Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kelly Clarkson. 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) 09:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kelly Clarkson. 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) 06:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Record Producer Category

I am trying to clean up the Women record producer Category and Kelly's article has zero mention of her being a record producer. I understand that she might produce her own records (artists can do that), but I am not sure about purely taking that role. I would like to remove her from the record producer categories. Lyrelyrebird (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oxford Comma in the WP:LEAD?

There has been a lot of fighting back and forth between users, me included, and an IP editor with multiple IPs. The conflict stems from the Oxford Comma currently used in the WP:LEAD section. What I am trying to do now is building a consensus for either maintaining the comma or removing it entirely. Keep or delete? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep due to the introduction being easier to read with the aforementioned comma, and because it fits the lead section. Also the article is written in American English, which frequently uses the Oxford Comma.[1]--Erik (ここで私と話してください) 14:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Norrington, Bill. "Much Ado about Commas | UC Geography". geog.ucsb.edu. Retrieved 27 May 2019.

Image change

Personally, I feel the one without the mic in her face is clearer, better. But we will need to establish consensus before changing the infobox image. Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Support for the latter - Though I actually uploaded both images, the latter is the better representation. But since we are on the subject of changing the infobox image, shouldn't it be restored to the original proposal by Chaheel in this talk page (Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 7#Lede image), before Aspects changed it without discussing it first. Not only did the original proposal not receive any objections, it has been discussed nonetheless. It may not be the most recent, but it shows the subject of the article the best way possible, per MOS:IMAGELEAD. Chihciboy (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chihciboy: is this the one? The change predates Aspects's edits. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I did not change the file, it was LaVozSA with this edit, [1]. I added back the inauguration file back into the article, but this time into the body section describing that time period. The previous discussion was four years ago and the inauguration was taken seven years ago, so I think a more recent file would be preferred and if the microphone is not acceptable, then the middle one from 2018 seems a good compromise. Aspects (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be patronising at this point, but when discussing images for articles - especially the lede - there is only one real question that needs to be answered: "Is this the best representation of the article subject?" If the answer is "No" then an alternative needs to be found until the answer is "Yes". It doesn't matter how old the chosen image is, only the suitability. This is the criteria I applied last time, the comments in the archive are still applicable now - and to the choices above. I therefore still advocate the use of the third image that has been in use the longest - the cropped 57th Presidential Inauguration jpeg.
The first warrior games image is inappropriate as the microphone is covering a portion of her face. I admit there is not much between the latter two images, but the composition, lighting and contrast seems better on the 57th image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens, you are using an invalid criterion because "best" is completely subjective. If you would please clarify what metrics are used to measure "best" then we could begin the conversation about which image fits those metrics. Elizium23 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, not invalid at all. I agree that it's subjective which is why I included my criteria above as to why I think the 57th image is "best". The "best" image is arrived at by discussion, which is what we're doing now. I've outlined my reasoning for the 57th image, but if you want absolute clarity, here they are again:

  • First image has her face partially obscured by the microphone
  • Second image is full face of article subject, but low resolution
  • Third image is as above, but high resolution. As I also mentioned above, the composition, colour - and especially lighting - of the third image seems preferable to me making it a better actual photo

A quick look on commons shows that there is no shortage of images of Clarkson, but almost all of them are of her singing and hence with microphone obscuring her. Others (Blue Angels which IIRC used to be the lede image at some point) show her well enough, but are old and she has changed her look since then so could be misleading. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just commenting again, but the responses above seem to support the fact that the microphone image is unacceptable, and opinion seems split between the two alternatives.
If we're agreed on that, can we comment on which of the two we'd like to use? I've already made my case above for the 57th image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The third image of the inauguration is the clearest and does not have her face covered at all.
I'm okay with either the second or the third. Chihciboy (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much the same as last time the image was discussed - there is opinion that the current image is not the best, so I'm reinstating the inauguration. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to interject; I'd suggest the inauguration photo is certainly the most appropriate looking out of the three, in that it appears to be of higher quality and it's more flattering to Clarkson herself. That is just my personal opinion however. It might be some time until a new one of a similar level of quality is uploaded, which is unfortunate in terms of that particular image now being seven/eight years old. But it seems the best choice. BrotherDarksoul Blether 12:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@LaVozSA: has proposed to change the infobox image, but consensus is against him. Let us discuss this further a bit. Elizium23 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe having a more updated picture and not one from 7 years ago would be good for this wiki page LaVozSA (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It is useful to have a recent photo especially of an ever-changing young pop star. But there are other criteria besides age, and some of those criteria are more important. So why besides its age should we change the photo that is currently there? Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

1) as you said age is a big reason 2) she looks kinda diffrent now than she did 7 years ago 3) having more updated photos will be useful for anyone visiting Clarksons wiki page LaVozSA (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

LaVozSA, there are currently 8 photos in the article. There is nothing preventing you from adding your preferred photo in an appropriate place other than the infobox. I didn't say age is a "big" reason. Other reasons are bigger. I would say quality is number one. You have offered no compelling reason to change the infobox photo from the very high-quality one already there. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Marital status

It hardly bears mentioning here, but since an edit-war is on, I will stress that Clarkson is currently separated from her husband with a divorce in progress. That does not make her single and we do not erase that relationship from the infobox. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Whistle Register vs. Head Voice

For the vocal part, I believe her G6 is in super head voice rather than the whistle, which is airier. In Dialogue withThe Rover  paths 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Her 3 Grammy Awards wins should be mentioned in the opening... those wins are more important than any of the other awards listed. Andriko8 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: - @Andriko8: Glancing at the talk page history I see this has been discussed in the past, and apparently the consensus reached about doing this for biographies in general seems to be against this due to a potential conflict with WP:NPOV (1 2). However, as you can probably tell, this happened quite awhile ago. If you would like, you are free to open up a discussion and change consensus via this talk page. But that consensus existing, alongside this not being in "change X to Y" format, makes me uncomfortable fulfilling this request. Happy editing! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that a better defense of not revising this is that her Grammy wins are referenced throughout the opening section; however, such information is easily missed (not to mention the general structural expectations of information writing as a genre). As for the comment on the "change X to Y format," I have no words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriko8 (talk • contribs)
I will agree, in retrospect, that my dropping of the "deviation from format" comment of nowhere after talking about policy and precedent for a bit wasn't cool. It probably came off as quite rude; that was not my intention! Back on topic, I still think the edit you are requesting probably necessitates some consensus building first. I can't say that I agree the information about her Grammy is easily missed. That said, this page only necessitates autoconfirmed permissions, which realistically isn't that hard to achieve. It's entirely possible you can make your desired edit yourself in the near future, and then you can see where it goes from there. I could be overestimating how controversial the edit may be. Cheers! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Christmas Isn't Canceled (Only You)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christmas Isn't Canceled (Only You). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 29#Christmas Isn't Canceled (Only You) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelly_Clarkson/Archive_8&oldid=1152102608"