Talk:Danity Kane

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

Untitled[edit]

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August 16 2006 5:52pm. WikiCheck 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

STOP![edit]

WHO edited the "members" section in the introduction of the page? Currently, it lists only "Shannon Bex, Dawn Richards, and Aundrea Fimbres" as members. Where did Aubrey and D.Woods' names go? there's no cite for this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.98.218 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danity Kane Tour Again[edit]

There's been a lot of talk that DK is going on another tour (im not talking about the MTB4 tour they just did with Day26 and Cherri Dennis im talking about another tour that DK is headlining with a bunch of other artists)...i just watched an interview w/ dk on youtube and they said "we're planning a new tour..we can't say with who yet but it'll be huge"...does anyone have any info as to who they're touring with, when, where, etc...?

Dawn's Vocal Classification[edit]

What would Dawn be considered. An alto, contralto, or mezzo-soprano?

Dawn is an alto sporano because of her 7 octave vocal range.

I don't think Dawn has a seven octave vocal range. In the show, it was revealed that she was having trouble reaching some notes because of her low vocal range. I think she would be a contralto.

Although a 7 octave voice is possibly, it is most ridiculous for Dawn. As said above, she did struggle on an episode to reach some notes. I would say the largest range that is could have is F2 - C6. She has a really really low voice as shown in the song "Still In Love.". She is possibly a Baritone to Mezzo-Soprano; maybe beyond.

Dawn is a contralto. It is impossible for her to be classified a person with a 7 octave voice because her lowest notes are in the 2nd octave, possibly F2, and in order for her to have a 7 octave range, she would hav to be able to sing into the ninth octave. She will have to be able to hit whistle register notes higher than even Mariah's whistle. For the most I will say that she has a 3-4 octave voice. It is ridiculous to even consider that she can hav a 7 octave voice without substantial evidence. (Trent Jones 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Having a seven octave range would mean she would be able to virtually reach any note that is on the keyboard. It is near impossible to have that range, even trained operas singers do not have that range. For classification of her voice: Soprano is the highest female voice, Mezzo soprano is interchangeable with alto for the second highest female voice and contralto as the lowest female voice. For men, (which to say she would be a Baritone is so ridiculous) Tenor as the highest male voice, Baritone and Bass. Dawn, is most likely a mezzo-soprano,

Season 3[edit]

I edited the part where it was stated the the band was formed on the third season of Making the Band, because really the band was formed on the second season of Making the Band 3.TPREX 18:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Really quick, This is the 5th installment of Making the Band. You have listed that it is the third MTB installment. It is the third installment using these girls. But not overall. The first installment was on ABC and created "O-Town", the second installment was on MTV and made "Da band" and the last 3 used these girls. - That means it's the third Making the Band series. Notice, Making the band *3*. It's the third installment, but each installment had multiple seasons.

Fan sites.. Delete or keep?[edit]

The article shouldn't be a list for fansites. Should they be deleted or kept? mirageinred 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Controversy[edit]

The "controversy" statement is completely wrong. Looking at both the Making the band show and the Making the Video, you clearly see that it is a flesh colored bra. This made no controversy in the news or fans. I believe this needs to be deleted. Dawn has also posted on her message board that it's not true. 


we should keep the fan-websites because they update their site every 24 hours.

Controversy[edit]

Who keeps on removing the "Controversy" rumors I posted about DK breaking up? Please stop removing this, this is an actual rumor about the band breaking up and has been reported by MediaTakeOut.com.

If you are the one deleting the "Controversy" section, please tell me why, if not, I will continue to add it again. Sorry.

-In response to the above unsigned comment - 

I think it is someone involved in their careers who has put this page together. That comes with

benefits like in-depth information and photos being provided, but it looks like they are savvy enough 

to keep an eye on their Wiki. The page looks written in a style that PR might use. I am not saying the

page's creator is deleting your comments but it does seem plausible. I have no idea what's going on with the formatting on this discussion page though! --Spesek 02:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true?[edit]

Is it true that, "Danity-Land," is there next album???

No. PEOPLE NEED TO SOURCE THINGS! This includes albums that may or may not have been recorded and future singles. Until then, I'm taking down this "Self Controlled" nonsense.

Rythem and blues?


they are not rythem and blues, there hiphop

buddy they are both hip hop and R&B and have you heard their balled songs such as "ride for you"?

Too Many Hater[edit]

There are too many people who hate to see people make it. Alot of them are attacking these hard-working girls. STOP HATING and deleting information about them. Just because your life is a lie doesn't mean Danity Kane's History is one also. If you think Danity Kane sucks; keep it to yourself. Don't hate. Its a waste of time and energy.Blueandgold200 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

bla lalkdsjalsklsaknfslnfsasfdg Dislike of someone is no reason to revert them. Sort yourselves out. Adam Cuerden talk 11:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks best the way I put it. Noboyo is pathetic and childish. 

JJH1992 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot-->

Image[edit]

{{Editprotected}} I would like to add Image:20060909 Danity Kane Chicago Signing (2).JPG to the infobox. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all related to the edit war, so done! Adam Cuerden talk 16:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danity Kane 2nd album edit?[edit]

Who edited DK's whole second album?? There was a link that prooved such an item and the information was correct whoever did it own up

CAN WE PLEASE PUT 'WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE'S' RECORD SALES BACK UP ON THE PAGE!!!

Members left?[edit]

There's been a load of unsourced edits recently about two of the members, Aubrey and Wanita, leaving. I thought I'd bring this to the talk page in case this is valid, or if it's just nonsense. I haven't heard anything about this, and a bunch of edits related to their leaving have been made. Acalamari 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a bulletin posted by member Dawn Richard, her bulletin confirmed the rumors that Aubrey and D.Woods have left the quintet to pursue solo careers.

This is directly from Dawn's bulletin::

"To answer all the rumors thats been out there about Aubrey and D. Woods pursuing their solo careers. We support them in their decision. However, myself, Aundrea, and Shannon are choosing to continue in our efforts to make Danity Kane the best for our fans who love us and what we represent AND the respect we have for our group. Thank you so much, and please continue to support!"

I added information and provided a link with Aubrey's now notorious TMZ.com street interview where she called out Diddy being neglectful and she talked about Danity Kane and joining the PCD and it was reverted. Some overzealous Danity Kane fan hellbent on keeping the group together?


This is for the person who changed the photo. Keep the photo of the three remaining members of Danity Kane but can you also post up the original line up somewhere on the page. Thank You. Appreciate it.

Thats Noboyo[edit]

He edits anythin and rverythin anyone writes on DK's page just undo it and report him if it is sourced.

Slang[edit]

"Kicked across the table" - is that some kind of slang? Also, the article says 7 girls were chosen just before it says 11 remains. Needs a tidy by someone who knows the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.176.103 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kicked across the table" should be changed to a more meaningful phrase ... I have no idea what it means here.
Kww (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing out loud. I changed "kicked across the table" some days ago. That was definitely some of the worst wording I have ever seen. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other part I did not even have to correct; it's been corrected for some time now. Flyer22 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break Up of Danity Kane[edit]

I think that the fan comments do not adhere to the neutral point of view rule. They present a biased view of Richards, and O'Day. Specifically there seems to be weight added to the fact that O'Day should not have left and that Richards has some negative involvement in her leaving. None of the opinions are from subject matter experts as Wiki's rules state. In addition there are numerous comments on MTV that state Combs was correct in removing O'Day from the group. Either this point of view needs to be added, or the stated opinions receive undo weight by being the only ones presented. Allisann (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments, as I have designed that paragraph, which is not very big, does adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. As I stated on my talk page, what you are going for is WP:CENSOR. And, specifically, that paragraph is not "more heavily weighted" to one point of view rather than another, and does not violate the neutral point of view rule. It relays both that some fans are angry about the breakup and others feel that the group will be as strong as they were before, which gets across the point that some are not broken up about O'Day and Woods being removed from the group. Of course, fans are not experts so their words should be applied carefully, especially when regarding living people, which is what I did. I made clear to note that they are fans and these are fans reactions gauged by MTV News. Not that I would feel that anyone is an expert about this breakup, anyway. I surely cut down the inflammatory tone of what is originally stated in that MTV source. You say "that there is no mention of the point of view that O'Day was correctly removed from the group (which does appear on the sites referenced)." Well, I point out that there is only one site (MTV) referenced in that paragraph, and that that reference does not state that some are happy that O'Day is removed from the group, which is why I did not relay that information. It cannot be relayed without a valid source. If you can found a valid source stating that some are happy that O'Day is removed from the group, then add it, though it should not be made to seem that it is coming from MTV posters...unless that source is actually saying/showing that it is coming from MTV posters. But why just focus on O'Day? Some people have stated that they do not care that D. Woods has been removed from the group either. If anyone is not being neutral, it is MTV in reporting what they did in that source. The point is...is that paragraph that I typed up does give both sides. When it was longer, it was a bit more uneven, but it is definitely neutral now. Just because it does not outright state that some are completely okay with O'Day and Woods being gone from the group does not mean that people will not/cannot grasp that fact by the statement that some feel that the group will be as strong as they were before.
As for being very cautious to add "somewhat inflammatory" points of view like: "Adding to the backlash Richard has received due to the breakup, fans have commented that the group should decline doing interviews about the matter; the feeling of no longer trusting Richard has been expressed." I will state that fans, in this case, watching a heavily edited reality program does not mean that the fact that Richard has received fan backlash should not be reported. It should most definitely be reported, seeing as it is a notable fact and relates to this breakup. It does not matter that fans are not experts on this topic because of their limited point of view. As if even the group members are experts about this breakup, seeing as they were/are confused, besides O'Day's new image, about the breakup of this group. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, this discussion is also on my talk page at User talk:Flyer22#Danity Kane Break Up. This is what has been further stated there:
I agree with this statement--"If anyone is not being neutral, it is MTV in reporting what they did in that source." And it's part of why I question why that particular source was used and challenge the neutrality of the paragraph. There have been other articles written by equally biased sources that state other points of view. The fact that this is the only one expressed in this article seems to give undo weight to certain opinions and doesn't reflect the multiple points of view on the topic. But if the solution is to write up all fan views on the opinion I think that would give undo weight to fan opinions in general. A simple: "fan reactions were mixed" probably would have sufficed. Especially considering some of the fans both aren't experts and disparaged a living person.Allisann (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used MTV because that is the first source I came across about the fan reactions. I did not bother to look for any more, because I did not feel that any other source was reporting on fan reactions to this breakup. I still do not feel that the way I presented that paragraph is biased. If there are other valid sources that state fans' opinions about this matter and as being happy that O'Day is gone from the group or okay with Woods being gone from the group, then I am fine with including that information. I do not, however, feel that a simple "Fan reactions were mixed" statement will suffice. Usually, after a statement like that, we state how fan reactions were mixed, exactly what the fan reactions were. Otherwise, stating that fans reactions were mixed is pointless. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Re: "Richard confirmed that the group was over, and confirmed that Aubrey O'Day, Shannon Bex, or D. Woods showed up for the taping of the current season" - I'm certain it was just a typo, but did the author mean "did not show up"? My instinct tellsme that Shannon did rejoin the group. Although it (MTB) isn't near as interesting w/o O'Day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.108.123 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakup Date!!!!!!!!! and other suggested inprovements[edit]

In the main box where the stats for Danity Kane are, there is the members section and the former members section. In the former members section it has D and Aubrey's name with, "(2005-September 2008)". I have a problem with that.

1. No other Wikipedia pages of this kind have the month of breakup on there.

2. The breakup was previously recorded. We are not specifically sure what month it actually happened.

3. Because of #2^, People will make guesses and it could be changed week after week, day after day, OR it will be left there, giving people false information.

I would change this myself, but I need to get feedback on this. Plus if someone decides to try to change it back, they will understand why it was changed in the first place. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pre-Season Finale" was actually filmed a week after fashion week in NYC (mid-September). The finale show was live. So it is actually correct to mention September 2008 as the breakup date.

OK.

Shannon Breaking From Group.[edit]

Yes, I did see the page on it at perezhilton.com BUT no one has added that to the article so until then, I'm gonna change the bar at the bottom of Danity Kane articles to show Shannon's in the group. I'M NOT JUST CHANGING STUFF, BUT I'M REVERTING THINGS THAT AREN'T CITED OR CONSIST OF PEOPLES OPINION AND NOT FACT. Thank You. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This point was actually uploaded on the page for a while, citing all over the article Shannon quit. However, she recently did an interview (October 20-something) saying she is still dedicated to Danity Kane, and hopes Puff brings back Aubrey and D, becuase "DK is 5, not 3!"

OK

Departure...[edit]

Does anyone else think the 'departure of Aubrey and D.Woods' section is a little too long? CandiceWalsh (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. We need all of this information.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockerkid15 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why? We dont need it atall, and it could be compressed into a smaller section. CandiceWalsh (talk) 19:24, 01 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we do need it all. All of it is vital information to the breakup of this group, and it is sourced (most with good references). I cannot see any good reason why it should be condensed. There are longer sections in articles on Wikipedia, but are also appropriately long. This section we are discussing is of appropriate length, and I do not see it as that long, anyway. It's not like it has gotten to the length of being devided into subsections yet. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Heyman comment[edit]

I have removed where it said former WWE guru and replaced it with ECW in regards to Paul Heyman as he was by no means a WWE "guru." He had regular friction with Stephanie McMahon and many of his ideas were shot down by her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.174.45 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference says "WWE guru"...we have to go with the reference, or remove mention of him being a guru at all and rather state his connection to the ECW. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article proposal[edit]

I had this idea because it would put the sections in order. Why dont we add the albums to the "History" section along with MTB and add the breakup as a sub-section to Welcome to the Dollhouse? It has been done to articles in the past. Think, It Danity Kane continues, that album section will grow. Then after the album section "Departure of D. Woods and Aubrey O Day"? Thats out of chronological order. Well I'll put the version in my sandbox. Find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IHelpWhenICan/Sandbox.IHelpWhenICan (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not a bad proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current image[edit]

I note that several times, the picture Image:20060909 Danity Kane Chicago Signing (2).JPG has been replaced several times due to band members no longer being part of the group. However, they have been replaced with fair-use images, which are not free, while 20060909 Danity Kane Chicago Signing (2).JPG is free. As far as I'm aware, free images are not supposed to be replaced by fair-use images, hence the restoring of the free image. Are there any free images of the current line-up of Danity Kane available, rather than fair-use? Acalamari 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FROM THE ASHES?[edit]

Where has it been stated that their 3rd album is "From the Ashes?" CITE THINGS PEOPLE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.83.210 (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reforming the article.[edit]

Some of the sections need to be revised and gone over, esp. "Departure of Aubrey O Day and D. Woods". The information seems out of order. This is because I reformed the article a while back. I didn't change the text within because, well, then you couldn't call it a minor edit. But before I rearranged it, I did put up my idea on the talk page and I recieved positive feedback. Anyway maybe we should split the section into 2 sections, one called "Break-up Rumors" This could enter as a sub section of the "Danity Kane" era and then have the actual break-up info as a sub section to the "Welcome to the Dollhouse" era.IHelpWhenICan (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of doing the suggestion mentioned above and putting the content of the article into chronological order. Hopefully, all the information makes much more sense in its relation to the section it is featured in. TJ 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I can't believe you changed the article..everyone specifically was saying "NO!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.83.210 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


where did the picture go to go along with the section. i thought it made it look more aestheically pleaseing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.9.41.222 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Departure of Shannon[edit]

Why was my link deleted. Shannon is no longer in the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneshyguy46 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a whole bunch of news a while back saying Shannon was leaving, but then she released a statement saying she was still in the group. They deleted it because it was one big rumor...IHelpWhenICan (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
F.Y.I. People, PLEASE GET AN ACCOUNT IF YOU PLAN ON EDITING!!!! A LOT OF YOU MAKE MISTAKES, THEN WE TRY TO TELL YOU, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT SO WE CAN'T TELL YOU!!!! THEN YOU MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!!!! IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND IT'S FREE!!!!! GET AN ACCOUNT TODAY!!!IHelpWhenICan (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The news was new to me and I placed the article. My bad. Thanks for the reply. Oneshyguy46 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Current activities: The future of Danity Kane" section[edit]

People keep making changes to this section using reference 32 when the reference doesn't any of that! If everyone agrees, I will search for the correct version in the archives and put in for the section. DO NOT "TAKE THE LIBERTY" OF DOING IT YOURSELF! You might do it wrong, or you don't understand what I mean! Please leave responses to this telling me what to do. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection?[edit]

This article has been vandalized by random people every other day and it's getting on my nerves and probably yours too. So, what I suggest is that we semi-protect this page.

  • F.Y.I. Semi-protection=only autoconfirmed users can edit this page.

Don't worry! Pretty much every user that doesn't vandalize pages are. Let me know and let me know fast. I will put out the request. Please dont do it for me or tell me when you do. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Danity Kane is still a group I know these things because 1. look at the trailer they're altogether just shannon, dawn, and aundrea. 2. If you look at the first episode real carefully Day26 has a concert in london it says October 26, 2008 or something like that well Danity Kane was at the Jet night club Nov. 15, 2008

They are just trying to keep this hush hush so more views on MTB but Danity Kane is a group watch the video.

FYI, unless it is a confirmed by a valid source that they are still a group, we cannot put that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Added a Little bit and From the Ashes 3rd album data[edit]

I contributed a little to the Danity Kane article I found that it was valid seeing as how all members will be at the finale and if it is really the end. SO no deletion, very valid. Thanks!Icevirgo99 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3rd album leaked by Visa possibility of validity is not verified or neither disproven because of the proof reported, time will tell of the 3rd album is true or if a valid source cpmfirms this but in the meanwhile leave it allegedly for the time being DO NOT DELETE soruce found is valid but no other proof of evidence is found.Icevirgo99 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. It is not cited, therefore it holds no weight, at all. There is no proof that they have reconciled at all. IF IT IS NOT CITED, DON'T BOTHER. The proof comes on tonight at 9. We don't write random rumors here at Wikipedia. We write the truth, cited and all. You can't believe everything you hear. You can write whatever, as long as it's cited by a reputable source. For example, I had a very reliable resource saying that D would not be returning. You know why it's not in there? IT WAS ON MYSPACE (BLACKLISTED URL). But you know what? I lived with it. Therefore, the whole point of my paragraph is to tell you, If it was true, the news would have picked up on it by now. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we know, turns out Icevirgo99 was wrong about a third Danity Kane album anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rise and Fall of Danity Kane[edit]

I wanted to write the special episode summary on this page don't worry I have watched the episode twice by now and I think that I could get the experience by writting this summary. Some people say that this article is redundant but I think think it is actually benefitial to why they broke up and what was going on behind the scenes. Have any opinions about this PLEASE make a talk page instad of deleting it and PLEASE instaed of deleting it please edit it so that it doesn't seem so redundant. Thank YOU!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevirgo99 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not redundant. Adding what you added in would be. What you typed up is an entire recount of what this article already states. Besides that, the wording needs to comply with how we write here on Wikipedia, such as going by the last names instead of their first names once their full names have already been mentioned.
I saw nothing in that special that I did not already know and that the article does not already basically state. It also did not clear up exactly why they fell apart...because the group itself does not even seem entirely sure on that and has different reasons why. In any case, if we do include your section, it needs to be cut way down and does not need to be a section. The only parts of that special that I see this article does not note is Aubrey and D. Woods becoming the "Ivory and Ebony" clique, Aundrea and Shannon becoming a clique of their own, Dawn mostly hanging with boyfriend Q, and where it says all members received some blame for the breakup, except Shannon, and the part about Danity Kane being the first female group in Billboard history to debut their first two albums at the top of the charts. I can add in that record-breaking feat for this group in the lead.
This article already notes that Aubrey and Aundrea were best friends and that the show was basically about them at first, that Aubrey emerged as the show's breakout star, how the group came together, the group's success, rumors of a breakup, solo projects, Aubrey and Aundrea's friendship becoming distant, etc. This article notes it all. It is not our job nor encouraged by Wikipedia to go in depth about these things, especially the parts based on speculation. But I feel that this article already goes in depth enough about all this.
Big changes like you did should be discussed on the talk page first. Not included and then discussed. That is one reason your section about this should stay removed until we talk it out. The other reasons are what I just noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I still feel that it should be included I get your point. Still it is all up to the users on wikipedia to revise and edit this as they want to at the moment i will give you guys that freedom.

"On April 30, 2009, a special titled "The Rise and Fall of Danity Kane" aired on MTV. The special was an in depth story showcasing how the group came together and broke apart. Starting with the first competition series of Making the Band, Didddy was making his international pop superstar group. Searching state to state he found Aubrey and Aundrea who would make it into the group, since he didn’t like the lineup he had in front of him the first season only those two would make it into Danity Kane and get a reprieve for the next competition series. The next series, Diddy did another statewide search for his popstar group. This time he would find Dawn, Shannon, and Wanita (soon to be called D.Woods). Aubrey started to stand out even during the competition with taking the photo shoot of Blender’s hot 100. During the competition, Aundrea stared to falter and Melissa Smith who later was in Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll was presented in this episode to take Aundrea’s place in Danity Kane. But, it was through Aubrey’s and Aundrea’s friendship that Danity Kane was based upon. Done, with the competition Danity Kane members started to get to know each other and acquainted with the other members. There the first problem arose, although be known to the group the separation between Aubrey and Aundrea became one of the factors of their demise later with the “Ebony & Ivory” clique (Aubrey and D.Woods), Shannon and Andrea clique, and the newly formed relationship between Que and Dawn. During the first album Aubrey was getting cut from most of the tracks and then doubted her place in the band of the self proclaimed album Danity Kane, which toped the U.S Billboard 200. Aundrea felt the price for Making the Band with the break up of her then boyfriend Rudy. After the tour, management between the band fell through and then rumors of breaking up were rampant. One of Aubrey O’Day’s interveiw also which may have been taken out of content made rumors of the band breaking up not beneficial to Danity Kane (joining Pussycat Dolls,the hiatus of the group, and solo projects).Through the second season Danity Kane was placed in the studio, but the thing that concerned Diddy was Aubrey O’Day’s appearance (which later would be a factor in the break up) appeared to him that her image had drastically changed since the first time they had met in Los Angeles. The King magazine shoot was also variable to their demise, cause to the whole group’s surprise two covers one with all five members of Danity Kane and another with just D.Woods shocked the group. Welcome to the Dollhouse became a hit on the Billboard yet again breaking historical records of having the freshman and sophomore album to do well. Aubrey not happy with her situation of her apperance in the band began to look for happiness in solo projects such as taking photo opts alone from the band and taking up her part in the Broadway play Hairspray, and with that shows which were meant to include all members were left with the other four. But she wasn’t the only one D.Woods began her work on the Girl’s Club, and it was believed to be true the rumors of Dawn starting a solo career with Diddy, which at the “Crossroads” episode of Making the band seemed to be a rivalry or jealousy between Dawn and Aubrey. Aundrea missing her family also started to distance herself from the band and with Aubrey’s unhappiness and the discontent in the others were apparent especially to Diddy. With the personal solo vendettas, division in the group, discontent, lack of trust and communication the band was at its end and would rarely be seen together as Danity Kane with all five members. Some blamed Aundrea, Dawn, Aubrey, and D.Woods but Shannon was the only one without major criticism of the break up. At the live April 23, 2009 finale it seemed that a reunion of the band would take place but inevitably what was seen was the ending of the group. Danity Kane themseleves don't seem to know the reason for the break up, but what Danity Kane left behind was a legacy of chart topping hits that would mark the record industry forever. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevirgo99 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be included. And I gave valid reasons why above. I have seen no valid reasons on your part for why such redundant information should be included. The only information that should be included, if we are to include any of this, is what the article does not already note.
As a compromise, just a few minutes ago I did include a little bit of information that is not redundant...and that is the part about the friendship cliques and insecurities. Flyer22 (talk)
Icevirgo99 is satisfied with this compromise, as stated on my talk page. There, I said that I will later incorporate other little small things from that special, but not at the End of the group section. Stuff like D. Woods doing a solo King Magazine cover after the Danity Kane King Magazine cover belongs in either the Rumors of disbandment section or the Departure of Aubrey O'Day and D. Woods section (which ever time they appeared on those covers). Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reforming and other edits[edit]

I am confused about this edit and recent similar ones adding a non-existent image to the article as well as stating that they are still active. I am also confused about this and other strange edits to the Danity Kane articles. I have done some searches and have found nothing to confirm the band coming back together. Is there anything I am missing or is this just vandalism? Acalamari 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of members[edit]

This is not a big issue, but I'm starting this discussion so that people's thoughts about it are noted on this talk page and especially if it comes up in the future with other editors. During these tweaks, ShadowRanger changed the order of the members. Though I thanked ShadowRanger for those tweaks, I later changed the order back with the assertion that "it's better to go by the order they were chosen because it helps keep people from ordering them by their favorites, and because O'Day is still the most recognized of the group." I didn't notice ShadowRanger's order change until around that time. ShadowRanger changed the order in the infobox back to his or her version, but left the order in the lead as is (and I thank ShadowRanger for compromising on that). ShadowRanger's reasoning is: "Alphabetical order is standard."

I know that alphabetical order is standard practice in general. But with regard to Wikipedia, I only know it to be standard practice for lists and matters such as the See also section. Is it standard for the infobox as well, since that is sort of like a list? If so, is it the last name we usually go by first? Maybe Acalamari, another common editor of this article, has an opinion on this matter? Or maybe IHelpWhenICan, who used to edit this article a lot...but currently only edits Wikipedia sparingly? Or maybe Neptune's Trident, who edited the article today? Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And considering that MelanieBrown changed the order in the Members section (a section that was added today), I feel that my creation of this discussion was timely. As for this change by Bellatrix Kerrigan, yes, I agree that "comprising of" is terrible grammar, but the text stated "comprised of." I'm not sure if "comprised of" is terrible grammar, considering that there is debate about it (for example, Googling the matter shows that). Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any opinion on the member order at this time but to clarify one thing: My edit summary was an error. It should have said: "comprised of is terrible grammar". I've always understood "comprised of" to be a redundancy as "comprised" essentially means "composed of". I'm not aware of any debate over this. (By the way, Bellatrix Kerrigan is my alternate account: I'm Acalamari!) Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 21:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't really a comprise :P The order of names just doesn't really matter in the article itself. For list purposes (infoboxes, templates, etc) it should have an appropriate order and for names that is alphabetical. --Shadow (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just now read these replies some minutes ago; I put off reading your reply, Acalamari, until now. And ShadowRanger replied some minutes ago, so I felt that I might as well see what's been said in this section. I definitely didn't know that you are Bellatrix Kerrigan, until I read your reply. As for the debate about "comprised of"; yes, it exists. See this Google search, which also includes the User:Giraffedata/comprised of page. I've spoken with Giraffedata before about the "comprised of" matter, as seen here. I've also commented on that essay page. Not sure why Giraffedata got rid of some of the comments there and on his talk page about the "comprised of" topic instead of archiving them.
ShadowRanger, I see what you did there with the "comprise" mention, LOL (if that is what is meant by the :P). I was also thinking about how the spelling of compromise is similar to comprise; goodness knows I've accidentally spelled compromise as comprise more than a few times. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I see that IHelpWhenICan ‎is retired. So I struck through the sentence that includes that name above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aundrea's Status[edit]

I should have started this days ago, but the Aundrea issue needs to be straightened out. I don't mean to come in and act like I'm on my high horse and all, but a current group member means a member that is active with the group. Something that Aundrea is doing. It doesn't matter if she announced that she is leaving, that doesn't mean she is not longer part of the group at the exact moment unless explicitly stated, and it doesn't matter if she is not featured on Lemonade. It's been fairly obvious and confirmed that she will be completing the No Filter tour - aka being active with the group. It was even confirmed that Aundrea was at the recording sessions for Lemonade even if she isn't featured on it. This shouldn't even be a heated issue. The tour ends in one week and then she will leave. Until June 5, she is a current member of the group. --Shadow (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Danity Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Danity Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Danity Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Danity Kane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Not a bad page for a newcomer to the music industry, but needs to watch out for anyone adding rumors without a reference. It might be helpful to describe the way they were marketed or to describe their musical style. mirageinred 01:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest changes[edit]

I reverted these changes by Moonlighttt (talk · contribs) because, like I stated, "The lead image should be the image of the entire group, which is what they were more well known as. They are not as well known as a trio, and the reunion was a bust." I made this followup edit afterward. For the lead image, I do not see how it is an improvement to present the trio as the group. If the group were currently a trio, I would be open to that image as the lead image. But, as of right now, this group is over, and their success came with all five, not three. I feel the same way about changing the lineup.

Acalamari, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your rationale for keeping the image with the five of them. Danity Kane is gone and their success came as the five, as you've said. We don't have to use newer images for the sake of it when an older image is more illustrative. Acalamari 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Acalamari. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Danity Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danity_Kane&oldid=1206875812"