Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 2

message: I don't believe it was widely reported lindsay allegedly got breast implants, please cite (enough mainstream citations to be consided "widely" plz).  I also don't think breast implant info is appropriate in the article, how many celebs have breast implants, does wikipedia flag each one?  It's certainly not appropriate in the introduction, and the link to the "visual aid" website is most egregious.  I'll remove that section myself unless I hear counter arguments. Zen Master 19:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I hear it all the time, and I'm pretty sure she's denied it herself, which she wouldn't do unless it was widely reported. And, I mean, just look at her. Sure it's important. The people want to know. Everyking 20:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fanboi message boards do not count as "widely reported". :-)  Since she has officially denied it I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia, it's also borderline sexist the way it's currently presented.  How many other movie star bio pages have claims of fake breasts?  So "encyclopedic" has degenerated into "the people want to know"?  Such gossip has no place on wikipedia, I think we should put removing the mention of possible fake breasts up for a vote.  Zen Master 21:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a rumor and has not been proven or disproven; it was never "widely reported"—it wasn't even reported at all except in tabloids, which have little to no crediblity. Stephe1987 00:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Notable does not negate sexist nomenclature.  Please cite a mainstream/non-message board website that claims lindsay lohan's brests are fake?  At this point it's at best a rumor, not public information.  Do you agree "widely reported" is inaccurate at least?  Zen Master 22:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, I've heard it joked about on television before. I think a great many people who are familiar with Lindsay know about the implant claim. I don't see how it's sexist nomenclature, it's just saying she may have had implants. A simple statement. We could have a poll, but I don't know if we'd get enough votes to be worth anything. If it really matters to you, you could list it on RfC and that might attract enough votes. Everyking 22:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The current statement is fine. It says what you want to say, yet remains ambiguous to the reality (or non-reality) of it.--Txredcoat 22:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  breast implants widely reported, really? 

message: Any sources/refs for her plans to model w/Vogue (Film) and do a song with Alsou (Music)? --AnOddName 18:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done an exhaustive search; no corroboration I can find, so, begone ;) RadioKirk 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: We may have to keep an eye on this one: Picturehouse bought the distrib, and recommended the title be changed from The Last Broadcast back to APHC. Garrison Keillor, the radio show's host and writer, said at the buyers' screening that another alternative, Savage Love, was being discussed to broaden the film's appeal. Picturehouse was not hot on the idea... RadioKirk 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''A Prairie Home Companion'' 

message: Confessions of a Broken Heart (Daughter to Father) debuted at #66 on the Billboard Hot 100.
This makes it her first and only Hot 100 hit. Rumors made #106 and Over faired slightly better at #101. First failed to chart however.
:Cite the source here, and it can stay in the article. RadioKirk 18:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the information I found there today.  And great, let us assume that the information is correct.  You are then free to add it to the article so long as you cite it properly, along with the appropriate date.  --Yamla 23:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out I was looking at the wrong information, I was looking at the top 200 rather than the hot 100.  However, the hot 100 (or at least, the bottom half of the top 100) is only available online to subscribers, at quite a high cost.  Please find a more reasonable reliable source.  Thanks.  --Yamla 23:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This listing (especially the seemingly newer figure, #58) continues to be included with no citation. I will continue to remove it until I see a link that I can follow without a subscription to get verification. RadioKirk 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, finally... RadioKirk 17:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confessions is at #66 

message: Anyone want to make reference to http://www.weff.com/images/nipslip.jpg ? I realize it's a bit unencyclopedic, but it created a *huge* stir on several fan sites. If not, oh well... you just saw 17-year-old Lindsay Lohan's nipple! Aren't you glad you read this?
:"(A) bit"? I say leave the boys to their own devices... ;) RadioKirk 04:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since this keeps popping up (oops... sorry), I think I've managed to write a tactful (and correctly brief) way to deal with the nipslips. Feel free to let me know... RadioKirk 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nipple slip? 

message: friend of mine found her wallet outside a dance studio in new york. in it was a few grams of coke.
:This claim is specious. Period. It's amazing how many people are "friends" with the person who "found" her wallet, and this person's claims are suspect to begin with . Lohan herself notes that she could not abuse drugs because she's seen what abuse does to people like her own father . Even were the drug claim factual, its encyclopedic value is dubious; without citation, it won't stay in at all. RadioKirk 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a little note, when she (Lindsay) was in New Orleans in the spring/summer of 2004 to film a movie, her exploits were daily fodder for the Times Picayune's Living Section.  On an almost nightly basis, she (Lindsay) was getting wasted (drunk) and partying (including dancing on tables, etc.) on Bourbon Street and in French Quarter bars.  Her behavior was constantly causing production delays according to media reports (The Times Picayune).  Thus any claims on her part that she could never abuse drugs seem dubious at best to me...given that alcohol is a drug, and she certainly was no stranger to it when she was in The Big Easy in 2004.  Amazing behavior given that she has yet turn the ripe old age of 21.
alcohol is not technically  a drug and whats wrong with her wanting to have fun? what is she supposed to do with her downtime while on location? Curefreak 10:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Alcohol is not technically a drug" -- where did you get that idea?! Try reading Wikipedia's article on alcohol. Here's a quote from the Uses section: "Alcohol is a drug, with potential for overdose or toxic poisoning if taken in excessive quantities." In fact, it's one of the most abused drugs in the world. -Phoenixrod 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coke head - was/is 

message: Yeah because the cd debut at #20, and Mariah Carey's Emancipation is at number 6 selling a little more than 150.000 so, lindsay's confessions have sold less than 150.000 copies, SO ERASE THAT jaja 261.000 you have to be kidding
by the way, i dont think the cd is being succesfull in other countries, so is imposible that it has sold that worldwide
:You can learn how to cite information by reading the WP:CITE page. --Yamla 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yamla is correct; if you include a reputable, verifiable (without a subscription) source that overrules the source currently cited, then the information will be used—but not before. RadioKirk 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, I need to relearn how to read [blush] RadioKirk 20:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  And a vacation.  Still, do we have a source that gives current sales numbers?  The previous citation did not, it only listed sales in the first week or something.  It wasn't a great source anyway.  --Yamla 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the only one I'd found... but people keep posting the same numbers, invariably. I'll keep looking as I have time... RadioKirk 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was far better than no source at all, which is what we had before, it is just that it wasn't a great source.  But everyone who is updating the numbers seems to have a more specific source because they are posting different (and higher) numbers.  It's all very frustrating.  --Yamla 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Billboard.com just updated, it is #20, still searching for sales figures RadioKirk 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, found the rollingstone.com page with the numbers... good enough for me :) RadioKirk 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!  Thanks, RadioKirk.  --Yamla 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I should mention that, if people would ever learn to cite their sources in the first place, other people would need a lot less Ibuprofen ;) RadioKirk 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Little More Personal couldn't sale more than 100.000 

message: According to the main Lindsay article, the second single from RAW will be "I Live For The Day", same as it was announced by mtv.com a few days ago, but according to the RAW CD article it's going to be Cheap Trick's cover "I Want You To Want Me", so wich one will it be? Probrable "I Live For The Day" because it's already gaining spins on the radios... So someone might edit the CD information...
:Thanks for the heads up! Fixed. Gflores Talk 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second single? 

message: Shouldn't the soundtracks for freaky friday and confessions be listed in the discography. She sang in both of them and had music videos (I think).Gflores Talk 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I was under the impression that soundtracks and compilations do not count toward an individual artist's discography, but I could be wrong... RadioKirk 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm actually not sure, but I feel there should be some mention of it in the discography section to show that Speak wasn't actually her first professional singing experience. Whitney Houston's discography has soundtracks listed, but Simple Plan has a subheader under discography. I think the latter is a better solution. Gflores Talk 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the subheader idea. RadioKirk 18:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: I read in a Lindsay Lohan fan Page that she is going to work whit Chanel, and that she is going to be their new face, isnt that important and where could that information be posted. Hilaryboy00 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a reliable source, and not just a rumour, feel free to post that. That would probably go under her modeling section. Thanks for contributing. Gflores Talk 15:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is that im latino, and my english is not the best, so someone can post that??Hilaryboy00 15:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in several sources, mostly overseas (from the US) so far... but, I also spotted this so, perhaps, holding off for confirmation would be good... RadioKirk 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A new Face for Chanel

message: source RadioKirk 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''ALMP(R)'' falls to #46 

message: An editor seemed to suggest that the search page at the RIAA website is the source for updated sales figures for Speak; I can find only the Gold and Platinum certification dates. Am I missing something? RadioKirk talk to me 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, you've gathered all of the information you're capble of retrieving. However, I could possibly be wrong; perhaps you haven't located the information you're searching for. —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone's finding numbers somewhere—at least, I'm presuming they're not being culled from someone's stool samples—but I can't find them at any reputable source without a subscription, which is the criterion ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a mistake in reverting this.  I was looking at the edits backwards so it seemed to me that cited information was being replaced with uncited information and a comment specifically requesting decent information was being reverted.  I have reverted my reversion.  --Yamla 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was confusing; the editor added the source following the comment. I just moved it to the proper spot. RadioKirk talk to me 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA and sales figures? 

message: To be honest, this is a gossip column; a quick search, however, suggests Roger Friedman has a decent rep. I'm inclined to leave it up, for the moment... RadioKirk talk to me 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a mistake in reverting this.  I was looking at the edits backwards so it seemed to me that cited information was being replaced with uncited information and a comment specifically requesting decent information was being reverted.  I have reverted my reversion.  --Yamla 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was confusing; the editor added the source following the comment. I just moved it to the proper spot. RadioKirk talk to me 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOXNews link for 202,000 ''ALMP(R)'' figure

message: This "project" was originally mentioned for 2005; clearly, that didn't happen. Based on its supposed synopsis, this appears to be part of an unsubstantiated rumor that's been resurrected a few times with different titles, each time involving Hilary Duff as the one who supposedly "lost" the role to Lohan. I suspect there's a high likelihood that this "project" was made up from the get-go. RadioKirk talk to me 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. Recently while at IMDB I did dome research on the movie and "Shaun Landers". It seems suspicious that he/she so quickly was able to get a co-starring role with such big names. So we got to the conclusion that he/she must have made up the title him/herself. I have no solid proof other than that though. Arianna Chanel 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The New Girl'' 

message: I, for one, will nuke this crap the instant I see it. Those of you capable of critical thought will already have figured out that the last two piece-of-trash articles on Lindsay (including the friend supposedly photographed taking her a preg test in the hospital in a clear plastic bag [her friends aren't that stupid]—and, why have they "seen" this photograph but not published it, may I ask?) came from that bastion of journalism, the New York Post ('nuff said). Also, you may note, this is supposed to have happened in the same club where her father supposedly got so shit-faced that he passed out at the bar? Please... RadioKirk talk to me 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meantime, among my wholesale rewrites with FA quality in mind, I worry that paragraph two of "spotlight" drops too many names (I readded Bruce Willis to demomstrate the wide-ranging effect of the rumors). Thoughts? RadioKirk talk to me 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In the end, I'm not sure there's any way around the name dropping.  Lohan herself seems to court this attention.  I was thinking maybe splitting the paragraph up into two parts but upon rereading it, I don't think that is appropriate.  --Yamla 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, shiitake mushrooms! Who snuck in the "picture archive when I wasn't looking? *PLONK* As for the categories, I hadn't paid that much mind yet. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kate Moss business... 

message: Here. RadioKirk talk to me 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Mean Girls]]'' worldwide box office citation 

message: I know this is a small detail, but should her middle name be in the top of the article or the biography section? I'd suggest putting it in the biography portion, rather than having all information on her birth name scattered throughout the article.--Fallout boy 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pointed this user to other featured articles in which birth name is listed as it is here. Personally, I don't feel there is a difference whether it's first, middle, last or all of the above that has changed since birth. Of course, that's my opinion... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked through your precedent articles, and I've also left a note on Strickland's talk page about formatting her name as well. --Fallout boy 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reply here. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle name

message: Thanks to Raul654 for official recognition of this now-Featured Article. This would not have been possible without the original author, AntonioMartin, and months of work and/or vandal-fighting by Everyking, Adam Bishop, TheCustomOfLife, Zen-master, Yamla, Clawson, Tregoweth, Hall Monitor, Extraordinary Machine, Triggy, and dozens of others just too numerous to mention. Thanks also to Fritz Saalfeld, Rossrs, Gflores, Andrew Levine, AndyZ and Yamla for their help in Peer Review, and to Everyking, RyanGerbil10, Gflores, maclean25, Nightstallion, Forever young, Orane, Rossrs, Extraordinary Machine and Buchanan-Hermit for their help and votes in FAC. I will continue my work, meantime, to help keep this article at its best. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lindsay Lohan]] now a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article!]] 

message: Since several editors, myself included, find album information on Lindsay's main page extraneous, it occurs to me that the singles chart is also repetitive so, for the moment, it's gone in favor of a simple listing (I'm still looking for exact release dates for three of them). Feel free to comment. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember seeing Mr. Mandela in Mean Girls, soo.... Mad Jack 08:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles chart 

message: Does anyone know exactly what parts of her ancestry are Irish and which are Italian? Both her surname and her mother's maiden name, "Sullivan", are Irish. One article I saw mentioned an Italian grandmother. Are both of her parents half Irish and half Italian, or is her father Irish and her mother Irish-Italian? JackO'Lantern 01:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus far I have declined to ask her "people" since, just from the standpoint of my personal opinion, I found the exact answer irrelevant—oh, and also because the response would be "original research" ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't necessarily be original research, but it's not that important. I was just wondering from a personal standpoint and asking if anybody's read it somewhere, it would have no big effect on the article anyway. JackO'Lantern 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering only for myself, I've found no reputable source of anything more specific than is listed :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I tried looking just now and came up with a blank. It seems the original "irish-Italian" comment was made in a Filmbug article around 1998, and she hasn't mentioned her ancestry at all since (it's been copied and pasted from place-to-place since 1998). She does mention an "Italian grandmother" here , that's the only other source. JackO'Lantern 04:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it in an early Newsday article, but I couldn't find it again while researching the article's references. RadioKirk talk to me 04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One of Lohan's grandmother's is Italian. I don't even know which grandmother, though. And I don't know if any of her other grandparents were Italian. Would like to find out, though. Mad Jack 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish-Italian

message: This supposed project, like The New Girl above, is a very old—and still very false—rumor. Still ain't happening... RadioKirk talk to me 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Bad Girls'' 

message: Tally as of 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The results of this "tally" are not legitimate as no actual straw poll was conducted.  The above comments are part of a discussion that occured as a result of a request for comment.  Also, the characterization of my "vote" was not correct.  Crediting me with a "delete" "vote" does not acurately reflect my comments above, which suggested that keeping the reference would be acceptable if improvement were possible. -- backburner001 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. RadioKirk talk to me 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. -- backburner001 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of discussion (no actual poll was taken) 

message: Since RadioKirk has determined that our truce does not exist (see my talk page), I have removed the Punk'd reference again and placed a  tag in the disputed section.  I believe this is a reasonable compromise, given that the tag identifies that the section is currently being disputed (thereby calling the attention of editors to comment on the issue).  I ask that RadioKirk simply allow this to stand as it is until we can further discuss the matter when we are assigned a mediator. -- backburner001 02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The so-called "truce" you destroyed extends into an RfM you requested? Have fun now... RadioKirk talk to me 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the RfM rules does it say that I cannot modify an article?  My understanding is that I could not modify the request itself made on the RfM page.  Am I incorrect here? -- backburner001 05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process. RadioKirk talk to me 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, where does it say this?  I have not been able to find this on the RfM page.  I may be missing it, which is why I am requesting that you direct me to it in case I did. -- backburner001 05:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process. RadioKirk talk to me 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer my question. -- backburner001 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor will I. You are to direct your query to its proper recipient. RadioKirk talk to me 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truce ended, reference removed 

message: There has been no discussion on this subject since 28 February 2006 (three weeks). A "disputed" tag was added on 7 March 2006 (two weeks ago); the only discussion to result therefrom was limited to the inclusion/deletion of the data during the dispute. Per Wikipedia deletion process—believed by this editor to apply to portions of Wikidata as well as Wikidata in its entirety—if there is no clear consensus to delete the disputed data, "(including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE)," then "the decision is KEEP". (This editor believes the preceding applies to informal discussion as well as a formal tally.) Further, a request for mediation was closed by Essjay on 8 March 2006 "for failure of the parties to show good faith effort at mediation"; also per Essjay, the dispute is to be "referred to arbitration to consider the matters of harassment, edit warring, and vandalism." Therefore, the instant process is dated and will be closed, and the "disputed" tag removed, within 48 hours. Signed, RadioKirk talk to me 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a similar Wikipedia policy or guideline in reference to disputed sections of an article?  The Wikipedia deletion process page refers to the deletion of entire articles, not sections of articles (or even parts of sections, which is what this dispute involves).  Since this matter is going to be referred to arbitration, I will not object to "closing" the discussion on this page (although this essentially means nothing since the matter will be referred to arbitration anyway). -- backburner001 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None I can find; it's my assertion based on that which does exist. RadioKirk talk to me 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize -- I missed the part of your above comment where you clarified this by stating that it is believed by you "to apply to portions of Wikidata as well as Wikidata in its entirety."  I'll read more carefully in the future. -- backburner001 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. RadioKirk talk to me 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent to close dated process 

message: I took the liberty of deleting this section of the article, since it only links to a deleted article and leaving it around may tempt someone to recreate something that's already been through VfD once. The information it gave was sparse when it was part of the main LL article anyway. However, a proper list of remixes would be a valuable addition to the listed discography. In my opinion, though, it would only be relevant if it included names of the remix artists and perhaps dates of release (in order to give the reader a sense of whether or not her songs enjoyed sustained popularity, etc.). Unfortunately, I have no idea where this information could be sourced from. Anybody have any leads? Istewart 10:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remixes 

message: I was just looking over this page after I looked over the Lindsay Lohan page and it seems there is a discrepancy in how well the movie did at the boxoffice. This page says:
:The movie did poorly, sliding down the box office charts nearly every week since entering on number 2 on 31 July 1998. It made a modest U.S. gross of just over $66 million. 
The Lohan page says:
:The Parent Trap did well at the box office, bringing in US$92 million worldwide.
They are totally different, both in number and in attitude. I hope that someone with legitamate sources can fix this before someone else sees it, as who knows how long this has been here! --Jared  [T]/[+] 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure and source in the Lindsay Lohan article are correct, as is your source—sort of. The Parent Trap did US$66M domestically and US$92M worldwide (as the article states). Your source, however, asserts that the film did "poorly", which seems to reflect the POV of the writer. This little family comedy did fairly well against its competition, and a US$66M domestic gross in 1998 would be considered a moderate success. RadioKirk talk to me 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit: I've rephrased the passage; it should now be more accurate. RadioKirk talk to me 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go here you can see all the exact statistics for the movie. Stephe1987 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy?

message: Is it just me or does this article have way too many quotes? I mean, does it really matter what each and every critic said about her movies? Or what Lindsay told her friends about what she was doing while filming The Parent Trap? It's a cute quote, but it's not really encyclopedic. This is supposed to be a biography on Lindsay's life, not a quote book or about what people think of Lindsay! I could be wrong about this, but please let me know what you think. I have finals this week, but I am done on Wednesday and have a week off, so I am planning on doing some clean-up on Thursday because this article needs some help—and I am not just talking about the quotes/references. In my opinion there are way too many, but we can keep those if people really want them. In other categories, the wording on some sentences is off and there are a lot of repeats of information that should be stated only once. Stephe1987 23:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephe1987, the quotes are not only relevant to the she-was-good-in-this-project-so-she-then-did-this-project narrative, but they were required for a Featured article. I understand and appreciate that you want to improve this article, as do all of us working on it, but any change that is counterproductive could adversely affect FA status. Please be bold in your edits but, at the same time, please take care to follow the guidelines of what is a Featured article and, for an insight into how this specific article succeeded, read this. RadioKirk talk to me 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say to get rid of all of them, I just said that there are too many. The ways she got her roles is important, but we really don't need to hear about five different peoples' opinions on a particular movie. One or two is just fine. But if you want them there that's fine. That's what I wanted to know anyway. I think that part of the problem with the quotes is that the incorporation into the article is not very smooth—they need to be better written. The people who requested an article cleanup were right: the content is good but the layout quality is poor. I think that the previous version got FA status because it was very informative, not because it was the best it could be, and an improvement is greatly needed to get this article back to the FA status where it should be. I think that keeping all those quotes and other random info in there could be good—if the article was better-organized and the overall flow was better. As is now, this article looks like a group of people came in and found all the quotes they could, and then carelessly entered them into the article! Also what do you think about the quote about what Lindsay told her friends during The Parent Trap? To me, that sounds more like something they'd put on E! True Hollywood story, not an encyclopedia entry. I mean, it's cute, but not particularly important.  Stephe1987 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version, with a few small additions and minor changes, won FA status—the cleanup request was made several months prior. Each movie has one or two quotes (none has more) to demonstrate a critical consensus as required by admins and editors during the FA process. Her quotes also were required during the same process to make her human. Sorry to persist but, if you haven't read the links I left above, please do. RadioKirk talk to me 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit: Okay, I reread the article, and found a few quotes a little clunky—and, bear in mind, I wrote most of them in—and I've just smoothed them out a little. The TPT quote is a vital insight into the show-biz savvy of a then-11-year-old girl and was specifically recommended during WP:FA; the few other Lohan quotes were similarly added. RadioKirk talk to me 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! The article seems better now. I understand why the quotes were in there. Thanks! Stephe1987 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section restored: Stephe1987, I know you like to remove comments from your user talk page when a discussion is done, and that's great! On article pages, though, they should remain as relevant to the article's history. Thanks again for helping smooth a few things out! RadioKirk talk to me 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that it's important to keep in sections like this when changes are actually made to the article, but no changes were made here. I simply asked about why there were so many quotes, and you answered my questions with information about FA's, etc. Is it necessary to keep in a section like this when it was a simple question and no changes were actually made? Or do the Wikipedia people like to have every single comment ever made on record? It seems like this, when nothing was actually done, is irrelevant and just a waste of space when people are coming here to look at changes that were actually made and discuss things. It's just one more thing to scroll down past on an already-busy page, full of comments about changes to the article. Or maybe they want to keep it in case people have the same questions that I had? Stephe1987 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's true. The quotes were smoothed out, even if it was only a minor edit. Someone else recently told me that Wikipedia wants to keep discussions posted on article talk pages for a certain number of months before they get rid of them. This makes sense to me because people can see the most recent changes/discussions, but old stuff really should be gotten rid of— especially discussion about rumors regarding personal lives of celebrities that would never be put in the encyclopedia anyway, even if they were facts. Or even rumors that people on here started! :) Stephe1987 08:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, I'd say the rumors in particular should stay here. If you'll look at The New Girl above, for example, you'll notice that some things are dusted off and/or rewritten and regurgigated—sometimes years later. When an editor removes such an addition, it helps to be able to say something like "I'm reverting this, read the discussion." Longer (and older) discussions should be archived (and I may just do that), but removing them altogether is rare. Hope this helps. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Many Quotes?

message: Dunno if anyone else heard about the latest Lohan controversy, apparently she appeared on the Nick Kids Choice Awards sans underwear, and was captured . This has been mentioned on VH1 Best Week Ever, and several other media outlets and has fansites somewhat outraged. Dunno if this is worth mentioning ... but I felt the need to comment.  ALKIVAR™ 05:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say include it. Everyking 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree as irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Its mention has been limited to little more than the most salacious of sources and, as near as I can tell, completely avoided by the mainstream media. (Some fan alongside the runway takes advantage of a skirt and it's encyclopedic?) Meantime, given an apparent preference by Ms. Lohan for thongs as recorded in the recent past by paparazzi, the cap does not convince me that there isn't one. RadioKirk talk to me 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantyless apperance on Nickelodeon? 

message: So, first the tabloids report that Lohan's the new Chanel model (replacing Kate Moss), then the tabs say Chanel is blasting Lohan for suggesting it, then the tabs say she's the new face of Louis Vuitton, then the tabs report that she's too "American" for their "global image" so she's been dropped. Edit 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm stunned! Stunned, I tell you...

message: Anybody think this article deserves to be made in spoken format? Alex43223 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention it; as a broadcaster, I was just thinking about doing that :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to, go for it. Alex43223 04:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Article 

message: I've seen that video and I don't know what the heck people are talking about. It's not just the article; just about everyone I know says that they saw that video and that she dressed and danced like a whore, etc. WTF? The worst thing I saw in that video was Lohan making out with another guy. Almost every other pop video I've seen is more suggestive, and yet people don't complain. Are there two different versions of the "Rumors" video circulating around the Internet or something?
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Spartan 234 (talk • contribs) 
:Perhaps it's merely the definition of the term varying among viewers; however, if professional reviewers call it "sexually suggestive" (and they did), that's your litmus test. RadioKirk talk to me 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rumors" video: "sexually suggestive"? 

message: I was glancing through the file infos when I saw some mention of a public domain image of Lindsay, which is not in use because it is not recent enough. If there is a PD image, and its PD status can be verified it should be uploaded to the commons, so at least the foreign wikis that do not believe in fair use have access to it. If it is older it could be used in the early life subsection of the "Biography and career" section.--Fallout boy 21:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several months ago, I found one of Lindsay at about age 10 that I thought might be PD, but someone later questioned whether it was actually released by the family. What I should do is go change the wording in the files' info. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain image?