Talk:Kylie Minogue/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bisexual?

Does this Kylie Minogue: I fancy girls too count as her coming out as bi? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New album

Is the new album called Sonic or is it called Heavy Handed or what? So far today it's been called each of these a couple of times, and as there is no official release date, and Minogue's official website does not give a title, why the urgency in adding this to the article? It's unsourced and as the person adding this can't seem to be sure what the correct title is, I think we shouldn't be including it. I've removed it twice, and it's back. Can anyone find a reliable source to give the name and a correct release date please? The person adding this should be including a reliable source before adding it. Rossrs (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is NO new album name yet!! These IP adresses keep coming up with fictional album names!! nothing is confirmed until EMI or Kylie's website announce something! "Heavy Handed" ???? really??? Kylie would never name an album with a stupid name like that....lol.MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 16:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Twitter is a self published primary citation, we are not sitting here waiting to add to articles whatever is tweeted on a celebs twitter and then tomorrow they tweet that they have changed their minds, this whole section is linked to about four tweets, this is a bio of a living person not a celeb driven tweet report it really is a poor level of citing and commenting..it is not even a real thing it is a future event cited to five tweets. I remove the content below but it has been replaced so I would like to discuss the issue, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Minogue stated on her official Twitter page that the album will be released in the Summer of 2010 and that she is also working with Fraser T. Smith and Tim Rice-Oxley. On 24 February 2010 Minogue also revealed that she was working with Cutfather, Lucas Secon, Damon Sharpe, Starsmith and Nervo. On 12 March 2010 Minogue hinted on her Twitter page that a song produced by Stuart Price would be released to the public in June 2010.

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9003792038

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9026328343

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9572763707

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/9572927971

http://twitter.com/kylieminogue/status/10371400191

five twitter posts and..Kylie dot com another self publisher citation.

On 3 June 2010 she will be hosting the inaugural AmfAR "Inspiration Gala" at the New York Public Library honouring Jean Paul Gaultier for his lifelong contribution to men's fashion and the fight against AIDS.

http://kylie.com/news/1773826

Please have a read of this and consider if this content is in violation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

I really don't see the problem with Twitter as other pages are using it as a source as well, Kylie.com is one of the few official sources that can be used because the info is 100% official. Artist websites are also being used on Wikipedia. It only states who she worked with on the album, why is that harmful? I challange you to find other sources for the info and replace them. If not, her Twitter account is verified and i still think that the info can be used. Thanx. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The info is of little value at all, it is all gossip type statements about things that will actually be revealed later when her album is actually released, this is not a minute by minute celebrity article. The content should be removed, also the kylie dot com announcement that she is going to be at a dinner in three weeks is not what wikipedia is about, the whole lot is self promotional and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find the object of an encyclopaedia is to be comprehensive. Now, what shoes she's wearing might be irrelevant, but we have a verified source revealing when an important piece of the artist in question's work will be released, therefore it is relevant, and justifiably verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.42.31 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness is a great thing to aim for, but it does not override our policies regarding reliable sourcing. If the source does not meet our WP:RS criteria, it can not be used. If the material is so important that it must be included in order to be comprehensive, a suitable reliable source will be found. Kylie's no shrinking violet. She doesn't exactly hide from the media. Rossrs (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At the thread I started at the RSN the opinion seems to be from policy ..Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons and as the content is about claims to do with other people it should be removed. As per this, I have removed all unconfirmed claims about other people that are not supported by an independent reliable citation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Offtoriorob on this one. If the only source of information is Kylie's tweets, I think that demonstrates how unnewsworthy the information is, especially considering that Kylie is a high profile celebrity who is more than adequately reported by mainstream legitimate media. If they aren't reporting something, I think it's probably because it's not worth reporting, and we should take our lead from them, rather than from Twitter. I think our policy is pretty clear on this type of citation. Rossrs (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Citations

Minogue has confirmed that she is working on her eleventh studio album commenting that it will be an album of dance and pop music.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/kylie-dreams-of-credible-film-career-not-us-success-1682845.html Confirmed producers and songwriters working with Minogue on the album have been Biffco, Nerina Pallot and Andy Chatterley, Xenomania, Calvin Harris, Jake Shears and Babydaddy of Scissor Sisters, Richard Stannard, Greg Kurstin, Stuart Price and RedOne, who has produced music for Lady Gaga, Little Boots and Sugababes amongst others. The only track to be heard from the sessions so far is "Better than Today", written by Nerina Pallot and Andy Chatterley, which Minogue performed on her 2009 For You, for Me Tour. Minogue referred to it as "a song that will feature on my next album".http://loft965.com/2009/08/20/kylie-minogue-graces-the-cover-of-instinct-news-on-new-album The United States is expected to be a priority this time around, after rave reviews for her debut American tour.

http://loft965.com/2009/08/20/kylie-minogue-graces-the-cover-of-instinct-news-on-new-album this is a blog and there are names in the list of people that are claimed to be working with her that are not even mentioned on the blog? Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to delete everything that is not covered by a WP:RS and keep deleting it until whoever thinks it's so vital to the article, actually provides a reliable source. We don't have any responsibility to report on things that have not even happened yet, but if the information is so important, a reliable source should be available. About twice a day someone adds an album title and I think so far we've had about 4 titles and a "?" I don't understand the urgency. We should also bear in mind that this is a featured article, and tolerating the inclusion of this type of poorly researched/presented material in the article potentially undermines that status. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A featured article..really? One of the best 3000 articles on wikipedia, this article imo would need work to get good article status. I would say considering a review would be a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a featured article. It's been reviewed a little while ago, but because she's a current celebrity the article is constantly being added to. The article milestones for the FA and review history are at the top of the page. The star in the top right hand corner of the article page is another clue. ;-) In any case, I wasn't asking if you thought it should be a featured article, but I note that you do not believe so. I was asking if we should just remove the bad info and let it be added correctly with appropriate sourcing. Maybe that's the only way to get people to take sourcing seriously. I don't know. Rossrs (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will tomorrow have a look at the last review, thanks for commenting. The bigger picture perhaps is for discussion at another location. Policy on these issues needs to strongly and tightly support the overall wikipedia aims and aspirations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If you discuss it somewhere else, could you please let me know as I'd be interested. I think policy is already fairly strong. It's the application of the policy that is not so strong or is inconsistent. I think we often step carefully and place "citation needed" tags, for example, on dubious information when we could or should be removing it. It doesn't deter people from adding dubious information and it doesn't encourage them to add it correctly. It's more strongly applied when it goes against WP:BLP but it doesn't address the bigger picture, as you say. Rossrs (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, of course I will, best. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Before we consider making a statement that says Kylie Minogue is bisexual, we need a reliable source that confirms Kylie as stating without any ambiguity – "I am bisexual". Taking WP:BLP into account, nothing less is acceptable. We must also be careful that we do not place our own editorial interpretation (refer WP:SYNTH) on anything she says, which is why I stress that her comment can not be ambiguous. I am removing an edit that synthesises a comment into a statement of bisexuality, and I have also removed such categories. What Kylie is quoted here as saying is this: ""Although I have been attracted to women, I have never done anything with them." The comment is not given within any context so it is too great a leap to describe that she "came out as bisexual". The comment is attributed to Max Mexico whose lack of notability seems to be demonstrated by the fact that we don't have an article on it, and reported by The Sun, a tabloid. This is not even close to being acceptable. Rossrs (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Andres Segura

Her current relationship, which appears to have begun in September 2008, is relevant enough to her life to be added to this bio, However, the structure of this article makes it difficult to work out where it is best to mention it. This article has too little info about her personal relationships, even though some of them have been high-profile. Jim Michael (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Siblings

Who was born first – her brother or sister? We know Dannii was born in 1971, but sources give Brendan's birth year as either 1970 or 1983. Siblings' birth years are often stated in biographies. Jim Michael (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to current infobox image

I don't want to start a war, but is it totally out of the question to alter the background of the current photo in order to de-emphasise the guy with a tie in a Mercedes? I'm happy to do the editing if that's okay.  HWV258.  11:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(My apologies to User:HWV258 as I unintentionally removed this during a recent archive Rossrs (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

It's not totally out of the question. Free images can be cropped, enhanced, manipulated etc. If you do so, you should upload the changed version in Commons as an individual file (ie with a different file name, rather than "upload a new version of this file") and link to the original image. If you just change the existing image it will force the change onto all uses of the image across all projects. That's when other editors often object, and often quite strongly. If you give it a new name it will allow editors to choose between the two. If you update the image here to display your addition, it will only be a problem if users object here, but in my experience, unless it's a major change, people don't usually object. Some examples you could refer to are : File:Fanny Ardant 2004 cropped.jpg (if you look at the original image there was a bit of a man's face on the left side, kind of shadowy, and mainly I wanted to get of that) and File:Ralph Fiennes cropped.jpg (where the difference between the original and the update are more obvious). Again, I'm sorry for removing your comment. Rossrs (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Images used in the body

Are non-free images allowed on biographies? WP:NFC#UUI #12 seems to rule out any use of non-free images on Living person biographies: "Unacceptable uses of image, Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." I just need clarification :) 155.69.192.240 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There's some information at WP:NFCI which says that images that can not be replaced by a free image may be used and screenshots may be used if accompanied by critical discussion. For example you can't take a free picture of, for example, the "I Should Be So Lucky" video, so it may be acceptable. It gets down to "encyclopedic purpose". It's the sort of thing that depends on a number of factors, and a clear fair use rationale is needed on the image description page. When in doubt, such images can be challenged and then it comes down to individual editors commenting on their suitability. If a non-free image was used to show only what Kylie Minogue looks like, that would not be acceptable, so in the infobox for example it would always need to be a free image. Hope that helps, and let me know if it didn't ;) Rossrs (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationships

Why is there no mention of her love life? Her current boyfriend is Andres Velasco. Her past boyfriends were Jason Donovan, the late Michael Hutchence and Olivier Martinez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.88.22 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 July 2010

If you feel that the article can be improved, remember that you are free to do so yourself. However, if you are going to be adding content on Kylie's relationships, you will have to cite reliable sources that verify the statements you are adding; for example, if there is a news article from a reliable news organization that states the she is dating Velasco, you could cite that as your source. This is a must, especially for biographies of living people. Looking at the article, it does seem like quite a task to figure out where to put any relationships she's been in, since the content is organized like a timeline, as is mentioned just a few sections above this one. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this subject and is interested in doing so can add the information you speak of (unless you want to, of course – go right ahead if you are comfortable doing so). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Minogue (or anyone) notable for her "love life"? Donovan is mentioned, but not from a relationship point of view, Martinez and Hutchence are mentioned in terms of their personal relationships, so I wonder if you read the article. In any case, there used to be a section headed "Personal life" which was intentionally removed as part of a featured article review, in September 2009, because it seemed to attract too much gossipy information and was not what was, at the time, expected of a featured article. In the 10 months since it was removed, nobody has put it back, so I would suggest that if you wish to make such a change, it be discussed further here. I would support including information relating to each of the four men you mention, as long as it is well sourced as noted by User:SuperHamster, does not assume undue weight, and provided the timeline is not broken. I would not support the inclusion of a "Personal life" section. Rossrs (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Olympics

I've raised this pint before. In the intro to this article, it states that Kylie performed in both the Opening and Closing ceremonies of the 2000 Sydney Olympics. This is oncorrect. She only performed in the Closing ceremony where she sang ABBA's "Dancing Queen and "On a Night Like This". Cattona (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing attracts my attention quite like someone raising a pint! Count me in. You're right of course. I think the confusion is that while she performed at only the closing ceremony of the Olympics, she also performed at the opening of the ParaOlympics. I'll change it, but you know, with something like this when you are sure you are right, just be bold and make the change. Nobody could fault you for that. Rossrs (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph needs to be rewritten

The first sentence of the last paragraph doesn't make any sense: "During after the prosession of the cancer treatment, Kylie has told the press or has been heard that Kylie still is going under treatment, but makes her upset and leaves her sad saying "I can’t stand it, get me off this stuff" as she said to the doctors." The rest of the paragraph also has grammatical problems. Since I am not an expert on Kylie Minogue, I feel I should not rewrite it myself. I hope someone else can. ChezChas (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it rather than rewrote it. It's not relevant, takes material out of context and is kind of an obvious thing to report anyway. Does anyone enjoy chemotherapy? Is it a big surprise to learn that Minogue didn't enjoy hers? Not exactly useful in my opinion, at least not the way it was presented. Rossrs (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant that she stated this year that she is still taking medication to reduce the risk of her breast cancer returning, so I think that fact should be briefly included, but not phrased the way it is above. Jim Michael (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)