Talk:Lindsey Stirling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Bots 3; Humans 0

OK. Let's talk:

1. Why is there a Wikilink to Lindsey, a government unit in Lincolnshire, England, pointed to from "Lindsey Stomp", an EP published by Lindsey Stirling, when the two have nothing to do with one another?

2. Why was Reference [11] changed from a valid one to a completely broken one?

3. Why was the header "Discography" changed to several things, and finally "Career Timeline", when it references only the music Ms Stirling releases, but not, for instance, her videos, making the latter all-encompassing header not very accurate.

That's why everyone is allowed to edit? Well, guess what: I fixed all these, and the fixes were promptly undone by a Bot. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with the Bot, but I really think these ought to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.89.81 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Thanks to Straykat99 for re-making these changes. Let's hope they stick this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.89.81 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Le doy hasta que el Chavo no tenga más hambre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.138.131 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lindsey stirling.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lindsey stirling.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Spontaneous-me-cut.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Spontaneous-me-cut.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Shadows-cut.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shadows-cut.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Electronic-Daisy-cut.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Electronic-Daisy-cut.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lindsey-image.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lindsey-image.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

HS

Anyone know what high school Lindsey attended? —Eustress ^talk 03:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a video posted on a Mormon youtube channel recently where she may have talked about her life in High School, but I'm very unsure if she ever mentioned the name of it. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 05:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

From her face book page:https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/59239_560447463987445_1092491844_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.73.141 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, so perhaps Mesquite High School (Gilbert, Arizona)... but any reliable sources that can confirm? Wearing a school shirt is not definitive... could have been a sibling's shirt. —Eustress ^talk 21:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Other songs

If somebody would please add her renditions of "The Phantom Of The Opera" and the theme from The Lord of the Rings" movies (both released in 2012), that would be great since the beta article editor isn't working right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschoenborn (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

These songs are not notable as they are not official singles. This should not be a collection of all works by Lindsey Stirling, but only list officially released singles and albums. If we include every video Lindsey Stirling has created or contributed to, the list would be a mile long, so there must be a line to draw, and notability is that line. :) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott, If you are worried about long listings, it is probably time to create a Discography and perhaps a Filmography article (or section for Filmography within the Discography). Stirling's music video, "Phantom of the Opera" is a well done piece of performing art with 9.5 million views in eleven months and "Lord of the Rings Medley" has over 13 million views.

Until someone has time to create the Discography article, I'm opposed to any effort to limit the number, or type, of the artist's published works documented here because the edits will be useful when moving the entries to the Discography. 009o9 (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Youtube has always been an issue on Wikipedia. The issue is that it's social media. And while extremely popular, individual videos/channels hold zero notability on their own, regardless of popularity. "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." (from WP:BIGNUMBER). The fact that the videos have received millions of views each is not a reflection on the videos' notability for Wikipedia inclusion. The songs have never been released as a single or on an album; which, I might add, is grounds for inclusion to a discography. If a separate list is going to be made of all the works created by Lindsey Stirling, it should not be a Discography, as that list will be about the same size as what's included here in this article. Instead a "List of recorded words by Lindsey Stirling" would be more appropriate, but also risks deletion due to lack of notability.

Anyway, as I ramble (I tend to do that), the point I'm trying to make is that millions of views do not make these officially released singles by the artist, nor does that make them notable. And that is why I have removed them from the list of sourced singles directly from the independent label's official website. If the videos are that popular, there should be news articles about them, or other third party sources which would only then give them notability enough to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIGNUMBER discusses WP:Articles for Deletion, not individual works, unless of course, the article is about the individual work. In Discographies and Filmographies there is no requirement that each work be notable, just that the subject of the discography/filmography is notable.

Discography is the study and cataloging of published sound recordings, often by specified artists or within identified musical genres.

For the establishment of the general releases in a discography – that a certain release exists, was released in the first place, and is a part of the artist's body of work – general sources, as opposed to in-line citations, are sufficient. For additional non-contentious facts such as release date, record label, and catalog number, general sources are also acceptable See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#General references 009o9 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Slapping a video onto YouTube does not make that an official "release", and again, this is not a discography article. "General sources are sufficient": this article has a general source, that being the official record company, and it does not list these songs. (and you may want to take it easy on the text formatting, holy crap) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Official Label" has one artist and one album. Bridge Tone Records is a single officer LLC with a single page website, an email address and phone number. How is this even close to the credibility of say iTunes, which is always referenced on the YouTube releases? Perhaps the Discography section in this article should be renamed to "Selected works".

Faq "iTunes content provider FAQ"

Stirling "Lindsey Stirling on iTunes page 1 of 2" 009o9 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Because iTunes is not a record label. Virtually every song created by every artist is available on iTunes, that does not make every song in existence a "single". Lindsey Stirling is simply "partnered" with iTunes to allow them to sell her music in cooperation with her record label. The fact of the matter is that YouTube artists, while popular, do not hold as much notability as their popularity suggests. The discography section here includes only those songs which have been officially released by a record label and are sourced properly according to the guidelines that you posted above, anything more than that becomes listcruft (which the lightly-monitored "collaboration" section has become). If you want to create a separate Listed Article of all works associated with Lindsey Stirling then by all means make one, but without any sources other than a link to her YouTube Channel or her iTunes listing, it won't hold much notability in the eyes of Wikipedia, as it too becomes listcruft (a list with no other purpose or meaning but to exist as a list). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments are weak and disproven, your resistance makes it appear that you have some interest in a specific sales-channel where you may have an interest. What exactly is your interest in this artist and the works that you will allow in this article you are nesting on? If you have a problem with the iTunes template, nominate for deletion, iTunes simply acts as the label and the distributor. The iTunes external link is directly relevant to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 009o9 (talk • contribs)

If you wish to discuss your accusations of conflict of interest, please see your own talk page. I've repeatedly stated that the "singles" list on this article should contain only "singles". The two songs presented for inclusion here have only been released to social media (YouTube), and a downloading website (iTunes). There is no evidence either of these songs are official singles from the record label as the section is sourced. That's the only point I'm trying to make, and the only point I've stated in everything I've said in this discussion. This is not a mud-slinging debate, this is a discussion. You have not given any evidence that these two songs are any different than the multitude of other songs released by any other artist to be called "singles". I've given you a suggestion to start a List of the collective works of Lindsey Stirling if you so choose, and that it is not appropriate for this article here. I'm not sure what else you want me to say. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So what makes your link to the sales catalog site "lindseystirling.mybigcommerce.com/music-singles-1/" any different from the iTunes sales catalog site? Other than mybigcommerce being less inclusive? Your protectionist and deletionist stance makes me wonder if you are connected to your reference site or running a redirect in the reference, because you don't make sense otherwise and your argument sourcing is illogical. (BTW: Which label are you talking about LindseyStomp?, Bridge Tone Records? Joypad Records?)

Discographies and Filmographies are not Lists they are catalogs and therefore not Wikipedia:Listcruft, Listcruft is also an Essay not a Policy. Wikipedia:Essays are not policy Please examine Template:Infobox artist discography for details of what is inclusive in a discography, you will find that music video and performance video are included.

Are you aware that Stirling is also a dancer and performing artist? Why again (wikilink source please, not your opinion) should mentions of official performance video be excluded from her biography? (Networks like CNN crap their pants when they get a viewer ranking of 10 million for a 4 minute piece.) Excluding performance art like "Phantom of the Opera" (Bridge Tone Records) and "Lord of the Rings" just because they are not on your list is quite perplexing.

There are multiple definitions of "Single" -- does your definition have an A side and a B side? In my mind, a "Single" is simply a finished work that is introduced into the market for sale with the proper copyright credentials, obviously your definition of "Single" has some caveat attached that you are not communicating. (Tons of hit singles have been released without ever releasing an LP or EP and it is commonplace today because the market is for songs not albums.)

Do I need to ask your permission before I do the work to reference Stirling's 21,000 seat performance with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Saturday night? If you are going to delete it, why should I bother? Do we need some sort of notification template on talk pages as to what editor feels s/he currently "owns" an article? These are non-controversial edits that are the body of the artist's work, I wasn't aware that you had moved in and taken over and that a half-hour update would require an all day discussion.

I'm not sure that you understand the significance of what Stirling has accomplished, she is one of the early break-through artists coming from YouTube, owing to her successful YouTube campaign. see Forbes article The preconception that all YouTube is bad or irrelevant is not true and is not Wikipedia Policy for artists and actors. Wikipedians are going to have to get over this YouTube is not credible misconception or the industry will leave them behind. 009o9 (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sections

Inviting discussion of whether it's time to add Sections to this article. Perhaps something like:

• Early career
• YouTube
• Artistry
• Tours

Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO: I'm all for improving the article and keeping it up to date -- I just hate to see other people's contributions deleted, rather than improved, as was happening before.

As discussed above, the article would probably benefit with a separate Discography article for albums and a Filmography might be appropriate for YouTube and music video details. (I'm sure soundtrack work will soon follow.) Perhaps, "Tours". should just be a line or paragraph in the career section, but there is also the artistry, costumes, choreography to consider, so the paragraphs might get long -- no worries.

As for the an "Early career" section I found an unofficial video at Lindsey Stirling Spirit Award winner at 2005 America's Junior Miss for her Jr. Miss win, perhaps citing Template:Cite AV media from the media without a link would be the way to cite and avoid copyright concerns. As for her time with the Charley Jenkins Band, I was hoping it would come up in an interview and make life easier. The only references I've found are unofficial YouTube, some self published. 009o9 (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Lindsey's interview on Larry King Live is available (from Hulu) on IMDb. Larry King Now Full Episode (YouTube Music Stars)

Update I added a couple of references, for Junior Miss and Charley Jenkins tour, removed cite needed tags. I guess that with the new interface more people are able to drop off factoids without providing references. The touring information is looking pretty rough.009o9 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think that a video, weather posted on youtube or not should be put on here when it was professionally made? It is not like she is some hack posting videos of her cat jumping into a box... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.7.226 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, Stirling's video works are notable, I grabbed a copy of Stirling's video content that was deleted from this article a while back, I'm planning on doing a separate Filmography article, but it is behind some other articles that were already on my todo list. 009o9 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

009o9, I started the videography, maybe you can 'snazz' it up, I am still new to this editing thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSplash1 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

KSplash1, it is a nice wikitable; however, I'm planning on doing a (separate) Filmography article because there is so much content. A list of videos was deleted from the biography a while back. I'll go ahead an un-wikilink the titles (which don't lead to articles about Stirling) we'll see if someone takes out the list again. Again, there will probably be less controversy about the notability of Stirling YouTube content if it is in a separate article. 009o9 (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There with either be less controversy, or the article will be deleted outright for notability issues or something else. I would suggest writing the article in your userspace (such as at User:009o9/Sandbox), getting an uninvolved review of the material, and only once approved move it to the main article space. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunster, I didn't make the edit, I was asked to clean up a bold edit by an (apparent) new user, which I have done. There is no controversy here, we have been discussing ways to make the article(s) (bio, filmography, discography) conform with the deletionsist's dictates. Stirling has 4 million enthusiastic YouTube followers, a lot of people "drive by" and drop off factoids without references, which I try to keep an eye on -- documenting facts has been the extent of my involvement in the article. The article itself has been progressing nicely since another editor stopped dictating what works would be allowed in the article. 009o9 (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about...you mentioned writing a filmography article, I was simply suggesting doing it in user space rather than immediately committing to article space. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The thread tonight started with someone (IP address) noticing that none of Stirling's videos are mentioned in the article (due to a recent deletion) another user put together a wikitable, added it to the Stirling article and then asked me to clean it up. I do have a draft filmography article in my userspace, but I'm busy working on other articles, so I fixed up the table that KSplash1 created. I just figured we would wait and see if the YouTube content gets deleted again.

On the other hand, I was conveying that there is no controversy here, everyone is getting along just fine now, and there is no reason to nominate the article for deletion. 009o9 (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits by 31.221.88.90

User 31.221.88.90, please provide references or documentation for the edits you are making. I undid two of your last three edits. In the Americas Got Talent series, she did describe herself as a hip-hop violinist. Watch the video:Youtube Hip-Hop violinist. Also recommend that if you would like to continue as an active editor that you register and create a username so that we can talk to you via your talk page. Nyth83 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Shatter Me"

At Talk:Shatter Me (album), there is a discussion about whether to split portions of Shatter Me into a new article entitled "Shatter Me". Please feel free to join in the discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

I feel that there is a need to quote from WP:BLP here:

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

BLPs should not have trivia sections.

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

Nyth83 (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you quoted this policy. This is specifically in response to the mentioning that she dated fellow YouTube celebrity Devin Graham for a brief period of time. This has been covered in multiple reliable sources and not a contentious fact. The first quoted section does not apply as well as the beginning of the third quote down as it's not "gossip".

The article does not have a trivia section so the second quoted sentence does not apply. Details about their personal life include past relationships does not count as "trivia".

The only argument for removal of this information is under the rationale on whether it is "trivial" or not (disinterest to the article about the subject). This is not a "right to privacy" as initially mentioned as both made this information public to the reliable sources they published. Interestingly, both Lindsey and Devin publicly released in this information on their blogs or interviews at the time making it common knowledge in the public domain. :I'm going to use the article Brad Pitt#Relationships as it's a featured article and highlights the common practice of including information about past relationships of celebrities thus denoting a community consensus that it's not considered trivial to the subject. Mkdw^talk 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is contentious here as this relationship information has been repeatedly added to this article in a very improper manner in what constituted vandalism in the past. Browse though the last few years of edits to see how many times it has been added and then deleted. Many of the times by anti-vandal bots. It is also completely irrelevant to her musical career except for this incidental relationship as her video producer. I would not care to know that she held hands with a boy on the third day of first grade either. If we are not going to make a list of everybody that she has ever had as a boyfriend or dated or was seen in the public with, then NONE of them should be listed. If she were a socialite like one the of the Kardashians, then MAYBE this information might be relevant. Brad Pitt is not a good example either as his notability is not built on just his acting career but his tabloid social life also. This is not the case with Lindsey. Nyth83 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article about gossip you wikilinked to also. ...gossip spoken without a constructive purpose (known in Hebrew as an evil tongue, lashon hara) as a sin ... even if retelling true facts.. Nyth83 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it interests you or not. Reliable sources have reported it and it's commonly included information on celebrity biographies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid rationale to removing content with a reliable source. Additionally, content now, isn't dictated by vandalism, or on how many times it was incorrectly added in the past. It now has a reliable source and directly relates to the subject. Lindsey is a celebrity like and like any other celebrity their personal life generates interest and thus coverage on their relationship and her eating disorder, etc. Reliable sources determine what is notable and noteworthy, not editors. Mkdw^talk 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is verifiable does not mean that it MUST be included. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. You have only proven that it is verifiable, not that it is relevant. You have not gotten an consensus that it should be restored either, you just did it on your own. You have also not addressed the Presumption in favor of privacy section of WP:BLP either. Nyth83 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You realize the quote you cite above in from a subsection under "Deletion of BLPs" and is about articles being deleted. It even says, "discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article". That whole section is clearly about restoring deleted articles and does not apply in this case. You've changed your rationale several times from vandalism to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The privacy issue was brought up earlier and it doesn't apply either. It's not contentious, commonly done in biography articles, and she publicly disclosed the information. The rights of privacy are to protect subjects of contentious material where they have been victimized. Mkdw^talk 19:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I never stated that IDONTLIKEIT. Only that it was trivial, irrelevant, and not constructive. You were just unfortunate here to step onto a hot button in this article. There is more info from past versions of the article that could be re-added under this section. Also, don't you think that the first line under the '2013–present: First World Tour and Shatter Me' should be moved to this section and also reworded to not be redundant? Nyth83 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I believe that they are no longer in that 'relationship' but you neglected to include that information. 20:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyth83 (talk • contribs)

I think we got off on the wrong foot. We're both here to make the article better. I realize this may have been a hot issue in the past which is why I want to do it right this time around.

Editorially speaking (leaving the policies aside) I think readers are interested in the lives and relationship of celebrities. I too dislike it when Wikipedia becomes a tabloid, but in this case, it was knowledge made very public. Their lives are in the entertainment spotlight. Other featured biography articles (the benchmark of quality and status quo) include personal relationships so I think the choice to not include them is perhaps a statement suggestion they're not "big enough" to have that information included. I personally believe the standard should be the same for all articles regardless of the subject's popularity. If Stirling ends up getting married or ends up with a long dating history like Brad Pitt, then choices will be made then. The fact that they went to university (both in film making), attended the same church, worked together, and has been the only publicly disclosed relationship make me inclined to report it until she gets married or something more significant occurs in which the reliable sources will be weighted then.

In terms of the Shatter Me album, I was just looking at that. There's certainly some cross over between personal life and her career. Depending on the content it can be mentioned twice as long as one time it's in relation to her music, and the second about her support for those facing eating disorders. I'll also look back through the article to see what content has been removed and if there are better sources to have them included properly. Mkdw^talk 20:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for a source that confirmed they ended their relationship but haven't been able to find one yet. Mkdw^talk 20:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the WP:3RR rule, there also seems to be a need to review WP:CON and WP:BRD. I just don't understand some of the vandalism that goes on. Good faith or just sloppy editing are one thing, but I just don't get the juvenile mind set with some edits. When you go back through the edit history, you will see a lot of edits and reverts in regard to where she was born, where she grow up, where she lives now, etc. One editor even changed her place of birth place to New Zeeland. As far as her relationship with Devin, I don't think it was anything dramatic like a breakup. More to do with being apart while she was on tour or them living in different cities or something. Nyth83 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the parentheses around the second sentence in the first paragraph are needed. Nyth83 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I found an article in the Toronto Star that actually talks about them being a couple and how it affected their work. In terms of vandalism, I have spent years fighting it. While my work in deletion policy moved me into performing administrative functions, I began as a new page patroller and vandal fighter. I spend time at WP:AIV. Anonymous collaboration brings all sorts of people out of the wood work. If you ever run into vandalism problems in articles, you can always drop me a line and have me check it out -- especially on this article where it seems like vandalism is a persistent occurrence. Stirling may be that "big" that the article may need semi-protection. Mkdw^talk 20:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

That was a good article from the Star. What is the first step in semi-protection? Can you just block all IP edits from unregistered users? Nyth83 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch the article for a few days and see how it progresses. The policy is at WP:PP and the steps are at WP:RPP. Generally it prevents editors and IPs who are not autoconfirmed from editing an article for a short period of time. Mkdw^talk 03:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to come in random spurts. There will probably not be anything in the next few days. It is just my observation that a large majority of vandalism is from anonymous IP users. Nyth83 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Born

What city was she born in? The Listed 'Orange County', is beyond vague and needs to be updated College Watch (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just located it on the web and will reference it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by College Watch (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Thanks! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) -- Answer: Santa Ana, California.

Faith?

Lindsey was recently featured in an interview on Mormon.org and in her own "... and I'm a Mormon" clip. As of this writing it's actually on the main landing page of Mormon.org. It's not exactly clear how much of this is Lindsey's original content (or if it was extensively edited by the LDS church) but it deserves a mention on this page. The page would really be enhanced by some facts on her Mormon faith. Just noticed her missionary work is mentioned. Not sure if there's anything new here, but check it out. http://mormon.org/lindsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:104:2C00:1BF:19A:9BB2:DDA6 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2013‎ (UTC)

{{done} --Done, thanks —Eustress ^talk 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, her portrait photo is beautiful, again on the home page of [www.lds.org] and the linked article is a video and interview readers and editors will find interesting, FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC) -- Reference: https://www.LDS.org/youth/activities/missionary-work/learn-about-and-experience-missionary-work/face-to-face-with-lindsey-stirling?lang=eng

Here is her quote on a new LDS promo page: "Hi, I'm Lindsey Stirling. I am a violinist. I love playing games, spending time with my family and eating cereal. [video] and I'm a Mormon!" [1] Her text fills a page: 1. About Me; 2. Why I am a Mormon; 3. How I live my faith; and 4. FAQ/Answer: Do you really believe there is a prophet like Moses alive today? -- AstroU (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your point about this? The article already mentions that she is Mormon and that is not the source of her notability anyway. Nyth83 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For editors that are interested, there is a mountain of personnel and professional information that Miss Stirling provides. -- AstroU (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC) -- PS: She speaks and performs for one hour!

Talk pages like this one are for discussions about the Wikipedia article itself, and how to improve it. This is not a forum for general discussions about the subject of the article. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I watched the interview video and there is a lot of information that would improve this article. -- AstroU (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the signature in the infobox?

I don't think the signature should be placed there, if at all. There's a reason the infobox doesn't have a signature field. It's been discussed here, here and here. The consensus in each case is that the signature adds nothing of value. I moved it out of the signature and into the main text as a thumbnailed image, but that was reverted because my opinion is insufficient. In response to this, I've made this post. So, should we keep the signature, move it into the main text, or remove it entirely? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You stated you moved it because you thought it was a bit jarring. I thought that I looked a bit cluttered and jarring when in was jammed into the middle of a paragraph in the article. She is an artist. I think that her signature is interesting looking. Someone took the time and trouble to scan an autograph and upload so we should not take lightly messing with their edit. I read the links to the discussions that you posted and there was no strong logical arguments in any of them and no references documenting any of the opinions stated. There are many elements that define a person and Wikipedia is oriented around documenting factual information. It looks to me like a signature is a documentable fact and does nothing to detract from what defines her as a person or as an artist. No different than posting a photo. And Wikipedia loves photos. I feel that unless someone can give good evidence that it is harmful for the signature to be there, it should stay. Just my opinion. Nyth83 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course there isn't 'evidence' for that, since this is based entirely on opinion and is subjective. My argument is that the infobox was deliberately designed without a signature field, so by putting one in manually like this is misuse... Either way, I'm simply asking for other opinions, so thanks for your input. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Nyth83 on all points. It was jarring in the middle of the infobox. But at the bottom, it's fine. And, personally, I prefer more content vs. less. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I never saw it in the middle of the info box. The edit I saw, that I felt looked funny, placed it by itself in the middle of one of the paragraphs in the body of the main article. If you look at the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions you will see that I intentionally used several of the tropes there in my paragraph above (e.g. Begging for mercy, I like it, It's interesting, It doesn't do any harm), and Pingumeister (unintentionally) used some of the others (Just does not belong, Just pointing at a policy or guideline, I don't like it). My point is, this is really a minor edit and while there is a culture in wikipedia to 'boldly edit', I don't think that means that you should change things, especially just for aesthetic reasons that do not change the content, just for the sake of changing it. Again, that is just my opinion and not Wikipedia policy. If someone REALLY wants to change it again, I will NOT get into an edit war over this. I spend enough time dealing with real vandalism. You look at the revert history of a page like Chevrolet and you wonder where all those <bleeping> nutcases come from. Nyth83 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm hardly in the mood for an edit war either. I just thought it could do with some discussion... -- Pingumeister^(talk) 23:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Frecklefoot. I was about to quote WP:IINFO but actually it's not all that relevant. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 23:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be absolutely no evidence of any kind in any reliable published 3rd party source that this is, in fact, her signature. Given that, and the serious BLP/privacy/identity theft issues involved in publishing the signature of a person (if it is indeed her signature) we should be extremely cautious about this sort of thing. I went to commons to see if they have a source, and they do not. Indeed, the uploader tagged it as "Own work" - which is clearly false, since the uploader is not Lindsey Stirling. Assuming that the link to her website suggests "I nicked it off her website" I did a reverse image search at Google and found it only at commons and en.wikipedia.org. I cannot be certain, but a natural conclusion is that the signature is not valid. But even if it is valid, it is unsourced and unencyclopedic. It should be removed. (As should virtually all signatures in Wikipedia.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum - further research turns up two additional facts. First, a comparison to sales of random things she has apparently signed which are for sale on Ebay, this signature does bear a significant similarity to hers. Where the uploader at commons got it remains to be seen. Second, an even more compelling BLP reason has emerged which I had not seen before: a direct complaint from the subject to commons, here: Commons file talk page. That commons does nothing about this sort of thing is no surprise - their ethical standards, however, are insufficient for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree with not having signatures on here, there are many many problems with it due to counterfeiting, identity theft and so on. I actually think the signature doesn't look much like hers at all; theres a passing resemblance and thats it. That said, nothing proves that the person sending the message via the person posting on the talk page is actually a representative of Stirling. JTdale ^Talk 07:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Addenum - I am going to send an email to Lindsey Stirling's public contact email about this matter and see what we get back. JTdale ^Talk 07:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Well I suppose it's always good to have Wikipedia's founder on your side. Having said that, I never really considered the possibility that it might not even be her signature. Thanks for clearing it up, Jimbo Wales. Also, does this mean that signature fields shouldn't exist in any infoboxes? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 08:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure which 'side' you are referring to. My original revert that brought up this discussion was your arbitrary move of the signature. Which is a very dead horse now. The other issue here is the appropriateness of even having the signature anywhere in the article at all. In this case, I can see how the issues of forgery and identity theft are valid concerns and I would readily support removing the signature and in which case we seem to all be on the same 'side'. The (undocumented) assertion that People have been using it to create their own products... is very concerning. I also would like to know what the copyright situation is with signatures. Are all signatures of a person copyrighted as a group or does each individual instance have to be copyrighted? I also am not clear why the statement under the Permissions section that This signature is believed to be ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it falls below the required level of originality for copyright protection... is applicable here. The is believed to be phrase is pretty weaselly. I have no interest in a college level course in copyright law so a reference to a basic explanation would be best. Nyth83 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum I reviewed the page Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag but it looks like the phrase If the signature is sufficiently complex to be considered a protectable artistic work... may be key here in my opinion. Again that makes it a judgement question but it would seem to me that it would require that it be removed from commons. Nyth83 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In reference to Jimbo Wales's reverse Google image search for the signature image. I believe the reason for the failure is that the image type is an SVG file. In commons, it renders to PNG raster format but the underlying file data is a line drawing. If you look at the line below the image This image rendered as PNG in other widths: and hit the 2000px link you can see clearly that it is not a scan. It appears to have been vectorized. This brings up another issue in that I believe that this is definitely NOT qualify as her signature as it will not contain any information like velocity and weight that would be used by a signature expert to verify a signature. It is, at best, a facsimile and at worst a forgery if it is simply labeled as 'Lindsey Stirling signature'. Which it certainly is not. Nyth83 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps 'side' was the wrong word. I didn't mean offence. In any case, yes, you're right, my original point is a dead horse. I'm glad it caused more important discussion though. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah sugar. I didn't even realise Jimbo Wales was the Jimbo Wales. Oops.

Anywho, this is what I sent to Lindsey Stirling's contact email (my email address and name is what is blacked out); http://oi60.tinypic.com/okyf.jpg

I got this from Lindsey Stirling's official email address; http://oi57.tinypic.com/jfc2md.jpg

This seems to indicate it isn't copyrighted but it is trademarked, which is another kettle of fish. JTdale ^Talk 19:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how it was actually uploaded by her assistant, huh. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused. The assistant was the one who posted this. Jesmar]] from the french wiki was the one who uploaded the image. JTdale ^Talk 19:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have deleted the file in the English Wikipedia, should it be deleted from the six other Wikipedia pages that display it? File usage on other wikis Nyth83 (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum Here are the US Trademark registrations for her signature.

1. U.S. Trademark 85,828,519.
2. U.S. Trademark 85,828,533 They are not exactly the same as the vector file on commons because you can see the variable line weight like it was made from a 'live' signature. Nyth83 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Currently, (as of this date), there in no signature in the article, FYI;  Done -- AstroU (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindsey Stirling 2012/2013 Tour

For those interesting in Lindsey Stirling, there is an ongoing draft for her 2012/2013 Tour: Draft:Lindsey Stirling 2012/2013 Tour. Much of the information is from copy-pasting the 2014/2015 Tour article, and needs to be replaced. Alex|The|Whovian 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Too Long

This article reads more like a press release or a fanboard than an encyclopedia article. Cut it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.4.203 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Negative. There is no such thing as a article that's too long. Think it should be improved? We're not your slaves. Alex|The|Whovian 17:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that I agree with way the drive-by stated it, but Stirling's Discography and Filmography could be broken out into a stand-alone article. Somebody already did an article for the 2014/15 tour, 2012/2013 looks like it has enough material for a stand-alone article, I wonder if that editor has started an article for the earlier tour? 009o9 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I had begun a 2012/2013 article in my sandbox, but never got around to finishing it. One day. Alex|The|Whovian 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I have an unfinished discography draft that is getting dated and the user-space administrators want me to finish.009o9 (talk) -- 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of content could be off-loaded to the Shatter Me (album) article, and a couple of song articles are probably in order. It looks like the Discog and Filmog would almost be just a paste job. However, Stirling's success came from YouTube videos, seems like there should be a section dedicated to describing her video work -- a lot of it is self-produced. -- 009o9 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a Discography article in progress User:009o9/Lindsey Stirling discography, needs some text, but otherwise it's identical to the current version at this time. --009o9 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to make you notice that the Videography part is incomplete. Lindsey Stirling has exactly 67 videos (by now) on her channel. I agree that not all of them are music videos. For example, missed "Star Wars” and "Child of Light". I wasn't sure about adding them into the main article, because there are already many videos added, but if there will be a separated article, I can (or somebody else) surely do that. mrDoctorWho 05:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to work directly on the draft I have going. I was kind of looking around for discography and video related passages to move to those sections (in the bio) so they are not just empty sections with For more details on this topic, see ... template. --009o9 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A new one posted April 3, already 450,000 views. Lindsey Stirling - Into The Woods Medley something to do with Disney. -- 009o9 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be completed. --mrDoctorWho 07:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply - I have split the discography to Lindsey Stirling discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Some references are seem to be broken. And, by the way, why did you decide to create a new article since there's already one in progress by 009o9? — mrDoctorWho 17:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply - @MrDoctorWho:, if you would like, I can delete and userfy the existing discography page if someone plans to create a new one soon. I was not aware that a discography page was being started in user space. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jax 0677, Honestly, I'm not sure that both articles are enough encyclopedic. I don't say your article is bad or it should be deleted. Now I'm just repeating the above words: need to point out that Lindsey's success came from YouTube (is there a proof or something?) in that article. Also this version has Stirling's photo. I would like to wait until 009o9 comes. Perhaps they have something to add. — mrDoctorWho 18:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's great, I'm sure that the article is long enough that it needs to be split and there's no problem with Stirling's notability IMHO. I believe I have the Template:Infobox artist discography, however it is dated/incomplete working in (User:009o9/Lindsey Stirling discography) if somebody wants to grab it. BTW: the section headings will need to match what is in the infobox to work correctly. I added the Article Main template to the Discography, and the discography infobox is pretty important. I don't have much time right now, but glad to see progress -- 009o9 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discograpy article

I added the discography template to Lindsey Stirling discography, but the section headings had to be changed and must match the template. I had no luck making the alias options work. See Template:Infobox artist discography -- 009o9 (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)