Jump to content

Talk:Miley Cyrus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.232.216.224 (talk) at 18:18, 21 March 2010 (→The current pic: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA

Anybody thought about nominating this for GA? It's comprehensive and there are no major issues with the content as far as I can see. I'd be happy to review it if someone were to nominate it... HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No The article is comprehensive, but there's still a lot of clean-up that needs to be done throughout the entire article. I wouldn't nominate it at this time. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a lot of dead/dubious/non-existent refs, and the prose is pretty poor in the larger sections. I've been thinking about doing a complete overhaul of the article though, so maybe a month or two from now? Liquidluck✽talk 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If you want a fast track review, just drop me a line when you think it's ready. It's definitely do-able. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and made all the dates consistent for the references, but in doing that, I noticed a lot of citations weren't in proper {{cite}} format; a lot of information could be added. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Phone Pics

Should there be no mention of the cell phone pics in the "controversies" section? It seems to me that that would be a fair controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.208.179 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WELLKNOWN, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." This topic was already discussed in the archives and it looks like the outcome was that there weren't any reliable sources that confirmed the images were even of Miley, which goes directly against BLP policy. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noah

Miley Cyrus Has a younger sister called Noah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.172.93 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on her- Noah Cyrus. Cheers, Liquidluck✽talk 20:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List-Defined Referencing system

The {{reflist}} template allows for list-defined references, meaning all references are placed into the References section. This frees up a lot of clutter within the article in edit mode. This is an incredible advantage for those of us who don't use special software. You may look at Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references for a very simple explanation of exactly what is happening, or:

  1. You may add/edit/remove references by editing the References section
  2. Every reference would have a name assigned to it. For example, <ref name="rollingstone">{{cite web |url=...}}</ref>
  3. Every citation only requires the <ref name=xxxxxxxx/> segment
  4. <ref> citations will still work; the LDR system merely adds the convenience of moving references down if desired

For an example, please open up the Alice (Avril Lavigne song) article in edit mode to see how easy it is to read. I can do this extremely quickly and have been converting some of the more stable articles I'm close to. Before I can change the style for Miley Cyrus, because this article has heavy traffic and is edited frequently by many, I would need consensus for a go-ahead. Any thoughts? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome idea ..!! i didnt know abt this feature of wikipedia.....i guess very few articles follow this feature.....You definitely have a thumbs up from me....all the best....Gprince007 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only recently discovered it also. I swung by to add that <ref> tags added throughout the article still appear in the References section. So really, anyone aware of the LDR style could help with the maintenance by moving references down if need be. So converting this article would not affect any future edits for users unaware of the changes (it can be easy to miss, actually). I added a fourth item to the list above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes it a real pain to edit subsections, though, which is what I usually do. This way, the edit always has to be in both sections.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edit sub-sections frequently as well, and what you say is true.
  1. You don't need to follow suit; you can edit as normal, including placing references within the prose. Someone like me would come along and move them down when a section "stabilizes" or becomes overly-cluttered.
  2. When editing, I'll simply create the references at the bottom of the sub-section edit window, then proceed to edit the section as normal. Then I'll move the references with a (cmd-X) cut and paste them in a follow-up edit to the References section. The drawback is a brief "cite error" at the bottom of the article during the period between the two edits.
  3. However, and being new to the LDR style, we may see that this is more of a nuisance for a heavy traffic article, so I'm definitely open to the idea of it being a "bad idea" here.
–Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after using the LDR style in a few articles, one of which has higher traffic, I think the style is more suited to stable articles. Editing sub-sections, like Kww pointed out, can be a pain if you're editing on a frequent or regular basis. So I'll have to admit that this style would be both time-consuming and a touch annoying on the Miley Cyrus article, plus I'm finding I'm having less time to contribute to Wikipedia, and it wouldn't be fair to ask others to keep the article "clean" of references, which was something I would have otherwise been happy to do (I'm currently doing this on other articles with pleasure, but it could otherwise get tiresome). Thanks Gprince007 and Kww for your thoughts. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies - Update

Anyone notice that the controversies are not written at all?

For example, the Miley-Selena you-tube conflict in absolutely unmentioned. It seems that someone erased the article before the page was protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehluv (talk • contribs) date

Did you try doing a search through the archives regarding Selena? The results can be found here. Archives of talk pages are usually found at the top of the talk page (in this case, in a column on the top right side). I'm not otherwise familiar with any YouTube conflict, and if it wasn't reported by several news outlets, I'm not sure how notable enough it would be for inclusion in the article. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for responding. Some references to the incident are given below.

I hope that was helpful. --Mehluv (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My memory of this discussion was that the conclusion was basically "so what?". Two Disney kids insulting each other isn't of any particular importance.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be if it is popular enough to appear on so many sites and news sources. --Mehluv (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

That signature doesn't seem to be official, tracing to the original file on Commons leads it to be created by a user who has no affiliation with Miley Cyrus, and was created entirely by himself, so how is it actually her signature?. 69.165.134.68 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point that I fully support. The Commons says this - "This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Even if Miley's signature looks like this, someone might have copied it out and put it in the article. The signature on the album booklet of the album "Hannah Montana - Best of Both Worlds", page 18, must be the authentic one. --Mehluv (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there was one real reason I would question its authenticity, it is simply because it looks like someone stumbled on the tail of the Y, almost "forgetting" to curve back around. It's likely that it's a re-creation of Miley's signature, minus the "Cyrus" part. A Google search shows her signature seems more consistently smooth and round and less "angular", especially in the y and the two-piece heart over the i, as can be seen here, here, and here. I don't know what the "GA Smiley Face" is all about. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can clearly see the tail of the Y looks like it was drawn in two parts. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should not evaluate the SVG image to determine whether it is authentic or not. Look at the image that stated as the source for the vector version. Rendering SVGs at a large size will nearly always look strange when the SVG was generated via bitmap tracing, which is what I did in this case. J.delanoygabsadds 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I have no opinion on whether the image is correct or not. If the consensus here is that another version is (more) representative of her normal style, I can try to vectorize that and upload it over the present image. J.delanoygabsadds 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The original uploaded image is here, uploaded by Bodoque57. A quick look at the details of a few of his contributions show that he has a history of uploading images that are questionable regarding fair use or have been tagged for possibly violating copyrights, and his talk page is full of image violations that have since been deleted. The image in question, Miley Cyrus's signature, was up for deletion with this entry, but the result was keep, although it was never established that the signature is authentic. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could re-trace one if you want. Drop me a note on my talk if you want. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is retracing a signature okay to do? I've read the arguments that as long as it's not being passed off as an original signature, a retracing is a-ok. But I wouldn't mind a second opinion. Also, I'll add that I wouldn't mind a retracing, preferably the same style, but without the smiley face and weird characters within the "Y" loop. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new picture of miley

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2010/03/miley-cyrus-liam-hemsworth-oscars-party-pair.jpg please use this URL. its a picture of miley at the academy awardds 2010. she looked gorgeous, so it would be a good picture to have up as her picture. if you want to find a different picture of her from the 2010 academy awards, feel free. PLEASE DO IT BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE AN UPDATED PICTURE OF HER, SINCE THE PICTURE UP RIGHT NOW IS FROM THE 2009 ACADEMY AWARDS. PLEASE DO IT. OR I WILL GET MAD!!!! JUST KIDDING.....kinda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrieswift (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but for pictures of living people Wikipedia can only use "free" images, images that have been released into the public domain. In other words, in order for a picture to be used on Wikipedia, it must not be copyright restricted. liquidluck✽talk 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of Filmography table

I am always hesitant to jump into an edit war, but I see that one is occurring with regards to the formatting of the Filmography table. This is the first time I have heard of a war over formatting a table, but nonetheless. And I don't even know this Miley Cyrus creature - never heard of her until I happened to stumble onto this page via a link from another page. Nonetheless, this is what I think: I have looked at both formats, and I find the formatting with the coloured background headings to be much easier on the eye. I wish all tables in Wikipedia were done like that. So why not leave it with the coloured headings? Is it that big of a deal. I mean, I would think that the average person would say that coloured headings make it easier to immediately comprehend. Just my thoughts on this important topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.137 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO JACK MERRIDEW: I tried to put a comment about this on your User Talk page (as I did with Dreadfully Despised) to draw your attention to my above Discussion entry . . . . . . but you have locked your User Talk page - LOL - apparently, you get into a lot of edit wars - on things like font sizes, etc. I was amazed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.137 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think the color helps as well. I didn't mean to engage in a "war" over formatting a table, but I felt it's much easier to read with a colored header rather than one that blends in with the whole thing. --DreadfullyDespised (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table had color in it for several months, and I thought it spruced the article up a bit, plus it made it easier to read. Just my opinion. The way the table stands now (no color at all) is probably the most hideous looking table I've ever seen. I would almost ask that it were reverted to the way it's been for the last few months until the issue is resolved, rather than letting it remain "transparent". – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I reverted the table back to its original state. Any changes to the table for cosmetic purposes (or lack thereof) is more a waste of editors' time, and if Jack Merridew continues to revert the changes, I may request that he be blocked specifically from the Miley Cyrus article, as this is more of a nuisance than it is advancing the article in any way. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miley doesn't get her own color scheme; too silly. Raise any objections at:

We're not going to have this discussion 32,000 times. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Merridew, that doesn't give you the right to edit war over the matter, nor to brand other editors' work as "unhelpful". Does the matter being discussed at WT:ACTOR have guideline status? Personally, I'm inclined to leave it as it is for 2 reasons- first, it improves readability and is more aesthetically pleasing and, second, because WP tends to favour the status quo (ie how it was before the change). If it has or attains guideline status, I may be forced to concede the point, but until then, we should go with whatever has consensus here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack; recipient wished to have it restored.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ahhhh . . . . it always feels good to have the last word, to get in the last word. Although I don't sign my edits, you can see that from the SinBot that I am the person that started this Discussion of formatting the table (LOL). Yes, good to see that everybody has more or less agreed upon a non-descript colour format - fair enough (better than no colour formatting for headings). Jack Merridew - I see that you went and posted somewhere else that "Miley Cyrus's fans can't have their own colour scheme". Idiot, I had never even heard of this Miley Cyrus creature until I happened upon her page, and - to be quite frank - I don't think I would like her music if I were to hear it - I'm 55 years old. Nitwit. But you're a know-it-all, aren't you Jack? You know how I know that??? Because I went and looked at your edits, and you apparently spend half of every day editing Wikipedia entries, and most of your edits are to do with table formatting and font formatting that you don't like. Please. Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.137 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others; the anon who started this is quite obviously one of the usual trolls who dog my edits. I care little which one. They're all pathetic.
The color issue is part of the RFC linked above; I don't favor any color use other than that of the standard wikitable and there is little support for it other than from a small group. The light steel blue will not persist as the wishes of mere few do not constitute consensus. Jack Merridew 22:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe the current table is better (An actor's filmography table should have extra emphasis, color is more aesthetically pleasing), it is true that the heading color should be blue rather than purple, so I've changed that. liquidluck✽talk 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you people like the blue background, it would be quite helpful for you to go to WT:ACTOR and post your support for it. Jack is fairly pushing removing the color heading completely and has misstated the number ratio for and against, saying it is running 3:1. If you like the filmography table head with color, go there and say so. Your opinion counts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last song

ok now miley did not choose the name ronnie for the last song that is the characters name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.139.245 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she did. Sparks says so himself on his website and in this interview. Sparks actually named the character "Kirby" before Cyrus picked "Ronnie" after her grandfather, Ron Cyrus. Cheers, liquidluck✽talk 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I am sure most of you will agree, this is a pretty awful picture of Miley!, anyone got a better 'free' one? I am talking about the main picture/ the one at the top of the article

There aren't any that I'm aware of that aren't already being used. You could try trawling through Flickr and asking some of the authors to release their work under a free licence. To be used here, it must be CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike) or released into the public domain. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fire away. The current image was a hit with a few of the younger readers. The image you suggested was used for a while and users complained that it didn't show her body, so be prepared for that. I think the article could do with a new image myself. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheyyyyy, much better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.43.21 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current pic

The hannah montana movie picture isn't as good as the previous pic.--216.232.216.224 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miley_Cyrus&oldid=351198954"