Jump to content

Talk:Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz

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

Redirects

[edit]

I created the following redirects, which may be expanded if any of the tracks become notable enough for their own article:

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hook?

[edit]

Anyone familiar with the DYK process interested in submitting a DYK hook for the main page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Template:Did you know nominations/Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Studio album?

[edit]

Is this actually Miley's fifth album? It doesn't count towards her multi-album contract with RCA, it was released for free on SoundCloud, and most Miley fans are calling it an EP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronboy123 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An EP is called an EP because it's smaller than a studio album. If anything, this would be the complete opposite of an EP because it's generally much longer than an average studio album. But in regards to your question, it is a studio album that Miley independently released. Just because it wasn't part of her contract doesn't suddenly make it not an album. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Critical Reception Section

[edit]

It's pretty obvious that a Cyrus fan just recently added every positive review they could find into the critical reception section and, given the fact that most reviews pertaining to this album have been mixed or negative, the critical reception is extremely lopsided in favor of Cyrus. Someone needs to go through and weed out the excess positive reviews and present a more accurate representation of the album's reception by adding some of the mixed reviews that make up a majority of the response. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further point: this section is also completely unorganized. It's a gigantic mass of text, and the reviews haven't been sorted by their relative positivity or negativity (although this brings us back to the issue I've raised above, as there are barely any mixed/negative reviews listed and it would be extremely difficult to organize this section in its current iteration). Reece Leonard (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A third issue: The album is currently listed as having received 58 on Metacritic, signifying mixed reviews. Furthermore, a majority of the reviews listed are mixed. I've had my issues with the ways in which people classify "mixed" and "positive" on this site before (I had an extended argument several years ago over the classification for the reviews that the album ARTPOP received), but this is a cut and dry case of "mixed" being absolutely appropriate. Several IP users (or a single user with several IP addresses) have attempted to add an introductory sentence that says something along the lines of "this album received polarizing reviews" in an effort to offer the album some credibility (I assume? I guess albums that are polarizing are somehow better than those that receive a mixed response?), but so far these edits have been unsourced and poorly worded. This is an inappropriate phenomenon and should be reverted when seen. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre tags

[edit]

The amount of genres listed for this album is excessive as hell and overlap (I mean there's 6 and most relate to being psychedelic.) There's no way we need more than 3 genres listed here, now which 3 are the most appropriate? That'd be an interesting debate haha... Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you think that there are too many genres (WP:OPINION), they are all sourced and it's okay to have them in the infobox. Aria1561 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While they're all sourced it's both an eyesore and redundant. Art pop and experimental for instance mean very similar things therefore there's no point in listing both. Same goes from psychedelic rock, psychedelic pop, and space rock. Why list 3 different psychedelic subgenres when just "psychedelic" would probably say just as much. Plus if it's both experimental and psychedelic pop, isn't it obviously art pop? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Art pop and experimental may be similar in some cases, but are they the same? No.
Psychedelic rock, psychedelic pop, and space rock are not psychedelic subgenres as "psychedelic" isn't even a genre. It's a musical style. All of those three are genres on their own.
Finally, experimental + psychedelic pop =/= art pop. If it did equal art pop, then psychedelic pop wouldn't have its own article. Aria1561 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Mrmoustache. The number of genres listed for this album is completely ridiculous, and a majority of them don't actually fit album at all (art pop being the most egregious offender). I'd also like to point out that it doesn't matter whether or not a genre is sourced unless the album has been referred to as fitting into that genre several times. If we listed every genre that every critic assigned every album on this site, the info boxes would be unreadable. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, "...and a majority of them don't actually fit album at all" = WP:OPINION
Second, the topic of this regards this article only, not "every album on this site"
Third, are you telling me that the infobox looks unreadable in its current state? Even after I moved all the sources into the prose? Looks just fine to me. Aria1561 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was saying that if we included every off-hand remark in regards to any album's genre that a critic makes, we'd end up with an endless list of genres. And no, it's not an opinion. Finding one source for several genres isn't in the best interest of the page. We're supposed to list the genres that the album in question has been labeled as most frequently. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to? Says who? Aria1561 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a common sense issue than anything else. It's messy and inconsistent to have a plethora of genres listed on an album's page, especially if the genres have only been named by a single music critic/journalist. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not messy. The genres are well-organized through only three lines of text. Seems to be affecting only you and Mrmoustache14 at the moment. Aria1561 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As synthpop is now added to the mix. I feel like that one isn't even relevant to this album.... are we adding "avant garde" soon or how about "electronic" ?Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen; you don't understand. You can't just add fifty different genres to an album's page. It's unreasonable. Mrmoustache and I are trying to point that out to you and instead of listening, you added yet another genre to an already unwieldy and excessive list of genres. The genre should be limited to one or two listings. As Mrmoustache has already said, you're adding genres that are already extremely similar, thus making their inclusion redundant. This album does not fit the genre of "art pop" simply because one critic referred to it as such.Reece Leonard (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check your facts first before you assume that I did something because I did not add synthpop, but rather I did a re-organization and ref fix for it. And I don't see good articles or featured articles doing it the way you're saying we should do it. In fact, I see no articles doing it that way. If you can list me some, that'd be great. Listing FAs or GAs doing it, even better. And just because you think one critic calling an album a certain genre doesn't mean they're automatically incorrect. You can always add a [dubious – discuss] tag to a genre and then have a talk page discussion on whether you think the critic is dubious with their judging of the album. Because right now, you saying that the album isn't art pop is your own opinion and your own point of view. Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how hard you looked because what I'm talking about is extremely common:
1) The Fame 2) The Fame Monster 3) Born This Way 4) Teenage Dream 5) Rated R 6) Talk That Talk
Etc. etc. etc. Look at the albums for any of her pop contemporaries and a vast majority of them list out one or two of the most appropriate genres in the genre section and then expand upon those original genres in the composition section. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, taking this into consideration, I've changed the main genres to experimental pop (combining experimental, alternative pop, art pop and synthpop) and psychedelia (combining psychedelic pop, psychedelic rock, and space rock). Hopefully this should be better. Aria1561 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's great. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that this issue has been resolved :) Aria1561 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the genre from trying to summarize genres. That's not appropriate as we have to summarize what kind of music is being made through sources that we do not interpret per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I've changed it now to reflect the prose in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklist

[edit]

Everyone is saying Miley announced on her instagram that the album tracklist was changed... I can't seem to find that post, but the OFFICIAL credits of the album (on Miley's page: mileycyrus.com/credits) still list "Cyrus Skies" as track 11, but it's true that they changed "Miley Tibetan Bowlzzz" from track 22 to track 21.--188.78.146.46 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

[edit]

Thank you for expanding this article. I have requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, just to have someone review the article and make sure it complies with the manual of style. This is something I do whenever I plan to nominate an article for Good status (I mean no offense!). ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

[edit]

A valid point raised above as well, is this really describable as a "studio album" since she released this independent from her record label and for free. I'd rather use the term mixtape, which have recently been used to describe "full-length albums released for free". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?

[edit]

This article looks pretty solid at first glance. Are there any editors familiar with its content who are interested in considering a Good article nomination? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre edits

[edit]

So a while back, I made an edit adding "psychedelic pop" the the genre infobox, and altered the composition section (as the two sources that in my opinion, proved it was a psychedelic pop record were in the composition section. The first of which was a NY Daily News article which said: "The star’s new album — announced and released simultaneously, at the end of the MTV VMAS on Sunday — offers a psychedelic pop pastiche". The second of which stated: "Sure, this album is long, indulgent and occasionally cringeworthy – ‘Fuckin’ Fucked Up’ is precisely as throwaway as its title suggests – but aside from a couple of dull existential ballads towards the end, Cyrus keeps you gripped with her psych-pop anti-bangerz celebrating peace, love, sex, weed and masturbation.". There were two more sources that I found that backed this up: a musicOMH source calling the album "a sprawling, often sloppy, occasionally transcendent amalgamation of psychedelic pop filtered through a decidedly 21st century lens." and a New York Times source calling the album "an album of psychedelic pop with Wayne Coyne". I'm not sure what the consensus is, but I think if we added these as references, maybe it would stop the edit warring. Otherwise, we should come to a consensus so we can stop the article's genre edit warring. Much appreciated, --Aleccat 13:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has had its moments, but overall it's not that big of a target for genre warring. I think the bigger problem is that some editors seem to think that just because psychedelic pop is already listed, that that makes listing "psychedelic" by itself redundant. It's like saying listing rock is redundant for an album if pop rock is already listed. They're separate genres. An album can have psychedelic pop songs and plainly psychedelic songs. Again, there'll be IPs and newer editors debating it's even psychedelic pop to begin with, and others who may even find some other sources that state something else about the album. Adding further refs won't really stop disagreement. Ss112 13:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many influences, that it should be left as experimental and psychedelic. Plus, this has been discussed before by a larger group of editors, and a discussion with two editors can't override that. Fan4Life (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying this discussion is "overriding" anything. Aleccat already added the genre a month ago. The previous discussion, #Genre tags, is not a consensus. It's a few different editors saying "I'm doing this". There is no consensus above for just experimental and psychedelic. I see Aria1561 saying they would add "experimental pop and psychedelia", actually. Regardless, that's not a consensus. It's just that nobody particularly objected. It's changed since then. Ss112 13:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it is. The last discussion ended with the consensus of just having experimental and psychedelic under genre. You don't seem to understand consensus, when all or most editors in a discussion agree or simply do not object to a course of action, there is consensus. Fan4Life (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand consensus perfectly, thanks. However, the consensus you're claiming exists doesn't exist. As I just pointed out and as any editor can read under #Genre tags above, Aria1561 essentially said "I will put experimental pop and psychedelia' in the infobox". That's not agreeing to put "experimental" and "psychedelic" on the page. Those are two different sets of wording. Someone obviously objected and re-worded it after Aria1561 added those (and it wasn't Aleccat; the wording had changed before they added psychedelic pop). Therefore whatever consensus there was does not apply, because we are at a different set of genres than what was established. A new one would need to be reached. We should maintain the stable set of genres that are currently on the page. Ss112 15:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of that discussion, there is a post from an editor saying that they changed it to experimental and psychedelic in order to stick to sources, but ultimately still abiding by the consensus that several of the influences overlap and don't need to be included. Still doesn't change the fact that Aleccat took it upon themselves to add psychedelic pop without discussing it, especially when it had been agreed not to include multiple psychedelic genres in the infobox. Fan4Life (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Andrzejbanas removed "psychedelia" and left experimental only: 1, 2. Nobody discussed re-adding psychedelic. Not everything requires consensus. Editors make WP:BOLD edits. It's when they are reverted that consensus is required. Ss112 15:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted the addition of psychedelic pop. So now consensus is needed. Fan4Life (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article was stable for a month. The last stable edition of the page is retained until consensus is reached. I'm not going to continue this debate. Don't continue to remove it, or I will get an administrator involved because it's already an edit war and it should not go any further. Thanks. @Aleccat: Not sure if you want to continue on here? Ss112 18:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just not continue the debate and leave the discussion as their is no consensus for this change. I have already stopped reverting, I'm following procedure. Until there is consensus, this discussion must continue. Fan4Life (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: @Ss112: If this discussion isn't continued, I will revert to the last agreed upon version of this page, i.e. without psychedelic pop in the infobox. Fan4Life (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: If you wish to be reported for persistent edit warring after four blocks for the same thing, sure, go right ahead. Nobody is obligated to continue discussing after their position has been made clear. WP:CONSENSUS cannot be reached between two people who disagree. Other editors need to have input as well. Ss112 01:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't threaten me, I stopped reverting a while ago, I am entitled to object to a change I disagree with, especially when it wasn't discussed first. Fan4Life (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't threaten to do something in the first place then. "I will revert" is a threat. Also, nobody said you weren't allowed to disagree with a change. Ss112 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fan4Life: I don't know what there is to add here. "Psychedelic" and "psychedelic pop" are two different things, and while one is certainly inspired by the other, that doesn't mean putting one in the infobox negates the other (or in the composition section). In response to the above discussion as well, "A star-spangled ride through sugary art-pop, space-rock and the absurd." doesn't equal space rock or art pop being the album's genre, the EW source calling the genre alt-pop is just listing that as one of the elements of the album ("Dead Petz is a remarkable accomplishment because Cyrus appears to have grasped all of her potential at once: there are Hot 100-ready sugar bombs, psychedelic departures, rugged rock, and throbbing alt-pop that immediately makes the year’s other best pop record"), same for The Guardian/synth-pop ("Cyrus uses this album to tackle the extreme highs and lows of love and death, careening from crisp synthpop and trap to a woozy, buzzing psychedelia"). What's odd is that the Billboard source lists the album as psych-rock ("Cyrus has made a 23-song, purposely strange psych-rock record"), but the Wikipedia article says the album contains "elements of [...] psychedelic rock". That's an inconsistency as well, and that's OR. Aleccat 17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: This is the reason that the genre tags were left as just experimental and psychedelic. The genre of this album is so hard to pin down, and so many have been suggested, the outcome of the previous discussion was to have general genres in the infobox, rather than quite specific ones like psychedelic pop, instead putting those genres as influences in the music and lyrics section. My point is, the album has been referred to as many genres, but experimental and psychedelic cover them all, they give an overall picture of the album. Fan4Life (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: But to have 3-4 genres isn't excessive and isn't OR. Aleccat 23:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: Your missing my point. What I'm saying is that the genre is so hard to pin down, and experimental and psychedelic cover them all, so there is no need to include any others. Plus, including psychedelic pop but none of the other genres the album has been referred to as is giving weight to one source but not others. Anyway, unless more users get involved and agree, you don't have consensus for this change. Fan4Life (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: No, I understood your point just fine, I just don't agree with it. Which is why we need consensus. Aleccat 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: But my point wasn't about having 3 or 4 genres, it was about including specific genres when the album's genre is so hard to pin down and so many have been suggested. Including just experimental and psychedelic goes with the general consensus among sources, they all refer to the album as either those genres or similar genres. Fan4Life (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: I'm almost positive that's not the "consensus among sources", and I'm pretty sure that's why we're debating, which is why a vote needs to be started for actual consensus. Aleccat 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: But adding pscychedelic pop is giving weight to one source over others, if we include psychedelic pop, then we have to include all the genres that the album has been referred to as. Fan4Life (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: Right, so there would be psychedelic rock, psychedelic pop, psychedelic, and experimental. Aleccat 22:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: There would also be alternative pop, art pop and space rock. That would be 7 genres, which is far too many. This is why only experimental and psychedelic should be included. Fan4Life (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: No there would not be, that's not what I'm arguing at all. If you read any of my above posts, you would understand what I'm arguing: add to the infobox genres that are cited as not just being influences/elements, but the album itself. The Billboard sources and the sources in my original post cover psychedelic rock and psychedelic rock. That is all I was arguing. And they explicitly call the album, as a whole, such genres. I am arguing for 4 genres to be put in the infobox: psychedelic rock, psychedelic pop, psychedelic, and experimental. Aleccat 21:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: There would be, because there are sources referring to the album as those genres. Including psychedelic pop and psychedelic rock but not alternative pop, art pop and space is following some sources and not others. Fan4Life (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: They are not referring to those as the album genres, if you read anything at all that I stated. Aleccat 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: DIY refers to the album as art-pop and space-rock. Fan4Life (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A star-spangled ride through sugary art-pop, space-rock and the absurd." does not equal art pop as the album's genre, or space rock. You don't even get what I'm saying at all and you're arguing over things that I never included in my arguments. Aleccat 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: Don't patronise me. You're arguing for the inclusion of a genre that is already covered by the inclusion of psychedelic. Adding psychedelic pop is pointless and is giving weight to one source while ignoring others. Experimental and psychedelic are enough, there is no reason to add any other genres. Fan4Life (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: That is not ignoring other sources, it's simply being more specific. Also who was patronizing you? I simply was defending my argument which was being misconstrued. Aleccat 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the genres listed in infobox and composition section

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to include. Iffy★Chat -- 15:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a sourced genre edit in adding "psychedelic pop", but it was reverted, because certain people were not happy with it. The issue, from what I gather, is that "psychedelic" covers "psychedelic pop" as a genre. On another note, I also argued that "psychedelic rock" and "psychedelic pop" should be added to genre, as there are sources that I listed on the talk page that explicitly call the album these genres. Should "psychedelic rock" and "psychedelic pop" be added to the genre in the infobox and composition section (with sources)? Aleccat 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: The Billboard article contradicts the Pop Matters article. Billboard says that "Miley Cyrus Leaves Pop Behind (For Now) on Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz", however psychedelic pop is a subgenre of pop. In fact every source that refers to the album as a non-pop genre contradicts it. Also, Billboard is the only source calling it psychedelic rock, which isn't enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. Experimental and psychedelic are the only genres that are cited by multiple sources and are not contradicted by other sources, so only they should be included in the infobox. Fan4Life (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a month, consensus has been reached and psychedelic pop is a fusion genre anyway. Aleccat 19:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: From the page psychedelic pop, "Psychedelic pop is a pop music subgenre in which musical characteristics associated with psychedelic music are applied to pop songs." It's not a fusion genre. Fan4Life (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fan4Life: Okay, well if you'd like to change it, you could take a consensus poll and discussion. :) Aleccat 20:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleccat: You already did an RfC, only two users who weren't previously involved in the discussion commented, so I don't believe it is the best course of action. Fan4Life (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Re-opening an RFC on the same issue as one that stopped receiving attention and had a clear consensus is disruptive. Iffy★Chat -- 15:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is dispute over whether to include psychedelic pop and psychedelic rock in the infobox. The argument for including them is that there are sources supporting them. The argument against is that including multiple psychedelic genres is unnecessary, there is only one source for pyschedelic rock and that several sources contradict the sources referring to the album as psychedelic pop, including the source for psychedelic rock. Should psychedelic pop and psychedelic rock be included in the infobox? Fan4Life (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the album dedicated to Miley’s mother?

[edit]

From the album; “Miley Cyrus And Her Dead Petz, we might have a few questions regarding the topic. The song “Twinkle Song” talks about dreams- possibly about her mother meaning she misses her mother, and in the hit song, she says “I had a dream that you were dying.” This could have been a dream that was actually not a dream, instead trauma from the tragic death of Miley’s mother. It could have been a shout out to her. It also states in the song “Pablow The Blowfish” that she did not want her blowfish to grow up, scared that ‘Pablow’ wouldn’t be safe, wanting ‘Pablow’ to stay small, which could mean she didn’t want her mother to age, and pass away. It could have also been about herself not wanting to grow up, stepping into the real world, about how she felt at a younger age. But since “Twinkle Song” is most likely about her mother, “Twinkle Song” and “Pablow The Blowfish might have been connected to Miley Cyrus’ mother, and “Pablow The Blowfish” might have been a dream that meant that her mother was ‘Pablow’. 187.202.152.141 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MILEYCYRUS STILL ALIVE AND ALL ABOUT MILEY CYRUS

[edit]

IS MILEY CYRUS STILL ALIVE AND ALL ABOUT MILEY CYRUS 24.47.130.118 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miley_Cyrus_%26_Her_Dead_Petz&oldid=1209062579"