Jump to content

Talk:Kimbra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kimbra (musician))

Not dead yet

[edit]

Imagine my surprise, after seeing a reference to Kimbra performing at the 2016 Rock n Roll Hall of Fame induction (and reading her response to the 2016 death of Prince), that I read on her Wikipedia page that she died of an overdose in 2013. This was uncited, and she's obviously alive (there are reports of there being a hoax about her death); so I deleted this. 24.3.85.22 (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Killed article tag

[edit]

I reviewed the article, and found a bit of puffery, and removed it. If the tag is restored, please explain.User talk:Unfriend12 21:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need her band members at this point?

[edit]

Unless someone feels we need them in this article about the artist, I expect to drop them.User talk:Unfriend12 21:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not sure about that, depends if she mentions about her band or if her website says anything about her band then it is needed, if not, than it is not needed. CPGirlAJ (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, her web site has no impact on whether or not something needs to be included. Is it covered in the published, reliable, 3rd party press? If yes then maybe worthwhile.User talk:Unfriend12 05:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:BLPSPS her website is an entirely legitimate source of information and import, provided the article is not mostly based on that source. They should be dropped though; how many artists who aren't an actual band list them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhowryn (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be adequate to give us the correct information. But it could give us her shoe size, the type of sox she wears, and whether she preferred briefs or thongs... it establishes the factuality, not the notability.User talk:Unfriend12 16:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wp:notability which you cite in the edit summary of your last comment above explicitly does not apply to content within an article, as per WP:NNC. I don't see why they couldn't be seen as noteworthy in relation to her if she directly collaborates with them to produce the work for which she is known, and has a long standing and continuing professional relationship with them in that context. That's not at all comparable to shoe size, brand of sock preference, etc.Number36 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, should there be something in the general press about how important the performers are to the success of the artist, that might indeed make it worth including. I see no one claiming that. If you read the wp:notability article, it contains references to a number of things. You are correct... the *purpose* of the wp:notability article is to determine whether or not an article of a specific title should exist... having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. With full understanding that wp:other stuff exists, if you look at, for example Madonna (entertainer), which has a GA tag, there is no list of band members. Band member listings are typically used on band articles. Her band does not seem to merit an article at this time. If it did, the list would normally be there. The Alice In Chains article is an FA, and it does include the current list... with the previous member list having its own article (which seems to me a bit extreme). A better direct link might be wp:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or wp:pillars. In any event, if someone restores the list I expect to continue to oppose its inclusion but I certainly won't wp:edit war over it.User talk:Unfriend12 03:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained why you would characterise this as 'indiscriminate information', that seems a little disingenious, we're not talking about shoe size here. These are people she directly works with to create the work she is noteworthy for, so I'd've thought in that context they could be seen as relevant to her as the subject of the article. Surely more relevant to the subject which makes her noteworthy than the fact that her mother was an orthopaedic nurse for instance. Including a reference would not so much be about the band, as it would be simply to note her long standing and continuing supporting artists.Number36 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do they contribute to creation, though? Or are they merely a sort of "preferred" set of performers? Unless the sources here can adequately support them being part of the creation process, I would say get rid of the mention. To reference Unfriend's point, it's possible Madonna has preference for a particular set of band members, but we don't include them because they're not important to the noteworthy work she does. I see it as the difference between an architect and a construction worker. Rhowryn (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Number36 - This is an article about an artist, not a band. The information should be about the artist, and only about the artist. The band members are not the artist. They are not her family. They are not even her shoes. Shoes might well be more germane to the article about the artist, if she loved shoes. If they merit their own articles, a See Also would be very appropriate. They don't, yet, it seems. If there is something in the press that indicates they are something other than a band (which might merit an article, with a link to and from this one), then that might mean we should include them. You may also have missed my example of a GA artist that does NOT link band members associated.User talk:Unfriend12 06:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being deliberately obtuse Unfriend? No one has claimed or made any assertion that it is an article about the band, that's a straw man, the question is whether they are relevant to the artist and what makes her noteworthy. I believe there's an argument for why they could be considered so. These are people she directly works with to create the work she is noteworthy for, they play an active artistic part in her work which is artistic in nature. She is famous for her music, I don't see how the musicians who perform it with and for her can't be seen as relevant to her and you haven't explained why they shouldn't be. And family or not, they're certainly a million times times more relevant to what makes her noteworthy than the fact that her mother was an orthopaedic nurse, if we're still talking about indiscriminate bits of information. Your hypothetical argument about shoes is a step too far.Number36 (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number36-"Are you being deliberately obtuse Unfriend?" - don't do that again. Focus on the content, not the editors. I addressed my response to you. I did not make any comment on you... only the content. I see no point in continuing this conversation. Idly, the shoe example is not hypothetical.User talk:Unfriend12 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"don't do that again" Hm. Well you appear to have misconstrued my tone there, or else your response iseems a little rude, I can AGF though of course, though along with "I see no point in continuing this conversation" it might seem a rather dismissive response to a reasonable and genuine question (also a little ironic to talk about not focusing on content, when your response above was entirely a comment directed at me and completely ignored the actual content, but bygones); You were repeating again a point that appears to be a straw man and not addressing the counter-points that had been raised. I was making no 'comment on you', I was asking a question about the argument you were making, there was no need to take offence, none was intended. But I see no point in engaging in a tone argument over something as trivial as this. The shoe argument is irrelevant (and my comment about a 'step to far' was intended as a mild attempt at humour anyway; -'shoes':'a step too far'. Yes yes, I'll get my coat).Number36 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though, DO they contribute to creation? Anyone could write some songs and then hire a band. Unless they're credited with songwriting or composition on an album, they're just employees. And we don't list her make-up artist or outfitter. Rhowryn (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If she did always work with a particular outfitter and she was noteworthy because of her outfits, I'd say we probably should mention them. They're not just employees, as muscians they inherently play a direct artistic and creative part in the work she's noteworthy for. It would be disingenious to describe their inclusion as indiscriminate information. The article on Elvis mentions his manager.Number36 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh just on that last point, that can be referenced to Kimbra as well. From this Huffington Post article for instance; "Three of them are from New Zealand (Fagan Wilcox, bass, synth; Timon Martin, guitars; Stevie McQuinn, drums) and the other, the keyboardist (Ben Davey), is from Melbourne, Australia. They're like my big brothers. I've been friends for many years. They come from sort of a prog-rock metal background. So they love technical kind of experimental music. But it's great because they add their own kind of flair to the songs"
Also discussing them here " I knew most of these guys (apart from Ben) through bands they’d played with back in New Zealand and had always been a fan of their other work. Once I’d moved over here and started hanging out with them, it seemed like a natural progression to form a band of good friends and like-minds. It was wonderful to get people on board that I already respected as friends and musicians, it just helped to create a great on-stage energy."
And mentions like this "Her eclectic sound is augmented by bandmate Fagan Wilcox's use of a sample machine to loop recordings into her songs" also exist in the press about her. A list probably isn't the most appropriate way to add them to the article as was formally present, but some small mention of them might seem relevant and appropriate. This would be in the context of their relevance to her of course, and their direct contribution to what makes her noteworthy, not about them per se, which I believe is a valid counter argument to the position Unfriend has asserted for their exclusion.Number36 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were songwriters...should we credit songwriters in singing performer articles? I don't see that in performer GA guidance, or in GA/FA articles. If this were an article about a band, they would belong. This is an article about a performer. Even in articles (again, bearing in mind that just because wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff) about performers who are in a band, the band members are not listed in their articles... they are listed in the band article.User talk:Unfriend12 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Kimbra

[edit]

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 Kimbra'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 "BPI":

Reference named "BVMI":

Reference named "RIAA":

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⚡ 09:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kimbra. 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 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kimbra. 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) 03:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimbra. 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) 15:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not jazz yet

[edit]

The genre in the infobox incorrectly lists Kimbra as a jazz singer. The source cited is Matt Collar at AllMusic, but nowhere on that page does he call her a jazz singer. Surely people can be more accurate. Here are some excerpts.

  • Genre (right column of page): Pop/rock
  • Style (right column of page): Pop, alternative, indie rock
  • "audacious and playful fusions of jazzy R&B, pop, and dance" – jazzy R&B, not jazz and R&B
  • "appeared on "Somebody That I Used to Know" with Australian-Belgian singer Gotye" (not jazz)
  • "Brazil's Rock in Rio festival"
  • "smooth disco-funk homage"

So it makes sense to stop calling her a jazz musician and delete that from the infobox, categories, and WikiProject Jaz
–Vmavanti (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with jazz then you should also have a problem with R&B and indie rock. The AllMusic source puts her into the pop genre first and foremost, then the other genres are flavoring/elements/influences – things to fuse with pop. If we remove jazz then we should remove R&B and indie. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK.Vmavanti (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimbra&oldid=1218724610"