Talk:Brenda Song/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I practicly redid the article: removing unnecessary info, adding on in the "personal" section, rewriting paragraphs...ect. What do you think, is it better? loulou 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

and why did you delete brenda's television table ashley tisdale has hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007

you shoudnt have made the pesonal info section because unless you sure all of it is true sometimes it could hurt people — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008


STOP THAT she didnt have a fight in a night club with j.lo so stop those comments. by User:prepelos 11:07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Ugh! Someone vandilized this page and I had to convert the whole thing back to normal! loulou 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Any idea who removed that picture of her? DanTD 05:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

if its vandilized then lets have a semi protected tag for brenda song. User:prepelos 10:45 27 august 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prepelos (talkcontribs) 21:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Free image needed

Can somebody find a free image of her that we can use on this article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Can an admin change Category:Charmed actors to Category:Charmed cast, please? Thanks, Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra credits

How do we know she was in Supernatural (TV series)? I can't find it anywhere. Which episode was it? - Peregrine Fisher 07:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Song's MySpace

I heard somewhere that Brenda Song has a myspace. Could someone check that out and see? If so, put it under the links section. Why? Because there are links to celebrities MySpaces in Wikipedia, for example, Nat Wolff from the Naked Brothers Band. Abcw12 06:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NO NO NO they are all just obsessed fans trying to get attention by pretending to be brenda no one believes them but she does have a fan club on myspace that is extremely popular well popular on myspace like this fan [1] and this one is hilarous actually i dont know it might be the real brenda im not sure. User:Prepelos 10:52 27 august 2007

Music section

Can anyone provide WP:RS for this: "Brenda will be releasing a solo CD,Ian Scott from Mark Jackson Productions (who also produced popular commericials, TV shows such as Laguna Beach & The Hills, videos, etc.) written & prooduced some of her songs. The release of the CD is not yet confirmed, but is spected to be released sometime in 2008." Red Masque 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

first of all yes there is a reliable source check out [2] about her recording career and the references have all disappeared its vandellism and no one is doing anything about it and anyway how ashley tisdale has a huge article and brenda is so much smaller brenda has done a disney channel movie like ashley and she has appeared in a lot of shows the difference is ashley has a album and she has appeared in high school musical (that has a lot of publicity) but brenda's movie wendy wu is popular too (it had a lot of references from the new york post and others) so i dont think its fair on brenda (thats so not fair just because brenda is asian and ashley is white and blonde its not fair and howcome its always about americaa point of view of the world and asia ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007


According to one of the links (the profile) it says she was born September 24, 1987. However, the imdb and links say March 27, 1988 (which is what this article says). Her official site doesn't list a birth date so that doesn't help. Since imdb and are user generated sites though, I'm going to change the date and put a citation request to see if anyone can find information that confirms either date. Phydend 16:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Her official site lists March 27, 1988, under biography. Gimmetrow 16:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I looked there, but obviously didn't read the whole thing. Thanks for the fix. Phydend 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tables for albums and singles in discography

At this point, Song's recording career is fairly short. There is no real need for wikitables, and those that were used looked rather non-standard. Please don't add them again. An anon recently added Disneymania 2 as an album, presumably based on the presence of the track "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes", but the Disneymania 2 article credits that version to someone else. She was involved with the version appearing on Disneymania 4. Gimmetrow 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah i guess but she did appear in Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes so why cant we add a chart because ashley tisdale has a huge chart and one side says Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes (the chart position is empty but technically there is nooooooooo need for ashley tisdales chart). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007


Song is an Korean and Chinese name, not Hmong, Laotian or South East Asian. Her father is maybe both of Korean and Chinese descent, actually, her mother is Thai/Cambodian/Vietnamese/Burmese. And she's a buddhist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2007-06-30 14:28:37

Dude, that's like everything... ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, it said on her Official website her fathers Hmong and her mother is Thai-American, not Korean or Chinese. --Cinnamonroll 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Song is also a Hmong surname. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The spelling of her last name "Song" is actually more commonly spelled "Xiong."-- 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

first of all yes there is a reliable source about her reording and the references have all disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007


Yeah where did all the reference go? x[ --Cinnamonroll 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They're back now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

american darlings

brend ais just amazing i cant wait for her next hit. User:Prepelos 10:40 27 august 2007

Music and album

this producer claims that he has recorded some songs with brenda yes there is a reliable source check out [3]. User:Prepelos 10:43 27 august 2007

brenda and ali lohan

is ali lohan a brenda fan or a friend because she has been like seen with brenda twice photographed at a premiere and shopping (i think).User:Prepelos 10:52 27 august 2007

Personal life

she has a bull dog i think and she is best friends with ashley tisdale,hallie harsh, vanessa hudgens and Kristin Herrera. she is close frienda with her co-stars on the suite life of zack and cosy that is going to be cancelled its really sad. Cole Sprouse ,Dylan Sprouse and Phill Lewis ofcourse are also close friends with brend aso its going to be sad.

not to mention the fact dylan sprouse,kyle massey and ricky (phil of the future star ) have been seen kissing brenda in the cheeks so i guess they are really close friends. so i think that she needs a personal life section in her article imm going to add it. User:Prepelos 10:52 27 august 2007

and she is also bfs with aly and aj and i read in this magazine that she has over 100 pairs of shoes and she is also friends with all of the suite life stars and i also read in this magazine that she is dating Devon Werkheiser and i read that she has dated Jesse McCartney. User:Prepelos 11:06 27 august 2007

Semi Protected

someone wrote I HATE DISNEY in brenda's article i think it should be semi protected. User:Prepelos 9:35 2 nd september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prepelos (talkcontribs) 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


What is the source for the name "Xiong" that has been added to the article? There is no use of "Xiong" on the official site. "Brenda Xiong Song" gets a total of 7 ghits, which are either mirrors of Wikipedia, or unreliable sites/blogs. Gimmetrow 10:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the "Xiong" name staying in this article, as it will tend to spread to other sites. I'm also removing a sentence implying her mother forced her to study Tae Kwon Do, and a sentence about a connection to the Powers agency. Please do not add these without a reference (and for the latter, I wouldn't trust a JRP site). Finally, I would suggest that the listing of "friends" in the Personal section is a bit too much like myspace. Gimmetrow 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Two Sources for a middle name, or lack thereof

I read the debate about the middle name and I have two sources that can shed light on this.

Brenda Song The California Birth Index lists a "Brenda Song" born on 27 March 1988 in Sacramento County, California (In order to make absolutely sure I had the right Brenda Song I checked and Carmichael is in Sacramento County). According to this her mother's maiden name is "Lee". I am looking at this information on at this link [4]. Since is not public to everyone I am also listing the record on which affirms her name as "Brenda Song" [5].

Brenda Julietta Song Her mini biography on the IMDB lists her birth name as "Brenda Julietta Song" [6].

I would think the vital statistics index would be more authoratative but the index only lists the name as it existed on the birth certificate. If her parents decided to give her a middle name later I don't think it would be expressed in the index. I have done substantial genealogical work with this database and I have found no reason to doubt its listings. That is just my opinion on the database so I will let the editors of this article judge which source is more worthy of inclusion. James E. Zavaleta Talk 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John Robert Powers

The assertion that she "signed with" JRP really needs to be cited to some source other than JRP. JRP has been known to claim celebrities as "success stories", when the celebrities had no connection to JRP.

Also, please use spaces after punctuation when adding new content, and per WP:MSH, only capitalize the first word and proper names in section headers. Please don't revert edits which fix these errors. Gimmetrow 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Various points about this article

Periods (.) and commas (,) and quotes (") and most other puncutation are followed by one space, but have no spaces before.

Movie titles are in italics. That means Santa with Muscles, not Santa with Muscles.

Movie titles may need disambiguation to point to the correct article. Song was in Requiem, not Requiem, and Popular, not Popular.

Writing which says "Song appeared as A in X. She appeared as B in Y. Then she appeared as C in Z." is repetitive in itself, and repeats the content which already in tabular form. There is no need to have such repetitive content in two or more places. Gimmetrow 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, many of the "references" do not support the statements they supposedly reference. For instance, the statement that "She graduated from high school as valedictorian with Kay Panabaker when she was 16 years old" is referenced to a photo album of all things, which neither says that she graduated as valedictorian, nor that she was 16 years old at the time, the two key points of info in the statement that need to be cited. I will go through this article and prune it considerably in the next few days if I don't see anyone else cleaning it up. Gimmetrow 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Normal 320.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Normal 320.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted non-free images. Can never use fair use as a justification for an image in a biography as a free replacement is always possible. --NrDg 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

College Road Trip

There seems to be some debate whether Song was in College Road Trip. The source provided is a "Teen Mag" interview. [7] Read the "Nothing is set in stone" line carefully. She was asked about the Wendy Wu sequel, and the following clause begins "but", indicating a contrast. So she's saying: nothing is set in stone about Wu, but there is this other movie I'm in.

It's possible this project fell apart, but as the movie is not released, I wouldn't trust IMDb on this. IMDb doesn't include her in the credits, but an argument from absence is tenuous, and IMDb isn't really a reliable source anyway.

On the other hand, She is listed in the description of the trailer on aol videos. [8] I don't know if NYTimes movies is reliable either, but she is listed among the cast there. [9]

These seem like sufficient sources to justify what User:Brendasongfan wants to add to the article. I don't necessarily think it should be added to the template, though, since that's a "selected filmography". Gimmetrow 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times reference is gold. Put the movie in the article. List Song in the movie article. But use the NYT reference in both - that is the one that is the most reliable. The other references are ambiguous. IMDB is pretty reliable in casting and general movie information. Lack of a listing there creates a pretty strong (but rebutable) presumption of not being in the movie. Since Wikipedia is more about what we can verify with reliable sources (blame on them actually) than what is actually true, the NYT reference meets our needs. --NrDg 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just note, this is NYTimes movies, not simply NYTimes. Editorial standards may be different. Gimmetrow 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Different but still very reliable with a good reputation for fact checking. It is the best reference available. It needs to be in the article to back up the somewhat ambiguous interview reference. --NrDg 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He Said She Said

Ok I don't think Brenda makes a cameo in the Ashley Tisdale "He Said She Said" music video like the article suggests. Maybe I just didn't notice her, but from what I've seen, she's not in it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Why does it say that she was born in Carmichael, California when on tv, it always says that she was born in Vietiane, Laos in the continent of Asia. everyone knows that she was born in Laos. I edited this and put Vietiane, Laos on it. Cookie Monster 1:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See bio on Gimmetrow 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Filmography article

OK, it's been a while since someone split out the filmography section to a separate article. Many more senior actors with lengthy careers do not have separate filmography articles on WP. On the other hand, they also do not list every guest appearance and certainly not "self appearances". I think film and TV should be in the main article. I think it's reasonable to include any guest appearances that can be sourced to something other than imdb and, and so are notable in themselves; that would probably exclude all the single-episode appearances except the one on Bernie Mac. Gimmetrow 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i agree we should delete the article.It should be merged in to Brenda Song it should be a held for speedy deletion.It is so far pointless because many more senior actors dont have seperate filmography articles.Prepelos 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes i think that the article i've created should be merged into the main Brenda Song article because i was not aware of the points that Gimmetrow has made.Hp2o 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song's Filmography page is useless delete it. Rajamicca 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To those saying "delete" - we cannot "delete" the article if we keep any edits from it. We can restore the table as it was here, otherwise the other page must stay, at least as a redirect. Gimmetrow 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By not waiting and by incorporating edits from that other article, you have made it nearly impossible to delete that other article. It will take some serious surgery now to delete the article. Next time, patience. Gimmetrow 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll change the film board back!

Someone split out the filmography section to a separate article so i have to repair it .I don't like that list because It's deprived of movies and series of Brenda Song!!!!And where's the old pic????

BrendaSongbestfan (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Gimmetrow 08:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder image

The placeholder image just encourages people to upload copyrighted images, which then have to be deleted. The placeholder .svg is a disaster for this article and ought not be here. I propose banning it from this article. Gimmetrow 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


The guest appearance section is a problem. I really don't care what the Miley Cyrus and Ashley Tisdale pages have. The list here just repeats what imdb has and bloats the article. The options on the table were to have a limited table here, or have the filmography article and fill that with fancruft. But nobody wanted the filmography article. Gimmetrow 21:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of this article

OK, that's it. This page gets reorganised way too often, going back and forth between the acting career organised by time, or split into film and tv and whatnot. It appears in some cases it's the same editor changing back and forth. To keep the article stable from now on, I intend to revert any substantial rearrangements which are not discussed on this talk page. If people want to rearrange the article some other way, fine, but discuss it first and get a consensus. Gimmetrow 21:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again the organisation of this article has flipflopped. Since I'm always the one to clean up after the fact all the typos and manual of style problems, I'm tired of it. So let's discuss the structure of this article and get it decided once and for all, so nobody can go making BS accusations of ownership.

All featured actor articles as far as I know have the acting career organised sequentially. See Eric Bana, Jackie Chan, Katie Holmes, Vivian Leigh and Emma Watson. So that seems to be the standard way. Does anyone else have an opinion? (And notice the Katie Holmes article doesn't include any TV shows in filmography, and Vivian Leigh article doesn't even have a filmography.) Gimmetrow 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody is going to express any contrary opinion here on talk, then I'll change the article to correspond to the order found in most featured articles. Gimmetrow 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm interpreting this as a reorder to sequential organisation. Gimmetrow 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope of comments

Someone drew my attention to this edit. Comments made regarding this article have a context, and may not apply elsewhere. Certain other "comparable" pages are not really comparable. This article had a problem with an incorrect name, and with some other bits of questionable information. As a consequence, sources here really need to be checked so the article doesn't end up full of more bad info, which would then get copied all over the net. The subject deserves that. I appreciate the info User:Brendasongfan (and other accounts) have found. Gimmetrow 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi The Awards Section

ashley tisdale's article has awards listed that are not 4 her they are for the show and movie she was featured in and when i change that using it always gets reverted and imdb cause emily osment has a nomination with the young artist awards for her goosebumps movie but it isnt even feautured in imdb because imdb is user posted information with no sources excpet the salaries for the actors have to have a source and i am sorry i just wnated to let you know about imdb and and about ashley tisdale's article which has nominations for the suite life and high school musical which shouldnt be. 145.126.243 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The nominations for Suite Life are discussed in the text here. I didn't really think about the awards table when it was short, but as it grew it seemed different than the list in, say, Angelina Jolie or Emma Watson. Those are both featured articles, and the awards sections are (more or less) specific to the actress. As you say, IMDb is user-submitted so it's not always to be trusted (just like here). This article has had its share of fake info, so for safety it really ought to point directly to the award site when possible. Gimmetrow 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I removed the "Personal life" section which appears to be a copyright violation from here. Remember, just changing the occasional word is nowhere near sufficient to avoid a copyright violation. --Yamla (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the section regarding the lawsuit is copied from a magazine. It reads too much like an article. Can someone check this out? (Iroc24 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Further reading?

The following are listed as "further reading":

  • Brenda Song. Scholastic Math. 2007. ISBN 23610179. [1]
  • Entin, Carli (2005). Math Spotlight on... Brenda Song. Scholastic Math. ISBN 16726204. [2]

The problems with this are:

  • the ISBNs given are NOT ISBNs. I added an html comment to that effect so someone who claims to have the books would provide it, but that comment has been removed multiple times without providing the ISBNs.
  • the second link is broken
  • the first link says it's a 1/3 page article with 1 color photograph, which "presents a mathematical problem on how many gas gallons will Brenda Song..." At 1/3 page, including presenting a mathematical problem, it can't have much content about Song.
  1. ^ Brenda Song Scholastic Math. Accessed 2008-02-18.
  2. ^ MATH Spotlight on... Brenda Song. Accessed 2008-02-18.

Song didn't write these books. They're not biographies about her. They are math problems. If there is anything useful to say about these books, then write some text to say it. Otherwise, it might fly as an external link (though I tried that once before, and that was rejected). Gimmetrow 05:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but those books are not written by her but they are biograohical they do not have initially math problems they include Song's point of views and Mathematics and i believe that you do nto own one of those books to judge this imperial fact. Gallons in the summary direct to Mathematics and Song's facts like in Britney SPears biographies they ussually include weight/height/and others and in this book, the author has used Brenda Song for an example to encourage children and at the same time to include biograohical facts about Brenda if not used in this article as Further Readings it can be used in some text to show readers about this book. Like i said many people disagree with your reaction since the books included have biographical text about Brenda Song which links to maths. The book includes Song's personal background, early life and career facts. Which is exactly why it should not be used in teh external liks since they are for official links from sites not book references. FortyFootEcho 4:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The main question is: do these books provide significant useful independent information about Song? Are they genuine "further reading" about the subject of this article, which is Brenda Song? Would they be present once this article is featured? I think the answer to all three questions is no; clearly no for the third one. I'm not denying they have some biographical content, but we do not list every webpage that's ever said anything about Song.
I would like to have this page featured on the mainpage someday; wouldn't you? This is why I prune out trivia like the self-appearances. There's no list of self-appearances in other featured articles - and I hope you would find it silly to find a list of every time Angelina Jolie appeared on a talk show. Listing such things next to Young Artist Awards and major movie roles demeans those accomplishments. Gimmetrow 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I find the idea of a Disney-manufactured star on the main page a bit distasteful, but that doesn't undermine your argument. Articles are supposed to be a discussion of important things that a person has done. Every successful entertainer does the talk-show circuit, and providing the details of each and every appearance is completely unnecessary. Similarly, every Disney creation has marketing tie-ins, both the animated and flesh-and-blood ones. A mathematics book with Brenda Song as the marketing hook is no more notable than listing every notebook cover that had Snow White on the cover.Kww (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, i never looked at it that way but Brenda is not a Disney manufactured starlet she was famous before Disney from Like Mike and others. FortyFootEcho (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Note: Two of the participants FortyFootEcho (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Bratzwq (talk · contribs) has a history of adding speculative, unreferenced and deliberately false information to articles and has been temporarily blocked for this [10]. --NrDg 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please talk about the edit war here, we don't want it again. The reason to the war seems to be Brenda's singles, here is some of it:

  • 2008: "Pretty Princess"

Music Videos

  • 2006: "Open Up Your Eyes"
  • 2007: "All Over My Body"
  • 2008: "Pretty Princess"


  • BJS

Are those singles correct, do they have a reliable source confirm it? If their are more singles which I haven't said please tell me, untill this has been solved the protection is on the page --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image needs to be removed from article

Image:KylaBrendaMusic.jpg is a non-free copyrighted image and needs to be removed from article. As the page is now fully protected we need consensus to make any changes at all to the article. --NrDg 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as an admin, you can edit protected articles to enforce the legal policies (fair use, BLP, etc), without regard to consensus. Embrace your power, and enjoy it. Just remember the Spiderman oath: With great power comes great responsibility. Kww (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Chuckle. I know, but it doesn't hurt to ask and the image is tagged. I don't want to give any appearance of abusing my ability to edit protected stuff. I'll declare consensus and delete it. --NrDg 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Other images

I think the other images may be copyvios too. There's a long history of copyvio images with this article. The last set of confirmed and probable copyvios were removed 28 March 2008. The current three images (Image:BrendaSongBook.jpg, Image:BrendaSong1999.jpg and Image:BrendaSongST.jpg) were added to this article 21:51, 31 March 2008[11]

  • Image:BrendaSongBook.jpg appeared at flickr:osmentjonasfan on March 30, 2008, uploaded to commons by user:Osmentjonasfan 13:09, March 30
  • Image:BrendaSong1999.jpg, also appeared at flickr:osmentjonasfan on March 30, 2008, uploaded to commons by user:Osmentjonasfan 13:15, March 30
    • Flickr:osmentjonasfan hosts two images of Song copied from elsewhere: [12] and [13] were uploaded to flickr 14 April 2008, but were previously uploaded by flickr:Jolene March 11, 2007 and April 14, 2007 with "all rights reserved". Therefore Osmentjonasfan probably doesn't own the images and the CC-BY licensing for these images is probably wrong, making the other two CC-BY images suspect.
  • Image:BrendaSongX-Mas.jpg, not currently in the article, appeared at flickr:maxlodge1985 30 March, and uploaded to commons 13:25, 30 March 2008 by User:Maxlodge1985
  • Image:BrendaSongST.jpg appeared at flickr:maxlodge1985 also on March 30, 2008, and uploaded to commons by User:Maxlodge1985 at 13:28, 30 March 2008.
    • These are user:Maxlodge1985's only flickr and commons uploads. Although the two images look like personal images, the timing is suspicious.
  • There's a prior pattern of Song images from flickr getting uploaded to commons under a matching username. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BrendaSong213DisneyLand.jpg mentions commons:user:haleyr123 and commons:user:FrogMiller.

I'm tempted to request a checkuser on commons. Gimmetrow 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the results of this. I wish I had checkuser, and some sort of image search engine that would let you feed in an image and find duplicates online. --Yamla (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but timing is not the issue, the images that you say are copied have all rights reserved on Max Lodge's page so you can not judge from that it does not say CB-BY on the two images and the two images look very personal and are not found anywhere else on the net. You are wasting your time investigating images that have CB and are not found anywhere else on the net, and checking it would good but other than that you have no proof, timing is not an issue and even if those two users are related you still have no evidience that they have used copyvios.

Those two Flickr users might be related but they have not done anything against wikipedia policies and those two images from Jolene are all right reserved by Jolene and the other user. So you have nothing against them and it seems like you are taking a lot of your time to find evidience that the images are copyvios when Jolene and Osmentjonasfan had Flickr @all rights reserved for both of images from Malaysia and Costa Rica. The other Osmentjonasfan are CB and are not found on any other source, they also seem personal. And the Max Lodge images seem personal too and are not found on any other source, so right now you have no evidience posting a image that is @flickr all right reserved and for OsmentJonasFan to confirm it is stable. The other images are CC-BY which is not very rule breaking. A usercheck would be good. --User:IntoCreativeJan (talk) 2:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ICJ, Wikipedia will as a rule only use images from flickr if the images are licensed as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Any other flickr licensing, including "all rights reserved", is not acceptable at commons and would only be used here under a "fair use" claim. To get around this, some people find an image, upload it to flickr on their own account with a CC-BY license, then upload it to commons referencing the CC-BY licensing at flickr, thus making it appear at first glance to be legitimately licensed. This is serious abuse. I really hope it's not happening here. Gimmetrow 22:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that the two images [14] and [15] are uploaded on osmentjonas's account with "all rights reserved". And credit to Jolene. --User:IntoCreativeJan (talk) 4:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Have they always been that way? Gimmetrow 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser has been perfomed and the action was indefinite block for the sockpuppets per checkuser case --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song's salary

I am a user on IMDB. And i have noticed that Brenda Song's salary for Wendy Wu is 1.2 million. Now salaries on IMDB can not be submitted without a reference if you do not believe me register on IMDB and check the add sections. So all i have to do is find the source which will be quite hard sinc eit is not featured on Forbes but there is a high possibilities for finding it on AOL or other major sites. Here is a quick link to the updates page

IMDB does not seem to allow salaries without sources though all of the otehr sections in the biography pages are unsourced. Can i add the salary to the Brenda Song page. Since i ahve proved that IMDB salary sections need to be sourced or do i ahve to find the source and then add it. The question is not all IMDB sections are not reliable and i have read that several times on wikipedia. Information supplied from directors and casting producers can be used but this matter is financhal and seems to be reliable since it needs to have a source. The salaries can not be submitted with out a source. Please register on IMDB and then check the updates page to examine the section and reply to me with your point of view. Thank you -IntoCreativeJan (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at I see nothing that confirms that it is verified by IMDB. Please provide a better reference to support your statement that salary information is verified. --NrDg 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The guide does not confirm that. Register on IMDB then go to Brenda Song (update button) then go on the biography page and try uploading a amount and you will see that IMDB does not except salary information without sources. I do not know why it is not mentioned in the guide. Anyways register and try updating a salary to any actors page, and you will soon find out the notice that says IMDB does not except salaries without sources this is very hard. I have searched some network sites but i did not find the source. But IMDB clearly states that salaries need a source. If you are registered and trying to update a source to any actors page. I do not know why it is not mentioned in the guide. --IntoCreativeJan 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The difficulty with IMDb is that it's not transparent. It doesn't generally indicate what (if any) source any info comes from. I've submitted info to IMDb, and I know there are ways to figure out if certain info is "locked", but even that isn't transparent. If you can find something referenced elsewhere then please use that reference. Gimmetrow 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it doesn't really make all of their stuff transparent. I think that the main section that are user submitted info and unreliable are the trivia and facts, the thing is that the admins at IMDB would be very stupid if they did let a link that did not mention Song's salary pass. I don't think that they would allow that to happen in the first place and maybe that is why they added a reference policy for the salary sections. The otehrs secions are just trivia and are notably common and sourced from otehr celebrity topic sites. So can we possibly consider the slaary section as relibale just for this time because from all of the notes taken it seems like the credits and salary section are the only ones carefully monitored by the editor and admins at IMDB. And that makes it a top casting directory. Well a couple of years ago there was no trivia section at IMDB which amd edit easier for wikipedia to trust them. Can we consider that link as reliable because of all of the noted preferences. I highly would like to trust those sections. And i don't think that it will make a difference, other sites have reported that Song got paid 1.2 million like this site --IntoCreativeJan 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Awards and achievements"

Every piece of information in the "Awards and achievements" section, is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The various rankings are in Public image, which seems a better spot, and the other awards are mentioned either in the text (where they have context and explanation), or in the table (where they are too minor to mention). This section is therefore redundant and should be removed. Gimmetrow 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of fixing things and having those fixes reverted wholesale without any discussion here. There are reasons for all the changes made. For instance, the article now has restored this gem:

...has taken college courses online from the University of California.[7] Song was a member of the Delta Phi Kappa sorority,[16] where she served as president.

In the link, the Brenda Song identified as president of the sorority at USC (not the University of California mentioned in the previous sentence), was president and charter member in 1960. It's also absurd to add a link to this TV guide blurb to reference a fact already covered in a normal full-length New York Times article. Now would the IP please revert completely. Gimmetrow 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing full revert for what. There is no Achievements section and every thing that the Ip added is referenced and short. The achievements section has been removed. The ip's version is fine. Well sourced and more organized than your version of the article. First of all the IP removed the Delta Phi Kappa sorority source that you claim is not reliable and the Awards and achievements section has been removed and split to the sections they belong in. And by the way that text about the Delta Phi Kappa sorority claims that Brenda was part of Delta Phi Kappa sorority, where she served as president it does not mention anything about Brenda being president of the universty. I checked the section before you removed it. It seems like you have mis understood the text.IntoCreativeJan 9:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I spent extensive time correcting references, cleaning them up and making them consistent, rewriting the lead, removing repeated wikilinks, improving phrasing, and so forth. The "IP version" removed all that without explanation, then proceeded to rearrange other parts of the text, placing items out of order and in inappopriate eras. I asked the IP editor to stop. There was no discussion. Gimmetrow 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing saying Song was president of the university. Where in the world did you get that? Gimmetrow 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not fair i have discussed the issue. You just reverted everything with out replying to the issue on the discussion oage and now you have told another admin to semi protect the page for nothing. I did not vandellize the page. I have submitted a paragraph explaining why on the discussion page. You can not have everything your way. You have to remember that you do not own the page. Give other users a opportunity to edit. . The IP version is like your version but he/she added more text and sources. Which made the article more organized. The IP one did not revert all of your work check the history page again.IntoCreativeJan 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't protect the page. Which IP edits do you acknowledge as yours? Was you? Anyway, do you have any idea how frustrating it is to spend half an hour fixing up a page, tidying it up, only to have someone blindly revert everything because of one tiny issue, without any consideration for the other edits? Gimmetrow 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but you are not understanding me. I said that the last version was not a reverted version of your work. Look at the history page. The IP has not reverted your work. I looked at the IP version, it does not have the awards and achievements section. It only includes more text and sources and it looks more organized since the ranking is in personal life, and the awards info is in the career sections where it was supposed to be in the first place. Listen in the first place Deinaked started reverting everythong and my old version of the article so the i reverted everything she did and it took me a very long time to do that. And the thing that is bothering me is that she gets no warning or block afer deleting half of the page and references without any explanation. Yes i am that IP thing but my IP address keeps on changing for some reason and i got very angry with what Deinaked did. And then you came along and i thought that you were associated with Deinaked, so i reverted something you did with out any explanation and i am very sorry for that. Then when i saw your warning. I decided to do remove the awards and achievemnts section and add more sources and text to improve the article and then you though that i reverted your work again changing the postion of text and reverted the work, and then NRDG protected the page it all comes to pieces and i am very sorry the last edit did not revert your version. 31 of March is a very long time. Deinaked reverted more work earlier this month and recieved no block warning. I thought that this applied to everyone. And considering that my edits did not last for 7 times of reverting text and removing work like what Deinaked did. I have had my IP address change for more than 3 times over the past few months for some reason so it is pretty hard to find out the wprk that i have done and then i finally decided to create a user name. IntoCreativeJan 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think we're basically on the same page. Deinaked did get a warning. I'll go through and figure out what you changed and incorporate it into this version after the lock expires. I would appreciate it if I got the same courtesy.[17] One thing you did well was move something from 2004 to the 2003+ section, but also moved the 2000 film.[18] The 2003+ section ended up with a lot of repetition (see this version). Two films are mentioned twice (in the second and third paragraphs), and there are repeated links. (Also, I didn't see where the Hmong Today article said she had a degree in business.) In general, the text should be more than just a repetition of everything in the tables; it should select some info and discuss its relevance. Gimmetrow 21:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok i will fix the 2003+ section or use your version then add the sections that i moved. And then i can follw your guidelines for no repetition, but the text generally is not repetition to everything in tables because in that version i added viewers, production , awards and casting. While this version is mainly repetition to everthing in tables. It would take along time for me to create the old version without repetition and to organize more like putting the 2000 film where it belongs it having the disney channel beginning (2000-2005) and that would make it more organized but in general it would take a long time and i might not do it since 31 May is the last day of the half term. IntoCreativeJan 11:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Information contrary to the sources

[19] For some reason, people keep adding the idea that Song graduated from high school at age 15. I'm at a loss to understand why this would be controversial. The New York Times article cited multiple times here clearly says she earned a high school diploma at age 16, and no contrary source has been provided. (Likewise, "community college" is not capitalized; it seems to be a generic type of school.) These repeated reversions do not appear to involve a content dispute, but rather some form of abusive editing. Any account adding information like this again will simply be blocked from editing. Gimmetrow 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


There is nothing controversial about the event described in the section at least as it applies to Song. She did nothing herself and is a victim of a potentially actionable civil offense. Her reactions to defend herself were not controversial. This information is justified in the article as it does effect her and her career. I believe it is overemphasized in the article. A brief mention should be sufficient. The picture is overkill and, in my opinion, is not a justified fair-use exemption for the use of a copyrighted image. See my thoughts on that at WP:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_June_17#Image:Brenda-song-escord-ad.jpg --NrDg 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


This article has long claimed Song was in Blade (film), but I can't find any good indication. This also lists A Cinderella Story based on pages like [20], but was she really in the film? Not listed on imdb, for instance. Gimmetrow 00:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cinderella looks resolved. I don't necessarily trust yahoo movie listings, but other sites list her and [21] in particular seems adequate. Gimmetrow 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle name

Apparently the best source for the middle name "Julietta" is:

Does "" have much of a reputation for fact-checking? The name is basic info, and I wonder if a "quiz" at teenmag is really good enough. Gimmetrow 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


This article was disrupted again. This post will explain in detail the problems with the latest set of revisions, which are typical of the edits which have happened here for months.

  • [22] - full reversion with edit summary: "Camp Rock reference is needed. When u watch the whole movie you don't see brenda anywhere so fans began to question her appearance and remove the credit but the reference proves it. And the music sect)".
      • (Note that Camp Rock WAS referenced in the version reverted from.)
  • Later edit summaries on some minor edits: "DCOM is not appropiate for wikipedia. It refers to several things.", "The sections are ok. Pre teen success should stay. Like Mike was big in the box office and Stuck in the suburbs movie and soundtarck ranked big in charts."

The changes involved in the latest edits by the IP:

  • removal of "spoiled" - not a big deal, but it's in the source and the removal was not explained
  • spell-out of DCOM - OK in itself but the reversion restores a duplicate link that was previously removed
  • "She and Shin Koyamada" - was previously removed by Prepelos/etc, not sure why it was restored again
  • her -> Song - was previously changed to "her" to make text less repetitious
  • sectioning - was added but makes no sense - Song was 14 in 2002 and not a "pre-teen"
  • reorder of Like Mike and Bernie Mac info - makes mention of "the same year" false
  • movement of Suite Life to "Breakthrough" section, along with deemphasis of Wu; combined with sectioning this is a substantial rearrangement of the text that needs to achieve consensus
  • Addition of "Song appeared in the music videos for the movie." before "She appeared in the music videos for Taran Killam's..." - adds meaningless repetition that was previously removed
  • Removal of link around Asian Excellence Award - nothing wrong with a couple redlinks until the article gets created
  • Addition of "The show also got nominated in theNickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards for "Cast Performance"." The 2007 and 2008 Nickelodeon nominations for best TV show are already in the paragraph; this is either a repetition of that content, or misleading/fake; it was previously removed
  • Bizarre addition of the word "and ," in the middle of the paragraph
  • Some other paragraph breaking
  • Music: readdition of "The album became the second highest peaking album in the series" - unsourced, previously removed
  • Addition of "The album also charted in the Top Compilation Albums peaking at #2 in it's first week and managing to chart in the Top Compilation Albums for 34 weeks." - this replaces a much briefer note that the album peaked at #2 on the Compilations chart, adds unsourced info (no indication it was #2 in its first week) and a grammatical error ("it's"), and says way too much about the album for this article
  • Removal of "and music video" in the "A Dream is a Wish" paragraph, adding instead "She also appeared in the music video for "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" which is featured in the Cinderella DVD. The music video is available in the U.S. iTunes store with the song." - wordy and mostly irrelevant; "and music video" suffices here
  • Addition of "Song also appeared in the music videos for her movie, Stuck in the Suburbs. She appeared in the music videos for Taran Killam's "More Than Me", "On Top of the World", "Make a Wish" and "More Than Me" as her character in the movie, Natasha Kwon-Schwartz." - this is already in the paragraph about Stuck; repetitious and previously removed; it should only be one place (assuming it's true)
  • Readdition of "The track was released in 2007 under the Walt Disney Records label and peaked at #2 in the American Pop Airplay." (about "I'm not that girl") - this had a fact tag since March, was previously removed, it's doubtful this made #2 on a major chart.
  • Readdition of "uncredited" role in Blade. That was previously challenged and removed, still unsourced

Much of these edits were previously fixed, in some cases multiple times over the last few months. It's as if as soon as the article is in some semblance of shape for a GA review, a certain editor decides to re-add unreferenced junk and bad prose and make the article unstable. Since this editor refuses to use a consistent account, it is impossible to communicate with him except through edit summaries. That must stop. Communicate on the talk page.

I will be reverting these edits back to the version I know is semi-verified. Any further addition of unreferenced, uncited, questionable content, or readdition of previously-removed content without a proper citation, will result in a block for disruptive editing. Gimmetrow 01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[23] More problems:

  • Early life - source says nothing about Vietnam War or 1975.
  • Grandmother/mother born Laos - not in source, and if true it's unclear why it's important
  • The song also managed to chart in the Chile's Top 100 peaking #75. (sourced to Girl Like Me) - doesn't look reliable
  • Asian Television Award - This has been fixed multiple times before - it was an Asian Excellence Award. Why do you keep reverting this contrary to the source?
  • Again reverting the music section readding unsourced content
  • Kindly decide one place to mention the Killam videos, assuming it's true.

Discuss your reasons here. Gimmetrow 15:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio Disney charts online change weekly and are not noted in archives so very difficult to find a sourced article. And pre teen is more sourced and suite life was considered her breakout since she landed her first leading role in a tv series. The reason i reverted your edit is because you removed it as tidy up for some reason and the text is sourced and might in some situations include trivia but related to it. I understand you concern about the awards section i will search for sourced relibale english references to go with them but the thing is there are millions of articles of wikipedia with awards tables that are not sourced and may not even be real awards like the awards in the Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan articles. The Pre Teen Success is leading to what she managed to do in her early teen years and the audience she managed to get, her appearance in Stuck in the Suburbs made her a pre teen role model and the film was successful, and so was the soundtrack which managed to chart. So in definitions her new found stardom in the Pre Teen disney world.

After that she landed the leading role in Disney Channel's Suite Life which doesn't make it so called Disney Channel Begginnings. Ok the text in the Early Life section about ehr mother and grandmother immagrating from Laos and being born in Laos is mention in the Newscape reference and so is the Reese Puff commercial in the Early Work section. So check the newscpae thing. I will remove the Film Festival award reference immediately and try finding a sourced English sources, oh yeah and watch Blade online part 7 on youtube, you will see a Brenda Song look a like, and check IMDB if this Brenda Song look a like is credited. Chile 100/Canadian Airplay pages change weekly and archives are meant to note the chart positions if you disagree with this then mention it on the history page. Teen magazine is noted to be a reliable magazine. Stuck In the Suburbs will only be in the music section. But is relevant with the Pre Teen success just my opinion but ok with yours in that area. Music Disney section is noted and the chart is sourced my version of it is just longer and filled with more delails about her Walt Disney Records song. American Pop Airplay is the first one that is highly to have charted in. Removed anyways. Asian Excellence Awards???? I don't understand that one and the reference doesn't even work on my computer for some reason like it's some kind of virus or dead link/ Anyway i am not sure what you were on about in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Every time you edit, you start by completely reverting everything, in this case restoring a bunch of stuff deleted and edited for various reasons. This is fundamentally why your editing is disruptive to articles: anything anyone else does with content, grammar fixes, or citation reformats is completely lost as soon as you start editing. If you're doing this unintentionally, you still need to stop doing it.
Briefly on the last point - this article used to link to the Asian Television Awards, which is for television programs in Asia. Song was nominated in 2005 for an Asian Excellence Award, a different award which is for ethnically Asian or Asian-American actors, mostly for American film/TV. Gimmetrow 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Wu in lead

A certain editor keeps trying to substantially remove mention of Wendy Wu from the lead. Wu is a significant part of her career at this point, as reflected in the sources in the lead paragraph. The lead needs to represent the article, and it is insufficient to reduce mention of Wu in the lead to yet-another-tv-film. Gimmetrow 02:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[24] The text makes a break at 2000/2001 or so. Four of those appearances are from 2002/2003 and are summarized by the sentence in the next section: "After 2002, Song continued to make guest appearances in Disney Channel shows like That's So Raven, and had minor roles in many American sitcoms." Gimmetrow 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Teen People lists and a note

People keep adding she was named one of Teen People's "25 Hottest Stars Under 25" in various years. I'm sure this is based on the imdb trivia section.[25] Where is the real source?

On a related note, someone added a quote from the Boston Globe, referencing it with a broken link. When I tracked it down, the quote was apparently about a different actress.[26]

Don't add stuff based on imdb trivia. Gimmetrow 22:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[27] This was added here [28] with the above Globe "reference". Actual article: [29] The eight people listed in the diff were on the cover, but the ninth was Amanda Bynes [30]. Gimmetrow 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest disruption

This article will never become a "good article" if this continues to happen. So in detail:

  • the structure of the article is not what I personally want, but that was the compromise worked out with previous editors - who may very well be you. Any substantial rearrangement of this page must find consensus here first.
  • You keep restoring unsourced and in some cases likely wrong info. Info is not presumed OK until it's disproven - quite the contrary. This article has a years-long problem with fake info being added, sometimes even with fake sources, so any presumption of good faith is gone here.
  • These reversions remove other fixes, making it impossible to improve the article.
  • Specifically, singing on Suite Life or Yay Me does not make it a "music video".

Discuss here from now on, not in edit summaries. Gimmetrow 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the paragraphs, the sections aren't 2000/2001 now. They are 1995-2004. Which means that the appearances can be added since they are in that time order. This isn't a distruption it's a misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kammagamma (talkcontribs) 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that "solves" one part of the "problem" by removing the section break worked out with previous editors. Furthermore, having every appearance in a prose like that is just a list. Does it really tell anyone anything? The reader just sees a big paragraph of blue and many readers would assume it's all trivia. By 2002 she was appearing in films and had a young artist award - surely more significant than random TV episode appearances. (And the edit combines other problems - lack of italics styling, punctuation, the statement that Like Mike received "positive reviews", the improper location of a reference, the removal of citation info, the addition of Suite Life songs to discography, etc.) Gimmetrow 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

suite life yay me have appeared on disney channel the clips you saw were clips and the sections aren't my issue i don't really care about the good article issue. There are millions of articles on this site that don't have good article stars so why does this wo need to be perfect and what is so wrong about a big large amount of text about her career we are explaining her career right??? And every point of her career i think that you spend way too much time working on ways to reduce this article than on other articles that actuallly need real help and corrections. This article isn't my problem i didn't understad what you meant and why you deleted the appearances. The deal is maybe someone will care and change the sections maybe i will do that but right now there are millions of articles suffering and in need of your help. I can list thousands of articles with no sources, bad spelling, no admins watching them but this article has sources, good spelling and adminstrators watching. How about focusing on articles that really need help i don't really want to list those thousands but can show you in links. Relax time isn't racing, there is a high chance this article will improve and become a good article if you let other people add text, explain in simple words why you changed the text most people who edit disney related articles are kids who can't understand or read complicated words or know what you are talking about. Just work with others and this will end up good. But if you continuely disagree and change the articles without coporate and befriending the users this will end up messy check the disney channel show related articles and the main editors they are all kids or tweens who do not know or may not be interested in improving this article and their english skills might lack but they are kids after all with smaller brains and no experience on wikipedia but what i do know that they watch these disney channel shows and stars ad may help you. Ask the other users about what is on disney channel if you don't watch or have it. Ask them about when the show aired, when it stopped airing and other issues you don't know, pages like have people editing that know this actress or actor and personally love them and admire either work and life so they might help you not everythig is found on the net.Kammagamma (talkcontribs) 22:06, 31 August 2008

Gimmetrow's efforts are necessary to keep this article from sinking in quality to the thousands of others you can list; he is to be commended for them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If a user doesn't have a good command of the English language, he should be editing the simple English WP, not this one. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Carl. Two years ago today (and almost 4000 edits ago), this article had no references. It was mostly a filmography table, and the text included a "best friends" section. I think it's improved somewhat. A big list of TV shows in the text doesn't really help anyone. I'm not really sure how that got wrapped into this - I didn't change it. I was cutting the discography section down to a neat package of the key stuff, like most featured articles, or Raven-Symoné#Discography or Ashley Tisdale#Discography (for comparable Disney articles). Isn't the difference with this version of the discography here obvious? Gimmetrow 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity revisited

[31] I have no idea what's going on here, and the editor doesn't use edit summaries. Song has both Hmong and Thai ancestry, so why identify her only as "Thai American"? The bio on her official site refers to her father as "Hmong" and her mother as "Thai American". I'll let others speculate why it's not symmetrical ("Hmong American" and "Thai American"; or "Hmong" and "Thai"), but if the asymmetry is significant why reverse it to "Hmong American" and "Thai"? The edit removes the well-cited "(adopted by a Hmong family)" and adds "(emigrated to America as an adult)" without explanation or new citation. Finally, the edit adds: "As Song has never been to Thailand, she expressed her willingness to visit the country..." As this isn't sourced, it's difficult to tell if there is any basis for saying she's never been to Thailand, but even if it's true, should it be mentioned? Person A has never visited country XYZ and is willing to go. Why is that of any interest? Gimmetrow 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[32] "Ms. Song's parents were both born in Asia. Her father is Hmong and was raised in a tribe that traversed the mountains of Thailand and Laos. Her mother was born Thai but adopted into a Hmong family. They met, Ms. Song said, as adults in Sacramento."
[33] "My mom is Thai, but she was adopted by a Hmong family, so she speaks Hmong fluently as well."
[34] "ASIANCE: Are people more aware of your Hmong heritage? Brenda: I just did a promotion for Disney where I’m talking about my heritage..."
[35] "Her mother is Thai-American and her father is Hmong."

This is how reliable sources, and her own site, describe her ethnic heritage. The article should follow what reliable sources say. Gimmetrow 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[36] One might think a Thai person must be born in Thailand, but that's not necessarily the case. I think I've seen a source saying her father was born in Laos, but is it important? The NY Times simply says her parents were born in Asia. Gimmetrow 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of the article, Reverting, Abuse, Gimmetrow

Mentioned my concerns before in the history page, uneverifable? please explain what you mean by that. The Endosements and Public Image section is a disaster. You reverted everyone's last edits for some reason, then you say that we pruned the discograohy section and made it look like a disaster (not mention but in overall there are not any Wikipedia pages with the discography section squeezed in a 1 paragraph music section). The awards are sourced like the Angelina Jolie-Pitt article, which has sources from IMDB. IMDB requires sources and their system has changed they dont allow non major awards and major sources. And why was her television appearances reverted? Is there something wrong with posting where this actress has appeared on? It it against Wikipedia? There aren't any pages on wikipedia that have a discography section attached to a small music section. Why is there are discography section on this page in the first place? Wikipedia: Ownership of Article. Reverting other people's work and onlhy explaining two/fifth of why is not acceptable. Why was it called endorsements and image when there werent any endorsements? It's like you own this page, its ok for you to revert everyone's edits but its not ok for us to revert anything. Your efforts reducing this article may be marvellous for you but it is not acceptable. 33 Kilobytes. And why did you remove the early life edit, i saw you knowledge of Song's early life in this page. Why not add that. This article is a complete disaster. Its worse than the Vanessa Hudgen's article. There should be a discography section on this well rescpetable and understandable page. You should allow everyone to edit on this page not just you. Reverting people's work is awful. Awful discuss it first or something..... Brenda has done alot of notable things that aren't mention on this page.HanniMontLol 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On one purely technical note: IMDB is not permitted as a source. Anywhere. Flat-out forbidden. Shoot on sight. Gimmetrow has not struck me has having an ownership problem with this page, and nothing about this page looks like a disaster to me.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my understanding is that IMDB is permissable in certain contexts, and depending on what the information is that's cited. (I haven't really been following the edits and counter-edits on the page itself, however.) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to where you got that impression. Because it is accepts user contributions, it doesn't meet WP:RS. That said, most people aren't overly combative about taking simple stuff from it, but when it's challenged, there isn't really any way to keep it.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the key thing is which part of IMDB you're talking about. Obviously, for instance, the "user comments" and the "trivia" or whatever are published without any editorial checks. But my understanding is that factual information about a movie (the names of directors and actors, for instance, as well as dates etc.) are subject to some kind of editorial review. As such, those parts of the site pass by WP:RS. On the other hand, I know that there have been arguments to and fro about this on the RS noticeboard and elsewhere. (And again, I say all this without looking at what IMDB is being used to source in this particular article.) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 06:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Writer's Guild of America provides credits directly to IMDb, so those are reliable, but it's possible to get fake cast added to films and disputed dates added to actor bios. Some of these details are vetted and could be considered WP:RS, but it's very difficult for non-Pro accounts to identify which data is vetted. IMDb should be viewed more as a convenience link for non-controversial info, where it can save having a dozen separate refs. Gimmetrow 06:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If there is a separate discography page, then the main page only lists major works like albums. Song hasn't released an album yet, although she's said something about it for 2009. Until then, her music career involves a couple songs in a group and some music video appearances - some of which are just re-edited clips from her films. If you can find anything to verify the Young Hollywood awards (other than imdb), fine, but it's next-to-impossible. News reports of that award event almost always relate who was there and what they wore, but not what was actually awarded. On the other hand, this article lists awards which imdb doesn't have - and with sources to the actual awards records. The "Endorsements" before were not right, too. The doll source, for instance, said nothing to support the text here - it listed Song among "celebrities who attended" an event at the store. Gimmetrow 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • One other point: it would be a lot easier to take your complaints seriously if you would let us all know what your other accounts are, so that we can examine your contribution history and form an opinion about any biases you might have. Unfortunately, it has been decided that it is your right to edit under multiple accounts so long as you don't do so deceptively. That doesn't mean that I have to take people that hide their other edits seriously, and I generally don't.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Discography section and page

Might as well start a discussion. User:HanniMontLol put a {{prod}} on Brenda Song discography and I decided to redirect that page here. Unlike the filmography tables, the discography tables add nothing that isn't in the text of the article. So why do we need those tables? Gimmetrow 19:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

why does every article need those tables? Why does the Selena Gomez, Britney Spears, Raven Symone, Hilary Duff, most of the articles mentioned before have a discograohy section when the information is already mentioned many times in the text. Why aren't you petitioning to remove the discography section again? Is it OK for other articles on wikipedia to have small discography sections but it isnt OK for this article. Huh nice job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanniMontLol (talkcontribs) 19:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Spears, Raven-Symone, Duff have released albums. They don't list trivial work. They summarize the important items essentially for navigation. Gimmetrow 19:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

its not trivial work, really great was featured as a theme song for the web show, and promo for a abc show. The songs also got remixed several times and was used in a lot of suite life promos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HanniMontLol (talkcontribs) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The songs are mentioned in the text of this article. Why does the main article need a table for every song she ever sang on Suite Life? Gimmetrow 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and stuff

[37] This adds a ton of quotes and weighs down the text. Some changes to the filmography section are allegedly cited to IMDb, but don't match IMDb and other sources. It adds way too much detail on early minor roles and loses the focus on her accomplishments. It adds grammatical problems ("a agent") and removes numerous fixes to the language. It goes against many of the GA review comments. And yes, it re-introduces some incorrect or uncertain points that were previously removed. That's the problem when old text is copy-pasted in. I am not going to sort through this text yet again. I have done that a dozen times already. Gimmetrow 11:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Respone to Gimmtrow's concerns i will remove the grammatical problems, some of the triviac un important qoutes. But i showed the sources of the recent changes in the Filmography section. And what and were are the GA Review comments? I removed the incorrect points but i am trying to find some more incorrect points. Thank you so much Gimmetrow for not reverting thank you.HanniMontLol 12:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The good article review is at Talk:Brenda Song/GA1. Please get consensus for a change before adding anything again. Edit warring is a very bad way to implement changes, and you know by now that there are editors that disagree with the bulk of your changes.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1 is more relevant. Gimmetrow 17:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's do one thing at a time. Starting with early life, adding an age (3) based on one source may look fine, but another source [38] seems to describe the same event with a different age (5). It's fairly minor and sources disagree, so it wasn't mentioned here. Also the text used to say "after being spotted by an agent from a modeling school in a shopping mall" (essentially the same as "after being spotted by an agent from a modelling school at age 3 in a shopping mall"). I changed this to "after being spotted in a shopping mall by an agent from a modeling school" to avoid modifier jumping around. Otherwise it's not clear if "in a shopping mall" modifies "modeling school" or "spotted". On a more general note, the NYT [39] calls Wu her "first starring role", which affects how earlier roles ought to be described. Gimmetrow 17:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of Gimmetrow's points, i used my version of the BS article and by that i wanted to start making the changes more officient. I found a small amout of errors in the last version such as Wendy Wu 2 is set to start shooting in 2008. Well that statement is kind of wrong since it has been over a year since the aource was announced and according to IMDB, Wendy Wu is in its post production stages. And then i decided to start expanding the sub sections in the career sectioons, keeing some of the original text and removing i understand the age disagreement and will try my best sorting out all of the errors in the new expanded version. Recent changed i have made are in the Suite Life, Wendy Wu and Early Life sections, i have kept some of the text and checked the Suite life qoute sources mainly NY Times. Then i think the main errors are in the Early Life section. The Wendy Wu needs several repairs and i need to make it more acceptale for Wikipedia GA guidelines. History page shows the changes, some do not have summries but seem to be minor BS History Page. The early life section and Wendy Wu has most of the changes because of the size, several of the sources seem to disagree with eachother, just like what Gimmetrow pointed out earlier on the age of her modelling start. I will try reducing triviac and un important text and sources, and of course repairing the errors. Thank you. HanniMontLol 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make any massive changes to the article again. In fact, please don't make any changes to the article until you have
  • Pointed out on the talk page a piece of wording that you want to change
  • Proposed an alternative
  • achieved consensus among all editors that your version is better.
Do not simply put in a six-thousand character addition and expect everyone to agree to work from there. Start with what we have, and make small, one-at-a-time changes. You've already been blocked twice for edit-warring on this article, and the third block will be a long one.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok why shouldn't i edit this article, and make any changes? Making it more detailed is better but as what Gimmetrow said, minor roles do not need to much detail. And i am trying my best to work on Gimmetrow's points. And i was trying my best to work on those points before you complatey reverted everything. Is this article no owned by one user, or am i missing something. I did not make massive chamges to the whole article without any description and planning. I notes the sources, making it wordy is a problem yes in many situations but the term wordy is wrong, there is clearly nothing wrng with the sources, making it very short and un detailed does not inform the reader of her roles. Making it even more shorter may possibly lead to a stub article. I worked really hard on that and its not really supposed to be a vandalism disturptive edit (S). I will not revert i just wanted to say that i dont think that starting again is worth it. Starting all over again, if you check my new edits really closey you will notice that some of the text in the current version right now are there. I only added more text in the first 2 pre sections, then in the wendy wu section it was compltely different.

It isn't really my version, the changes aren't effecting the whole article. Only teh career section and not most of it. Reverting the whole thing just because it was wordy and it was a so called massive change is ok. But why remove the changes that were minor, such as the filmograpy section and the intro had sources and did not effect the career section. Why remove that. Should i write down every one of my edit's summary on the talk page so that i don't get blocked. This is quite unfair. All i wanted to do was use the 39 kilobytes version and start reducing and improvng the article making it possible to become a GA nominee again. Well i tried to do that. I did a one edit at a time and wrote the summary, and noted some of them in the talk page. Why should i not make any chnages to the article? Huh why? I don't get that statement. Isn't wikipedia for anyone to edit and i stated why the old version that i participated in was ok. In my opinion it is better than the version right now, because right now this version has several errors, some minor and others accidently. Yes the od version had it's errors too, such as the sub sections. So if i revert this, i will get blocked when you are the who reverted first, i noted the changes in the talkpage, i made several points ad i added sources to the filmography in the summary box and several other summaries to the so called massive edits. HanniMontLol 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple: you know that other editors disagree with your changes. You made them, and they were reverted. That means it's time to discuss: explain, in detail, why you think your version is better, one thing at a time. Convince me and somebody else that one of your changes improves the article. Don't try to deal with the whole thing at once: choose a part, and convince the other editors that watch and work on this article that your change improves the article. Once you can do that, your change will stay. If you can't convince anyone that your change improves the article, it shouldn't stay.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The changes you've been making are not "minor" - they are cut-and-pastes from a months-old version of this page. If you think the page has errors now, it had more then. We fix 'em when we find them, but unfortunately a few editors in the past added all sorts of wrong info to the page and it took forever to check and verify every statement. For example the filmography table you're restoring has at least on verifiable error and another probable error. Make small changes or bring it up on the talk page. Gimmetrow 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Brenda

I have removed this quote,

"For me, the Hmong people, we don’t have a written history. It’s all been word of mouth. We don’t have anything written down. All I have are stories that my grandma tells me, that my grandpa tells me, that my uncle tells me."Asiance magazine, June 2006

from the List of Hmong Americans article as it was added as part of a reference and is not really appropriate there. I leave it here for anyone who thinks it could go in the article. SpinningSpark 11:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic changes

Why is reflist being used instead of reflist 2, which is pretty much the standard for lists of more than 10 references. And why, Gimmetrow, do you have a problem with spacing to open the tables up so that words are not running so close to the lines? لennavecia 07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reflist is being used because 1) reflist 2 has or had bugs, and 2) it is the style established on this article. As for your question about "spacing", I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you perhaps misread the edit? Gimmetrow 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have misread the edit. It's hyphens you prefer to use where there should be en dashes. What bugs does reflist|2 have? It's used on, I would estimate, tens of thousands of articles. Such a bug should be fixed immediately, particularly considering how much better it looks, and the amount of vertical scroll it reduces. لennavecia 07:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The dashes look like endashes to me. Most of the bugs in reflist|2 were sidestepped by making reflist|2 non-functional on most of the platforms where the bugs exist. Gimmetrow 07:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
They were en dashes. (See MOS:ENDASH). So, for the reflist|2, it works on this article, without bugs, but you just don't want to use it? لennavecia 14:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you perhaps take a closer look at the edit of mine you appear to be criticizing? Gimmetrow 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflicted with you revising your comment) You are so rude, and not in a position to throw AGF at someone else. I actually did look at the diff, Gimmetrow. They looked like hyphens to me. I had to cut/paste them and then type a hyphen to see the difference. I've always seen the code for endashes. Now what were you saying about the reflist|2? There are bugs on some pages but not this one, so you don't want to use it because... لennavecia 06:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over the page several times and didn't see any WP:DASH/hyphen errors; can someone point out an example of an existing problem? Also, the problems with reflist|2 have been covered a couple of times at WT:FAC (buried somewhere in archives) and on other pages (I believe also at VP/T, Gimme and I both participated in those discussions in several places, but it would be hard to locate them now): it has bugs such that it doesn't display correctly on many browsers, and its use isn't obligatory. There's no real reason to have to use it other than personal preference; also, it doesn't reduce vertical scroll or change anything at all for the majority of readers, since IE is the most popular browser and we don't even see the two columns at all, yet it does cause errors on some other browsers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

What is the current citation style of the article and why? I have attempted with only partial success to discern the style in the current version, this version of yesterday, and this version of today. All the references are online. Some are online news sources, most are general websites. So when is the weblink to be put in quotes or italicized? When is the website or publisher italicized? Why does this article use "Accessed", when every other article on Wikipedia uses "retrieved on" (or have I led a sheltered wikilife)? When does the date come before the weblink?

Whatever the answers, there are clearly punctuation errors and inconsistencies. I'd like to fix them, but I do not wish to make an effort to help only to have my edits largely undone and complaints placed on my talk page, as has happened recently. Geometry guy 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Like you and Jayron, I am at a loss to understand why an editor would take an article with 100% consistent style on one point and 98% consistent style on another point, partially change it to the 0% and 2% styles, continue when asked about it, leave the article inconsistent, and then complain on my talk page when I make the article consistent. Gimmetrow 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please answer the questions. You haven't made the article consistent. Both of the above diffs are to your versions. I do not understand the significance of italics and quotes for weblinks and of italics for publishers/websites. I do not understand why you insist on "Accessed". Are there any other examples where that is used? Geometry guy 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
On the italics for links, I believe you'll have to ask Jenna, who I defer to as the expert on such things. As for "accessed", I've been around here a while and that's how cites used to be done - it was even used in {{cite web}}. You haven't said there's anything wrong with it, so I hope you'll pardon me for continuing to use the word. Now, please answer my question - is it justified to change style points which are 100% and 98% consistent in an article to the 0% and 2% forms? Over objections of the existing editors? Gimmetrow 23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The implicit ownership issues are best discussed on user talk. I've still seen no other example of "accessed" and no explanation of when weblinks are quoted. Geometry guy 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, to deescalate a bit, I've made some fixes which provide a moderately consistent format without changing matters of contention. I have used quotes for articles in news sources, but not for webpages, and italics for organisations with a recognised name transcending a domain name. It can, I think, be helpful to refer to both the publisher name and the domain name, and I've done this in a couple of cases: that could be expanded. I will have made some mistakes, but I hope it is reasonably clear what choices I have made. Most of the edits should be individually undoable. Geometry guy 01:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the current consistent format, can we now discuss possible changes to it? I've discovered that I have led a sheltered wikilife and that "Accessed" is used in some other articles (e.g. 2007 USC Trojans football team). So my main problem with the current format is the placement of the date for links without an author. The current style is:

The unusual and to my eyes ugly feature is the fullstop before the date, which then precedes the URL in parenthesis. I would find either of the following preferable:

  1. Brenda Song talks about kids' health (June 1, 2006). Accessed 2007-11-20.
  2. Brenda Song talks about kids' health. (June 1, 2006). Accessed 2007-11-20.

Comments? Geometry guy 14:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I don't know what you're talking about with your percentages. The references were consistent in that they were consistently a mess. I retrieved missing information, like author names and publication dates; I corrected incorrect information, like wrong publication dates and updated URLs, and I updated the retrieval dates. I should not have to learn your personal little style to fix the references. It is you, Gimmetrow, who is making a fuss over punctuation and "accessed on" instead of being pleased that someone is taking the time to fix the reference section. And I will not continue to work on an article that is currently under ownership. If you are so picky about the references being in your format, then you fix them. I use the style exampled on every citation page on the project, which I noted on your talk page.

As for that style, urls should not be italicized. Only publications, like books and magazines. If you don't know, check if we have an article for it. Like CINE is not italicized in the article, thus should not be here. If whatever page you are citing has a title, then you should put that title in quotes. If it's just a stat page (like RIAA certifications), it's not necessary to put it in quotes, though if templates are used, they are automatically put in quotes. All these issues are pretty clearly explained on the various citation pages. لennavecia 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut the condescension, Jenna. You did not even follow the form "exampled" on the {{cite web}} page; you made up your own "little style", so what are you talking about? You left the references in an inconsistent mess. Before you came, the format used on this article was simple and aided the maintenance of the page; in particular it avoided quotation marks. If you refuse to follow the WP:CITE guidelines already pointed out to you, which tell editors to respect the existing style of the article, there is nothing further to discuss. Gimmetrow 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I followed the format of the citation template. It uses the same format as that of cite web, but uses commas instead of periods. I actually like the periods better, as it looks more formal, and I said I would change that back when you first complained that I edited the references. The fact that you are saying that this format is my own style is staggering. Are you serious? Look at the many pages I listed on your talk page, Gimmetrow, and tell me which pages look like the style I used and which look like yours. As far as I can tell, they all look like mine. I didn't create this style. I pulled it from all those pages. It is you who refuses to follow the guideline you quoted as if my style is different. What's different in the order and format of my style from Template:Citation#Examples_2? Where's the pages that have examples that look like your style? I haven't seen any. لennavecia 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish I'd known the original style was "no quotation marks" before. I was fooled by
which had been in the article since at least October. Never mind, quotation marks for article titles are fairly standard. Now how about the date placement issue? Geometry guy 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Quotations should not be within the pipe, they surround it. As far as date placement, the standard is in parenthesis after the authors name, no punctuation between unless there is an initial or (ed.) and followed by a period or comma. لennavecia 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, yes, but what if there is no author? Geometry guy 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jenna seems to think publication dates for authorless works should go before the title, but I wouldn't know what template that's from. On the quotation marks, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying, Geometry guy: are you saying that when even one citation out of 65 differs from the others on a point of style, any editor is welcome to change 70% or so of the citations to the style of his or her choice? Gimmetrow 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not. In fact, I wasn't making any statement at all about what editors should or shouldn't do, only excusing myself for not knowing what the pre-existing system was. I could have checked the history in more depth, but it would have been so much simpler if you had explained the style: communication.
Now, this is an article talk page. Can we talk about the article please? I don't like dates at the beginning of a citation either. I have proposed two alternatives to the current style above (numbered 1 and 2). Are either or both of them acceptable? Any preferences? Geometry guy 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
#2 would work if the date were always after the publisher, even when there is an author, but it places the date too close to the accessdate, which I find confusing. I consider #1 OK; if the publication date always appears second followed by a period, the style is similar to APA (ignoring the APA date formats). However, others might find it unusual, since I think most of the templates group the date with the publisher, not the title, when there is no author. But had someone calmly proposed style #1 on the talk page originally, I doubt we would have had this fuss. Gimmetrow 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay let's go with #1. If others find it unusual later on, and prefer the author-publisher dichotomy for dates, then we can reconsider. Geometry guy 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)