Talk:Sia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 7 August 2020 (→‎Undue advocacy content in this article: making progress). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleSia has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 2, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
May 29, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Katherineinnes.

LSD: Mountains EP release

On section 1.7, it mentions the release of Mountains (EP) on Spotify. Is it possible to also add the "No New Friends (EP)" release? If not, that's alright, considering it was hard to find a reliable source besides Spotify directly. Matthewl6500 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, these are strange. For the record, here's a link to the EP. Not really sure how to handle... @Ss112: Have you seen this before, or have any thoughts on how best to handle in articles/discographies, etc.? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This just looks to be the new "updated collection of songs" thing that artists do in the streaming era. The Chainsmokers and Florida Georgia Line have both done it as well. Each time a new song comes out, the release is updated on streaming services to include the latest song and display its cover art as well as its name. LSD did this for "Mountains" and "No New Friends" before the album announcement happened, it appears. Unless we want to consider each individual version as a separate EP (and have sources for each), then I'd find it difficult to classify. Ss112 04:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: @Another Believer: Is it possible to just remove references to both EP's and just mention the LSD album alone? The EP's were only released on Spotify anyway and seems irrelevant as of now, compared to last November. Matthewl6500 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the new album supersedes the earlier collections, and we can just discuss the LSD album here. On the LSD album article, we can mention the EP releases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IB fields

There has been way too much disruption over the continual changes to the IB over the last few days. There are two fields in question: Spouse and Awards. Please could people discuss before continuing to edit war. (Oh, and Mr. Split, re your edit summary "(and I think got "good article" status) when it was like this. Deletion = vandalism": 1. This is when the article passed GAN and neither of the fields were present. Please check before you make such erroneous comments again. 2. Just because there is disagreement about the inclusion does not mean there is vandalism. I see you've not been on WP for long: you need to learn quickly not to accuse others of vandalism unless there is actually vandalism. You also need to learn not to continue edit warring in support of a disruptive IP.) - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a link to List of awards and nominations received by Sia makes sense given that is a standalone article. I don't think Erik Anders Lang needs to be named, since that was a short relationship (2014 to 2016). I don't have a strong opinion either way.--Eostrix (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry SC I didn't read this first...) Well, I said '*I think* it got "good article" status', as I hadn't noticed the mark before it got protected. Maybe it was "good" back when it didn't have them, but can't these elements make it better? Other singer articles have them all. Besides, the administrator protected the article as it was after my edit, that's enough for me to believe that version's an "approved" one. So I still see the deletion is the disruption. Why do some people keep forcing the other version?Mr. Split (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to link to the awards article in the IB. It is linked elsewhere in the article already, and it is better to keep the IB concise. Erik Anders Lang is not a notable person, and their marriage was relatively brief, so it is, again, better to keep the IB concise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ssilvers above: if the article must have an infobox it needs to be kept concise and need not be overloaded. Jack1956 (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Split, as I've said above about vandalism, the same thing goes for describing edits as "disruptive". The only thing disruptive was the IP edit warring. S/he was the one forcing things, and you are equally culpable. Please see WP:STATUSQUO; this advises to leave the previous version in place to discuss matters. Both you and the IP have breached that.
Concerning the two fields in question, I consider that the Anders Lang field is one I'd keep out: too short a relationship to have a major impact (without a source to say otherwise), and a non-notable individual. The awards is a bit less clear, but I think I'd probably opt for keeping it out. IBs work best when 'less is more' is kept in mind, and with the article linked elsewhere I. The text, it isn't of major importance in the IB itself. - SchroCat (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see; I didn't know the 'Status Quo' rule. I've seen that "Full list" link to awards on other singer info boxes (that include pretty much everything) and looked like a norm. Why let those people keep it if it's frowned upon? And as for Spouse: I was under the impression that mere relationships should be kept out but marrying made you relevant ipso facto. Well, I'd ask to know if there was an agreement with the administrator who protected the article ('cause the history is there: he/she did it following my restoration & that's why I still think it wasn't bad).Mr. Split (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu has already directed you to where the only interaction took place. To reiterate: I requested page protection to stop edit warring and s/he protected it some time later. S/he wouldn't have worried about which version was in place, they would just have acted to stop the edit warring, knowing everyone else can have a discussion to come to a consensus. In other words the version at the time of protection has no favoured status. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I'll just say I was quite bothered by this determination to keep non-damaging details out, and leave it at that. Far from me wanting to mess up her article.Mr. Split (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most heart touching masterpiece by Sia was her song MY Love in the movie The Twilight Saga: Eclipse which released in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.118 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"voice actress and director"

This should be removed, she obviously is not a director just because she has directed a music video. and the voice actress part is not what she's known for/what she regularly does.

You're wrong. She has directed numerous hit music videos and a feature film. The body of the article contains citations to sources for all of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ssilvers. I don't understand why this is being disputed. There are numerous articles that reference her credentials. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Ssilvers

@Ssilvers: You requested an explanation from me. Here they are.

  • The deletion of the section on the Talk page was because the auto-archiving tool was broken and didn't already do it. That particular thread (titled "Associated Acts" and last dated 20 September 2018) seemed done with, so I archived it. It wasn't deleted.
  • Re: removing a sentence from section "2015–2017: This Is Acting". I removed the sentence "The videos that Sia has posted to her YouTube channel have accumulated a total of more than 8 billion views, and the channel has more than 18 million subscribers." along with a link to Sia's youtube channel. It is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research to do something like count numbers from a youtube channel and post a summary of your findings. And linking to a youtube channel in order to do it is NOT a citation, thereby violating Wikipedia:External links. To include such content you will need to find a secondary source that mentions it.
  • Re removing content from "Activism" section: PETA is not a WP:Reliable source for citations in Wikipedia, and that includes their domain petaasiapacific.com. Content supported by non-RS may be deleted. Similarly, the domain oscarslaw.org is an activist's blog and is not a reliable source. Wikipedia's policy about questionable sources says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information ABOUT THEMSELVES, usually in articles ABOUT THEMSELVES or their activities ... so long as: it does not involve CLAIMS ABOUT THIRD PARTIES." As such, having oscarslaw.org tell something about Sia cannot appear in Sia's wiki article as the source for the content. If you want to include activism and such, you need to provide a secondary source showing it happened. It might well be true, but Wikipedia's rules on reliable source are one of its top guidelines.

Please revert your reversions of my edits on the Sia page. (The Talk page edit can remain, if you like.) Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statements above, and I disagree with the deletions that you made to Sia's page. YouTube, and in this case Sia's YouTube page, is the definitive source for the number of views that Sia has accumulated on her music videos. This is clearly not WP:OR. Also, PETA is a reliable source with respect to the information cited to it. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the extraordinary success of Sia's videos on YouTube is sourced to Sia's YouTube channel. It is not original research to report the numbers from a YouTube channel. First of all, you are simply wrong about adding numbers. You can do math without violating OR. But in this case, no math is needed, as Sia's "about" page directly reports the total: 9,310,252,228 views. As for the Activism section, you are also wrong that Peta is not a reliable source about Sia's participation at an event they sponsored. You are misreading the SPS rule. I agree with Somambuluant above: your deletions from Sia's page are unconstructive. If you want to find better sources for Sia's activism, feel free to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue advocacy content in this article

(Continuing the same discussion from above)

Ssilvers, you should review the conversation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PETA. In summary, the sort of insertion of PETA and Oscar's Law into the Sia (musician) article violates WP:ADVOCACY and is WP:UNDUE content. Even if you might be allowed to include something like "PETA was invited by Sia to attend..." (sourced at peta.org), you could not include such content as "Sia partnered with various rescue organizations to conduct a dog adoption fair at each of her concerts" or "Sia was nominated for a 2016 Libby Award for Best Voice for Animals" as PETA is NOT a reliable source for this sort of information. You would need to locate and use a traditionally-considered reliable source to cite this content. And if you cannot find anything, then it wasn't important enough and thus... WP:UNDUE. (Pinging Buidhe since you reverted their edit.) Normal Op (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sia is a famous person and there is lots of independent sources, such as news articles, on her activities. If such a source does not exist, the content has to be considered WP:UNDUE, and likely inserted to promote PETA's campaigns (WP:NOTADVOCACY). (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is about weight, not advocacy. If you're going to cite Wikipedia guidelines, please cite a relevant one. In any case, we are simply reporting the historical fact that Sia supported animal rights campaigns. Peta is a reliable source for reporting that she did so. The text of the article doesn't even mention PETA, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: You didn't read this at all, did you? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PETA. — Normal Op (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and I think your arguments there are equally poor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no consensus for the inclusion of this content, I'm going to remove it per WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 07:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citations given in the article are reliable sources and that WP:UNDUE is certainly not applicable to this discussion at all. Jack1956 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of the problems brought up at RSN. WP:NOT and WP:POV most certainly apply, and there seems to be WP:OR driving some of it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the disputed deletions and therefore I have restored them pending a consensus. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent 2 minutes searching reliable sources and found a stack of articles supporting the information. That’s a better way to spend time than wikilawyering or spewing an alphabetti spaghetti of policies that are, at best, only tangentially connected. It’s too late for me to add them now, so I’ll do it in the morning, u less someone beats me to adding them. - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're making slow progress.
I removed the mention of the Beagle Freedom Gala as being WP:SOAP as described here, similar to the PETA links as described at RSN.
Glad to know there's better sources available. Let's see what we can make of what's available. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sia&oldid=971746205"