Talk:Miley Cyrus/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Miles To Go

I think there should be an article on Miley's book Miles To Go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.211.119 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is- it's Miles to Go. Liqudluck✽talk 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Luv the new picture

I love the new picture soooo much it is awesome. --99.199.56.80 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We're glad we could oblige! You should check out this page on why you should create an account and join us! Even if you decide not to, you can always change the picture on the Miley article in the future should you decide you're sick to death of the current one! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

iTunes Live from London (2009)

Is this compilation really valid enough to be mentioned? AmazonMP3 has created hundreds of compilation albums in an effort to market music to the masses, and I would consider iTunes's compilation to be as insignificant as these. As of right now, iTunes Live from London isn't even available, and it hasn't been since the middle of last year (I checked with the intention of posting this same message earlier in 2009). I don't consider it encyclopedic on any level. Thoughts? – Kerαunoςcopia 13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done It's still available for download on Belgium iTunes. Other iTunes Live from London (Snow Patrol e.g.) and iTunes Live compilations have articles of their own, so perhaps it's worth keeping, at least for the moment. – Kerαunoςcopia 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

KCA 2009?

I have been sorting out the succession boxes and am wondering whether Cyrus won the Kids' Choice Awards Favorite Female Singer in 2009. There is no succession box for 2009, but the 2008 one says "Succeeded by Herself", so I will assume she did win again in 2009. Please change this is if it is wrong to {{s-aft|after=[[Name of 2009 winner]]}} (also change the {{s-inc|rowspan=5}} to {{s-inc|rowspan=4}}). Adabow (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, a lot of the succession boxes are from 2008, with no successors. Please fill these in if you can (ignore me if the 2009 ones have not been announced yet).

The other pic

I'm not trying to be rude,but what happend to the other picture it was much better. --207.216.192.16 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It was removed by Sandri (talk · contribs) a couple hours ago. She or he thought that the Hannah Montana The Movie premiere pic was better because it showed Cyrus facing front. That pic is newer than the academy awards pic, too. I put the academy awards picture back for the time being, though- let's discuss before/if it is changed again. Liquidluck✽talk 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I much prefer the Academy Awards picture, it is taller, more appropriate for the Infobox, and more candid, which is better. — CIS (talk | stalk) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean discuss it but i am ok with both but i do like the acadamy awords better.--207.216.192.16 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By discuss, we mean coming to the Talk page here, as you've done, and suggesting a change before actually making one. It's merely to keep the image from being changed every few days. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tattoo?

She has a tattoo under her right breast that says Just Breathe...It's legit...jus thought id throw it out there so someone would put it on her page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.117.78 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of people know about it. I don't consider it notable enough for inclusion, but others may feel differently. I know the Avril Lavigne article goes so far as to include an image of Lavigne's tattoo... a picture of Miley's would definitely liven things up. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

love the layout

just thought I should say love the layout and use of pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.192.16 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New album

Miley mentions here in the Hobbies section that she is starting a new record.

72.222.140.87 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but it won't be mentioned in the encyclopedia simply because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's nothing notable about speculation, even on Miley's part. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GA

Anybody thought about nominating this for GA? It's comprehensive and there are no major issues with the content as far as I can see. I'd be happy to review it if someone were to nominate it... HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No The article is comprehensive, but there's still a lot of clean-up that needs to be done throughout the entire article. I wouldn't nominate it at this time. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's a lot of dead/dubious/non-existent refs, and the prose is pretty poor in the larger sections. I've been thinking about doing a complete overhaul of the article though, so maybe a month or two from now? Liquidluck✽talk 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure. If you want a fast track review, just drop me a line when you think it's ready. It's definitely do-able. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I went through and made all the dates consistent for the references, but in doing that, I noticed a lot of citations weren't in proper {{cite}} format; a lot of information could be added. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cell Phone Pics

Should there be no mention of the cell phone pics in the "controversies" section? It seems to me that that would be a fair controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.208.179 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:WELLKNOWN, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." This topic was already discussed in the archives and it looks like the outcome was that there weren't any reliable sources that confirmed the images were even of Miley, which goes directly against BLP policy. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Noah

Miley Cyrus Has a younger sister called Noah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.172.93 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on her- Noah Cyrus. Cheers, Liquidluck✽talk 20:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

List-Defined Referencing system

The {{reflist}} template allows for list-defined references, meaning all references are placed into the References section. This frees up a lot of clutter within the article in edit mode. This is an incredible advantage for those of us who don't use special software. You may look at Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references for a very simple explanation of exactly what is happening, or:

  1. You may add/edit/remove references by editing the References section
  2. Every reference would have a name assigned to it. For example, <ref name="rollingstone">{{cite web |url=...}}</ref>
  3. Every citation only requires the <ref name=xxxxxxxx/> segment
  4. <ref> citations will still work; the LDR system merely adds the convenience of moving references down if desired

For an example, please open up the Alice (Avril Lavigne song) article in edit mode to see how easy it is to read. I can do this extremely quickly and have been converting some of the more stable articles I'm close to. Before I can change the style for Miley Cyrus, because this article has heavy traffic and is edited frequently by many, I would need consensus for a go-ahead. Any thoughts? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome idea ..!! i didnt know abt this feature of wikipedia.....i guess very few articles follow this feature.....You definitely have a thumbs up from me....all the best....Gprince007 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I only recently discovered it also. I swung by to add that <ref> tags added throughout the article still appear in the References section. So really, anyone aware of the LDR style could help with the maintenance by moving references down if need be. So converting this article would not affect any future edits for users unaware of the changes (it can be easy to miss, actually). I added a fourth item to the list above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Makes it a real pain to edit subsections, though, which is what I usually do. This way, the edit always has to be in both sections.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I edit sub-sections frequently as well, and what you say is true.
  1. You don't need to follow suit; you can edit as normal, including placing references within the prose. Someone like me would come along and move them down when a section "stabilizes" or becomes overly-cluttered.
  2. When editing, I'll simply create the references at the bottom of the sub-section edit window, then proceed to edit the section as normal. Then I'll move the references with a (cmd-X) cut and paste them in a follow-up edit to the References section. The drawback is a brief "cite error" at the bottom of the article during the period between the two edits.
  3. However, and being new to the LDR style, we may see that this is more of a nuisance for a heavy traffic article, so I'm definitely open to the idea of it being a "bad idea" here.
–Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, after using the LDR style in a few articles, one of which has higher traffic, I think the style is more suited to stable articles. Editing sub-sections, like Kww pointed out, can be a pain if you're editing on a frequent or regular basis. So I'll have to admit that this style would be both time-consuming and a touch annoying on the Miley Cyrus article, plus I'm finding I'm having less time to contribute to Wikipedia, and it wouldn't be fair to ask others to keep the article "clean" of references, which was something I would have otherwise been happy to do (I'm currently doing this on other articles with pleasure, but it could otherwise get tiresome). Thanks Gprince007 and Kww for your thoughts. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies - Update

Anyone notice that the controversies are not written at all?

For example, the Miley-Selena you-tube conflict in absolutely unmentioned. It seems that someone erased the article before the page was protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehluv (talk • contribs) date

Did you try doing a search through the archives regarding Selena? The results can be found here. Archives of talk pages are usually found at the top of the talk page (in this case, in a column on the top right side). I'm not otherwise familiar with any YouTube conflict, and if it wasn't reported by several news outlets, I'm not sure how notable enough it would be for inclusion in the article. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for responding. Some references to the incident are given below.

I hope that was helpful. --Mehluv (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My memory of this discussion was that the conclusion was basically "so what?". Two Disney kids insulting each other isn't of any particular importance.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be if it is popular enough to appear on so many sites and news sources. --Mehluv (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

new picture of miley

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2010/03/miley-cyrus-liam-hemsworth-oscars-party-pair.jpg please use this URL. its a picture of miley at the academy awardds 2010. she looked gorgeous, so it would be a good picture to have up as her picture. if you want to find a different picture of her from the 2010 academy awards, feel free. PLEASE DO IT BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE AN UPDATED PICTURE OF HER, SINCE THE PICTURE UP RIGHT NOW IS FROM THE 2009 ACADEMY AWARDS. PLEASE DO IT. OR I WILL GET MAD!!!! JUST KIDDING.....kinda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrieswift (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but for pictures of living people Wikipedia can only use "free" images, images that have been released into the public domain. In other words, in order for a picture to be used on Wikipedia, it must not be copyright restricted. liquidluck✽talk 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature

That signature doesn't seem to be official, tracing to the original file on Commons leads it to be created by a user who has no affiliation with Miley Cyrus, and was created entirely by himself, so how is it actually her signature?. 69.165.134.68 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a point that I fully support. The Commons says this - "This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Even if Miley's signature looks like this, someone might have copied it out and put it in the article. The signature on the album booklet of the album "Hannah Montana - Best of Both Worlds", page 18, must be the authentic one. --Mehluv (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If there was one real reason I would question its authenticity, it is simply because it looks like someone stumbled on the tail of the Y, almost "forgetting" to curve back around. It's likely that it's a re-creation of Miley's signature, minus the "Cyrus" part. A Google search shows her signature seems more consistently smooth and round and less "angular", especially in the y and the two-piece heart over the i, as can be seen here, here, and here. I don't know what the "GA Smiley Face" is all about. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Here you can clearly see the tail of the Y looks like it was drawn in two parts. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You should not evaluate the SVG image to determine whether it is authentic or not. Look at the image that stated as the source for the vector version. Rendering SVGs at a large size will nearly always look strange when the SVG was generated via bitmap tracing, which is what I did in this case. J.delanoygabsadds 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That said, I have no opinion on whether the image is correct or not. If the consensus here is that another version is (more) representative of her normal style, I can try to vectorize that and upload it over the present image. J.delanoygabsadds 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. The original uploaded image is here, uploaded by Bodoque57. A quick look at the details of a few of his contributions show that he has a history of uploading images that are questionable regarding fair use or have been tagged for possibly violating copyrights, and his talk page is full of image violations that have since been deleted. The image in question, Miley Cyrus's signature, was up for deletion with this entry, but the result was keep, although it was never established that the signature is authentic. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I could re-trace one if you want. Drop me a note on my talk if you want. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is retracing a signature okay to do? I've read the arguments that as long as it's not being passed off as an original signature, a retracing is a-ok. But I wouldn't mind a second opinion. Also, I'll add that I wouldn't mind a retracing, preferably the same style, but without the smiley face and weird characters within the "Y" loop. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The last song

ok now miley did not choose the name ronnie for the last song that is the characters name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.139.245 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she did. Sparks says so himself on his website and in this interview. Sparks actually named the character "Kirby" before Cyrus picked "Ronnie" after her grandfather, Ron Cyrus. Cheers, liquidluck✽talk 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of Filmography table

I am always hesitant to jump into an edit war, but I see that one is occurring with regards to the formatting of the Filmography table. This is the first time I have heard of a war over formatting a table, but nonetheless. And I don't even know this Miley Cyrus creature - never heard of her until I happened to stumble onto this page via a link from another page. Nonetheless, this is what I think: I have looked at both formats, and I find the formatting with the coloured background headings to be much easier on the eye. I wish all tables in Wikipedia were done like that. So why not leave it with the coloured headings? Is it that big of a deal. I mean, I would think that the average person would say that coloured headings make it easier to immediately comprehend. Just my thoughts on this important topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.137 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE TO JACK MERRIDEW: I tried to put a comment about this on your User Talk page (as I did with Dreadfully Despised) to draw your attention to my above Discussion entry . . . . . . but you have locked your User Talk page - LOL - apparently, you get into a lot of edit wars - on things like font sizes, etc. I was amazed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.137 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I think the color helps as well. I didn't mean to engage in a "war" over formatting a table, but I felt it's much easier to read with a colored header rather than one that blends in with the whole thing. --DreadfullyDespised (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The table had color in it for several months, and I thought it spruced the article up a bit, plus it made it easier to read. Just my opinion. The way the table stands now (no color at all) is probably the most hideous looking table I've ever seen. I would almost ask that it were reverted to the way it's been for the last few months until the issue is resolved, rather than letting it remain "transparent". – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done I reverted the table back to its original state. Any changes to the table for cosmetic purposes (or lack thereof) is more a waste of editors' time, and if Jack Merridew continues to revert the changes, I may request that he be blocked specifically from the Miley Cyrus article, as this is more of a nuisance than it is advancing the article in any way. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Miley doesn't get her own color scheme; too silly. Raise any objections at:

We're not going to have this discussion 32,000 times. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Merridew, that doesn't give you the right to edit war over the matter, nor to brand other editors' work as "unhelpful". Does the matter being discussed at WT:ACTOR have guideline status? Personally, I'm inclined to leave it as it is for 2 reasons- first, it improves readability and is more aesthetically pleasing and, second, because WP tends to favour the status quo (ie how it was before the change). If it has or attains guideline status, I may be forced to concede the point, but until then, we should go with whatever has consensus here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Personal attack; recipient wished to have it restored.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ahhhh . . . . it always feels good to have the last word, to get in the last word. Although I don't sign my edits, you can see that from the SinBot that I am the person that started this Discussion of formatting the table (LOL). Yes, good to see that everybody has more or less agreed upon a non-descript colour format - fair enough (better than no colour formatting for headings). Jack Merridew - I see that you went and posted somewhere else that "Miley Cyrus's fans can't have their own colour scheme". Idiot, I had never even heard of this Miley Cyrus creature until I happened upon her page, and - to be quite frank - I don't think I would like her music if I were to hear it - I'm 55 years old. Nitwit. But you're a know-it-all, aren't you Jack? You know how I know that??? Because I went and looked at your edits, and you apparently spend half of every day editing Wikipedia entries, and most of your edits are to do with table formatting and font formatting that you don't like. Please. Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.137 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Others; the anon who started this is quite obviously one of the usual trolls who dog my edits. I care little which one. They're all pathetic.
The color issue is part of the RFC linked above; I don't favor any color use other than that of the standard wikitable and there is little support for it other than from a small group. The light steel blue will not persist as the wishes of mere few do not constitute consensus. Jack Merridew 22:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
While I believe the current table is better (An actor's filmography table should have extra emphasis, color is more aesthetically pleasing), it is true that the heading color should be blue rather than purple, so I've changed that. liquidluck✽talk 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you people like the blue background, it would be quite helpful for you to go to WT:ACTOR and post your support for it. Jack is fairly pushing removing the color heading completely and has misstated the number ratio for and against, saying it is running 3:1. If you like the filmography table head with color, go there and say so. Your opinion counts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I am sure most of you will agree, this is a pretty awful picture of Miley!, anyone got a better 'free' one? I am talking about the main picture/ the one at the top of the article

There aren't any that I'm aware of that aren't already being used. You could try trawling through Flickr and asking some of the authors to release their work under a free licence. To be used here, it must be CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike) or released into the public domain. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Go for it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we find an image where her hats don't have more fabric than her pants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.122.113 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fire away. The current image was a hit with a few of the younger readers. The image you suggested was used for a while and users complained that it didn't show her body, so be prepared for that. I think the article could do with a new image myself. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wheyyyyy, much better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.43.21 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The current pic

The hannah montana movie picture isn't as good as the previous pic.--216.232.216.224 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer it because it shows her whole face and, imho, it's better photography. What do you prefer about the old one? It would be nice if we could get a new image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
This current one is best and she looks beautiful more than ever. WikiPP (people) are good at uploading very beautiful pictures; check out Taylor Swift, David Archuleta, Selena Gomez, Jack Black, Hayden Panettiere,... They're super-gorgeous, super-beatiful, super-cute!!! - easy for me, please! (sms) 11:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject

I am proposing a WikiProject for all matter relating to Miley Cyrus. There are many articles for topics of her music and acting career so having an organized system with proper editors and collaborators would be great. To sign up or support the project please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Miley Cyrus. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

is it me or.....?

Did the controversy surrounding photos of her in underwear get removed? To date there are 3 controveries surrounding her right? Under photos, Vanity Fair, and Party in the USA? The teen awards says something like she already had a risque image, so I'm guesing this is referring to the 1st contro.?

Why did it get removed? It was talked about for a while, and damaged her image right? So its pretty notable. not raggin on anything, but what happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.219.104 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because it was judged a non-notable controversy in a previous discussion. Consensus can change, however, so you are welcome to discuss why it should be re-added. liquidluck✽talk 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see it removed, but I haven't been lurking on this talk page so much recently, I've been bus elsewhere. I didn't like it how it was though. Maybe it's worth a sentence or 2 with supporting references,l not much more than that. What does anyone else think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There's also the asian photo controversy. Perhaps organize all the photo controversies in a single section. liquidluck✽talk 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the controversy section should be merged into life/career, as it's basically a repository for negative information and, since its located at the end, leaves the reader with a poor view of Cyrus. liquidluck✽talk 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ha! $4bn? She's having a laugh! I think we'd be accused of cruft if we added that in (unless she wins... :S). Agreed on the controversy section, they're generally best avoided- rather like "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Entrepreneur section

Should the entrepreneur section be broken out to Level 2 heading? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we probably want a section called something like "other work" for most things that aren't part of her singing and acting, and that it should be placed in there, but still as a level 3 header, but its current position is a little odd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with its current position being odd. Okay, Other work is a great idea. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

Sucker

Oi! For the record, this reversion of JB Ferri (talk · contribs)'s edit was based on information from a Wikipedia article that stated Miley Cyrus was a guest musician on Saturday Night Live, until I found that JB Ferri had added that information only moments before. I cannot find any reliable source reporting that she was ever on this show, so please forgive my misinformed edit summary entry. I'm about to revert this user's other edit; please correct me if I'm wrong. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backflip123 --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the Friends for Change edits, among his many others, but these I couldn't revert simply because I wasn't sure exactly what was vandalism, what wasn't, simply based on my own ignorance.Your evidence is pretty compelling. Are you not going to add the {{subst:Uw-socksuspect|casename}} on their userpages? It would definitely help notify those of us who don't see your message here. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lap Dance?

Um How come the lap dance scandal isn't on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.137.55 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No one knows if it's a scandal or a publicity stunt. The timing is impeccable. So far, it's not that notable of an event. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt its a publicity stunt. But I agree its not a notable event yet. I guess it will take a few days to get more serious. --96.255.137.55 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So you are just going to let The Walt Disney Company media spinners get their way :S ?? Is there a Wikipedia rule against putting news on here? It's notable because all news channels have covered it... For some reason scandals have their way of getting off of the Miley Cyrus page. What about the gay marriage thing? Gosh, everything is going :/ Dreamtickz (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Wikpedia does have a rule about not putting news in articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That, and we're not gonna accept /b/tard vandalism as a substitute for consensus or reliable sources. Either you and your comrades get reliable sources on all the crap you wanna put in, or shut up and stop screaming payola - bogus accusations work both ways, and for all we know the organizer of this raid is the same person promoting Miley.
Not only that, but screaming censorship behind the veneer of /b/ will be a death knell to your cause. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 21:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The key to notability is sustained coverage- we could easily double out article count in a month if we covered every piece of tabloid "journalism" but then we'd have nothing to do with it after a few days because the story will have died- we could archive it, but that would turn is into Wikinews. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism planned, May 23

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Miley_Cyrus_Conspiracy

An FYI, but with the semi-protect lock on it already, I doubt we'll have too much problem. -- Zanimum (talk)

Thanks for the heads-up. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

I saw the long pedigree of Miley Cyrus and her father in this link. Starting from her pedigree, I traced her lineage and she claimed English, Irish, Scottish, and distant Welsh ancestry. Also, she claimed very distant French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Hungarian, Spanish, Flemish (Belgian), Finnish, Swedish, and Danish ancestry through royal lineage. She is direct descendant of Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire; Louis the Stammerer; William I of Scotland; Henry of Scotland; Edmund II of England; Thor; Laomedon; and many other royal leaders. She is also the direct descendant of Abraham, Adam, and Eve according to another sources. So far, her oldest ancestor is Godwulf. He was born in Asgard, Asia or East Europe. Here's the link. But, according to another report, his father is Geata and some of them are suggested that the oldest ancestors are Adam and Eve.

I have a request for you to please, add the content about her ancestry also with her father. Thank you! 203.87.176.18 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond. Is this construed as original research? How much of this is actually verifiable as accurate? I don't know enough about the Ancestry.com website. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
"I traced her lineage" is a giveaway. Most definitely OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but "tracing the lineage" is simply following through the arrow links on the pedigree. Wouldn't this constitute the same degree of "original research" as clicking through to the next page of a pages-long article, simply to "find" the information for any given Wiki contribution? I went through several lines of the pedigree to where I reached triple digit years (AD 600+) and came across princes and other royalty. It was rather astounding; I simply don't know enough about the site to know how those names are accurately connected and who worked on the pedigree's creation. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The site is user editable, making it not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that would be a big problem. Thanks for noticing that, I didn't dig far enough. – 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am the only one who noticed that the original poster seemed to claim that he had traced Cyrus as a direct descendant of Adam, Eve, and Abraham? How is that possible? I'd like to see that family tree, whether reliable or not. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I noticed that part. But, assuming good faith (one never knows), I visited the site and traced the lineage back to impressive dates. But like AussieLegend said, the site is apparently user-submitted. Besides, the Adam and Eve theory isn't altogether false... just depends who you want Adam and Eve to be, and National Geographic has had several specials on the subject. Still, the site is unreliable. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Hey everyone,

I've recently attempted to create a new article which is focusing on the controversies surrounding Miley Cyrus, but it was deleted a few hours later. The reason for the creation was basically because many controversies aren't mentioned in her main article (and I can understand why). The article I created was neutral, accurate and had plenty of reliable sources. Some sources even emphasized the 'sustained coverage' - as in - whenever a new controversy shows up, the older ones are mentioned over and over again.

Before I continue, allow me to clarify that I'm aware of the no-longer-relevant vandalism plans currently stated in this page. In no way do I support or encourage any sort of 'raid' or 'attack', I think I'm intelligent enough to understand that obviously, they serve no purpose and whatever it manages to do will be quickly undone. Apparently, said 'plans' didn't even notably take place, which is a good thing. My intention by creating the article wasn't to 'expose' any evil conspiracies or bring hate to the subject. If it's possible to ignore whatever former people attempted to do and treat this as something new that isn't affiliated with (or supports) the proposed-vandalism, that would be greatly appreciated.

Anyway, I honestly believe that a controversies article is useful and is of interest to many people. I understand why not every incident should be noted on the main Miley article, but making a separate controversies article, and possibly linking to that main article in her page under the controversies section, could be considered as good contribution and relevant information for the reader.

I spoke to the admin who deleted my article, and he suggested I'd work with you guys on integrating the content to the existing article. I should also note that two parts of the article I created were taken from the main article (the two currently-listed controversies - Vanity Fair photos and the Teen Choice Awards performance), which is also apparently a part of the reason it was deleted.

Anyway, I have no problem with working on integrating the info to her article, I simply thought making a controversies article would be more beneficial.

I have a copy of what I created but I probably shouldn't post it here. I'll just state that almost all of my sources are sites such as CNN, Fox News, New York Times, ABC News, MTV, Yahoo, Entertainment Weekly, etc. I did my best to provide mostly respectable and reliable sources and avoid tabloids and such.

So if you have any input on the matter, whether it's supporting the creation of a new article, integrating said info to the main article, or neither, I'd love to hear it. Here are some of the sources I used for the now-deleted article: 123456789101112131415 If you want to see any of the paragraphs I created for the article, just let me know.

Thanks in advance for your help, and sorry for making a wall of text for you to read. CShephard (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm... Their plans didn't happen because, being /b/ and thus as intelligent as a deodorant stick, they didn't bother to make sure the article wasn't protected first. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm certainly not the pro on this, but a quick search through the archives, including a discussion directly above, show that notability is the biggest issue. Most of the "controversies" it seems aren't really controversial in any relevant way because "controversy" becomes subjective and intangible. But the difference between notable controversy and overblown media coverage, including sustained coverage, is probably a fine line that I'm not remotely apt at defining. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure who does get to define that difference, certainly not me. I believe my article was well-sourced, but I guess 'media controversy' and 'overblown media coverage' are things that are probably open to interpretation.
Another question is, assuming some/all of the controversies I listed don't meet the standards of an addition to the main article, is there also a reason to disallow the separate controversies article? I mean, it looked like my timing was bad (due to the vandalism plans) and possibly the article needed to be furbished a little, but assuming it's decided that the information will not be integrated into the main article, is the separate article completely off the table?
Again, either option is fine with me, but I believe at least some of the incidents should be noted, somewhere, unless various rules directly forbid the inclusion, and I won't argue with that. I wouldn't have even tried to create the separate article if I didn't know about many other similar ones the exist - there are 'controversies' articles for several high-profile individuals, or even other things that are subject to controversy, such as video games, television shows, etc. Some of them have a summarized info about the 'major' controversies in the main article (such as in Miley's case), and under that section, a link to the main controversies article which provides further information. There are many articles named 'Controversies surrounding X' or 'X controversies' (X being the person, or whatever it is that is subject to controversy).
It should also be noted, that some of the controversies that are currently not included, are mentioned in articles of other people/organizations that were involved in the controversy. For example, there is a mention of the lap dance controversy in the article of the person Miley gave the lap dance to, and a mention of the slant-eyed photo in the article of one organization that criticized her actions, etc. It's only missing from Miley's page. CShephard (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a question of weighting. Many editors (myself included) feel that virtually all of the "Controversies of .." articles should be merged back, as the standalone articles provide a place where negative information can be placed without any regard to balance. Even if the article starts out well, they typically go bad quickly. When a living person is concerned, it's a quagmire with respect to WP:BLP. It's best just not to start.—Kww(talk) 14:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess the whole point is the fact that the negative information isn't added to this specific standalone article, and as of now, it wasn't approved as a separate article as well. In the discussion archive someone said "Although the controversy section should be merged into life/career, as it's basically a repository for negative information and, since its located at the end, leaves the reader with a poor view of Cyrus."
If everyone agreed with that, one could omit crucial information from many articles because the reader will be "left with a bad taste". CShephard (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for the omission of information, just that it shouldn't be concentrated in one section. Since a performer's career is normally detailed chronologically, place the controversies in the appropriate spots in the timeline.—Kww(talk) 18:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok then. But if that approach is taken, shouldn't the current controversies that appear in the page be moved to the correct spots as well? If I understand you correctly, assuming proper sources are provided with notability, etc, the slant-eyed photo and Radiohead controversies should appear somewhere in the 2008-09 section, while the lap dance controversy should appear under '2010 onwards'. I have no problem with that, but that would make the two-currently-listed controversies seem 'special' as they were given their own section. Both the Vanity Fair controversy and the Teen Choice Awards incident could appear under the 2008-09 section, but then you have a lot in one section, again (only the lap dance would appear in a different section). I guess it's also possible to leave the listed ones where they are, and add the ones that aren't included right now in their proper spots, which is probably what you suggested, but I'm just making sure. CShephard (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be consistent. There should be no "controversies" section whatsoever.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Kww on that. For the record, I salted the controversies article yesterday. I agree that it was neutral and well sourced, but the material belongs in this article. I could probably history merge it in without too much difficulty, but it shouldn't be in its own section. It should be incorporated into the article so we have NPOV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That's perfectly acceptable. I made a quick attempt of completely removing the controversy section and merging its information to the proper spots, while adding the other incidents where they belong chronologically. However, it appears as 3 controversies would appear exactly one after the other, chronologically, in the 2008-09 section. It might need some more work but I think the basis is good enough, maybe it needs to be summarized further, but it's a first draft. I made an attempt on the sandbox so I could link the specific revision here for your comments. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=364528875 CShephard (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks reasonable enough to me. Probably appropriate to wait for someone else to chime in.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that looks good. There's nothing wrong with being bold- it's easy enough to go through and tweak things as need be later on and I think the article is in need of a bit of an overhaul. It would be nice if we could incorporate that personal life section into the rest of the article while we're at it, thus having it ordered completely chronologically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I made the change, but I was in the mood to try and follow HJ Mitchell's suggestion to incorporate the personal life section to the article as well, so it's a bit different than the version I linked to. Basically almost everything fits. The only thing I wasn't sure about is her heart condition which isn't really an 'event' that took place at a certain date, and the only section I thought it would fit in is the 'Early life' section, since it's a medical condition which was probably given at birth. However, this required the removal of the line "In her autobiography, Miles to Go, Cyrus writes, "There is never a time onstage when I'm not thinking about my heart". - as the Early life is the first section of the article, before the reader knows about the existence of her autobiography. I think mentioning the heart condition with that source is enough, though. It's possible to add that line in the part of the article that talks about the book, but I didn't think of a way to re-mention the heart condition just to show that quote.
Anyway, as HJ Mitchell said, it can be easily tweaked, and if anyone disagrees with the quote-removal and can find a place to re-add it, or has any other issues with the new version, feel free to fix whatever needs fixing or make suggestions. CShephard (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New image

This is the image.

The current image is very good except for that the side is faded and a different color than the background. So I am proposing to change it to Image:82nd Academy Awards, Miley Cyrus - army mil-66456-2010-03-09-180301.jpg. It's kin of different, but really cool, in my opinion. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The fade in the current image is a body part closer to the camera (like someone's arm or head) that's out of focus. I never really liked that image, the one you're proposing looks good. I'm all for the change until another one comes along (I'm not a fan of her hairstyle in either image). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
While the fade may be distracting (I hadn't noticed it until it was mentioned here), in the new image the subject is looking to the right of screen, which forces the reader's attention away from the prose; this is generally undesirable but doesn't exclude use of the image. There is also a lot in the image that is not the subject. Again, this is distracting to readers, especially since the body of the subject is not centred. It might be a useful image for the prose, but it's not a good infobox image without cropping, flipping and rotating. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative
Flipped, cropped, sharpened. Usable? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The microphones are still distracting. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree. She's kind of in an awkward pose and the image is "busy". Btw, (off-topic) sorry about my image edit (on the article), I wasn't aware of the forced sizing issue. I'm on a 17" and have never seen text break around a size-forced image, though maybe I don't know what to look for. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

What would people think of this image? I emailed the photographer about the licensing and she kindly changed it... except she didn't remove the Non-Commercial bit. But before I bother her again, I wanted to see if anyone else was interested in the potential use for this photo. I can't guarantee the licensing will be changed to suit Wikipedia's requirements. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks a bit shaky there, but I'd like to see how it looks downsized and in the Infobox. I'd go for it, I think it's a nice candid photo. — CIS (talk | stalk) 21:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a "deer caught in the headlights" look.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Kww, agreed, but I spent a short while yesterday digging through Flickr and that was one of the better ones I could find. There's an alternate, but the mic is more in her face, if I recall. CIS, I would sharpen the image a bit to help with that. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the mic isn't in her face at all; here it is. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure which I prefer. The first one was a bit shaky, but the placement of the microphone in the second is a bit awkward... it almost looks like it's some sort of neck decoration or something. I'd be fine to have both imported into the Wiki, preview them in the Infobox, and decide then. — CIS (talk | stalk) 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless the license is changed both of the images are non-free and can not be used to replace free images. I don't think the angle is appropriate for an infobox image in either. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the images wouldn't be used unless the licensing is changed. I'm awaiting a response from the photographer. If the images can't be used now, it'd still be nice to add them to the Commons. Cropped and cleaned up a bit, they may be usable elsewhere. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've no particular opinion on which image or where they go, but it's always good to make the best use of the free content available to us and it's good to change the lead image every now and then. We can always spend a few days chopping and changing, cropping and previewing until we're all happy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Vanessa kindly licensed the images appropriately, so here are two derivative choices. They can be flopped if needed, though I'd also recommend a slight curves adjustment to make her face a bit brighter. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I threw the smiling version up and I think it looks fine. If it manages to stay up longer than a day, I'll brighten her up some. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not like this photograph at all. First of all it's old, then it's not of high resolution, and then she looks surprised and did pose right for this. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I much rather prefer the fade-in. Maybe we can just crop out the fade? Is there a way to blur out the fade with the rest of the background? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the old one too. She's far too tan in this one (almost looks like wax). ~DC Talk To Me 04:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously that's fine. I didn't see any objecting consensus to it above, but throwing it up sure got a reaction lol. Regarding the current image, cropping out the out of focus elbow (that's what I think it is, another photographer's), the blur extends over her shoulder and probably slightly into her face. I wouldn't recommend a crop that close, though one can always try. However, excluding cropping, de-noise, brightness/contrast, it is considered unethical to tamper with "real life" information within any media-used photograph. Magazines from National Geographic to Time to news journals have been accused of tampering or combining images for their specific needs. So actually blurring "out the fade" shouldn't be done. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the layout changed?

It looked better and more organized before like this: [[1]]

There is too much text and it looks sloppy now. Thoughts? Is it just me? I don't like it now.--DreadfullyDespised (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason is in the 'Controversy' discussion section above. Long story short, a lot of information was missing in the revision you linked to. The other editors thought that all the controversies shouldn't be concentrated in one section, and instead should be integrated chronologically in their spots, as this is what happens in most articles of performers. While the changes were being made, it was also suggested that the personal life section would also be integrated in the same way, so that was done as well. For comparison, the Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan articles don't have a special controversy section either, and instead they are listed under their biography section.
Now that I think of it, that should probably work both ways according to WP:BLP, in the sense of the praise/positive information should also appear neutrally. I think that the next step would be possibly merging the 'Entrepreneurship/Charitable causes' sections into her biography as well, if others agree. CShephard (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to differentiate between the main facets of her career (as an actress and a singer) and minor aspects (such as brands and charities she's been involved with). It seems to me including both these aspects together would make the text harder to follow, as it would jump from topic to topic. I'm not convinced that the controversies should be included along with singing and acting, either, although I recognize that this is common practice. I do agree that there are neutrality problems with having a separate "criticisms" section; I wonder if we could have a "public image" section which would include both positive and negative media attention Cyrus has received? Somewhat independently of where we cover these controversies, I think we may be going into them in too much detail (though this was less of a problem when they were in their own section). As it stands, I do think the 2008-09 section is longer than it should be, and summarizing these controversies more concisely would be a good way to get that section down to a manageable size.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

mistake in text

Marriage date of Miley's parents (dunno the date) but the year is supposed to be 1992 in stead of 2010! --Dino (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I actually noticed this in the draft but got distracted. Thanks for picking it up. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's embarrassing. Thanks to both of you for catching that. liquidluck✽talk 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical styles

The article should have a "Musical styles" section that discusses her transitions from teen pop, pop rock, country pop, dance-pop, etc. The section would have two subsections — "Influences" and "Music videos and live performances". The first can discuss how she names Britney Spears as her inspiration on "Party in the U.S.A." and how she has also cited Lady Gaga and different artists as her inspirations. The rock band Poison was her first concert and that can be said. The material is not only limited to people, the film Grease inspired her the music video for "Party in the U.S.A." Many other things inspire Cyrus, such as her roots, religion, etc. The latter subsection would speak of her shift from always performing with as Hannah Montana to ditching the wig and how she now flies on motorcycles. Her music videos have changed as well. From "Start All Over" to "Can't Be Tamed", it's very different. The entire section would help shorten the "Biography" section. Does anyone disagree that this section should exist? Does anyone agree? Please state your thoughts below. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While Cyrus is an actress and singer, she hasn't developed a personal style at either, which she admits- she says she wants acting lessons and to take a hiatus to find 'her own sound'. Up until now, she's done various forms of teen pop because Disney told her to; only with Can't Be Tamed has she significantly changed her sound, but I think the switch is covered in the article. Because of this, I don't think a musical styles is necessary until she at least comes out with an album demonstrating whatever 'her sound' is (which is probably sooner than she says- she's under a four album contract with Hollywood Records) and some more artistic control.
How about pulling personal life out? It could discuss her religion and influences, and would do more for shortening the biography section. liquidluck✽talk 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I see your point and it makes sense that she has had the sound she wanted but it still what people recognize her for. And I think there is a significant change from "The Best of Both Worlds" to "The Climb" or a recent song like "When I Look at You". And I'm sorry for not being clear. What I think is that her personal life could be mentioned if it has influenced any of her music. That's cool about the religion and influence, which I think I mentioned. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Natravis, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Her birthdate was mistyped to make her 100 years older than she is. The year should be changed from 1892 to 1992.

Natravis (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The problem was caused by vandalism that had been incompletely reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OCCUPATION

She's not an author. She only wrote 1 book. Writing only 1 book about yourself with someone else doesen't make you an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.81.4 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

harper lee only wrote one book and she's considered an author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.197.51 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

yeah, but doesn't mean that Miley is one.

Really? So when you have the book in your hands, who do you refer to as the author? Books are sorted by author. Are you saying she doesn't get listed because she isn't one?
Yes, writing a book makes you an author, since the writer of a published book is refereed to as an author. You don't get to split hairs based on the amount. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, but it's not her OCCUPATION. she's a signer-songwriter, and I don't think she's lookinf forward to write other books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.81.4 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Movie

Miley Cyrus is planned to be on a thriller movie called 'Wake!' which is by the producers of Paranormal Activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.89.201 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! In the future, please provide a link to a reliable source backing up your information. liquidluck✽talk 21:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul- any significant issues?

With some help from Ipodnano, I've been working on an overhaul of the article in User:Liquidluck/Sandbox. The article isn't brilliant and is lengthy, but its organized and readable and corrects several errors. I'd like to paste it over on to the main article, but since its a major edit I'd like to get a semi-consensus on it. "Semi" because I'm not asking the content be permanent, but considered good enough that it won't attract any major edit wars.
Possessives are all "Cyrus's". I've cut quite a bit of controversy coverage because the article is fairly lengthy, but I think the article still conveys a shift to a risque image. Radiohead and the lap dance aren't included partially because I don't believe they have the sustained coverage necessary for notability and partially because I haven't found a spot to add them in neatly, but I've added the Myspace photo controversy and I'm open to re-additions. I've also cut philanthropy and entrepreneurship considerably because of length issues (actually, I don't remember adding philanthropy at all. I should probably do that). liquidluck✽talk 06:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VoluntarySlave's point above your post regarding the 2008-09 section being long as it contains a lot of information. My original idea was making a controversies article and then linking to that main article which would make the main article a lot shorter, but most didn't agree. VoluntarySlave's idea is similar - making a section for both the positive/negative media attention. I think that might have potential, but it also has the potential of being too lengthy as well (in the main article).
For the time being, as a possible temporary solution and due to the high amount of info, I separated the 2008-09 section in to two sections of 2008 and 2009 individually and used your summarized version of the Vanity Fair controversy (I hope you don't mind), so now there are different sections for 2008/2009, and the difference in length is considerable. I made the changes because it's not really an 'overhaul' (yet) this way - simply separating two sections and turning two long paragraphs in to one, so I doubt anyone will disagree with this as a temporary solution, though the length-issue is nearly resolved. Maybe the 2009 section could be summarized further (by possibly using your summarized version of the video performance&slant-eyed controversies and the Twitter thing) and then the overall layout should look pretty neat without removing info (though I think it is notably better now, specifically length-wise).
As for sustained notability, I had a few articles that showed it for most controversies, but I chose the 'most reliable' one when I originally added the ref - [2]. If need be, I can find the others. That one covers almost all of the listed controversies by re-mentioning the ones from 2008 and beyond, plus the latest lap dance. They also mention some things that we didn't include, such as her breast tattoo [3], though I don't think that has a major encyclopedic value, as it doesn't look like it sparked major controversies/debates. CShephard (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree the article is better organized now, but there are still trivia and copy-edit issues. Assuming the readdition of the lap-dance and philanthropy, would you still be adverse to the copy-and-pasting of the version in [[my sandbox? liquidluck✽talk 07:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it could work with the readditions, I also just fixed a few small typos there. By quick reading it might need slight tweaks here and there, for example regarding Hannah Montana's fourth season, I believe they already finished filming the last season and its just awaiting broadcast (as opposed to 'to be shot in 2010') so that might need editing/source. We might also want to reach a consensus regarding Cyrus's vs. Cyrus' to avoid future edit warring if we replace the version. Other than that it should probably be acceptable but I think it would be best to wait for someone else to comment on the matter before going ahead with it. CShephard (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just done some editing to the draft but it has all been minor work. The draft seems generally okay, except for the consensus on Cyrus's vs. Cyrus'. On that, I'll state a pereference for Cyrus'. I believe Cyrus's is preferred in the US but Cyrus' is acceptable. In other parts of the world Cyrus' is preferred but Cyrus's is generally unacceptable, or only begrudgingly accepted. Since Cyrus' is accepeted everywhere, this seems the most logical and least problematic usage. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the missing info and cut-and-pasted the version. I attended (fixed silly typo 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)) US schools and was always taught to use Cyrus', so I'd actually prefer that. Consensus appeared to be in favor of Cyrus's before, but that seems to be changing now. liquidluck✽talk 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
With a last name of "Williams", this is something that has always been a bit more important to me than it is to others. It's "Cyrus's" and "Williams's". Of the three systems documented at WP:APOSTROPHE#Possessives, two of them result in "Cyrus's". The growth of "Cyrus'" is an example of a mistake growing in popularity because people didn't understand the actual rule. I'll grant that sometimes the mistake grows in popularity to the point that it becomes the new right way of doing things, but hopefully we aren't there yet.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Calling it a mistake demonstrates a misunderstanding of the rule. The third option at WP:APOSTROPHE#Possessives refers to the way in which the posessive form is pronounced. However, pronunciation of the posessive form varies.[4] Cyrus', Cyruses, Wiliams' and Williamses are all correct.[5][6] The common factor with all of the variations is that they add an apostrophe. It's not so common that an "s" is added after the apostrophe. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that your PDF from umimelb.edu.au indicates that "Rogers's", "Charles's" (and by extension "Cyrus's") is correct, and you've misread the case for "Williams", where the "es" comes up in discussion of pluralization: "I was at Kevin Williams's house" and "I was over at the Williamses' house". The examples in the PDF are "Doctor Rogers's car" and "the Davieses' car". Similarly, "Miley Cyrus's car" and "the Cyruses' car". I'll stand by my description: the rules are sufficiently complex that they are widely misunderstood and misapplied. Languages constantly evolve in a process where what was once a mistake becomes acceptable. I think "Cyrus' " is still a mistake, but I will grant it is clearly becoming more and more acceptable.—Kww(talk) 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thought I would chime in. I don't condone the singular Cyrus' at all; I agree it's becoming more and more acceptable, but so is letting girls open their own doors. It's journalistic writing; the removal of the s helps save space and ink and perhaps eases reading a bit. Wikipedia considers it acceptable here, but doesn't say why it's acceptable. That people can't or won't write an encyclopedic article with correct English usage is frightening to me. It's come to the point where, upon seeing English written as it should be, I feel I must applaud it, rather than ignore it as the norm. Miley Cyrus receives something like 30,000 hits a day. This article has the means to help the readers see well-written English at work. (Obviously, this is not the point of the article, or of Wikipedia, but I believe it's an important note.) Where Miley may a questionable role model for kids, this article could actually be a good one.
English 101
  1. The Cyruses invited Liam for a game of family golf.
  2. Liam was going to borrow Miley Cyrus's golf clubs.
  3. Liam played golf at the Cyruses' private course.
  4. Liam's golf clubs' handles were broken.
Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia for anyone to edit, but that doesn't mean articles should look or read like anyone's edited it. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Para 2 of the umimelb.edu.au source cites H. W. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" which states that "it was formerly customary, when words ended in an "s" to write its possessive with an apostrophe but no additional "s"". In other words it's becoming more and more acceptable to add "'s", not the other way around. Para 2, citing Murray-Smith, says either method is acceptable. Fowler claims that exclusion of the additional "s" is only valid for reverential contexts and poetry and verse but that causes an inconsistency. What is the sense of saying "Jesus'" but not "Cyrus'" and "Cyrus's" but not "Jesus's"? Murray-Smith's interpretation seems to make far more sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why this PDF is being used against the s' case; it actually argues for Cyrus's. Aussie's example is for religious contexts and texts, as explained. In Jesus' name is pronounced "in jesus name", not "in jesus-ses name," and always has been. The PDF explains that clearly and it has nothing to do with the Miley Cyrus article. The PDF also states: Rule 3: When the number of the syllables in the word being made possessive is more than the number of syllables in the subjective case or root form of the word, then use “s’s” "
Again, to use the PDF's (Fowler) example: Achilles' is pronounced Achilles, not Achilles-ses. Charles's is pronounced Charles-ses, not Charles. Cyrus's is pronounced Cyrus-ses, not Cyrus. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 10:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The PDF isn't being used against the s' case. I don't see how you came up with that. The PDF is being used to demonstrate that both "s'" and "s's" are valid uses. (Murray-Smith vs Fowler) It has also been used to show that it isn't the case that use of "s'" is "becoming more and more acceptable" but that it was actually the customary method. You are correct that In Jesus' name is pronounced "in jesus name" but my point was, why wouldn't in cyrus' name be equally correct, given that addition of the apostrophe, without the additional "s" is the customary use and is supported by Murray-Smith. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote above, "Since Cyrus' is accepeted everywhere, this seems the most logical and least problematic usage" but I'll counter this as a fallacy. Technically, since Cyrus's is accepted everywhere, it's the most logical usage as well. Unfortunately, it is problematic, because the possessive debate seems to be brought up anytime anyone uses s's. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean "counter this with a fallacy"? Immediately before the sentence that you quoted I said, "In other parts of the world Cyrus' is preferred but Cyrus's is generally unacceptable." I also said "least problematic", not "it isn't problematic". --AussieLegend (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
AussieLegend, do you actually omit the final "z" sound? "Syrus" as opposed to "Syrusez"? Of course, comparing Cyrus to Jesus brings John Lennon to mind, but I will assume we are only discussing spelling.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do. I say "I'm going to Fred Williams' house to teach Americans English", not "I'm going to Fred Wiliamses house". Yes, I was referring to spelling. Now that we have that settled and we can get John Lennon out of the way, is there an answer to the question? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I seem to be a little late to this party, but I think the new version is much better. I'm glad that controversies section has been merged in and I think the whole thing looks a bit more professional now. With some copyediting and referencing and general tweaks and fixes, it could be on its way towards towards GA status in the not-too-distant future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I just looked at the article, and saw that the Controversies section was gone. But I also see that it has been well-integrated into the article (for example, there is still a section titled 2008: Photo controversies and Breakout for people specifically looking for that controversial part of her career), which makes the article more balanced (more neutral to others). I prefer there being a section titled Controversies, but I understand the issues with that, and am okay with this new redesign. As for the "s" issue, I prefer that we use the extra s. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

REAL Controversy

http://mygloss.com/buzz/2010/06/15/perez-hilton-exposes-miley-cyrus-twitter-upskirt/

I'm new and this page is semi-protected so can someone add this? Pretty major scandal... -- BippetyBoppetyBoop (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not notable enough yet. There are countless articles/blog posts on gossip sites and such about it, but that doesn't usually qualify as a reliable source (same goes for your link). However, reliable sources seem to start showing up: [7] [8]. Probably enough for inclusion in terms of a reliable source but not sure about notability, might have to wait a bit and see what happens with this story. CShephard (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Some more info/developments: [9] [10] [11] CShephard (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it'll ever be notable, unless Perez gets arrested- he now says the photo was fake. If nothing comes of it, it won't be notable in a couple weeks. liquidluck✽talk 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I would also hold off for now. While notable vis-a-vis Perez Hilton, it has yet to earn enough coverage vis-a-vis Cyrus to warrant mention in this article.--PinkBull 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a side comment: seeing as how Miley's "Love" tattoo on her ear is her metaphorical filter to negative publicity, waiting for "coverage vis-a-vis Cyrus" on any controversy from this point forward could simply be moot. In fact, I'm looking forward to seeing how well she keeps quiet on scandals like this in the future: will the media (or whatever this Hilton is) claw at her in order to merely get a reaction from her? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a second shot now, this time published by Reuters. [12] [13] [14] Obviously they re-mention the first shot as it was similar in its nature and both 'incidents' happened within a week. Just putting it here as we might want to reconsider the inclusion. I'm not sure myself but I'll be happy to hear your opinions. CShephard (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miley_Cyrus/Archive_7&oldid=1146367215"