Talk:Katharine McPhee

message: Unless you can cite a reference to her "parting ways", please leave it as "dropped from label."  Parting ways would assume it is a mutual agreement and this is not the case.  Tallanvor (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-Present 

message: She is repotedly dating a 44 year old producer. Making her image for young girls a bit more bad girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keane Rox (talk • contribs) 19:57, August 9, 2007
What?
72.206.97.34  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no field in Template:Infobox musical artist to add her spouse, so that's why it doesn't exist. Readers will have to read the text of the article to find out. Standard practice is that the infobox contains a minimum amount of information that can be found in the article. Royalbroil 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: Unless you can cite a reference, please stop changing the album's certification to Gold. --Aspects 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA Certification 

message: Why is there no info at all on this page about "I Lost You," the physical single she released exclusively at Wal-Mart? I don't know any specifics, but I know it should be here somewhere.--97.101.1.246 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart Exclusive Single 

message: Someone has made a big goof here. There's no source for the album name ("A Day in the Life") or release date (April 11, 2009) and the fans (especially the dedicated type) haven't heard anything, so someone is making things up. This information should be deleted until it can be sourced, so I went ahead and deleted it and the name of the album in the heading and deleted the second album information from the Albums section. I also added that Verve is a label under Universal. 69.243.126.218 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second album name/release date? 

message: Just FYI, I'm doing some major reworking of McPhee's page to what I hope is something with better flow and better subsections. I'm sure a lot of the page just flowed naturally as time went on, but now that it looks like McPhee will be around awhile after signing with Verve, it seems time to make the flow better and get rid of some awkwardness. I'm sure others will edit as they see fit, but I just wanted to give a heads up that I'm making some major changes. Also, I'm making these changes in stages because there's a lot of them. Some little things I may leave alone until I can figure out how to handle them better. 69.243.126.218 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major editing 

message: CloversMallRat, what is the reason you removed the Hot Digital Songs column in the singles section? Is it a Wikipedia style thing or something else? I'm still learning about Wikipedia's rules, so it would be a good thing to know for the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducold (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Hot Digital Songs removal 

message: This edit introduced trivia which is sourced merely to TMZ, which is not a reliable secondary source by any stretch of the imagination, it is a celebrity gossip rag. Furthermore, the content of the assertion is that McPhee was kissing someone not her husband. Is this truly relevant and encyclopedic information that rises to the threshold of inclusion in a WP:BLP here on Wikipedia? I contend that it is not, and cannot be included no matter how solid the sources are. Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a report that she is secretly an alien nazi in disguise, it's that she's having an affair, with pictures to back it up. If that fact that she got married belongs here, surely the fact that her marriage is clearly at the very least on the rocks belongs just as much. It is sourced to TMZ, because that was the outlet that broke the story but it has also been taken up by numerous other outlets all over. Moreover, TMZ is very much a reliable source for this type of information. It certainly is as reliable as People for example, which is used to source her wedding. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I have no issues with the sourcing as presented currently. I did some looking into TMZ's reputation on WP:RSN and found it is regarded generally as reliable for information about celebrities. However, I contend that this incredibly minor incident (she was kissing someone - that is the whole story - a kiss) has no demonstrable impact on her life or career as documented by secondary sources. Honestly, there are not many kisses I can think of that would warrant even a sentence of coverage in anyone's BLP. Sure, if she had a full-blown affair with this guy, that can be notable; after all, they are professionally involved as well. If she draws a reputation as a homewrecker and has trouble finding work in the future, that is notable if it can be documented (which I would tend to doubt) but right now, a kiss is a kiss, and I think, so what? Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also point out that there is growing consensus across WP:ACTOR to not include trivia about dating in BLPs. This has eliminated many indiscriminate laundry lists of former boyfriends/girlfriends. It is generally agreed that a relationship which proceeds to engagement and/or marriage is worthy of inclusion, while others, lacking documented impact, are not. Now here we have a kiss and not even a date. Does that meet our agreed threshold? I would say no. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be honest, we know it was more than a little kiss, it was a bit of a scandal and blew up social media for a few days and was even mentioned during the entertainment portions of some morning news shows and some talk shows, and is still being talked about a bit online. "Friends" and "sources" have talked to various gossip sites like TMZ and People.com so we have some idea of what's going on; however, none of the parties, Morris,  his wife Mary McCormack, or McPhee, have made official statements either personally or through their reps, so we don't have official proof there was an affair or what the parties are doing (like Morris and his wife trying to reconcile). The only thing that seems to have been confirmed is that McPhee has separated from her husband. Is all that enough to at least mention in the Personal section? I'd say yes regarding the possible separation and the bit of scandal that led to that reveal, but it probably doesn't warrant going into further detail. I'd say the current mention of it in the Personal section should remain for now, unless and until something more comes of it. If it helps, include one or two more later valid sources, like the latest from People.com, and then leave it alone for now. Ducold (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind, gossip sources and flash-in-the-pan entertainment news coverage isn't what we're looking for, nor are "friends". We'd be looking for some indication that this will be of significance to her life and career, as an encyclopedia article isn't a gossip magazine or trivia source, it's a synopsis of the most important points about the subject. If it's just one of those here today gone tomorrow Hollywood items, I'd tend to err on the side of leaving it out. If a more significant and lasting impact can be demonstrated, I'd say the article needs to include it. So—which one of the two do reliable sources say it is? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The affair itself (which truly hasn't been confirmed by any of the parties) does appear to be a here today-gone tomorrow kind of thing in terms of coverage. About the only significant thing that can be confirmed from the story to a certain degree is that McPhee is separated from her husband of 5 years. So I don't know at this point whether that's important enough and considered verified enough to keep in the Personal section. If the consensus says to leave it out until McPhee addresses it herself (whether the affair or the separation), I will go with the consensus.Ducold (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly sourced trivia not appropriate for a BLP 

message: The citation to TMZ was one to essentially a gossip site, and such would require better sources. However, today, the article references the :Los Angeles Times for the incident, which generally would be considered a reliable source. Is poor referencing still considered to be an issue? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issues with the sourcing as presented currently. I did some looking into TMZ's reputation on WP:RSN and found it is regarded generally as reliable for information about celebrities. However, I contend that this incredibly minor incident (she was kissing someone - that is the whole story - a kiss) has no demonstrable impact on her life or career as documented by secondary sources. Honestly, there are not many kisses I can think of that would warrant even a sentence of coverage in anyone's BLP. Sure, if she had a full-blown affair with this guy, that can be notable; after all, they are professionally involved as well. If she draws a reputation as a homewrecker and has trouble finding work in the future, that is notable if it can be documented (which I would tend to doubt) but right now, a kiss is a kiss, and I think, so what? Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also point out that there is growing consensus across WP:ACTOR to not include trivia about dating in BLPs. This has eliminated many indiscriminate laundry lists of former boyfriends/girlfriends. It is generally agreed that a relationship which proceeds to engagement and/or marriage is worthy of inclusion, while others, lacking documented impact, are not. Now here we have a kiss and not even a date. Does that meet our agreed threshold? I would say no. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be honest, we know it was more than a little kiss, it was a bit of a scandal and blew up social media for a few days and was even mentioned during the entertainment portions of some morning news shows and some talk shows, and is still being talked about a bit online. "Friends" and "sources" have talked to various gossip sites like TMZ and People.com so we have some idea of what's going on; however, none of the parties, Morris,  his wife Mary McCormack, or McPhee, have made official statements either personally or through their reps, so we don't have official proof there was an affair or what the parties are doing (like Morris and his wife trying to reconcile). The only thing that seems to have been confirmed is that McPhee has separated from her husband. Is all that enough to at least mention in the Personal section? I'd say yes regarding the possible separation and the bit of scandal that led to that reveal, but it probably doesn't warrant going into further detail. I'd say the current mention of it in the Personal section should remain for now, unless and until something more comes of it. If it helps, include one or two more later valid sources, like the latest from People.com, and then leave it alone for now. Ducold (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind, gossip sources and flash-in-the-pan entertainment news coverage isn't what we're looking for, nor are "friends". We'd be looking for some indication that this will be of significance to her life and career, as an encyclopedia article isn't a gossip magazine or trivia source, it's a synopsis of the most important points about the subject. If it's just one of those here today gone tomorrow Hollywood items, I'd tend to err on the side of leaving it out. If a more significant and lasting impact can be demonstrated, I'd say the article needs to include it. So—which one of the two do reliable sources say it is? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The affair itself (which truly hasn't been confirmed by any of the parties) does appear to be a here today-gone tomorrow kind of thing in terms of coverage. About the only significant thing that can be confirmed from the story to a certain degree is that McPhee is separated from her husband of 5 years. So I don't know at this point whether that's important enough and considered verified enough to keep in the Personal section. If the consensus says to leave it out until McPhee addresses it herself (whether the affair or the separation), I will go with the consensus.Ducold (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion