# Talk:Most Wanted (Hilary Duff album)

I personally think this page should stay because of the following reasons:
a) It is an official single
b) It has an official music video released for it
c) There is enough information on the "page" to be considered a page.
d) The song is quite popular, and has entered into some countdowns and will probably enter into the Billboard Hot 100. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mylipsareduffed (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 November 2005.

I don't believe any of the singles should be merged, because they are seperate CD's and other artists don't have their singles merged WestJet

To quote user:FuriousFreddy: if a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explaining that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks, and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Hilary Duff fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Duff song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? Extraordinary Machine 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, I started looking for Hilary Duff single articles and eventually realized there are none—they've all been redirected. All those articles need to be restored. People went and wrote content on those singles, and then somebody came along and just got rid of it all? The standard on Wikipedia is to have a separate article on every popular song. This is part of having comprehensive coverage. The battle has been fought before, the community's viewpoint is clear, this should be a non-issue by now. Everyking 06:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There, I think all the damage is fixed now. Please do not do it again. It is almost painful to see that much work people put into those articles lost (until now). Well, now those articles can continue to develop normally into comprehensive articles like the rest of Wikipedia's similar articles. Everyking 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't get rid of everything, I merged what I felt was important with the album articles. As Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs indicate, there definitely isn't a consensus on this issue, so to say that "the community's viewpoint is clear" is somewhat misleading. In my opinion, "it's a popular song" is not in and of itself a strong enough argument for including an article about a song or single, especially when a) a lot of them could be merged into the album's articles, and b) some of them aren't actually very popular at all. Extraordinary Machine 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Convention seems clear; other artists have independent single articles. Anyway, at the very least, any of her songs which charted, or at least charted above a certain level (top 50?) should have articles. Her more minor singles, maybe you can argue that, but the major hits she's had should without a doubt have articles. Everyking 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I still believe that the size of the album articles should be considered before creating articles about the singles. For example, Chris Brown's "Run It!" went to number one in the U.S. a few weeks ago, but I merged it with the article for the album it came from because it was only a paragraph long. I also find it annoying having to go through several articles to find out whether a single was a hit or not. I think that if an album article consists of only about two or three paragraphs of prose, then efforts should be made to develop it rather than spinning off single articles, and that the single articles should only be created if there is enough material besides chart and music video information to create a comprehensive article. Anyway, I think that the discussion should be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Extraordinary Machine 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For that there is a sign of which the page does not fulfill the qualit standards?, what is it necessary to change?

Please stop saying that the reviews for the album were "somewhat positive" when 95% of the reviews were negative. Please tell the facts.72.94.46.100 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:HilaryDuff-WakeUp.ogg 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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:BeatofmyHeart.ogg 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 Wikipedia: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) 19:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

get over it, the album IS considered a compilation album by duff & hollywood records. rather than a greatest hits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiep803b (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 

If you don't have a source for this information, it won't be changed. Sorry. Edit warring and vandalizing isn't going to do anything about it. –Chase (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheaper By The Duo? Hilary Duff Teams Up With Madden Brothers For New LP
Hilary Draws The Line At Collaborating With Good Charlotte
New Releases: Hilary Duff, Click Five, Rick James, 311, Taproot, Idlewild, Cowboy Junkies
— Status {talkcontribs  05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Duff's 'Most Wanted' To Boast New Songs
Duff Finalizes 'Most Wanted' Track List
— Status {talkcontribs  05:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

HUH? JamesAlan1986 *talk 09:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Most Wanted (Hilary Duff album). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527221955/http://articles.boston.com/2007-09-01/news/29227047_1_hilary-duff-malibu-barbie-pop to http://articles.boston.com/2007-09-01/news/29227047_1_hilary-duff-malibu-barbie-pop
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151019184225/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Hilary%20Duff&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2010&sort=Artist&perPage=25 to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Hilary%20Duff&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2010&sort=Artist&perPage=25
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727024757/http://www.cria.ca/gold/1205_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/1205_g.php
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)