Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 2

message: I am subscribe to the Breakaways, a group created by Kelly's official website. I got a mail from the group that says that the Because Of U video spent the most days this year at #1 on TRL. We all know that Behind These Hazel Eyes video holds the record for the most days at #1 for a female artist on TRL. As they were both released the same year, it is only logical that Because Of You broke the record of Behind These Hazel Eyes. So it means that Kelly broke the record for the most days at #1 for a female artist on TRL two times this year. Can someone confirm it?
:No, Behind These Hazel Eyes stayed longer at #1 then Because of You did, so she only broke it once. I got this info from Kckellyville.com, and it is overly obsessed with Kelly, so if it said that she didn't, then they are probably right. I love the Behind These Hazel Eyes video, it's really good. Morwen 03:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music videos 

message: Who keeps removing the position of kelly clarkson's songs on the year-end charts? I am putting it back. Please don't remove it again. If the person removed it because of lack of sources, then it's on billboard.com
:I keep removing it because we're not supposed to take copyrighted text from other websites and use it in our articles. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Extraordinary Machine 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year-end charts 

message: I don't see why the link to kckellyville.com keeps being restored to the article, seeing as it isn't even the most popular Clarkson fansite according to Google. So, per Wikipedia:External links, I've replaced it with a Clarkson Google directory. Extraordinary Machine 14:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons why you kept on deleting that link made no sense.  How would keeping on that site constitute a "linkfarm"?  You have to visit the site to determine its integretiy.  And as big as GG is it's still not intelligent enough to rank sites by popularity.  But since kckellyville.com appears on the directory you have posted, we can leave it at your most recent edit.  But if I find that it disappears from the directory, then I'll take the liberty of restoring it. Drdr1989 21:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed!! Drdr1989 19:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite link 

message: These quotes need to be put under Wikiquote and linked to. They take up way too much space here. Vulturell 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: On the "Since U Been Gone" single article it says that the song is already 5x platinum, and I think it is since it passed 1 million downloads, so someone needs to update it on the main article...
Plus on the main article it says that "Behind These Hazel Eyes" is triple platinum, is that true? I know that it went double... but not triple...
Plus billboard doesn't say anything about "Because of You" beeing even platinum let alone 2x platinum like the article says... someone might check that up, also because billboard sometimes takes time to update the certification levels...
:Check the RIAA website, I think there were some recent certifications added in the past week or two.
:Sarz 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles certification? 

message: Thought you'd want to know that this guy-- only idol--is claiming your work as his own, and even posting a copyright notice! -Jmh123 14:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your work is being stolen

message: I don't understand why the public domain image of Clarkson keeps being replaced with the same (most likely non-free) image that currently has indeterminate copyright information on its image description page. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that free alternatives should always be used when located. Extraordinary Machine 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should try to find a better, free image, all things aside. This one isn't that great. Mike H. That's hot 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true of a lot of celebrity pages, where we wind up with some out-of-focus, badly-lit photo taken from a strange angle, cropped from a picture with lots of random non-celebrity people in it, which was taken at some government-sponsored event by a photographer who works for the government for use in a government site and is hence public domain.  Is there any way to get better celebrity pictures that are still free?  Nevertheless, the "solution" is not to put non-free pictures with misleading comments to the effect that they're public-domain when they're not. *Dan T.* 13:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell that to me. I've been at Wikipedia long enough to know that isn't what you do, and isn't desirable. So, what are you trying to say? Mike H. That's hot 15:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody has been repeatedly replacing the image and adding misleading comments to the effect of it being public domain, so I thought I'd mention it. *Dan T.* 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain image 

message: Hi i am smiley fruitcake....kelly brianne clarkson is my favorite singer ever and should b urs too. 4 mor info, go to: www.kellybrianneclarkson.net/.gov
that is my site about her it rocks!!!!
:When I checked just now, the domain kellybrianneclarkson.net hasn't been registered, and the .gov version can only be registered by a U.S. governmental entity, not a Kelly Clarkson fan site. *Dan T.* 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly Clarkson 

message: I've yet to hear a Kelly Clarkson record on the urban stations (granted, she can probably sing better than 60% of the people currently on the urban stations, but I digress). Although she sings a lot like a soul singer, based on her recordings, I don't think she's R&B-ish enough to really be included in that category. --FuriousFreddy 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard Clarkson on urban radio stations, but only with her unsuccessful single "The Trouble with Love Is". However, since the song is barely R&B and displays limited presence of urban music, you are more than correct. Clarkson should be removed from the "blue-eyed soul" category. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly Clarkson = "blue-eyed soul" 

message: Wwfanz: Can you please stop changing the infobox and the size of the picture on the Kelly Clarkson page. I uploaded that picture myself and it wasn't meant to be cropped so small you're also removing some valuable information ... if you don't like the picture you're more then welcome to upload one you think is better. HeyNow10029 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The info box that you had on there was for bands. I simply changed to a more appropriate infobox. I can't help the resizing of the picture.  It seems that someone has cropped the picture anyway. --Jenn 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Wikipedia pages of Gwen Stefani, Mariah Carey, Madonna -- any solo female artist and they all have the same infobox band even though they are clearly solo artists. So please stop changing it back to celebrity. Kelly Clarkson isn't Stacy Kiebler. HeyNow10029 18:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. These are not celebrities. They are artists ... stop changing the approprioate infobox ... you've changed C. Aguilera, Mariah, Gwen, I'm going to report you to an admin. HeyNow10029 18:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A celebrity infobox is more appropriate for a solo artist (expecially ones that have branched out in other fields) rather than one for a band, as they are celebrities. --Jenn 18:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't go around changing things because you don't think they're appropriate. They've all branched out into other fields but Kelly will never be known for "Justin to Kelly", Mariah will never be known for "Glitter", and Madonnna will never be known for "Swept Away". They are artists and they need to have the same uniform infobox as other artists. You're reading way too much into the word 'band'. That infobox has been reformated to suit celebrities too. Please go back and you're revert all the changes you made. HeyNow10029 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a large black space to the right of the image that did nothing to provide information about the subject. I've uploaded a cropped image to better fit the infobox. Please be aware that this is a FU image subject to copyright and none of us own it. A non-FU image would be best. --  18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image you uploaded looks awful, it's blurry and out of focus. You can crop image without screwing them up in the process. And screenshots are allowed on Wikipedia. Look at any TV's shows page and you'll find hundreds of them. This is why I'm almost done uploading anything onto Wikipedia because people like you come and screw it up. HeyNow10029 18:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Thankyou, yes bring back the old one, that was much better!!! the new one sucks and whoever deleted it stay off of kellys page, that little album disc. sucks and is dull and dreary and does not do justice. NO, whoever took it off put it back up damnit.!!
Bring back the old one... it was much better. This one does not contain enough information.
:The former discography contained much fan-cruft and was not neutral point of view, since it pointed out certifications of the several single releases from Breakaway. It was also very, very large and the discography information box could be responsible for violating the article size guideline, which we do not want. If you want to add information concerning chart positions and certifications to a Kelly Clarkson article, please insert it into Kelly Clarkson discography. Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it should be back on here, put it back yourself. Contrary to what he may believe Eternal Equinox doesn't own this page. He just likes to think he does. HeyNow10029 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Eternal Equinox. If you think there is a problem with "ownership" of the page, put it on Wikipedia:Peer review and other editors will look at it. Do not expect them to agree with you wholeheartedly, though. Mike H. That's hot 11:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Mike Halterman. I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth HeyNow10029. I never said that I owned the article and you may believe that I think I do, but I do not. I am only attempting to clean-up the article because of all the fan-cruft and multiple topics under one section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: Why is Indonesia included in the single table? It looks out-of-place and obscure among other English-speaking countries. Mike H. That's hot 11:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indonesia is in the single table because the Breakaway releases all reached number one there. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's not unique. Mike H. That's hot 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity, just what is the standard about which countries should be included in chart statistics of a musical artist? *Dan T.* 14:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada, Australia, the UK, the U.S., and Japan are the standard nations. Any other countries are appropriate as long as the single table does not expand to unruly lengths. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesia?

message: Does the worldwide sales include US sales?
:Anyone? - Nick C 16:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Worldwide Sales