User talk:UltimateKylie

Kylie Minogue

Hi UltimateKylie,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Let's not get off on the wrong foot here. I wrote most of the Kylie Minogue article and I was the one that nominated it, and got it promoted to featured article status. I have done quite a lot of research. Here are my concerns : the lead paragraph should be a summary of the article that follows and nowhere in the article is it discussed that she is referred to as "Queen of Pop". This could be discussed at Kylie Minogue#Image and celebrity status and doing so would make a reference in the lead paragraph far more suitable. I encourage you to do this, because it is a valid point for discussion in the article. It only needs a few sentences, and a quote from someone influential in the music business or a music writer/critic would be excellent. Secondly, the article, and particularly the lead paragraph should reflect what she is widely or commonly known for, especially if titles have been bestowed upon her. If "Queen of Pop" is widely or commonly used by the media then it needs to be sourced to something that is much more reputable. I'm sure there are 100s of articles, a simple Google search will prove that - but the key is to choose one that is strong and convincing. In the article sourced, she is referred to as Queen of Pop, but it looks more like a throwaway description, designed to create a punchy, fanzine style of writing, than a true title and there is certainly no analysis of her standing in pop culture. If you've got 10 other sources, great. Use one that is more convincing because without a strong reference, the "Queen of Pop" moniker takes the article into fanzine territory, and that is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Also the placement is not appropriate. The first sentence should be about who the person is. If this should go anywhere, it should go towards the end of the lead paragraph. This is where her achievements are discussed so her highest selling bit, should go there. This is just to keep the flow of this section in more chronological order. If you want to discuss this further I'd be happy to, but I'd appreciate it if you don't simply revert my edits with a rudely worded edit summary. Rossrs 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think or say that you were rude to make changes. I welcome them. What I said was rude was your "do your research" edit summary. That was all. I explained in some detail why I thought it should be changed - if I was treating you with the disrespect you think I was treating you with, I would not have bothered spending so much time explaining it to you. Yes I've worked on both the Madonna and Kylie pages. I'm a fan of both, but prefer Kylie. I think the Madonna page is quite bad and I haven't edited it for a while as it doesn't interest me too much. I'm happy to leave it to people who care more about it than me. Besides, Kylie's article is featured. I've put it up for review once to ensure that it stays at that level or improves. Madonna's is not a featured article and has a long way to go so I feel there is less "urgency" in maintaining the integrity of the page. Some of the edits I made on the Madonna article were sourced, but some sections I rewrote to correct grammar, so I didn't source those comments. The mentions of Madonna on the Kylie page, are sourced though. You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about me. I know I don't own the Kylie page, and it was there before I came along, and I don't comment on most of the edits that happen there. But I feel that it's important I will. It's all to easy to paint me with the "Madonna-fan" brush. That's a cop out and just excuses yourself from thinking about anything I might say, but you could not be more wrong. Rossrs 02:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am sorry I offended you. It wasn't my intention, but I can understand why you were offended. I don't understand the Madonna/Kylie rivalry, or more correctly the Madonna-fan/Kylie-fan rivalry, so I don't buy into it. It's insane isn't it? I was amused when you made that comment, because of all the things you could have said, that was the most off-the-mark. Anyway, I know Kylie is called "Queen of Pop". She's also called "Princess of Pop", "Pop Princess", "Singing Budgie" and "bimbo with no talent" depending on who's talking about her, so I think that we have to be careful that the lead paragraph doesn't steer towards POV. I thought the way it was inserted into the lead paragraph wasn't quite right, and that was mainly because I thought the cited reference was a bit weak. I've explained that, so I won't bore you with repeating all that. If you have a look through the edits, which I'm sure you have, there have been numerous silly or pointless things added to the article over the last 2 years. I'm not the only one that picks these up, but sometimes it gets very frustrating and perhaps I act to remove them more hastily than I should. It's not practical to discuss every change before it's made, but ok, I take your point, any major deletion should be discussed. This is what I suggest - somewhere in the article some discussion about her being called "Queen of Pop" and I won't object to it being put in the lead paragraph also. You said you're going to think about how to work it into the article, and I think that's a very good idea. I feel that it belongs at the end of the lead section rather than at the end of first paragraph. I know you disagree but let me explain. I think the first sentence should be who the person is "X (born May 10, 1972) is a Venezualen fire-dancer".... I don't think it's necessary to give everything away in the first sentence. Then it should give a very brief career summary to explain why the person is notable and the path they have taken to get where they are. Then it should give an idea of what the person has achieved, and how they are perceived. I think saying she is known as "Queen of Pop" would actually be stronger at the end of the section and I also think if we deal with the section chronologically it's the right place to put it. ie she might be known as this now, but she wasn't known as it years ago. This is my opinion and I know I could be wrong, but it's also consistent with the format of other articles, (except for the Madonna article which I abadoned in despair some time ago). I'd be interested to hear what you think though. I'd much rather work with you than against you, and I hope there are no hard feelings over this. Rossrs 09:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)