Talk:Living Lohan

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

WHO KEEPS REMOVING SOME OF THE CAST MEMBERS, CHECK THE SHOW'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE.....WHEN YOU GO TO THE "cast" SECTION, YOU SEE, THAT ALI,DINA,NANA,CODY, AND JEREMY ARE THE FULL CAST VERY CLEARLY.......SO STOP VANDALIZING AND DONT REMOVE THE FACTS

PLEASE DONT REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE PAGE..CAUSE ALL IS FACTS, I REMOVED THE CAST SECTION IF THAT WAS THE SECTION THAT WAS BOTHERING U........BUT THE REST IS ALL FACTS, AND SHOULD STAY......SO DONT REMOVE THEM.......

Brexx, this is a free encyclopedia and anyone can remove that information if they disagree with it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why was the summaries of the cast removed? what does POV mean?OOC OCD (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where i can find the total amount of viewers for the first episode....OOC OCD (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the basic rules of and terminology used in Wikipedia you shouldn't be editing articles.

You can't copy information verbatim from the website.

Do not list numerous executive producers. The main producer should be the only one listed.

Recaps of episodes should be added only AFTER they air.

Please don't change links to other Wikipedia articles.

Do not add images that do not have proper rationales.

67.78.143.227 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh shut up....theres nothing in this article that can be conisered vandalism.....and all the producers should be mentioned by law, AND THERE IS NO RULE SAYING " Recaps of episodes should be added only AFTER they air." SO, STOP CREATING YOUR OWN RULES.......THE IMAGES ARE PROMOS FOR THE SHOW, AND SHOW BE HERE B****.....

JUST GO AWAY....I WORKED HARD ON THE ARTICLE, AND IM NOT GONNA LET U TO SIMPLY DELETE MOST OF IT....GO VANDALIZE ANOTHER ARTICLE...U SHOULD BE BLOCKED...

OOC OCD (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's lock this page[edit]

And stop all this crap that's going on. This page (and the talk page) needs MAJOR revision. 68.8.104.62 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television[edit]

OOC OCD, please refer to this page and read all of it carefully before editing Living Lohan again. You have ignored practically every guideline for writing a television article that exists, and also have broken several major Wikipedia rules regarding copyrights. Everything 67.78.143.227 said above is accurate. Furthermore, your rude attitude on this discussion page is not acceptable and will not win you any points. Thank you for cooperating. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the Way Around[edit]

Why do these posters keep adding the song to the article? This is supposed to be about a TV show and it has no relevance, other than talking about Ali Lohan's attempt to record the song. Give the song its own article or put it in her article because it does not fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television rules. Thank you. (talk) 8:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Because there was a consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/All the Way Around to do so. There's no reason for an independent stub article on All the Way Around, because the main thing that article talked about was how it was recorded on Living Lohan. The two topics are naturally mated.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets get rid of the infobox for the song. We can talk about the song, but this article should be about the TV show and there was more to the series than just the song. Like you said, they are mated, but the song infobox should go unless someone can prove otherwise, because she not released anything since and she has yet to release her album, which I doubt will ever see the light of day. (talk) 1:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How can someone "prove" that the infobox should stay? It was part of the original article that was merged here, so it makes sense that it should remain as it pertains to the song. The fact that Lohan "might" not record anything has no bearing on the status of the infobox. There's other content in the infobox besides the chronology. I could actually see this being a major issue if the article were on show that aired more than nine episodes and this was a question about needing more room to provide content for the series. As it currently stands, I don't believe the "main" article is being overshadowed or overwhelmed by the song content or the song infobox. Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like WP:BOLD as much as the next guy, but leaving a comment and then taking it upon yourself to remove what you don't like before others can even weigh in isn't collegial. At the very least, please wait until Kww weighs in on the matter as they were previously involved in the discussion and this infobox things appears to be a new issue that they have yet to comment on. If you want more opinions, open an RfC. Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case, then I will open a RfC. I'll leave the song infobox there until she does have a article for her music, since you have a point there. I don't see other TV shows with song infoxboxes (After all, I did create the article in the first place), but since I take it that you and Kww supposedly might be Ali Lohan fans, we can make a exception and i'll make a suggestion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television about the dispute. (talk) 3:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who created the article as it's Wikipedia's property now. If you wanted to control it, you shouldn't have released it to the project. It also doesn't matter if there's no other television show articles without a song infobox as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to include or not include content. The fact of the matter remains that a previous consensus was to merge the content from the song article into the television show article. You've yet to make a valid argument as to why that consensus should be re-evaluated aside from the fact that you don't like the content being in the article. Again - not a valid rationale for removal. Lastly, as I said on your talk page I'm not a fan of Ali Lohan or the show and nothing in my (or Kww's) comment even indicates such a thing. Why you're even making such an insinuation is beyond me. Opening an RfC on the matter would probably be best as I don't tolerate baseless bad faith accusations well and more eyes on the situation is always best - especially in light of your comment here and on my talk page. Pinkadelica ^♣ 04:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the article is the property of Wikipedia and you're right that I got off the wrong foot. Don't get get me wrong, I like the content, so you sound like a person who takes things passionately so you have every right to speak your mind and I want to apologize to Kww too if I offended both of you. Either way, after posting this issue at WikiProject Television's talk page, it looks like that the infobox will end up being deleted anyway because the image in said infobox is a failure of WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, and it looks like that it could happen anyway regardless of who is posting or editing. (talk) 6:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss as to where you are going with this. The AFD said merge, it was merged. You haven't presented a single reason to undo the merge, and certainly nothing has happened to make the song more deserving of an independent article than it was two years ago. I don't even understand why "Living Lohan" warrants its own article. Left to my own devices, the single and the show would be merged to "Ali Lohan" and we'd be done with it. As for the infobox, there's nothing at all wrong with multiple infoboxes in one article when multiple things are discussed in the article. I won't kick up too strong of a fuss if you delete the image from the infobox, but I don't think that's necessary either.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it and after reading the WikiProject Television rules, I will let the article stand as it is. However, the image will end up getting removed nevertheless because it does violate WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE rules. (talk) 6:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The information is fine, but the infobox itself and the image inside of it need to go. The infobox is designed to summarize important pieces of an "article", not a single section. There should be nothing in that infobox that isn't already in the information directly to the left of it. The idea of "keep it in case the article is recreated" is a moot one, because we have an editing history for that very reason. It's very easy to go in to the history and retrieve the infobox (plus, I'm sure it isn't all that hard to fill out from scratch). The image completely fails WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, because the only condition that we have for using such images in infoboxes (when they are sans critical commentary, which is a requirement for non-free images) is when we are using them to illustrate an entire article (e.g., film posters). Given that there is no commentary on what this album cover looks like, and removing it does not damage the readers' understanding of the material (which is also a requirement for non-free images), it should be cut as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cut the image: while I disagree that identification is more or less necessary in a subsection than an article, I've always disagreed with the identification argument in its entirety. I don't think we should have images in infoboxes in standalone articles, either.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Controversy?[edit]

I never saw an episode of this personally, but when it was on I heard about a controversy. From what I heard, the mother saw a pornographic web page which allegedly had nude pictures of Lindsay. She supposedly talked about how terrible it was, then called the underage sister to come have a look at the X-rated pictures. Did this really happen, and if it did, does it deserve mention in the article? No editorializing, please. Evernut (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Living Lohan. 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) 09:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]