Talk:Cher

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.37.172.117 (talk) at 02:21, 22 May 2010 (→‎My edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Baby Don't Go

I'm not sure the link to the song Baby Don't Go should be linking to an article on Fabolous - Though I'm not familiar with Fabulous' body of work and may be mistaken.

1987 Cher album

Why is this said to be her "biggest" album "yet" in 1987 when other albums reached higher peaks in both the U.S. and the UK and this album did not reach its Platinum certification for five years after its release, after the successive album, Heart of Stone, was already certified Double-Platinum? Abrazame (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I've about given up trying to track and check the flurry of changes that go on with this page and the changing/replacement of references. Some of them are absolutely not from reliable sources (whosdatingwho, IMDb, etc.) and other things that don't need cites keep getting them. It's not true that every sentence needs a reference and personally, I think that needs to stop, unless something is challenged regarding veracity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, it can get really pedantic around here. I just had someone tell me a reference that the lights would be dimmed on Broadway for Bea Arthur on April 28 wasn't good enough to put the mention into past tense on the 29th. So I found a reference, from a TV station in Memphis. Something tells me they didn't independently verify that the lights were, indeed, turned down, yet the several sources available for the announcement just weren't enough for this guy. That's not the sort of thing that just falls through.
On the other hand, there are plenty of things that just don't ring true, even if the source would seem to be legitimate... Abrazame (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then there were none?

I appreciate the fact that we're talking about Time, but on the other hand, we're talking about a eulogy. The quote is "By the end of 1967, Sonny & Cher had sold 40 million records worldwide and become rock's "it" couple." For one thing, we can't put that exact same line in our article without crediting it to the Time writers. That's plagiarism, Kekkomereq.

It's also very hard to believe. Looking over the Sonny & Cher and Cher discographies—and I don't really think those figures are believable either, and most are not cited—the worldwide sales of all their pre-1967 titles maybe add up to 40 million sold NOW. Forty-two years later. Are you telling me that this amount sold prior to 1967 and then, despite their hit series and pop culture status all these decades, never sold another million more of all of these combined over the past four decades plus? According to the RIAA, the duo only had one Gold album and one Gold single prior to 1967 in the U.S. The article for "I Got You Babe"—their biggest hit—doesn't claim it has been certified anywhere else but the U.S. and it is only Gold in the U.S.—though the Sonny & Cher discography claims it has been certified Platinum. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it had, but I can't find the ref.

The surprise is the overall number. How can it be claimed that they have sold 40 million in their first five years and another 40 million in their next seven when they never had a Platinum album or single anywhere in the world, had only three Gold albums in the U.S. (and apparently none anywhere else) and only a few Gold singles in the U.S.? Abrazame (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added the name of the time's writer. I know that this is very hard to believe that the couple sold 40 million until 1967, but the article doesn't specify only in the U.S., and if you see their discography, their released also many singles in Europe and Canada. For example see "Little Man", that reached #1 in five european country.
Also during 1966-1968 they have issued some singles exclusively for canadian, french and italian marketing (Je M'en Balance Car Je T'aime, Mais Tu Es à Moi, Piccolo Ragazzo and others...)
Of course its hard to find cit. about Gold or Platinum singles in Europe and for this, needs to be done an approximate count of sales of Sonny & Cher. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 7:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that putting the writer's name into the cite doesn't address what Abrazame was talking about in any way. "By the end of 1967, Sonny & Cher had sold 40 million records worldwide and become rock's "it" couple" is a direct copy and paste from a copyrighted source and in doing so, it violates copyright law. It can't be presented this way without breaking the law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way in 1966 or in 2009 that going to #1 in five European countries bolsters a claim of 3,000,000 sales.
You admit that you're using guesses and approximations. That is unencyclopedic and unacceptable at Wikipedia. But beyond that, your approximations are highly illogical and hugely inflated. Let's look at this logically.
Let's say hypothetically that "Little Man" went Gold in each territory where it went #1. (You have no data to support that it did. I realize such data is hard to come by. That doesn't mean we're allowed to presume it, it means the article must have less information than what fans may speculate about on blogs.) Still, using current thresholds, that would mean 75,000 sales in France, 30,000 sales in the Netherlands, 15,000 sales in Belgium, 20,000 sales in Sweden, and 15,000 sales in Norway. So those five #1 positions, if they each earned a Gold certification as well (which is not a given), would have netted the duo 155,000 sales. This is for their biggest European hit.
Let's even give the record Gold in Germany, for 100,000 sales, where they went to #2, and another 100,000 sales for Gold in the UK, where they only went to #4. I'll even give them Gold in Canada, where they peaked at #6, for 40,000 sales. None of these certifications are likely. Still, this adds up to a total of 395,000 copies.
So even if "Little Man" was successful in an additional dozen smaller countries (that likely didn't have charts, Gold records, or a significant record-buying public in 1966), it could not possibly have sold three million. Even if it was Platinum in all these countries, that still doesn't take it to one million, much less two or three. You have no reference for any sales claim (except "I Got You Babe" and "The Beat Goes On", and that is not linked or appropriately specified). Peaking at #21 in the U.S. it might have sold over a hundred thousand here and if we give it a very generous couple hundred thousand elsewhere in the world, this maybe takes it over three quarters of a million.
So now extrapolate this mathematical logic to the other entries. If a record can hit #1 and the top 10 in as many places as "Little Man" and still not add up to half a million sales, then clearly you can't imagine the rest of this discography should claim hundreds of thousands to upwards of a million for their European (or "Worldwide") sales when the chart peaks were significantly lower. "All I Ever Need Is You" didn't hit #1 anywhere, and only made the top 10 in three countries. You list it as having gone Gold in the U.S., yet it did not. (It was the album that went Gold.) So there's no way this single sold even half the figure you suggest, 2.25 million, worldwide. Again, maybe that's three quarters of a million worldwide, and most of that based on greater U.S. sales reflected in the higher U.S. chart position. My estimations would cut that discography down to between 10% and 30% of most of the numbers appearing in the article.
Do your estimations take some factor into account that I'm missing? Can you fundamentally refute any of the logic or data points that I incorporate into these estimates? Can you take one title (other than "I Got You Babe", which was their signature hit; which did particularly well in the three biggest music markets of the U.S., UK and Germany; which was presumably a moderately good-selling "oldies series" catalog title; and which I would guess probably did sell three million worldwide as the discography claims) and show me the building blocks you use to arrive at the figure given in that article?
Take a look at List of music recording sales certifications. (Bear in mind, the world's population in 1966 was less than half what it is now, and certification thresholds—if certifications even existed back then in all these countries—may actually have been lower then. Bear in mind, too, that in 1966 a few of the countries on this list did not even legally sell Western music.) You'd have to go Gold in a few dozen European and South American countries in order to add up to one Gold certification in the U.S. So being released "worldwide" does not automatically take sales into the stratosphere, especially when U.S. sales are not particularly high. When U.S. sales are particularly high, then worldwide sales are an even smaller percentage of the whole. (In other words, you don't just double or triple the U.S. sales number to arrive at a worldwide estimate, you maybe add half again as much.) That discography makes claims of half a million even for records that only charted in the U.S. and peaked in the seventies on that chart. It is not only unencyclopedic to offer guesses or estimates, the guesses that appear there are absurdly unrealistic.
Please source and alter or remove claims as necessary, from both the discography and the respective album and single articles. I know you spend a great deal of time researching and editing these articles and would like to give you the opportunity to do this yourself and/or with other knowledgeable fans. If those regional singles charted, please find those chartings and list them with refs. If they did not chart, then they obviously did not sell significantly enough to count here, as I've already illustrated that even #1-charting, Gold-selling singles in some of these countries means only in the low tens of thousands of sales. You're incorrect, Kekkomereq, that we "need" to give approximate counts of sales figures; in fact, we don't need sales figures at all, especially when they are as spurious as these. Abrazame (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor, Kekkomereq4, did not respond to me here or on his own talk page (where I left a post), nor did he take responsibility for the erroneous edits he spread across Cher's numerous articles. This despite the fact that he has made almost 350 edits to Cher-related articles since I called this to his attention. I've attempted to remove as many of the false claims as I could catch. Abrazame (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abrazame. Yes, I've read the whole discussion about the Times cit. But I've see also that the Times cit. is used also in others article like Kylie Minogue, Madonna and other singers. Furthermore before my edits, the article about Cher had 70 cit. and now it got others 70 cit. For example, here Career#1971–1975: TV and musical stardom, Career#1976–1981: Solo career and misses, and here Career#1987–1989: Return to musical success, I've added about twenty cit. for section. And I don't think that this work is useless. I remember you also that the section about 1970-1975 and 1982-1987 had this alerts: [1], and now also the section about Believe have this alert, for the lack of cit. since DECEMBER 2007!!!

I don't understand why you talk about me in another section, (here 1987 Cher album) because if all my cit. are wrong why u don't delete all?? In addition, some aticles of wikipedia are full of cit. and I don't think that is so stupid to add a citation for every sentence!! I also don't think that there is a sentence most important of others! Other administrators have deleted my citations when those one wheren't reliable like the whosdatingwho.

As for this discussion, after I've read that, I realized that your thinking is right, and I haven't responded more for this reason. I have also updated and added many info in the Sonny & Cher discography and I've see that see position in the charts were wrong, like for the "Little Man" song. As you see, I'm a fan of Cher (I know that Wikipedia isn't a Fan-Site) and I'm trying to make the article more detailed. Only his bio I haven't in my watchlist, that's why I don't check ever the discussion about the page! Kekkomereq4 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actor or actress, # of copies sold

1. why does it say that cher is an "actor"? she is an actress. i know that "actor" is a gender-neutral term, but why not used the word "Actress" when the page exists and is more specific?

2. it says belive sold ten million copies worldwide. regardless of the source, people do not buy singles. singles may have been purchased on records a long time ago, but in 1999 there were no individual discs with just one song on it, nor could they purchase the song online. i am not going to change it right now, but this phrase needs to be reworded or removed.Excuseme99 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actress redirects to actor, it has no separate page on Wikipedia. Singles sell in many forms, there have been single tapes, single CDs, downloadable singles sales, and it is a valid designation still in use within the recording industry to chart and report sales. Because it doesn't seem right to you doesn't make it incorrect especially since it is the way in which those sales are reported. Meanwhile, the lead section changes you made aren't per consensus. This has already been determined and discussed ad nauseum above and the wording is what has been decided to be most valid. Please stop changing this against consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single cassette tapes and CDs have been available for purchase since those items were invented, so the idea they weren't around in 1999 is ridiculous. The only recent advent is internet/download sales, but those did not under any circumstance usher in the ability to buy individual songs. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The albums itself may have sold those copies, but the individual songs are not released on CDs or bought in stores. Excuseme99 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • See WP:OVERLINK: In short, Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link
  1. plain English words;
  2. terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
  3. items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement.
I'm all for removing commonly known words throughout the article (see Lead/infobox of Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson) and specifying Cher as an Actress (Janet Jackson). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the album BELIEVE sold 10 million copies, but people did not buy discs containing the individual song. The lead says that the single song sold 10 million copies worldwide, which is not true. People did not buy the individual song. This was long after people bought 45s with just one song on them and before they would download individual tracks. Excuseme99 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, it comes down to prove it. You are completely wrong to continue to change this wording in absence of providing backing for your contention. More than one other editor has contradicted your claim. Please stop your editing against consensus and in a tenditious manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuseme, It's absurd that you would so vehemently repeat such a thing as individual songs (were) not released or bought in 1999. How old are you? The singles market had been poisoned by the record companies in the early '90s, who withheld singles in favor of driving interested buyers to the higher profit-margin albums at the same time as they shifted away from the still-popular vinyl format. But the public still wanted singles, and several dozen were widely available each year, a few of those particularly popular titles heavily stocked and becoming massive bestsellers.
I personally can attest to the fact that Cher's "Believe" was available, as I bought it at the time. The CD maxi single came in environmentally friendly packaging and featured ten mixes of the song. The song was also available in the U.S. in a briefer CD version, as well as on 12" vinyl, and I'm pretty sure we had a cassette single version as well. Several of the available versions are shown | here. The RIAA site certified the single Platinum for U.S. sales of over 1 million (during the 1990s they lowered the singles sales criteria; Gold used to be 1 million and Platinum was 2 million in the 1980s). (Why does the song's article claim Double Platinum, with no ref?)
I am very much against exaggerated sales claims, and have a long history of edits reducing, re-sourcing or reverting such claims. The ref for this claim states that it was Warner's biggest single ever, so there ought to be another ref out there somewhere just from the Warner standpoint. As I said, Platinum singles of the 1980s sold 2 million and Cher's has apparently not been certified for U.S. 2 million for that one (unless the RIAA site is wrong on that—that site is not perfect). But "Believe" is apparently the best-selling single by a female in the UK ever. And it was Billboard's #1 single of the year. I would point out that the bestselling single of 1998 is claimed to have sold 12 million, the bestselling single of 1997 has a claim of 34 million. All these numbers are astounding and could very well be exaggerated. Frankly I don't like the ref we have for "Believe", it looks a little dodgy. I would prefer we track down a better one. |This link, from Billboard, is apparently about the album, and may be the root of some of the confusion here. I'd like to get to the bottom of this, but declaring that singles were unheard of when there are RIAA awards in the millions isn't the way to get taken seriously.
I would point out that "Believe" is only certified Triple Platinum in the UK even though the sales claims are nearly twice the 900,000 threshold for Triple Platinum there. Here is my speculation on why this could be so. When a track that has been released as a single is featured on a multi-artist compilation, each sale of that compilation is considered as some fraction of a sale of that single. (This would not be the case with sales of the album on which the single first appeared, i.e. that artist's album or a film soundtrack album—though, in turn, sales of a soundtrack album upon which an artist appears is by some accounting measures considered an album sale credited to that artist.) So "Believe" would likely have sold over 900,000 as an actual single, and the bulk of the rest of that number comes from these compilation sales. I seem to recall having been told this by someone who would know, but I can't swear that this is the way it works, and if it does I can't be sure this accounting measure is the same everywhere around the world. I'd love to hear someone from Billboard or SoundScan weigh in on that—or perhaps somewhere down the years they already have. Is it possible that Maxi-singles sales are counted double. This should be considered pure speculation on my part and should not be recounted as fact. Abrazame (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Each of the previous four decades"

that phrase leaves the possibility that another female artist had that same success in four different decades. Since Cher is the only one to do so, it should be changed to "four consecutive decades."

also, it already mentions the dates of "I Got You, Babe" and "Believe." They do not need to be repeated in the sentence that says she holds the record for the longest hit-making career span.Excuseme99 (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to grasp that this is the wording that consensus determined should be used. The wording establishes the time period and does not imply in any way that someone else did that in any other decades. "In each of the previous four decades" is quite specific. This is the third time that you've tried to ram through your interpretation on this page alone and it has been discussed to the point where everyone was quite satisfied with the wording. That you didn't bother to participate in the discussion you started isn't going to change the fact that three other editors were satisfied with the results. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What record, precisely?

The current statement "She holds the record for the longest hit-making career span, with 33 years between the release of her first and most recent #1 singles, in 1965 and 1998" does not stand up on its own. British singer Cliff Richard has had #1 singles in 1959 and 1999, a 40 year career span. Shouldn't the statement for Cher therefore be amended to "She holds the record for the longest American hit-making career span, with 33 years between the release of her first and most recent #1 singles, in 1965 and 1998"? This is after all a worldwide encyclopedia is it not? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 04:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • citation: <ref>{{citation|last=Ward|first=Bruce|title=So, this is goodbye: After 40 tumultuous years in showbiz, Cher is coming to Vancouver as part of her final tour. And it looks like she's leaving like she came in. On top.|newspaper=[[The Vancouver Sun]]|page=D.2|date=2002-05-29|issn=08321299}}</ref>
  • citation: <ref>{{citation|title=She's one Cher thing|newspaper=[[Evening Post]]|page=TV.9|date=1999-09-06}}</ref>
  • citation: <ref>{{citation|last=Farber|first=Jim|title=CHER AT HOME IN VEGAS|newspaper=[[New York Daily News]]|page=8|date=1999-08-29}}</ref>

As indicated from previous discussions above. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now THAT makes sense. As stated in the references you quote "...the only FEMALE singer to...". So our current statement in the article is wrong and not in accordance with the available references. Excellent, thank you for clarifying the situation Bookkeeper. Do you want to make the change, or shall I? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an American singer and the U.S. market is by far the largest in the world. It is presumptive that one is talking about the most notable record chart in the world, the Billboard Hot 100 charts, unless otherwise specified, and not someplace like Morocco or the Philippines. If that doesn't strike you as a given in the abstract, I would point out that every other subject of the four paragraphs of the lead address U.S. achievements. If it still isn't sinking in that she's an American being judged by American standards, we already specify that we're talking about the Hot 100 earlier in that paragraph. That record is for female solo artist, and so guess what: that's already specified there. This record is for any artist of any sex, number or origin. If we alter anything, it will be to belabor the point that we're talking about the Hot 100, as her sex is irrelevant to that record. If she holds some female record in the UK, or the Solomon Islands, we can add that further down in the article. Abrazame (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I will point out again that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not one limited to the shores of a single country. The current statement implicitly implies that Cher holds a career longevity record that does not stand up when viewed globally. It is not labouring a point to simply add a single word 'American' or 'Female' into the current erroneous statement, and the references actually specify it is a female artist's record. Richard's record of a #1 in each of five decades and a 40 year spread between the first and last #1 is recorded in the Guiness Book of World Records. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 06:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But of course, this is a Wikipedia talk page and so the interested party didn't read my whole post. The qualifier would be "Hot 100", not "female" or "American". The "female" qualifier—and the ref to which you refer—is for the Top 10 record. Remember "What record, precisely". Abrazame (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside any reverence for anyone's "national pride" (UK or US), technically, you're both correct, since 1) all wikipedia articles are meant to give the reader a worldwide view of the subject and 2) the sources are indirectly specifying the Billboard Hot 100 which only applies to US records. 3) we have two sources specifying she holds the record (on the hot 100) as a female artist, so adding that fact does not diminish her achievement. There is no shame in stating Cher is the only female artist in the history of the Hot 100... etc. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, Thank You 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 06:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By the way, Richard's "We Don't Talk Anymore" is one of my all-time favorite songs of its era (though I'm unfamiliar with most of the rest of his prolific catalog). The first time I heard Laura Branigan's "Shattered Glass" (another favorite) it called to mind the Richard song in some melodic and chord respects. I would again point out to my friend Bookkeeper that the "female" qualifier is not used for the span record, only for the decades record. Abrazame (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a particular fan of his body of work actually. I bought his first album in 1959 (and the one by his backing band The Shadows, which remains a favourite instrumental showcase) but, similar to Elvis's career, once they started scrubbing him behind the ears and putting him in stupid musical movies I lost interest. Thanks for your efforts on achieving a more accurate Cher entry. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 07:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10s

I've just seen the discusion above, and I think the sentence "only female artist to have top 10 hits in the last five decades" is more corect than "top 10 hits on the Hot 100 in the last four decades", since she did had top 10s in every decade of the past 50 years, outside the US - "All I Really Want to Do" (1965, #9 UK), "Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves" (1971, #1 CAN), "If I Could Turn Back Time" (1989, #1 AUS), "Believe" (1998, #1 GER), "The Music's No Good Without You" (2001, #8 UK; 2002 #5 Romania). So, something like "only female artist to have top 10 hits worldwide in the last five decades" should be allright. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaPierre or LaPiere???

Why her sister's surname is LaPiere and the surname of Cher and Gilbert is LaPierre?? Kekkomereq4 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is her Armenian ancestry left out?

I'm wondering why her Armenian ancestry is left out? It's even on her imdb page, and her last name is Armenian? There are some funny rules on Wikipedia in regards to what is acceptable for "notable". If this is like an online encyclopedia, or mini-biography, then that's an important fact, if not SUPER DUPER Significant to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeSoul7981 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what article you're reading. The second sentence of the article body (distinct from the summary lead) states that her father was an Armenian refugee, and gives a reference. Later, it is noted that she participated in humanitarian efforts on behalf of Armenia in 1993, repeating the fact that her father was a refugee from that country, sourced to three references including an Armenian paper. Finally the article is listed in the Armenian Americans category, as noted at the very bottom of the page. Have you ever tried a word search? You'd have gotten seven hits for "Armenia" on the page. I don't know that anything else is relevant to be said in such a brief bio, but you're welcome to make a specific, concise and reliably sourced suggestion. On her mother's side she's Cherokee, French and English, but each of these gets only one text mention, and apparently no ref. I'd say we need to beef up that side a little before we add more about Armenia, unless it's vastly more important to Cher and her notability. One of those funny rules is encyclopedia writers have to be a little more on the ball.  ;) Best, Abrazame (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's okay. Apparently, I'm blind. I thought I didn't see Armenian-American listed as a category. Nice to know, I'm losing my vision. I have a little over a year an a half before I hit 30. That's a few years before 50 (joke, no offense). And you're right. It's not something that's super important, but I thought it was something to at least skim upon seeing as how so many people assume she's full Cherokee.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Hey, I got several years to go before 50 myself, lest anybody mistake your comment...but I was recently caught deeply involved in a discussion at a talk page completely missing two major points! I was still right about the central issue, but I felt r-e-a-l-l-y sheepish. Best, Abrazame (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

filmography

Could you explain why you reverted this edit? link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.193.191 (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is already a properly constructed filmography in the article and that page is extraneous and likely subject to being deleted as a duplicate of existing material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe it would be better to put the link to the full filmography article instead of the current table (like with discography)? sorry for spelling --92.37.193.191 (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why would we do that? As Istated, the filmography on the Cher page conforms to the standard table formatting used in Wikipedia, it contains the information reccommended for filmography and is complete. As I also stated, the filmography article is improperly constructed, redundant content subject to deletion as duplication of existing content. The entire last part is unacceptable content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Wildhartlivie, please don't revert my edits.

WikiProject Musicians clearly stated what to put in infobox: "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed, as a comma-separated list. Omit parenthetical dates; save that information for the main article."

I've also removed voice_type from infobox. This option is not for use in infoboxes for contemporary singers. Look at the version before I deleted it and you'll see that it not appears in article.

Previous image shows a man on behind, new version is better with close-up of Cher.

Alias section is for official stage names only.

1964 is the year she released her first record, not 1963.

For Links see WP:EL. Last.fm couldn't be used because it's social networking website. Discogs is user-generated portal and it doesn't needed since we have Allmusic which covers information about Cher music. Warnerbrosrecords.com contains nothing at all, and we already have Cher.com which runs by Warners. The same with Officialcherfanclub.com, and by the way it requirs registration. Cherconvention.com is unauthorized tribute. Ccakids.com has nothing useful for whole article.

Official website plus IMDb, Allmusic and TV.com is more than enough. See examples of good external links: Madonna, Celine Dion, Elton John, Meryl Streep.

Sorry for my bad spelling. --92.37.172.117 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist, you are edit warring over retaining your changes. You are incorrect. Starting from the bottom: the links to her official fan club and links to charity sites which she in involved in are perfectly acceptable. Aliases also include names under which the subject is known. Your interpretation of labels is erroneous, the other labels are not parenthetical, they are directly linked. You removed Sonny Bono as an associated act, and your blow-up of the image is fuzzy and of poor quality. And finally, you remove valid genres. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charity sites are not notable, especially two. Also Cher.com have a link to Officialcherfanclub.com, and Officialcherfanclub.com have a link to Cherconvention.com so we don't have to put all of them to Links.

Minimize the number of links
If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.
More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation. In other situations, it may be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time.

— WP:ELOFFICIAL
I left Sonny & Cher and removed Sonny Bono from associated acts in infobox because their relationship, both professional and personal, started and ended with Sonny & Cher. He had no solo performing career notable for mention aside their duo.
For your pleasure I just uploaded the greatest version of the second photo.
I've also specified Genres section from encyclopedic entries on phenomenons to exactly the musical genres. Please check articles carefully: Folk music -> Folk rock; Pop music and Rock music -> Pop rock; Dance music -> Dance-pop. And I decided to delete Disco because she did it for just one year of her forty five years career, not like those genres above.
And I guess I understand about labels right: they should be without dates and without <br />
Agree with you on Aliases--92.37.172.117 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cher&oldid=363488620"