Talk:Katharine McPhee/Archive 1

message: Katharine did not "lose the title of American Idol to Taylor Hicks" because she never held it; therefore Taylor could not have taken it from her. Taylor just won the title. That, or the above statement needs work. TheKillerAngel 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I changed it. How's that look? --JOK3R 05:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better indeed. TheKillerAngel 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Katharine McPhee lost the title of "American Idol" to Taylor Hicks. BAD WORDING

message: If Katharine is a soul singer then Britney Spears is the Queen of Jazz and Bluegrass. Come on people 68.61.190.184 09:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Katharine being a SOUL singer. Really, Wikipedia? Really?

message: McPhee has been added to the category "American musical theatre actors". Is this something she's really notable for, or is it just something she happened to do at at an amateur level (high school, summerstock, etc). What are the details of her theater work? -- MisterHand 17:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical theater actress? 

message: Please don't add aliases or A.K.A.'s unless there is a source in which she is referred to as the alias.  Sure her name is Katharine, but may HATE being called anything but. Batman2005 02:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Different Aliases 

message: come on peeps,you gotta have proof when you add!I have yet to hear her pitch a note e6 or above. If you know where it is say so.
:I was just thinking what if katharine hit the whistle register on the show last week lol but no she hasnt so since there is no proof I'm taking her off. Although Tommy Matolla did say she had an amazing range and hes worked with Mariah and Beyonce who are both Whistle register singers. Still there is no proof of her hitting E6+ or a whistle note. Myke 07:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...Was there ever a source on this? Michael 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  whistle range? 

message: Could we put a small article referring to Kat's bulimia problem? I just got word of it in this article.--CrispinOfOrion 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struggle with Bulimia  

message: Can we try to come to a consensus over which image of Katherine McPhee to use?  Most of them that have been rotated through there by several editors are good, but one should be chosen and left in place. -- ArglebargleIV 03:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back the Idol one for the reason that it portrays her quite simply.  On every other season 5 contestants page, the promotional phots are still being used.  I feel the "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" photo is too dark and really doesn't show her at all.  For that reason, I have placed that one back where it was in the article, re-added the promo picture, and placed the picture of her performing (which was set as the main pic earlier today) in the post-Idol section, since that picture was only taken recently, based off the source, and it is of her performing after the show ended.  Is this amenable? Michael 04:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is to me.  I think the SOTR one is too dark as well.  I like the one from after AI the best, but for illustrative purposes I think the semifinal one is the best for now.  If she picks up significant fame after Idol, them a newer, more 'active' picture can be chosen then.  Now, to just get everybody to agree. :-) -- ArglebargleIV 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly...I think that for the present moment, it would be wise to just keep the promo there, and later, when there will undoubtdedly be more promos, change it for a more updated one. :-) Michael 04:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is so out of date. I suggest this one from the album booklet, it is even the same width as the current one, it will fit right in! http://www.dynamicwebsitesystems.com/WikiSmall.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.35.203 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image on the top of the page 

message: Sound good? They take up too much room in this article. TheKillerAngel 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that could only cause problems.  I assure you not many would approve.  We do not usually break articles in half if they are long. Michael 22:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make a separate article for her AI performances 

message: Some critics {emphasis mine} say that with Katharine McPhee's beauty, vocals, and acting skills, she has the ability to become one of the few artists of today to become an icon of tomorrow and that she also has the potential to reach sex symbol status.  Which critics?
I think that's pretty much true for all Idol semifinalists not just McPhee. Neither one of them wouldn't have made it to the top 24 if people/producers didn't think they have potential. If it doesn't have a reliable source or reference, then it's fancruft and should be removed. User:Arual 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninth bullet point in Trivia section 

message: "It was a record breaker since it was the highest the almost 7 decade old song reached in the Hot 100 singles chart, reaching 12th position on BillBoard's Hot 100."
I first looked at the sentence and I didn't think it made sense. I had to read it several times. How about saying, " It was a record breaker, reaching 12th position on BillBoard's Hot 100, the highest point of the almost 7 decade year old song." TheKillerAngel 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part needs better wording 

message: It seems extremely strange that the entire "Performances" section--a huge portion of the article--has disappeared without ceremony.  I checked the history and found that it had been taken out in the context of a very suspicious non-username edit.  I think the removal of this large amount of content was, amazingly, overlooked and simply missed.  These things exist for the other contestants in their articles and it should not have been removed.  It looks like it my have been done as vandalism by a Taylor fan (or something) and was not noticed.  This content really should be restored. MahlerFan 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you get the chance, please restore it. Michael 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs to be done, preferably by an admin.  The content was edited out with a suspicious anonymous edit that inserted "AMERICAN IDOL WINNER 2006!" after a random mention of Taylor Hicks's name.  The "AMERICAN IDOL WINNER 2006!" was removed with the next edit, but somehow the complete removal of the entire performances/judges' comments section went unnoticed.  I am not knowledgeable enough to restore the content.  I hope that an admin can do it soon.MahlerFan 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an admin is not needed, copy from earlier version will work. I'll give it a spin in the next few minutes. -- ArglebargleIV 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back the version from "Revision as of 21:23, 20 July 2006; Mike 7" -- is that okay? -- ArglebargleIV 23:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performances Section Disappeared

message: The following text was found in the lead introductory paragraph:
:McPhee's strong, consistent performances led to her making it all the way to second place during the fifth installment of the hugely popular American Idol and being signed to RCA Records. Dubbed the Kat Pack(and sometimes referred to as the McPheever), Katharine's fans have been supportive of her throughout Idol and are anxiously awaiting Katharine McPhee's debut album which is set to be released on November 28th, 2006. In addition to her music, Katharine has been involved in producing theater and she is also the spokeperson for the new Sexy Hair Line.
The first part is subjective and unsourced, and the last parts are all stated elsewhere in the article.  Also it looks so similar to Taylor Hicks' lead section that it's likely that a McPhee fan and Hicks-"hater" probably wrote it as an attack toward Taylor Hicks. On Wikipedia, attack pages (WP:ATK) are discouraged. If you're going to write a lead, please keep it neutral and sourced. Pink moon 1287 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  text from lead section 

message: The entire section that was added on "Sexuality" was rather gossipy and not really supported by facts. It was added around the same time as some vandals added other pieces of gossip. Yes, there are some "gay" fans, but the section seems to be speculative rather than informative. The only portion that looks like it's "based on fact" is the section talking about the gay fan groups.
I think the entire section should be removed... it looks like vandalism.
Nathalie1977 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katharine's "Sexuality" 

message: This section seems stalker-ish. Does wikipedia really need every obscure detail of a musician's life after Idol? It needs pruning or something. Pink moon 1287(email•talk•user) 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Idol section 

message: I've noticed that parts of the article is missing. I believe someone should fix it or restart it all over again. Robert Moore 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portions of article missing 

message: The section on Katherine's religious views needs some discussion. I have twice edited it to remove the repetition and the gossipy, inconsequential flim flam only for people to re-insert it.
The problem lies with the section that reads:
McPhee looked into Scientology[22], and no longer wishes to associate with it due to a widespread negative social stigma that surrounds the controversial subject, and only looked into it for a former love interest. In the past, McPhee had attended and completed two individual courses in Scientology, and had completed the purification.[23] Nevertheless, according to a 12 May 2006 interview on Los Angeles radio station KROQ 106.7 (Kevin and Bean), McPhee stated she "dabbled in Scientology" because of a former love interest but is not a Scientologist; according to her, she was "quickly out the door."[24] During a 26 May 2006 interview with Ryan Seacrest on Larry King Live, she once again explained that she is not a Scientologist, and only looked into it because of a former love interest[25].
The basic fault is that this is almost entirely irrelevent. There were comsequences or implications of her looking into Scientology so why is it gone into in such depth? This whole section could, and should, be reduced to one sentence. It is annoying that people keep reverting to this poorly written, repetative form when attempts have been made to streamline and improve it.Ando 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Views 

message: According to the most recent listing here, Daniel McPhee is not in the Forbes list of America's 400 richest people. Pink moon 1287 (email • talk • user) 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel McPhee 

message: Editors here are expected to immediately and without mercy enforce any suspected WP:BLP violations. Any unsourced or poorly sourced negative information should immediately be removed from the article and talk pages. BLP applies to all of Wikipedia, including personal user space. It applies not only to the subject of the article, but to all living persons, including those outside of Wikipedia.
I hope that editors here will review this talk page and remove such stuff. Demand very good sources for sensitive information. According to Jimbo Wales, anonymous IPs do not have the same civil rights as registered users. This is certainly the type of situation where they should be accorded less influence than registered users. -- Fyslee/talk 11:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP issues 

message: What happened to all the picture files? Why were they deleted? --Smokizzy (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics