Talk:Lucero (entertainer)

Fair use rationale for Image:Luceroalbora.jpg
Image:Luceroalbora.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marital status
According to the news release the couple issued, the word "divorce" was not mentioned -- only that the two are separated. It is inaccurate to say (at this point, anyway) that they are getting divorced. --Tclpups (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn by nominator - see earlier moves from (entertainer) to (singer) for background In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucero (entertainer) → Lucero (singer) – Yes she also has appeared in telenovelas, but the title unfortunately makes the singer-actress sound like a clown or a juggler. We should use the language of reliable sources and follow the Google Book results: "singer Lucero" 25, "actress Lucero" 22, vs "entertainer Lucero" zero. [ - FWIW between singer/actress es:Lucero (cantante) would indicate (singer) -  ]. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * "entertainer: A person, such as a singer, dancer, or comedian, whose job is to entertain others"
 * "entertainer: someone who entertains people"
 * "entertainer (redirects to entertain): to perform for (an audience): to provide amusement for (someone) by singing, acting, etc."
 * According to what I've readen (from you) "entertainer" referred in the past to a clown or a juggler. In the past clowns an jugglers had the homework to "entertain". In our days (that is the relevant period of time) any person whose work is to entertain is an entertainer (by any way), and our GA Entertainment can explain you that concept. I don't know how old are the books you use as a source for "entertainer = clown/juggler", but the concepts I gave were published in the offline/printed version of these dictionaries. Now under that criteria, Lucero is an entertainer as she sings and acts, she is not solely a singer to be classified as such. And per your GBooks hits, 22 hits for actress are not a great minority versus 25 hits for singer. This project should stop nominating each month an article disambiguated by "entertainer" solely because someone dislikes the term. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 07:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tbhotch, do Google Books call Lucero "the entertainer Lucero", yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we ruled or owned by Google Books, yes or no? ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 07:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we aim to reflect English usage in reliable sources, so in effect we are ruled by Google Books, WP:RS give us the benchmark of how the English language is used. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, because "Google" is mentioned 0 times in that page, and "Book" 6, whereas they appear to define "what is a source", define "secondary sources", that "Reviews" from books are valid, usage of "self-published books", and when do not use books as sources (WP:BLP). I see nowhere in the disclaimer or in copyrights Wikipedia is now owned by Google, Inc. nor the copryrights belong to them, and neither Google Books is (now) the only reliable search engine. This is your problem, you've put too much effort to make believe the editors Google Books has the last word to decide how to work here that in the end you has started to believe your premise is true, when it is not. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 08:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note although it is true that the article is located at "es:Lucero (cantante)" in the Spanish version, if you search "Lucero" in the Spanish search bar "Lucero (actriz)" will be the first search term, while es:Lucero (cantante) doesn't even appear. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 08:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes WMF's search boxes often contraindicate to redirects. Back to print sources: "cantante Lucero" = 40 relevant results, "actriz Lucero" = 5 relevant results. Again FWIW only, since the issue here as stated in nom. We're done here, please let others speak. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)/Archive_8: "the use of the term entertainer should be restricted to cases where a subject's notability across different areas of entertainment is roughly the same." The nom's own stats show that she is known in sources almost equally as a singer and actress. This is precisely the situation where the consensus of WT:Naming conventions (people) comes into play. Dohn joe (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose another frivolous proposal. At what point do we consider the line of disruption has been crossed?  --В²C ☎ 01:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably when all the 20 or so RMs which have removed (entertainer) from various singers and other specific professions have seen any RM gaining consensus in the other way to bring them from (singer) to (entertainer). In the meantime I'm not going to provide opportunity for posts of the sort above. The issue of how reliable sources describe this living person can be revisited in 6 or 12 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.