research and teaching, direct independent films, found charities, etc., because it's claimed that they're not notable enough for us — does anyone else spot a double standard here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that some of you are missing the point. This is obviously an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine, but most good biography articles on this encyclopedia have some short blurb about the subject's personal life, a la "Mr. Green is married and has two daughters. He and his family currently live in Rhode Island." Walsh has not made herself notable because of the men she has dated; she is notable for being in Girls Aloud. Still, with a solid source, it would not hurt the encyclopedic content of the article to insert a small phrase about her personal life, which I plan to do if no one discredits the source (Girls Aloud: Off the Record) in the immediate future.
Mel, with all due respect, the goal of a good person's life, no matter how he or she chooses to spend it, should not be to do something notable enough to get on Wikipedia. It's true that there is a double standard - if one is an entertainer, an athlete, or generally in the public eye, he or she is more likely to have a Wikipedia article than hardworking researchers, teachers, scientists, inventors, scholars, etc., generally because the public is aware of the former group, and that bias is evident in mass media. The latter group may not be as easily accessible to the public because the notability of their work is established by their integrity and talent and judged by their peers, not based on their popularity as deemed by the general public. Because of this inherent bias, Wikipedia's biographies about our contemporaries mainly consist of those who have garnered public attention rather than a collection of the most notable people of our generation based on scholarly achievements, the manifestation of ambition, etc. I don't believe that system will change anytime soon, but I don't think it should be seen as a travesty but rather a byproduct of the effects of the media on the public. Fabricationary 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, first, should we follow the current witless celebrity culture or stand for the values of a reference work. Secondly, there's the hint, at least, of an implication that we should provide information on people about whom readers know, and about whom they can find information throughout the media, and not about people whom readers might not know, and about whom information is more difficult to come by; shome mishtake shurely?
As for this particular question, and leaving aside the principle of the thing: the point is that it's ephemeral; it might have been true with the source was published, it might not be true now. Marriage and children do tend to be somewhat more stable, and thus more reliable as information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not quite sure what point your are espousing, but since the source is reliable, I'm adding the information about Kimberley dating Justin Scott back to the article. Fabricationary 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of Image:GirlsAloud_Kimberley.jpg

[edit]

I think this qualifies as fair use. Please discuss here if you have anything to add. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also believe it is fair use - it is properly licensed and sourced. If anyone has an issue with the image size, I would be happy to resize it (and make it a lower resolution) and reupload it. I have slightly modified the caption to more properly reflect its licensing purpose of identifying the music video in question and allowing for critical commentary. Fabricationary 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have resized it per fair use. It should be fine now. I also cropped the black border from it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

In fact {{copyedit}} would also have been appropriate, but I thought I'd keep the boxes to a minimum. The English needs overhauling, and the organisation is peculiar (one section called "Biography" and another – near the end – called "Personal life"?). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kimberley Walsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimberley Walsh. 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) 02:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kimberley Walsh. 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) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimberley_Walsh&oldid=1210899883"