Talk:Kelly Clarkson

Former discussions Talk Archive 1: January — December 2005

Music videos

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)

Year-end charts

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)

Sorry, I did not know. So that means we will never be able to put it in the article? Is there any other way to put it back without violating anything?

Fansite link

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)

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) Kckellyville.com is a good site, even though it goes a bit over board, there are Kelly fans who come here for information and links for info, and this is a good site that doesn't invade Kelly's privacy. It's a excellent site. We should keep it there. Morwen 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed!! Drdr1989 19:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

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)

Singles certification?

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)

Your work is being stolen

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)

If you look at the "copyright 2006" link that he has, it points to wikipedia. That is acceptable according to the Wikipedia fair use statement. - Michigan User 19:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Public domain image

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kelly Clarkson

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) There ISN'T a kellybrianneclarkson.net. Morwen 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson = "blue-eyed soul"

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)

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)

Infobox

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Clean-up tag enforced

The article is full of fan-cruft and needs to be trimmed excessively.

1. There are too many images. Furthermore, the images lack copyright rationale.
2. Sales figures and chart positions need to be referenced.
3. Quotes and reviews from music-critics should be included.
4. Influences, early life, and other lead-ups to fame.
5. Clarkson's presence on American Idol.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 02:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the images lacking fair use rationale have been removed from the article, with the exception of the lead image. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how these images are a violation of fair use but all the other screencapped images on Wikipedia including the one on the front page aren't?

The Wikipedia screenshot page reads:

Some companies believe the use of screenshots is an infringement of copyright on their program. This is one of the issues "solved" by Trusted Computing. Under Trusted Computing, programs will be able to block the taking of screenshots of their windows. Countering this argument is the principle of fair use, which (in U.S. law) permits copying of images or text for 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.'

This is a screenshot taken from a live tv event, it's legally no different then the screenshots used on the September 11 terrorist attack page or any other page relating to a tv show. HeyNow10029 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with this article you should respond here. Those images are screencaptures and are fair use. I guess I'll have to get a third party to resolve this since you can't seem to make the connection that if other pages like Friends, Seinfeld, CNN, Fox News etc, use screencaptured images it must be fair use. HeyNow10029 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Could you please be a bit clearer? You never addressed me with any images concerning Friends, Seinfeld or the news. What question do you want to ask me? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How much clearer can I be? A screenshot is a screenshot, they are used all over Wikipedia (as in the pages that I mentioned in the above post) and are fair use. Whatever, I've contacted a third party mediator since you obviously don't know about the screencap policy. HeyNow10029 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eternal Equinox here, though I think the removal of the album sales information was a bit much. I may be unreferenced, but there's no indication any of it is wrong. As far as the screenshots go, they are copyrighted and should only be used when necessary and relevant. In this case, most of them aren't (there's no section on her appearance on SNL, hence the photo isn't directly relevant). Fagstein 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to be creating a separate article for Clarkson's discography. The fan-cruft is not required in her main article and should be placed in a separate one. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discography

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rewriting article

I have rewritten the section of the article entitled "Early life" and included seven references to back-up the new information. If any further citations are required, please send me a message. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

HeyNow10029, please refrain from reinserting the image of young Kelly Clarkson into the article because it does not provide fair use rationale, and therefore it is very possible that Wikipedia can be sued. We do not want this to happen. I encourage you to have a look at Wikipedia:Images and any of its related guidelines. I have removed the image again. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How about you refrain from deleting that image and read up on Fair Use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images It clearly states:

Images

There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include:

Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

The image is a high school yearbook photo placed under the section of her pages titled "Early Life", which falls under this criteria of the fair use policy: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

Futhermore, there are tons of screenshot images (including images uploaded of celebrities at a young age, like the one in question) on Wikipedia in high-traffic webpages, that have been there for months and are visited frequently by Admins and have posed no problem. HeyNow10029 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the image currently displays the television network in the bottom-right corner. This most definitely has to be removed if the image is going to be placed in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 'maybe' right. You need to do your homework before you come on here pertending to be some copyright expert. The image with the E! bug on it (the logo on the bottom of the screen is called a bug) is not a violation of copyright, it would however begin to pose a problem if you started messing around with the image and purposely removed the bug, that would be a problem because they can claim that they were purposely not being given credit. And where do you get off just removing things. Just because you think they may not have a purpose doesn't mean they don't. "Since U Been Gone" is Kelly's most famous song, the song that arguably got her to where she is today. That's why I included that picture of her performing the song during the promotional phase for the "Breakaway" album. That was the most important part of her career and it makes sense to have a picture as a segway from her childhood to her Grammy win. And I'm getting pretty darn tired of having to run everything by you and justify things like if this was your page. And I changed some of the words in the Early Life article you wrote, like washroom. Bathroom is more commonly used amongst American English speakers. This is not a Canadian artist, if you hear Kelly discuss how her teacher overheard her singing in high school she wouldn't say washroom, so bathroom is more appropriate. HeyNow10029 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and stop changing bathroom to washroom. Do a Google search, bathroom is more commonly used at 106 million hits compared to washroom's 2 million hits. HeyNow10029 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen if you plan to edit and constantly change other people's edits there has to be some dialogue here. This isn't your page and if you plan to edit and someone questions you about a specific point, it's only fair that you answer back. Pointing me to a Wikipedia policy page on personal attacks when I didn't personally attack you in any way, shape or form, doesn't solve any problems. But you're confused, my quarrel isn't about the use of the words in the context of the article, it's about the actual usage of the word. Washroom is specifically a public bathroom, but the word itself is rarely ever used. Even in technical terms (which you seem so fond of), lavatory is used much more often. Regardless, the point is all across America bathroom is the more commonly used word. When a student raises their hand in school they don't ask to use the washroom, signs at public places, point to bathrooms not washrooms. You must not be American, because this is pretty common knowledge. HeyNow10029 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like neither "washroom" nor "bathroom." Bathroom is the more correct usage here, but it is rather informal. I like "restroom" instead. Mike H. That's hot 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To make things interesting, restroom is a redirect to washroom. HeyNow10029, I never said that you personally attacked me, but you are displaying unfortunate tones of attitude. I did not say I was confused, I did not say that I did not comprehend that "bathroom" or "washroom" was or was not incorrect, and never did I say I was fond of technical terms. Also, once again, do not call me out for owning an article I never made my own. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The only thing I am attempting to do is clean-up the article because of the fan-cruft and fan-gush that is frequently added to it. When I removed the image of Clarkson singing on SNL because it had no significance to the article, you called me out once again because you had yet to include the information — please refrain from doing this. It is not my fault that the SNL promotion was not in the article. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

True, you never said that I personally attacked you but what is someone supposed to think when the only response you give them is a link to the personal attacks policy page. As for my 'unfortunate tones' - if being straightforward and opionated is unfortunate then I don't want to be fortunate. HeyNow10029 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Insisting that you are correct may not always be true; it could be, but not consistently. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia?

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)

Indonesia is in the single table because the Breakaway releases all reached number one there. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely that's not unique. Mike H. That's hot 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Worldwide Sales

Does the worldwide sales include US sales?

"Since U Been Gone" certification

Can somebody please check the certification for Since U Been Gone? I think it has become a 6x platinum single by now... It still has not left the Hot 100 Digital, a great achievement for a single released in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.13.176 (talk • contribs)

According to Rock on the Net (Section January 2006), "Since U Been Gone" has been certified 5x platinum. Seeing how it was only recently certified, I do not believe that it will achieve a 6x platinum certification for quite some time. If I had to estimate, I would say roughly around the beginning of July. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I suppose you're right. But has it surpassed the sales of "Hollaback Girl" from Gwen Stefani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.12.31 (talk • contribs)

It has not passed the sales of the Gwen Stefani single. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's getting fairly close, though. "Hollaback" is not selling as well as it used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.154.16 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're correct. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Since U Been Gone reached 6x platinum. Or so it says on her discography article. If it's true, then she sold more than "Hollaback" and became the biggest digital download... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.12.193 (talk • contribs)

I'm not so sure. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ so that other users know who wrote the message and when. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article someday

As I plan on promoting this article to featured article status someday, I was wondering if anyone knows where I could find an image of Clarkson singing on American Idol? If anybody has any information or details, please respond to it either here or on my talk page. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting the issue with the images to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is not about whether one prefers certain images, it is about the fair use rationale and criteria that it must meet, which the current images do not. Feel free to take part in the discussion at WP:AN/I. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the images once again. Geni and WAS 4.250 also removed the images and stated that they were not under the appropriate fair use criteria. The image that is currently in the article, Image:Since You've Been Gone.jpg, contains correct rationale claim and therefore, its inclusion in the article is not violating any conduct. Images cannot be reverted for the sake of which has "better quality" or "they prefer". It is about rules and order. Because the images require proper tagging, they must not be in the article. This issue should not continue because if it does, I am afraid that I'll have no other choice but to alert higher authority. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I have been told this article contains original research and unverified claims, it has been tagged as such. Do not remove the tag. --Photosynthesis Man 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to articulate your own thoughts, as opposed to what you have been told? Mike H. That's hot 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tag - there isn't a consensus to remove it yet. --Photosynthesis Man 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The tag has been removed again — until you can expain to us what the original research within the article is, it cannot just sit there. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammy images

Does displaying two images from the same awards show qualify as fair use? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Kelly Award.jpg

Kelly Clarkson gives her acceptance speech after winning her first Grammy, for best Female Pop Vocal.

I am placing this image here because I am curious to know whether having this one and the lead image qualifies as fair use. After all, they both come from the same awards ceremony, and since the lead image has stronger fair use rationale, I was hesitant to removing it. Any opinions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, keep it. Kelly was the first American Idol contestant to win a Grammy award, it's one of the most important moments in her career. I could understand posing a question if it was two images from an appearance on a public access television show or the Juno Awards, but this is the Grammys, which played a pinacle part in Kelly's career and the career of most artists. HeyNow10029 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

However, there are two images from the same Grammy Awards ceremony. This is where the fair use violation may come into play. Does anyone know of the criteria? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is you see things either black or white, I think you're missing the bigger picture here, the grey area. Admin Chick Bowen wrote on my talk page: For example, she was discovered by a TV show, right (forgive my ignorace--I'm more of a Mahler guy myself)--have there been others from that TV show who have won Grammys or played at them? If she's the only one, that's worth noting You're right, normally having two images from the same show wouldn't be considered fair use, but since this was a pivotal moment in her career, it's allowed. HeyNow10029 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be cautious in case there happen to be image violations. Therefore, I believe we should allow another to step in before we reinsert the image into the article or remove it altogether. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. And another thing, the writing in this article lacks life. No offense, but your writing style is extremely robotic and since you edit a number of times idea it's affecting the article. I think the flow definately needs to be improved upon. HeyNow10029 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not put much work into the writing to be blatantly honest. The only thing I've really been striving for is that this article no longer includes fan-cruft and useless, excess information. The writing can be improved upon anytime, I just didn't choose now to follow through. Of course, you could always rewrite it if you feel like it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, guys, HeyNow dropped by and asked me to comment on this. I don't think it makes sense to have a hard and fast rule about multiple images from the same event, though it's true that we don't want to lean to heavily on a particular copyright holder. It does seem to me that there are plenty of images right now given the length of the page, and only one of them is free. So you're both going to get gentle reprimands (inasmuch as my opinion means anything anyway--I'd remind you that all being an admin means is some extra buttons at the top of the screen). Eternal Equinox, it would be great if you could spend some of the time and energy you're using on this talk page improving the article. And HeyNow, it would be great if you could remember that as an encyclopedia, we're primarily concerned with text, not images. What you quote me as saying above I still think, but I was assuming you would write a bunch more about the Grammys and what they meant for her career. HeyNow pointed me to We Belong Together, which I think is a wonderful example of what this page should be--it supports its use of images with ample, detailed text that relates directly to those images (for example, the wedding dress in one of the screenshots is discussed in the text). I hope this is helpful. Chick Bowen 04:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your point concerning additional buttons at the top of your screen confuses me. Other than that, I believe the article contains plenty of images at this period of time and the ones currently included should remain until the article is expanded. The image of the Grammy Award should stay here for now: five images in an article that is not even 30KB is quite extreme. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How is that confusing? What he means is that by being an admin he doesn't necessarily have all the answers, just the power to do more things: ei. block, delete pictures, etc. Really not that confusing ... anyway, good point about the Grammys thing, Chick Bowen, when I get more time I'm going to add more information about the Grammys and particularly their significance to her career and then include the picture. Maybe this weekend or next. Thanks for stopping by! :) HeyNow10029 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are already too many images in this article. I believe, that is unless it is expanded, the article remain with the four screenshots it already includes. After all, four images for an article under 30KB has already surpassed normal lengths. The text is what is most important and needs to be expanded first. Besides, where could the image possibly be placed? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Third album

Clarkson's third album is probably going to be released late 2006, so I added a small sentence at the part right before her discography to that effect. Morwen 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted. Do you have a source for your claim? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, I have a source. Clarkson was interviewed http://www.kckellyville.com/index.php?hash=30e2d4a6562f408cb3b95d7c82ec51ef&mnid=18&page= and that's not the only place were that article was posted, there were many other places. Besides, kckellyville has some song lyrics it claims will probably be on her third cd, and the Ask the Dork area contained a lot of info that implied that her cd would be released relatively soon. Also, it said that the cd will be released late this year. Note that it still doesn't give away private info about Clarkson. Morwen 02:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)