Talk:Mandy Moore/Archive 1

message: There are what, more or less than 10? That is WAY to many. Furthermore, the coding for one of them is screwed up. The coding for references is screwed up too. This needs to undergo a major renovation. I will consider putting it up for some sort of Article Improvement.
Cut down anything we don't need. TheKillerAngel 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is a big article. We have a header picture, pictures of her albums, and two pictures in her film section. Which picture coding is screwed up? And what's wrong with the references? They're fine and in fact, this article has enough of them to possibly consider a "Good Article" status. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the coding just got fixed. There are still too many images. For an article even of this length, it does not need 9. We can definitely cut down on the album covers. I do not think every one of them is relevant to the article. The Britney Spears article is longer and has one less image. TheKillerAngel 16:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now a GA. Though I do believe there are too many images. I think, at least, the  Wanna Be With You album could be removed. Cvene64 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Cosmo image has to go. Its a fair-use violation, since the actual issue is not the subject of anything in the infobox/lead/anyay. Cvene64 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... well, Featured Article Lindsay Lohan has an image of a vanity fair cover, although the article does discuss Lohan's interview in it a little. Since this image came from an article about Moore's comments on the Cosmopolitan cover, do you think it would be OK if I elaborated on that issue? (in the article and possibly in the infobox description as well) Mad Jack O'Lantern 04:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The text on the Cosmopolitan magazine seems so awkward for an encyclopedia. We could use a switch. TheKillerAngel 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's such a nice picture... can you think of any other way to present that text? Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we can use any picture from the vast gallery at http://www.mooreofmandy.com/ (well, screenshots and the like). Are there are ones there you think are better? Mad Jack 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you were linking to "New Mark Fashion Center, LA - February 7 2006" then we can't use those, they have a copyright tag all across them (at the bottom of the images). Mad Jack 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOO MANY IMAGES

message: :Has ANYBODY seen "Street Rats"? From what I see in IMDB it is a minor 1996 sci-fi movie which stars Mandy Moore. Anyone seen a copy of it on VHS or DVD?! For what it is worth, I have never heard Mandy Moore raise it in public. http://imdb.com/title/tt0348129/. While Jack O'Lantern may turn out to be right, time will tell if Street Rats did exist, or otherwise. As simple as it sounds, Mandy Moore is a Net fanatic. So, Mandy is bound to confirm or deny the existence of the Street Rats movie now it has been raised. It appears that it was never released, and only starred very minor actors at the time. The only actor of note in the project with an impressive CV, apart from Mandy, is Lee Perkins. . It is all but assured that Lee actively reads his IMDB entry, and if the Street Rats movie did not exist, he would had removed the entry, and asked IMDB to remove the movie listing altogether. Who knows, perhaps, in retrospect, Mandy was embarassed to be associated with the project. In any event, I will personally attempt to directly contact the crew members involved, and ascertain absolute confirmation. But, like I say, it appears that Lee Perkins has confirmed this. 
--Stephen2077 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She wouldn't necessarily be embarrased. I mean, isn't it kinda cool to have come from a little low-budget movie into a huge movie and music career? The movie may well exist, but it could also be another Mandy Moore who appeared in it, for all we know. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Street Rats movie (1996)

message: There seems to be disagreement as to what photo should appear at the top.  We cannot have unknown copyright pictures as they will be deleted by wiki sooner or later. Although the Bazaar magazine cover is fair use it isn't the best representation of Mandy (too much text and wasted space). Doesn't anyone have a fair use photo they could upload?
PTSE 21:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, how about the one we have now? It was taken from http://www.skins.be. I've tagged it as fair use. Jester2001 22:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Photograph 

message: James Renald, who also wrote mandy's 'Cry', wrote Hey
by himself. Hey will NOT be on Mandy's album and Hey
will not be released as a single.
: Perhaps a sub-category, "Other Songs" can be created under Discography and you could add the song under that. [ Sarz 02:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hey Song 

message: Is that true? C4 to G5? 1.5 octaves? That's a quite poor range. Even I have a larger range (and probably you too). Compare that with Mariah Carey: her highest note is G#7, with a 5-octave range! (info from Wikipedia, of course) 165.123.140.215 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocal Profile 

message: NOW they listen to us!! I requested this protection on this article over a week ago.  About bloody time!
Sarz 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I've protected this page after noticing that there has been very little discussion on the talk page regarding the reversions on the 12th, and continuing into the 13th. I will remove the page protection in a short time, but if the reversions continue afterwards, I will be inclined to issue reciprocal blocks. The reversions also seem to indicate that there are multiple things which need to be discussed - things for which the edit summary are clearly not adequate for. This being the case, I'm going to wait a little bit and see what happens with the dialog on this page. --HappyCamper 04:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: 1. Parys insists on putting up a copywritten picture from a magazine. he's done it on other pages as well and has been tagged for it. he also seems to like putting up a new lead picture every month.
2. Parys insists on using insignificant and anecdotal reviews to support assertions: "I Wanna Be With was criticized because some saw it as a remix album" - the review she links to is not from a credible reviewer and doesn't even criticize the album. She does it again with this statement: "and not a new studio album, as well as because Moore's appearance was deemed too sexual for her age." 
3. When someone points these things out to Parys, she reverts and calls people vandels. Crumbsucker 04:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, the picture I'd like to have back as the lead is the one from Lucky Magazine, October 2005. I think it "presents" Moore better than the tiger lady picture we have in the current, protected version. JackO'Lantern 05:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine with me. Anything is better than that GQ picture. Crumbsucker 05:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off learn how to spell vandal. two, i have already SOURCED where they said that very thing abou I Wanna Be With You, i personally disagree. This isn't Mandy Moore Fan Land where you can put what ever the heck you want. All of my info is sourced, don't like it how it is, tell Moore to sell more albums. BTW I'm a man baby Parys 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a great deal to discuss

message: Since no one's replaced the now-deleted picture, I put up an image of Moore from her How To Deal poster. I believe we can use images when they come directly from posters. However, I'm not sure if this is the best she's looked on a poster. Do people prefer her image on the "Walk To Remember" poster? (although you can't see her face as clearly there). Or does someone have another picture? I'm open to suggestions. JackO'Lantern 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware, this image would not be fair use in the context displayed either. According to the template message, a movie poster would only be fair use if used in the context of discussing the movie in question or the content of the poster itself. I do not believe that using it solely to illustrate the person depicted would be allowed under the current rules. I'm not trying to be overly-officious here but I'm pretty sure that it will soon be deleted by someone. In my opinion, your best bet would be to find an amateur photograph that someone has taken of Moore (I'm sure that there'll be a few people with photos on the various Mandy Moore fansites) and persuade the photographer to release it into the public domain before using it in the article. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try some of her fan websites for a more recent picture because that How To Deal poster is not one of her best :) -- Sarz 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can use the picture under those grounds, because the caption references the movie (and the article refers to the film, as well). It's not a great picture, but the more I look at it, the more I like it. Although she probably does look better with longer hair. JackO'Lantern 04:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead picture

message: Under the Television and Film Career section we have the following sentence describing the movie Savied!: "Although the film didn't receive a wide release, it was critically successful and Moore received unanimous and surprising praise for her performance." There are three issues with this sentence.
First, what does "critically successful" mean? Does it mean that many film critics gave the movie good reviews? Well, how many? And why is this an important fact? And how could that fact be backed up? Or maybe it means a famous or influential critic liked the movie. Then mentioning the critic would be more appropriate. 
Second, it's said that the priase was "unanimous". Well, I certainly didn't praise her performance. (I haven't even seen it!) What does "unanimous" mean in this context? How can this statement be supported with fact? Further, surely unanimous praise is mutually exclusive with surprising praise, for if everyone felt her performance deserved praise, it would hardly be surprising to anyone that other people also thought her performance worthy of praise.
Finally, the praise was surprising to whom?
I'm not ready to remove the sentence, because it might be trying to say something worthwhile, but as it is it reads like someone trying to say, "I liked the movie a lot, but it's obscure," which doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Rljacobson 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it up a little, and linked to RottenTomatoes for the reviews. Hope that helps? JackO'Lantern 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, better! But the reference cited is a website that a) has reviews for pretty much every movie and b) doesn't even  list a lot of good reviews for the movie. The sentence still seems to not say much: "some critics liked Moore's performance." Isn't there something more we can say here? If not, I move that the sentence be removed. Rljacobson 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's nothing wrong with the site having reviews for every movie! (in fact, it makes it easier to prove the "bad reviews"/"good reviews" thing for movies). It has "Saved" at 60% Fresh, and usually a Tomatoes "Fresh" rating is good enough for saying that a movie got good reviews. I just added a few citation about Moore's performance, including quotes. Is that better? JackO'Lantern 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick survey of some other Wikipedia articles on movies to see how things like this were handled. We want to avoid weasel words. Maybe it would be appropriate to say something like, "Although the film did not receive a wide release, it recieved generally positive reviews, and Moore received praise for her performance (tomato citation)." What do you think? I recognize that this is earily similar to what you already had. :) I think the quotes are a little over the top, though, because they are just opinions of anonymous people. We aren't so much worried about what some random reviewer of some local newspaper had to say so much as what the general sway of the critics was. Rljacobson 23:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the featured articles Linsday Lohan and Kadee Strickland use frequent quotes by reviewers when discussing film performances (and in Strickland's case these are much more obscure reviewers than those of Moore). Basically what we're saying is - the movie received a limited release, it got good reviews, and Moore got good reviews. If it's the "although" that bothers you, well, I just removed it, because you're right, that word isn't necessarily relevant. JackO'Lantern 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Comments about Saved! 

message: If someone knows, can they add what her original hair color is?  I notice she has dark hair now but I wonder whether this was her original hair color.  Badagnani 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was. In the May 2006 issue of Tribute magazine (Canada), she says she's enjoying being a brunette again and that she prefers her natural brunette color to blonde. Besides, she has brown eyes... a good sign of a natural brunette. Mad Jack O'Lantern 08:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair color 

message: How can this person be considered a Jew? Her father and Mother are not Jewish and she was raised and went to Catholic Schools her entire life!!!
Her Grand Parents may be Jewish but she most definatly is not.
:The article doesn't say she's Jewish, it just says her grandfather was. She's on some of the ancestry lists, like the Cherokee/Jewish/English ones, for completion Mad Jack O'Lantern 04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Really

message: :Image:Dreamzm.jpg
I thought this was a cute picture when I gleaned it from an April 2006 article about Moore. It seems to be a screenshot, but they don't really say what it is a screenshot of. Anyway, I moved it here to discussion. Does anyone know what film it is from? Or is it not a film at all? Mad Jack 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from her appearance on MTV's TRL earlier this year whilst she was promoting American Dreamz. Sarz 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think we can use it? I guess it counts as a TV screenshot? Mad Jack 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  Sorry for the late reply! :) -- Sarz 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, was it ever late! Hmm... have you heard anything about that Chuck Liddell thing mentioned at the bottom? Mad Jack 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Just to pre-empt any upcoming edits, the IMDB has now posted up  that Moore is second-cousins with singer P!nk. This is almost certainly not true, but if anyone has a good source for it... Mad Jack 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB rumours

message: What's the deal with people constantly adding/removing/changing links to these two sites anyway? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. But would you mind restoring the link to Moore of Mandy? I promised the webmaster it would be there in exchange for the header pic (and we are allowed one fansite per article). Also, do you know anything about how to make the text in the header pic smaller? Thanks... Mad Jack 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sorry, I don't really know anything about how to edit the appearance of infoboxes - I can just about manage cutting-and-pasting one from somewhere else and changing the relevent details... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, fair enough, thank you Mad Jack 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, after something like 15 days, this has gone through an interesting FA process. This article got a lot of comments but no votes! (well, there is one object, but that user says he objects because we have too many entertainment FAs, so that won't be counted) Mad Jack 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...we typically do not tell external sites that we will keep links to them in exchange for pictures or whatnot. That isn't how things run around here. I do have a question about the external links though...how can there be two "official" sites? Which one is the more authoritative site? --HappyCamper 17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well call it an "unofficial" deal, but we are allowed one fan site, so... I have no clue about the official sites, though. There's something weird going on there. Mad Jack 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does look weird...well, anyway, I just decided to drop by to see what was going on. I'll be off. --HappyCamper 17:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He removed them (and your comment) again. That's six reverts in 24h now - I've reported him. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that mandymoore.com is official and mandymooremusic is bogus. --Howard the Duck 08:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know? If so, we need to take the proper steps in the article. Mad Jack 08:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says so on her "official" Myspace blog (http://www.myspace.com/mandymoore). Although I can't verify if it's the real official myspace. --Howard the Duck 08:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about what is says on Myspace.  I've had a look at the whois records and mandymoore.com is registered to Double M Holdings, Inc (Mandy Moore Holdings????) and mandymooremusic is registered via a proxy so you can't see who actually controls it.  Make of this what you will... --RicDod 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is there consensus that insertion of a link to "mandymooremusic" would be considered vandalism to this page, given that the site is not recognized as an offical site by a verifyable source? --HappyCamper 18:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to make sure :-) --HappyCamper 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They've just been changed again...  Is there anymore verification we could do to check that we are right?--RicDod 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they've changed it again. 8-/ I posted on User talk:MMJustice and the IP's talk page asking them to join this discussion. In addition, User:MMJustice appears to have breached WP:3RR on July 26 and repeatedly violated WP:NPA. I have warned him/her on their talk page, and if it happens again, it should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. FWIW, www.mandymoore.com looks like the official page to me. The other site looks to me like a fan site, not a professional official website for a well known entertainer. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I gotta say it, but neither do I. I'm really more of a "Moore movies" fan Mad Jack 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have one either, but if you look at the CD scan here, it seems her affiliated sites are www.edpicrecords.com, www.mandymoore.com and www.mandymoorefan.com. In addition, many of the unofficial fan sites have warnings denouncing mandymooremusic.com as a hoax. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CD scan is evidence enough to me (I've just done a bit of reading around too - I guess, finding the same sort of comments about the fake site as you did). I'm not exactly sure what the owners of mandymooremusic.com are trying to achieve here (it doesn't look like they're trying to make money in any way) but there is something very suss going on. Their forum even contains fake postings from their very own "Mandy Moore". In future, unless anyone has any objections, I'll revert any additions of that URL on sight, as vandalism. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not say on the article that the official website is mandymoore.com, with matching citation? --Howard the Duck 12:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mandymoore.com/mandymooremusic.com 

message: As part of this project, I randomly checked a few footnotes from this article.  Results were as follows:
#Footnote 4(a). "Moore was raised in the Catholic religion (although she is no longer a practicing Catholic)"
#*Wasn't actually able to check this one, since the site required registration and I didn't feel like giving it the time or an email address.  Appears to be a fansite/photo album site, however; could a better source be found?
#Footnote 9. "Moore was considered by reviewers to be the latest in a series of heavily-marketed female singers described as "pop princesses", akin to Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson."
#*?  This one goes to the same site.  It appears that these are thumbnails of scans of the Cosmopolitan article cited; reservation required to view full images; could a better source be found?
#Footnote 37. "The movie failed to draw in the teenage crowds in the United States, and grossed a total of $14 million domestically."
#*Checks out.  The source supports the total gross number.
#Footnote 42(b). "The film received mixed reviews,"
#*Meh. "Mixed" might be a slightly generous assessment; what's on that page seems to range from "crap" to "harmless and watchable", with a few outliers.
#Footnote 63. "In early June of 2006, tabloids reported unconfirmed rumors that Braff and Moore had ended their relationship;"
#*Checks out. From site: "...recent reports the singer/actress has split from her boyfriend Zach Braff."
All in all, seems solid, but leans pretty heavily on this "Moore of Mandy" fansite; if that's the only way to get an online copy of the magazine articles linked to, so be it, I guess, but another source would probably be preferable. --RobthTalk 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation spot check

message: Can anyone or someone please find a Wikipedia:Music sample for this article? It would basically guarantee the FA status, which the article will likely get regardless, but still. Appreciated Mad Jack 01:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music sample

message: Is this a joke or something?  It's such a brief mention in passing that I'm not sure. Mad Jack 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm this is the first I've heard of it.  I'll do some diggin' round on the net to see what I can find.  This is kinda related, but I read that Willa Ford and Chuck Liddell used to date.  Maybe they somehow got Mandy and Willa mixed up and threw it in thinking it would make interesting news *lol* -- Sarz 08:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating [[Chuck Liddell]]?

message: is a bit redundant for me. --Howard the Duck 09:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't actually notice we had two links to the same discography page. Removed. Mad Jack 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also and Discography 

message: An anonymous reviewer inserted information into the above article claiming that Mandy Moore was part of the film's cast (the first edit and the final edit). I reverted this because it was unsourced. After reading this article, I cannot find any information on her appearance in Havoc. Does anybody know whether this was patent nonsense or not? Never Mystic (tc) 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear to be true. I found a few sources that mention it   . The last source seems to say that Moore was originally also supposed to star in "The Underside of Anger", which I presume became The Upside of Anger (playing Alicia Witt's part? Or Keri Russell's?) Mad Jack 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this information be incorporated into Moore's film career section? Never Mystic (tc) 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, I just did. I also included Cursed, another movie she pulled out of. I didn't see a source that mentioned the reason for the Havoc thing - but if you do, you could certainly add that too Mad Jack 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm curious about her original inclusion in the film; if I find a proper source, I'll be sure to add it to the referencing list. Never Mystic (tc) 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Havoc (film)|Havoc]]'' 

message: Can somebody stalk Mandy Moore and get a free picture or something since "Abu Badali" is claiming that we can not use the previously used image? Mad Jack 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you know what, fellow FA Diane Keaton also has a screenshot at the top. This whole issue is so disputed that I would like to err on the side of having a picture, so I am restoring. Mad Jack 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About time someone replaced deleted it.  That screen cap was awful.  Sarz 08:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was kinda cute.... but we really need another pic, especially if this article is to go on the main page.  Mad Jack 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header image

message: Sigh, it's been deleted, which isn't good. Does anyone have a good replacement image? Mad Jack 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a dig around the net and will let you know :) Sarz 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What if we found a promo picture like say, for a movie or something?  Man, these license things annoy the hell outta me... Sarz 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently a promotional image released specifically to promote the person would qualify here, yes. Is there such an image? Mad Jack 05:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Mandy Moore did Aerith's voice in Kingdom Hearts.  Mena Suvari did Aerith's voice in Kingdom Hearts II.--BigMac1212 15:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Kingdom Hearts game

message: Currently titled Wild Hope, according to this MTV interview.  I haven't worked on this page, so someone else with more of an interest can put it in where it belongs, hopefully. SKS2K6 05:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New album

message: Said movie may mark a first - the first film where we have FA articles on both leading actors (and both actors on the poster) - Keaton and Mandy Moore. Mad Jack 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Because I Said So (2007 film)]] - FAs

message: That was a 1992 single from Michael Jackson, and i can't find it sourced anywhere. I would imagine if a Michael Jackson cover was going to be on a major musician's album it would be around. another thing, that track listing isnt official.
Parys 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild Hope "Give In To Me" 

message: The (http://www.mooreofmandy.com) link is to stay on your Wikipedia pages regarding Mandy Moore at all times if you wish to continue to use any contents, images, or other sources from my website. I have included it on the External Links page again. Please do not remove it. For those in question of Mandy Moore's official sources, her official online sources are as follows: (http://www.mandymoore.com) (http://www.myspace.com/mandymoore) (http://www.mooreofmandy.com). Those sites are approved by Mandys record label, called The Firm and any other websites or sources out there claiming officiality are false and no one should buy into them. 
Kind Regards,
JJJj1973 10:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with this, since this is Mandy's "official" fansite. --Howard the Duck 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see one source that says so. Parys 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually used as a reference and is the official fansite; if there's a fansite that should be allowed to be displayed, this is it. --Howard the Duck 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Official or not, it's still a fansite.  It is a site that is not directly connected to the artist, so it is not symmetrically related (per WP:EL) (from what I can see in the copyright tag on the site, it's directly related to her PR company, not her).  I just have problems with it because a) if it's referenced, being in the references should be good enough (there's no rule saying referenced sites should be in the EL section), and b) there are copyrighted materials on there (scans of magazines, video clips, etc) that are not properly sourced.  And personally, it feels like a flog to me. SKS2K6 07:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (clarification: I know it's not a flog persay, but it's made by a guy who is directly connected to her PR company.  That's why I feel it's like a flog, although it doesn't hide it or pretend to be otherwise.)SKS2K6 07:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the very same page you'e given, it says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." (emphasis mine), so ergo it may stay. As for fansite, there is no mention of the word "fansite" on that page, and if there's one fansite that should be displayed, its the official fansite. As for symmetry, man, then you'd have to cut each every EL on every article, I'd give that fansite the benefit since it's official. --Howard the Duck 10:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should probably be included. Mad Jack 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore Of Mandy.com 

message: Congratulations! It has taken a long time and hard work to get on today's featured article of April 4 2007. Considering that this article was first started on 23:59, November 13, 2003, I think our hard work has paid off! Haseo9999 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, are you talking about something like Wikipedia:Portals? I don't see how it would be useful to "exclude a category", since you never know when you would need an article on just about any given subject. Your question might be better suited to the Help Desk. \sim Lenoxus " * " 12:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article of April 4 2007 

message: Her height (approx. 5'10") doesn't deserve a brief mention in the article?  I've tried adding this information yet it  is continually deleted...  --172.146.51.78 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is not viewed as a WP:RS because its sources are mainly user contributions so it may not be reliable.  MrMacMan Talk  04:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also read this WP:TRIV stop renaming the "personal life" section "personal life and trivia". Thanks. Quadzilla99 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her height is mentioned on her official fansite, Moore of Mandy.com. -- 203.206.116.50 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.  ShadowHalo 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was some context or reason to include it like she had a successful basketball career in high school or worked as a runway model or a male lead had to stand on a stool for a scene with her, then her height would be worthy of mentioning because it would be included in a certain relevant context. But as you were including it was just random information which is trivia. Quadzilla99 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: My edit to have the dollar symbol not link to the page for the USD$ was reverted.  Seems to me it's not appropriate for the symbol to link to the $USD since it is a symbol used for several countries' currencies.  If perhaps you added USD$ to the end of the figure amount and link that to the US Dollar, it may be more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.60.147 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, $ is used for many currencies -- but the very point of piped links is that you can be directed the the most pertinent meaning. That's come to be the Wikipedia way of doing things --linking "Smith" to "Jane Smith" doesn't make people think that there are no other famous Smiths. \sim Lenoxus " * " 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dollar Symbol linked to United States Dollar page 

message: I think the intro paragraph should be tweaked. Saved, which came out in 2004, shouldn't really be considered one of her "latest" films. Didnt want to actually change anything since this is AotD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kangaru99 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! Changed to "later films" Mad Jack 06:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first paragraph 

message: ... although So Real was certified platinum in the U.S. in early 2000 and sold nearly one million copies.
I think this line could be confusing; certified platinum is an RIAA statement that she sold AT LEAST one million copies; the statement that she sold fewer than one million is based on the Nielsen SoundScan ratings.  The article should either clarify this or pick one or the other.  Maxvip 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RIAA certifications are based on shipments to retailers, not sales. Extraordinary Machine 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above statement is not exactly correct.  According to Wiki's own cite on RIAA certification, "The audit is conducted against unit shipments (most often an artists' royalty statement is used), which includes albums sold directly to retailers and one-stops, direct to consumer sales (music clubs & mail order) and other outlets. Shipments that could potentially be returned to the label can not be counted." 210.20.86.85 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales Contradiction 

message: The lead section is merely one paragraph (plus one short sentence), which is not up to date with current WP guidelines. A medium size article like this should have a lead section of two or three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. Also, five far-use images for such a rather short text are debatable, I suppose. And using copyright violations (magazine scans) for references in not allowed per WP:EL. -- EnemyOfTheState 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments/suggestions 

message: "Moore filmed a music video for "Extraordinary" in early March 2007; she appears as 120 versions of herself in the video." - is that true?? I can't seem to open the link to see if that says that, but 120 versions of herself???  That kind seems impossible for a video of a song that is less than 3 minutes long... -- Sarz 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is to MTV news; odd that you can't open it... but it does say "Mandy Moore is going to top them all, since she'll be no less than 120 versions of herself in her upcoming video for "Extraordinary," which was shot earlier this month in Los Angeles" Mad Jack 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraordinary video 

message: As this article has featured article status, I wanted to discuss this before doing anything. What should be done about the redlinked genres in the infobox? Should they be corrected or not? They lower the quality of the page to me. Any thoughts on what to do? Acalamari 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. This has now been fixed. Acalamari 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks in the infobox. 

message: How come this article doesn't mention anything about Moore's education? I'm guessing she only finished middle school and then dove right into singing, because she was fifteen when she debuted and it takes around a year to record and practice and wrap up for your debut and everything. This needs to be added to the article. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡  Refill/lol 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School? 

message: It seems that we've always had picture issues for this article. Any reason why the previous one was not acceptable? TheKillerAngel 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the image was deleted, as it became redlinked. View this version to see what I mean. I don't think I ever clicked on the image itself so I don't know what the copyright was. Acalamari 16:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Could someone make some samples of her best-known singles and add them?  It's great and all to know what her album covers look like, but I think knowing what her music sounds like is more important.  ShadowHalo 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samples 

message: FYI, what would count as a "source" for the discussion her character had in the movie that would be acceptable?  I've done a search for a film script, but apparently no one wants to besmirch the Internet with such a banal piece of crap.  I only inserted the edit because I thought it would complement/offset the horror she had over the orgasm on the magazine cover.  I still think the edit should stand, but I'll let those who guard this article more closely decide. Anthony Hit me up... 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for reverting your legitimate good-faith edit. I suggest you re-insert the information into the article. Foolish me. Acalamari 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Ironically, as I was watching that scene, I was thinking about the magazine cover incident (and how I had read about it on Wikipedia, haha). Anthony Hit me up... 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because I Said So edit reverted 

message: Substituted at 21:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment