Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 1

message: Is that picture liscensed, etc? All that's noted is that it's a publicity still... Rhymeless 04:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing that it's a publicity still, I assume it's free use (or at least fair use). Those are made so that media organizations can have something in their stories. I think it's more than fine. Cookiecaper 05:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Hi.  I was reading this article and a couple of passages caught my eye:
# I found the part about the roommate deal not really well-written (sorry).  It sounds like: they are living together but they don't live together.  Either they do or they don't, or maybe the whole thing is just a façade, but the text really doesn't state anything.
# Statements such as "(...) is currently dating (...)" are more on the side of a news page, not an encyclopedia.  When I read "currently", I have to check the page history to know when this was written, so I can know when "currently" actually takes place, not to mention the fact that once the situation changes, it's no longer current, which makes the article wrong.
I hope this is of some use.  Regards,  Redux 12:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and news 

message: Since this has been incorrectly "fixed" more than once, I thought I'd include a note about what comprises a parenthetical phrase.
I've since changed it so it's no longer an issue, but this article previously contained a sentence reading, "... the film's director, Angela Robinson, and Lohan both strongly denied the rumor." In hindsight, its structure is poor, in that the first person's name is a parenthetical and the second is not. The word "director" serves as written as the noun subject; a following proper noun becomes a further explanation of the noun subject, and is therefore parenthetical ("... the film's director (Angela Robinson) and...").
However, "... film Director Angela Robinson and Lohan..." is not parenthetical as the word "Director" is both an adjective, and a title (notice the capitalization) attached to the proper noun which, as structured, is also the noun subject.
Any explanation of a preceding noun ("her debut album, Speak, reached...") is parenthetical, including years following months (or seasons) and states following cities, and is both preceded and followed by commas (I know, I'm anal, but it seems like no one ever does this right any more...). Example structure: "Lindsay Lohan was born in July, 1986, (or "on July 2, 1986,") in New York City, New York, to Michael and Dina Lohan."
However, prepositions supplant commas ("... was born in July of 1986 to..."), and commas are not used in the European date style ("... was born on 2 July 1986 to...").
I hope this helps. RadioKirk 19:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthetical phrases and commas 

message: Everyking, are you sure it has nothing to do with your Ashlee Simpson bias? -- Chuq 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What bias? It has to do with the fact that calling other artists' lyrics cheesy is not acceptable. If it's cited, fine, but the way it's stated makes this questionable, and in the actual review it doesn't seem to say anything negative about those artists. But anyway, another user has gone and removed the whole review, so don't look at me. Everyking 22:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Album reviews

message: Does anyone else think the number of external links are getting excessive? obviously the 'official' site and fan sites are important, as is perhaps the imdb filmography.  But there are probably millions of Lindsay Lohan sites on the web - i don't think we should be including lots of fansites, the official one will probably just do the trick.  Tkessler 19:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
:This tends to happen with articles like this: people come along hoping to promote their own favorite fan site. My opinion is that you keep it trimmed back to the official site and maybe two of the most popular fan sites. Everyking 02:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Clay Aiken article links issue was resolved by just referencing one fansite, and that fansite then listed the several hundred or so Clay related sites.    This site would include any "online magazines" such as discussed below.  Now you just need to get a fan to volunteer to start such a site for Lindsay.  LOL. -- Michigan user 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, right idea. That's why we eventually settled on the Yahoo! listing. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of external links 

message: In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: Is Lindsay Lohan the next Judy Garland?
Compare Judy Garland, Sandra Dee and Drew Barrymore
:apples vs carrots. zen master    T  00:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I thought Lohan aspired to be the next Hayley Mills. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
----
I know good and well "Rumors" did not get to #4 and "Over" to #3 on the Hot 100. I don't know what chart those numbers are from. They should be indicated, if they are even real. The songs did not do particularly well; I'm not even sure Over made it onto the Hot 100 at all. Everyking 04:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindsay Lohan: Judy Garland of the 21st Century 

message: They should be cited though.  For comparison, the Ashlee Simpson article has an entire section devoted to lip syncing.  The music industry seems to be increasingly desperate. zen master    T  20:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think lip syncing allegations are relevant 

message: I think we should move all Punk'd synopses (after cleaning up for accuracy) to a new Punk'd episode guide article, what do people think? zen master T 12:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we should create a [[Punk'd episode guide]] article 

message: I have read through the article, and there is a fair bit of disputed writings which need editing NOW. 65.98.99.136 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have specific examples?  Note that you can tag a certain section or sentence as being disputed, or needing a source, if appropriate.  Such localized tags are often more informative than just saying the whole thing is disputed.  Friday (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed status 

message: someone changed the picture to that of some ugly guy, and i have no idea how to revert picture edits. =\ just fyi so it might get noticed.
:Yeah, just some crater-faced emotional nine-year-old who thinks he's funny. I'm trying to keep an eye on it... RadioKirk 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: I prefer the link, rather than the merge. This already is the largest article for anyone under 20 that I've seen so far... RadioKirk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes]] 

message: I think that the article is good, but it could really be elevated. Including more in-depth detail about her influences, film and music career would be preferable. Perhaps even a note about her Parent Trap to Just My Luck rise to fame. Really, there could be so much enhancement done with the article. I can't really cope with its current quality. Anyone care to help me improve it? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may? I recently purged a lot of information from this article, for two reasons: Most of it simply was not encyclopedic, and this article had become an elephant—easily the longest article for any 19-year-old I had come across yet. I, for one, would certainly appreciate any improvement within the parameters of encyclopedic—and brief—information. RadioKirk 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes to discuss whether List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes should be kept, deleted, or merged/redirected into this article.  --Rob 20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the vote, request for deletion was made this date. RadioKirk talk to me 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes]] deletion discussion 

message: Lindsay Lohan is so bloody attractive, I cannot think of one other woman who even comes close to her... maybe Kate Winslet in Enigma but even then Lindsay kicks her ass. I heard a rumour that she is getting married, any comments? (The previous unsigned comment was offered by )
:Um... okay. Thanks for that. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractive 

message: "their breakup that November made the gossip columns, forcing actors such as Bruce Willis to refer to their relationships as "purely professional."
:What does this mean? Is it referring to Willis' relationship with Lohan? Or to Willis' statement on Lohan's relationship with Valderrama? JackO'Lantern 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed in a moment RadioKirk talk to me 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward phrase