Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 3

message: As I plan on promoting this article to featured article status someday, I was wondering if anyone knows where I could find an image of Clarkson singing on American Idol? If anybody has any information or details, please respond to it either here or on my talk page. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reporting the issue with the images to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is not about whether one prefers certain images, it is about the fair use rationale and criteria that it must meet, which the current images do not. Feel free to take part in the discussion at WP:AN/I. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the images once again. Geni and WAS 4.250 also removed the images and stated that they were not under the appropriate fair use criteria. The image that is currently in the article, :Image:Since You've Been Gone.jpg, contains correct rationale claim and therefore, its inclusion in the article is not violating any conduct. Images cannot be reverted for the sake of which has "better quality" or "they prefer". It is about rules and order. Because the images require proper tagging, they must not be in the article. This issue should not continue because if it does, I am afraid that I'll have no other choice but to alert higher authority. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article someday

message: I have been told this article contains original research and unverified claims, it has been tagged as such.
Do not remove the tag. --Photosynthesis Man 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to articulate your own thoughts, as opposed to what you have been told? Mike H. That's hot 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've restored the tag — there isn't a consensus to remove it yet. --Photosynthesis Man 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag has been removed again — until you can expain to us what the original research within the article is, it cannot just sit there. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Does displaying two images from the same awards show qualify as fair use? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, keep it. Kelly was the first American Idol contestant to win a Grammy award, it's one of the most important moments in her career. I could understand posing a question if it was two images from an appearance on a public access television show or the Juno Awards, but this is the Grammys, which played a pinacle part in Kelly's career and the career of most artists. HeyNow10029 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there are two images from the same Grammy Awards ceremony. This is where the fair use violation may come into play. Does anyone know of the criteria? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is you see things either black or white, I think you're missing the bigger picture here, the grey area. Admin Chick Bowen wrote on my talk page: For example, she was discovered by a TV show, right (forgive my ignorace--I'm more of a Mahler guy myself)--have there been others from that TV show who have won Grammys or played at them? If she's the only one, that's worth noting You're right, normally having two images from the same show wouldn't be considered fair use, but since this was a pivotal moment in her career, it's allowed. HeyNow10029 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just trying to be cautious in case there happen to be image violations. Therefore, I believe we should allow another to step in before we reinsert the image into the article or remove it altogether. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. And another thing, the writing in this article lacks life. No offense, but your writing style is extremely robotic and since you edit a number of times idea it's affecting the article. I think the flow definately needs to be improved upon. HeyNow10029 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not put much work into the writing to be blatantly honest. The only thing I've really been striving for is that this article no longer includes fan-cruft and useless, excess information. The writing can be improved upon anytime, I just didn't choose now to follow through. Of course, you could always rewrite it if you feel like it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your point concerning additional buttons at the top of your screen confuses me. Other than that, I believe the article contains plenty of images at this period of time and the ones currently included should remain until the article is expanded. The image of the Grammy Award should stay here for now: five images in an article that is not even 30KB is quite extreme. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that confusing? What he means is that by being an admin he doesn't necessarily have all the answers, just the power to do more things: ei. block, delete pictures, etc. Really not that confusing ... anyway, good point about the Grammys thing, Chick Bowen, when I get more time I'm going to add more information about the Grammys and particularly their significance to her career and then include the picture. Maybe this weekend or next. Thanks for stopping by! :) HeyNow10029 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already too many images in this article. I believe, that is unless it is expanded, the article remain with the four screenshots it already includes. After all, four images for an article under 30KB has already surpassed normal lengths. The text is what is most important and needs to be expanded first. Besides, where could the image possibly be placed? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I'll remove your Since U Been Gone Image if you think four is too many. It's a poor image anyway. Eternally yours through a beautiful summer, Equinox, HeyNow10029 06:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Poor quality? That is per one's opinion because, to be honest, all four images in the article are of the same quality. The PD image is difficult to see, but it is still in good shape — the image I uploaded probably has the most solid fair use rationale in both of the articles it is featured in. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammy Awards images

message: Clarkson's third album is probably going to be released late 2006, so I added a small sentence at the part right before her discography to that effect. Morwen 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reverted. Do you have a source for your claim? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third album 

message: Since so many people think that this article has too many images, why not remove this one?  MorwenofLossarnarch 00:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the image is of poor quality, it should not be removed because it is in the public domain, which indicates that it is free to be distributed in any way imaginable and doesn't require fair use rationale such as the other ones do to remain in the article. If you asked for my opinion, I would suggest removing :Image:KellySNL.jpg. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All right. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, MorwenofLossarnarch but please stop removing that image from the article. Just because Eternal_Equinox suggested you remove it doesn't make it gospel. That image functions as an example of an important moment in Kelly's career. Geez, aren't there pop arists in Canada or wherever Czech people are from? HeyNow10029 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your grandfather is Czech!!! OMG! Someone call CNN!! This is so important! This is bigger then man landing on the moon! The picture is important because it highlights an important part of Kelly's career the promotional phase of her Breakaway album. And you thinking it's ugly is just your opinion, I think the Czech countryside is ugly, but that's just my opinion, so it gets us nowhere. And I'd watch out before you revert again, dearie, you're close to the three-revert rule another revert and you'd be in violation of it. HeyNow10029 20:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggested that the image be removed because it doesn't present an important moment in Clarkson's career — she is just performing on SNL. If it were so important, then every other performer's career would be essential for appearing on the program. I am not convinced. Also, I merely suggested its removal — I did not demand it be taken out. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion Eternal_Equinox. And since you're a self-confessed 'closet Kelly Clarkson' fan it's not an opinion I value very much. The Saturday Night Live performance came at a time when Breakaway was building momemtum and people were starting to recognize Kelly as a bonafide artist seperate from the American Idol entity. And how would you know the importance of performing on Saturday Night Live or any other American show to an American performer, you're Canadian. And please stop bashing the fair use rationale of this photo. It has been cleared by an admin already who has higher authority then you. Are you an admin, didn't think so. HeyNow10029 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is hopeless. And now I see that you've removed Canadian information because, as you believe, it is irrelevant to an American musician's history. I don't agree with you, but I don't disagree with you — I'm sort of fanning out both sides. However, the point that disturbs me—greatly—is the portion where you call the Canadian music industry "not important" and "smaller than California". Please source your claim where the Canadian market is not important and please tell me what you mean by "smaller than Canada"? If you are referring to California as bigger than Canada, then gosh, you are wrong. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, if you're addressing something I said, I would appreciate it if you addressed it to me and not somebody else. Secondly, I did remove the Canadian chart information. What makes the Canadian chart more important then the UK or Australia that it deserves to be mentioned alongside with the United States (it was actually refrenced one more time then the U.S. in this article). The answer: nothing, it's misleading and irrelevant. Thirdly, maybe I should have rephrased what I said, selling albums in Canada is important, because money is money, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking reaching chart sucess in Canada for an American artist in notible. Fourthly, and this one is my favorite because the Canucks always get all hot and bothered when they realize this. California IS bigger then Canada. Now I don't mean in the geographic sense, you've got everyone but Russia beat there with all your barren frigid land. I mean in the sense that matters for selling products, in this case records. The population of the state of California is 33,871,648 the population of good ol' Canada, according to the 2001 Census, 30,007,094. But the real kicker is this, California's GSP (gross state product) is measured at 1.7 Trillion, which means that if California was a country, it would have the 5th largest GDP in the world. Where does Canada rank, according to the IMF and CIA, 11th, the World Bank pegs you at 13th. So, yeah, since California isn't a country it's impossible to prove that the music industry is stronger in California then Canada, but anyone with common sense can come to that conclusion when given the facts. HeyNow10029 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting, but next time you should mention that. I despise statistics, but I must admit that these ones are certainly intriguing. Anyway, do what you will. No one owns an article. I'll come back and bother later. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I don't agree with the 'Breakaway' section on the main article. I don't see why 'Breakaway (single)' and 'Since U Been Gone' should have a whole paragraph about them whereas 'Behind These Hazel Eyes' and 'Because Of U' have only one line about them. BTHE and BOY were both as equally successful as the first two. I think equal praise should be given to these songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.13.187 (talk • contribs) 
:"Behind These Hazel Eyes" and "Because of You" did not break any specific records or solidify Clarkson's position in the mainstream music-market; therefore, they are irrelevant to expand upon, whereas both "Breakaway" and "Since U Been Gone" were important to her career. Thank you for your input, though. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Breakaway'' section 

message: I changed the discography section. I think the old one was too plain looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.12.125 (talk • contribs) 
:I've gone and tidied the loose ends. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I decided to change the bullets (*) to numbers (1, 2, 3...). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography section

message: I hate this last sentence in the lead in. "Although she had been criticised for her American Idol image, Clarkson has begun writing and composing more songs, and plans to release a third album in 2006."  
:What does being criticised for her image have to do with writing songs?
:The girl has been writing for a long time — she hasn't just begun.
:She wrote six of the songs on Breakaway and co-wrote a few on Thankful. 
:Plans for the thrid album now say late '06 early '07.
:I'm stumped as to how to rewrite this. Help! - Maria202 21:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better. However, instead of "in late 2006 or early 2007", I think it would be preferrable if you wrote "within the next year". —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  Do you want to change it? - Maria202 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence problem

message: Hey guys, yesterday I went to the french version of wikipedia and searched on kelly clarkson. The french article is of very poor quality. It doesn't even mention that Kelly Clarkson released Breakaway. I added some information to it, mainly regarding Breakaway. I also addded the discography table there. I would like to upload some photos in the article, it doesn't have any. I don't know how to do it so can someone please add them? Also, anyone who is fluent in French can please modify the article to improve its quality? Kelly Clarkson is now getting success in France. Because Of U recently entered the Top 20 and is currently the best video there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd21 (talk • contribs) 
:In order to upload images on the French Wikipedia, one would have to register an account. Now, I may be Canadian, but I am barely fluent in French and can only speak a fragment of what residents of Montréal are capable of emancipating from their throats. Therefore, it would be very difficult for any one of us whom do not speak French to succeed with Clarkson's article on the French Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French Wikipedia article on Kelly Clarkson

message: Although it is widely believed/reported that Clarkson's LA apartment "burned down", it isn't exactly true. The confusion is perfectly understandable since the event's been misreported frequently.
A partial fire at the apartment complex did occur causing extensive damage and displacing approx. a dozen people in the 71 unit complex (per Fox News 11 report). However, Clarkson's and her roommate's apartment wasn't visibly damaged. Definitely didn't "burn down".  Video of this event is at []. Download the Inside Edition 2002 vid. It shows Clarkson at the complex post-fire, discussing the fire, saying "We were lucky", and jumping on the bed.
Someone else can reword the correct information about the fire however they wish. 65.138.42.201 01:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life 

message: If you don't want to use the words "Gay film" you need to state something that gets the idea across that it was a questionable/"sexual content" film (of course they carefully emphasised that it was NOT porn. . . . exactly, nothing graphic).  The point is that she was desparate enough to take the role.  Without that it sounds like she was getting roles - so why go home?  It confuses the facts.  Frankly I think that "Gay film" sounds better than "soft porn video".  It is not like SHE was playing a Gay role - but you deleted the phrase that clarified that.  --69.19.14.40 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This film is never mentioned by Kelly, anyone doing an article on her or on any of her fan boards. I can't help wondering why you feel it's so important to include.  - Maria202 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is as important as the Sabrina reference.  She did do this.  Actually I would suggest using the wording "sleazy film" but it does not sound very encyclopedic.  Maybe "cheap video"? Although I don't know for a fact that it was cheap, but it gets the point across that she was desparatly trying to make it in Hollywood somehow. --69.19.14.40 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd heard she did it as a favor for a friend.  Do you have proof she was paid for her appearance?  She'd have received at least scale for Sabrina since it was a tv show. - Maria202 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no valid reason to mention that Issues 101 is a homosexual film. We do not state that Sabrina, the Teenage Witch is a heterosexual film; it wouldn't make any sense. Issues is not any more significantly important than Sabrina and even though she was desperate for money at the time, this does not expand upon the content very well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already took out the reference to "gay" before you edited it again.  "supplied a role" sounds weird.  And you can't just invent titles to articles that are the reference. -- 69.19.14.40 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:   If you can source that she really did not get any money for this - then I would not mind removing the entire mention.  It only has relevance in showing how hard she was trying to make it in Hollywood. But until then I am going to correct the article title and fix the wording. --69.19.14.40 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since you put it in, you should be the one sourcing that she did get paid.  - Maria202 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the norm is that an actor gets paid for acting.  There is no reason to think that Kelly did NOT get paid - except your statement. Therefore the mention should stay in.  -- 66.82.9.80 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Currently, the reference is incorrect and there are grammar errors. I don't understand why the anonymous user is continuously conducting inaccurate edits. There is no point in mentioning that Issues is a homosexual film; this is better-suited for the article on the actual subject, evidently. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have reworded it to "and played a small role in the film,  Issues 101", and I think that's all that needs to be said about it.  It's worth mentioning insofar as it's her film debut.  But the film and her appearance in it are both minor (the poster says "Cameo performance by Kelly Clarkson as Crystal" - no doubt added after she achieved fame). The subject of the film, whether it's homosexuality or nuclear physics, is irrelevant.  Rossrs 08:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why does the reference say "A Biography of Kelly Clarkson"?  There is nothing in or near that source article that says that.  -- Michigan user 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To use "gay film" as a term is POV on behalf of the author of the Yahoo article and it's unencyclopedic here despite the fact that it's quoted from source material.   I don't see a problem in categorising the film although I don't think it's necessary, but it should be reworded to make it less vague, and less colloquial.  I think  "played a small role in the gay-themed film, Issues 101"  would be better.  This is the term used twice in the article itself and quotes the film makers/promoters.  There is no arguing that it's "gay themed" but "gay film" is just too broad.   Also the word "supplied" is awkward.  Actors play roles, they don't supply them.  I'll change it.  Rossrs 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know anything about the film's content, so I figured I'd just quote what the article called it, to prevent any inaccuracy on my part. Everyking 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't know anything about the film either, only what I've read in the Yahoo article,  and I looked on IMDB.  I can't even figure out what Kelly was required to do.  Rossrs 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, her role was to accept a sexual invitation and then walk off with the guy. Everyking 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. Does anyone else have a comment about the writing in its current form? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely NEEDS the reference in there as that is the source of the information. --69.19.14.30 11:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is factually incorrect — wouldn't we require a reference for Clarkson's appearance on Sabrina? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree.  When the term "gay film" was used in a previous version, the reference was necessary because we were quoting the term used in the Yahoo article.  It had to be clear that we weren't using the term ourselves - that would have been POV.   Now we're saying it's a gay themed film and Clarkson was in it.  Nothing controversial or open to discussion there.  It's a fact.  We've linked to Clarkson's page at IMDB at the bottom of the article and anyone who wants to check it, can do so very easily.  We should avoid cluttering the article up with needless references - this one is absolutely not needed.  It would also be wrong to use the reference, because we have used nothing from the Yahoo article. Rossrs 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The existence of a reference is necessary anyway, quote or not. Our information needs to be clearly and easily verifiable. Clutter—who cares? The reader will be more concerned about our accuracy and verifiability than any so-called clutter. Everyking 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's to verify?  Does Meryl Streep have a reference for every film mentioned in her article?  Or any other actor/actress/director/singer/entertainer?  Today's featured article, Diane Keaton has 11 films mentioned just in the lead paragraph and not a single one of them referenced.  This should not be causing confusion to any readers and I'm sure it's not.  All we are saying about Issues 101 is :  1. Clarkson was in it, and 2. it was gay-themed.  There's nothing controversial or disputable here.  It's no different to saying The Godfather was a drama, or Annie Hall was a comedy set in New York - nobody is going to contradict statements like this.  As for clutter - a lot of people do care.  Verifiability is very important but in this case it's not necessary.  Rossrs 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay film 

message: I thought this article was good enough in its current form to justifying confirmation of Good Article status, after someone else recently nominated it. (I did take the opportunity to do some light copyediting.) Well done to those who've worked on the article, and good luck in improving it further. Metamagician3000 11:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I'm considering adding a reference to her third album in the 'studio albums' section. Probably something like 2006/2007? Unknown. Something like that. Bye! MorwenofLossarnarch 16:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. If it is currently untitled, I don't believe it should be included yet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio album addition? 

message: I have taken the time to locate two references which indicate the failure of From Justin to Kelly at the North American box office and with a few critics. With the material now sourced, the information in the lead section should no longer be removed since it no longer leans on breaking the neutral point of view policy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let you slide on this one.  The line "it was not well-received by critics and fans" should actually say "it was not well-received by critics by Pete Croatto".  Your POV and weasel word is the unamed fans. --Supercoop 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: EE - I see you have worked on the opening sentence.  Now that shows good faith so lets agree to integrate that line into the body of the article.  I would like to have a good intro for her without negativity so soon.  Let try re-writing the opening paragraph to talk only about her and then we can talk about the disastrous movie debacle. --Supercoop 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing of film failure in lead section

message: Do you think this is good enough to be an FA? I'm considering putting it up. A second peer review before that is always an option. TheKillerAngel 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not ready for featured article status quite yet. I do believe that it is prepared in the sense regarding references, but I don't think it would become an FA based on the current content, especially since nobody — including myself — has taken the time to write about Clarkson's film career yet. In addition, there should be more information on her "Image", and a section titled "Artistry" which is currently present at featured article Mariah Carey could be developed. Any comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we put up a "to-do" list for this article? TheKillerAngel 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: TheKillerAngel, Eternal Equinox isn't exactly the person to ask when it comes to a site's chances as a featured article. I think this page has what it takes, and it wouldn't hurt to give it a test run and see what people think, then go from there with the comments they make. If you nominate it, I'll vote to support. :) HeyNow10029 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless, the film career she has managed would be notable as it currently stands. Yes, a "to-do list" would be appropriate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA nomination 

message: Why is "Before Your Love" constantly being removed from the article? It was in fact a single released with "A Moment Like This", and did in fact reach #1 on Billboard. It actually received radio play before "A Moment Like This" and reached the charts first.
Some people here seriously need to do some RESEARCH and stop argueing with those who have followed Kelly's career since the beginning.
~kellysgirl 8 May 2006
:Please sign your message with four tildes (~~~~). See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Going back to the article; can you provide proof, in the form of an article or reliable website? TheKillerAngel 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before Your Love 

message: The song "Breakaway" was a single by Disney Records before the Breakaway album was made. It is not an official single from the 'breakaway' album.. which means..
Since U Been Gone is the first single from the album itself.
Behind These Hazel Eyes is the SECOND single from the album.
Because Of You is the THIRD single from the album.
Walk Away is the FOURTH single from the album.
~Kellysgirl 8 May 2006
How many times do you have to be told to sign your posts with four tildes? And you should realise that Breakaway was on the album, so technically it is a single FROM the album. Another thing, it was what the articles call a stopgap, which means that it was a point between albums. MorwenofLossarnarch 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Breakaway'' Album Singles 

message: Should we archive at least some of the discussions, as this talk page is extremely long and many of the discussions are no longer active. MorwenofLossarnarch 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be a good idea. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope! There is not a Wikipedia policy, let me complete the procedure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Process complete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Should we make an article on Clarkson's new song 'Go'? I personally don't think so, but others might differ. Bye!MorwenofLossarnarch 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has not been released as a single. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go? 

message: I am new to the editing and review of Wikipedia.  But as someone working on their PhD in history, I can't help but wonder why Kelly Clarkson rates such a long and detailed entry, when Carole King's entry is a third of the length of Clarkson's.  It's not that I am biased for or against one or the other.  I am just trying to understand why someone (King) who wrote over 500 songs that are well known to the American listening public does not warrant the same amount of detail as someone (Clarkson) who won a television contest.  Again, not that I am biased for one or the other - I am just trying to understand.  Is it because Clarkson is a current thing?  I recognize that cultural importance is hard to gauge and measure, but are current things more important to the Wikipedia audience than historical things?    
Merle rickard 14:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because Wikipedians have written more about Clarkson than about King.  One principle of Wikipedia is that there is no limit on the amount of content there can be (limit on the size of an article, sure - but that just means that overlarge articles get split into smaller chunks).  Wikipedia has no focus beyond the simple fact that Wikipedians write about what they know and what interests them.  Wikipedia, fundamentally, is written for its writers, not for its audience. Richard Gadsden 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's focus?