Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 16

Clean Up
Thanks for cleaning this up. Michigan user (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RCA
I just used rollback for only the 2nd time to revert 2 edits and you don't get the opportunity to comment or review what you're doing. I should have just reverted with an explanation. The sourced information was already in the article. As for changing the info box record label I think that for now it should stay the way it is considering all the albums are on the RCA label. Maria202 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the RCA label info can get a begin and end date since Clay is no longer on the label?Ducold (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Broadway
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I have never edited Wikipedia before.I made a change to Clay's character list from Spamalot yesterday and somebody reverted it to the previous list, which is wrong. I just changed it back again. There is no character called 1st Sentry (it is Sir Robin before he's a Sir). The list as I entered it is correct according to Playbill, ibdb, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.185.111 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the Playbill and you're right. I'll fix it. Maria202 (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism
I'm a little surprised that there continues to be quite a bit of anti-gay vandalism on Clay's page. You would think that would have died down by now. Perhaps the page needs to be semi-protected again, at least for a few months? Ducold (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nothing compared to what it used to be. The level of vandalism isn't that great. But if it gets worse protection is always an option.   Will Beback    talk    07:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I requested temp semi PP on 1 March but was declined, see here. I remember counting 15 IP vandalisms over a 7 day period at one point, although the level and frequency does seem to vary sporadically, Agree that it has been much worse in the past, but even once per day is a reasonable basis for semi-protection IMO, especially without constructive IP edits. I believe with Ducold that the article should be semi-protected for a period (not indef). — Becksguy (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every time Clay hits the news the vandalism picks up. This past week it was because of the AI Wildcard show. The last heavy vandalism cycle was when the split with RCA hit the news.  The next cycle will be when he announces his plans for 2009 which will most likely be in April, unless something else gets him in the news before then. Maria202 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And more homophobic anon vandalism. Can we have consensus here that the article should be semi-protected? — Becksguy (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection gets my vote. The article is stable and has been for some time.  Having to constantly monitor it for vandalism is a waste of everyone's time. Maria202 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously I vote for semi-protection as well since I asked the question. The 2 pieces of vandalism today were by users with accounts however, so it won't obviously stop all vandalism. Ducold (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for Semi-protection please. Michigan user (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected: With the current season of AI in full swing and with the level of vandalism on this mostly stable article well above 5% (See Rough guide to semi-protection), I've semi-protected the article for 3 months, the approximate duration of the season. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, ERcheck. I was going to reapply at WP:RFPP, citing talk page discussion and consensus. Three months seems reasonable. It's appreciated. — Becksguy (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism: I hate to bring this up again, but the Aiken page has been getting a hell of a lot of vandalism in June and July. It looks like the page needs semi-protection again. I don't know what is wrong with some people. Ducold (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination
This article was nominated for Good Article status in 2006 but at that time needed lots of improvement. Do any of you who edit here see a reason why it should not renominated now? I don't want to just go ahead and do it in case another editor sees something that needs to be improved that I don't see. Maria202 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's much more stable now then in previous years, so that will help.   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Queers in History"
This book was removed from the "further reading" section with the edit summary: I looked at the publisher's website, and it looks respectable to me. On what basis are we saying that it is dubious or questionable?  Will Beback   talk    06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ''rmv WP:BLP Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or in "Further reading" or "External links"

Parker Foster Aiken
Para on Clay Aiken's son: "It's a Southern tradition to be given your first name from your grandmama's maiden name."[18] His middle name came from his paternal grandmother's maiden name; using instead the married surnames of their mothers, he and Foster followed that tradition in choosing their son's name.

This doesn't make sense, even without the added complication that Aiken changed his name. PF Aiken's mother is Jaymes Foster. Assuming the child's names are shown in the correct order, 'Foster' surely comes from his maternal side, not paternal, and if they are using the married surnames instead, then they are not following the tradition mentioned. Can anyone fix this, or should I just delete mention of this 'tradition'? Centrepull (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point of going into the details of how Clay named his son, so I would agree with deleting that section. Ducold (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Introductory job description appropriate?
Am I the only one who finds it odd that the first thing this article tells us (after his full name and date of birth) is his sexual orientation? Do all articles about homosexual persons begin, "____ is a homosexual ____"? Obviously his sexuality is relevant to the article, and may even belong in the opening section, but "a homosexual Amercian pop singer" as a job description? It would seem to me that as a public figure, his role as UNICEF Ambassador is more salient. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That was vandalism. If it hasn't been fixed now, it will be soon. Ducold (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)