Talk:Kylie

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kylie page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Origins

I don't accept that this is simply a disambiguation page and I feel that Wangi's last edit has lost something important; namely the origins of the word kylie. While it might be supposed from Wangi's wording that the word originated as a Noongar word for boomerang, it is by no means clear.

Also, contrary to the present wording, Noongar is not interchangeable with "Australian Aboriginal language"; Noongar is merely one of the several hundred Aboriginal languages.

I intend to revert but I will give others a few days to respond. Grant65 | Talk 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this page is clearly a disambiguation page. I think the best course of action would be to either expand on the work in the boomerang article, or perhaps start a Kylie (boomerang) stub? In anycase I have made a further edit to clarify Aboriginal / Noogar. Thanks/wangi 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point. Is there a rule which says that dab pages are not to serve any purpose at all other than dismabiguation? If so it seems anal and there are plenty of dab pages which break any such rule.

There is no point in a Kylie (boomerang) page because few people, other than speakers of Noongar, know a boomerang as a "kylie". Such an article would be a dead end, linked only from this one. Grant65 | Talk 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dabpages are all about getting the user to where they intended to be in the first place - they're not articles. To be honest I cannot see the problem in simply having a link to the boomerang article where it says the little there is to say, and that's it. Putting extended information on this dabpage sorta goes against the guidelines - both the dab guidelines and the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy.

To be honest all the other Kylie's linked on this page probably shouldn't be there - how many of them are routinely referred to simply as "Kylie". Dabpages aren't a list of every article containing a term in it's name.

I imagine not many people have this page on their watchlist - so if you're wanting to field this question to a wider audience try the talk pages on either the WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB guideline talk pages. Thanks/wangi 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need two articles: Kylie (name) in Category:Given names with the origin; Kylie dab will point to (1) the name article; (2) Kylie Minogue, (3) her 2 eponymous albums. jnestorius^(talk) 12:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good solution, what do you think of the swath of other Kylie's listed on this dabpage? Thanks/wangi 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added them. I now accept that was a mistake for a dab page. They can be on the name page for the moment. jnestorius^(talk) 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution would be a see also section with a link to Special:Prefixindex/Kylie? /wangi 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the name page. Though not many articles in Category:Given names use that at the moment. Most of them are largely random lists. It's a general problem needing a general solution. jnestorius^(talk) 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Kylie and Kylie (name) now? Thanks/wangi 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it achieves nothing at all to separate the material; it just means people need an extra click of the mouse to find what they are looking for. This is a classic case of policy getting the way of common sense. Grant65 | Talk 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who need an extra click are the tiny few who typed "Kylie" and expected to find, say, "Kylie Mole". Most people will expect Minogue, and will find her more easily with fewer competing entries, and possibly be surprised to find there are other Kylies. Which is all good. jnestorius^(talk) 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Since there's discussion at the current Talk:Kylie that may be worth preserving, I'll be merging the content here onto that page, rather than moving the talk pages. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie (disambiguation) → Kylie – "Kylie"'s redirect to Kylie Minogue seems strange and very Euro-/Australia-centric; in many countries, such as America, Minogue is not well-known on a first-name basis. This is a very common name, but given Minogue's popularity, I am requesting that "Kylie" point to the dab page instead of Kylie (name). Chase (talk | contributions) 00:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Im not sure I've ever heard the singer referred to solely by her first name. Calidum T|C 00:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the notion that Kylie should not redirect to Kylie Minogue. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In Britain and Australia if you say "Kylie" then everyone (and I mean everyone!) knows who you're talking about. It's actually far commoner to refer to her this way than to use her full name. Her own website is entitled simply "Kylie". Search for "Kylie" on Google; those ghits that aren't referring to Kylie Minogue (who you will see often just called Kylie on the ghits) mostly refer to Kylie Jenner, who is known by her full name and not just as Kylie. Given the other uses on the disambiguation page refer to Minogue's debut album, a name which is never otherwise seen without a surname, and two other minor meanings that don't even have articles, I fail to see why the singer shouldn't be the primary topic. As to being "very Euro-/Australia-centric", there are many articles on Wikipedia which are considered a primary topic because they're big in North America but which would be very obscure outside North America. Given this isn't Americanopedia, it can work the other way too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Necrosthesp, I live in Britian, I don't immediately think of Kylie Minogue when you say Kylie. I would struggle to name one of her songs (she's a singer, right?) She's not overly popular outside of England I gather? Anyways, It's probably a bit off to make her the primary topic, when she's relatively recent, and not universally understood. Cheers, ~~ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find many relatively recent things are primary topics! Anne Hathaway anyone?! 32-year-old (American) actress against (English) historical personage who's been notable for centuries. Just one example. And given Kylie as a name hasn't been in vogue for very long and has almost certainly become much more popular since the singer arrived on the scene, I don't think the point's especially relevant. Just as a rider, I'm not a Kylie Minogue fan and so am not opposing this for any sad fanboy reasons, but I do know a primary topic when I see it and to me she is a clear prime topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Relatively recent? She's been one of the most famous people alive for 30 years! Unreal7 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - singer is by far the first port of call when someone types in this name. Unreal7 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support can easily refer to other people named "Kylie", and not everyone automatically thinks of the singer. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no reason why the singer should be primary topic for just "Kylie". If there is a primary topic at all, it should be Kylie (name). It would seem to be common sense that, if someone is entering a common given name into the search box, without also entering a surname, it is because they are looking for information on the name itself. Since Kylie was the 73rd most commonly given girl's name in the US last year, and has been in the top 100 every year since 2001, I'd say that makes it a common given name. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the popularity of the singer may have something to do with that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doubtful considering Minogue isn't that popular in America, but this isn't the place for speculation. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is actually a much more famous Kylie in America. Calidum T|C 21:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd only oppose this if "Kylie" were a really uncommon name, and if the singer were a lot more important. Red Slash 04:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kylie Minogue has a name that is sufficiently disambiguated from the name Kylie yet the "list of topics named Kylie" in no way has any disambiguation from the Kylie name space. A more intuitive solution would be to change the redirect at Kylie so as to target Kylie (disambiguation).

Also scroll through this image search on kylie.

My impression is that Kylie Minogue is known as Kylie to the same proportion as Beyonce Knowles is known as Beyonce. Greg Kaye 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- A more intuitive solution would be to change the redirect at Kylie so as to target Kylie (disambiguation). But if we do that, then "(disambiguation)" would be redundant... My impression is that Kylie Minogue is known as Kylie to the same proportion as Beyonce Knowles is known as Beyonce. Perhaps so, but Beyoncé's appeal is indisputably more universal than Minogue's, and "Beyoncé" is not a common name that other notable women share. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Criteria for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT have not been demonstrated, and AjaxSmack's findings indicate otherwise. No such user (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie → Kylie (disambiguation) – Having this as the main 'Kylie' namespace, without a redirect to Kylie Minogue, seems very America-centric. She's an extremely successful popstar globally, but just not in the United States. Given that she is known by her mononomous name 'Kylie', this article should be a redirect to her article, with a line outlining that ""Kylie" redirects here..." etc. TheKaphox (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's nothing much else of note at the disambiguation page except Minogue's first album which, of course, is derivative. WP:PTM doesn't play here either because some of her output has been formally credited to simply "Kylie". Arguments in the previous RM like that the name "can easily refer to other people named 'Kylie'" don't hold water either. Those are partial title matches of far less notable people who are not known solely as "Kylie". — AjaxSmack 01:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the arguments above in the move request from last year. Saying Kylie Minogue is the primary topic for "Kylie" doesn't make it so, per WP:NWFCTM. It's just as likely that Kylie Jenner is the primary topic for the term. In fact, does anyone want to guess which Kylie's article gets three times as many hits [1]? Hint: It's not the Australian singer. Calidum ¤ 02:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No rationale here convincing enough to overturn last RM's consensus. When I search "Kylie", I am almost exclusively given results about Kylie Jenner, in fact "Kylie Cosmetics" is the first result (which is tied to Jenner). So I don't think it's too implausible that people would search "Kylie" to get Jenner's article. No primary topic. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Kylie Jenner is not known mononymously as 'Kylie', and hasn't used her name mononymously in any professional capacity - except for her cosmetic line, which is a separate brand. Kylie Minogue, however, has her official website kylie.com, and has released recent music under the sole name of 'Kylie'. Minogue has been a big celebrity since the mid-1980s, whereas Jenner has emerged in the 2010s. TheKaphox (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I would like to add that, when you use the Wikipedia search, a search for Kylie brings up a vast majority of articles relating to Minogue. Surely, in this case, Wikipedia search results should be more relevant than external Google search results. TheKaphox (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a compendium of web search results in the United States. — AjaxSmack 03:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unless there is more convincing objective evidence that most readers searching for "Kylie" are looking for the singer. older ≠ wiser 12:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What else would they be looking for? The only other noted article is Kylie Jenner, but her article isn't even listed on the current disambiguation page. TheKaphox (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A simple Google search for the name is dominated by Jenner. I see no reason to assume people searching Wikipedia are different. That Jenner doesn't appear on the dab page perhaps should be addressed. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jenner has never used her name mononymously though, so why should Wikipedia? TheKaphox (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much of the traffic is associated with the cosmetics line, which probably should be listed. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that Wikipedia is not a compendium of web search results in the United States. — AjaxSmack 03:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this move 2601:541:4305:C70:8C88:7148:DC17:E424 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? — AjaxSmack 03:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per the search results, the vast majority of searches of "Kylie" refers to Kylie Minogue. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which search results? Mine are all Kylie Jenner. Calidum ¤ 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to Wikipedia's own search. TheKaphox (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Kylie Minogue has been known mononymously as "Kylie" for over 30 years. Unreal7 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposing a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to a singer by only accusing Wikipedia of having an "American bias"? No. SSTflyer 01:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No not only. There is nothing on the DAB page called simply "Kylie" except for the singer, one of her albums and a barebones "article" of four sentences on the name. — AjaxSmack 03:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The existence of another prominent Kylie leads me to believe there is no primary topic for "Kylie". I'll refer back to the Miley discussion here - given-name redirects are, and should remain, rare. ONR (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely irrelevant, since Miley Cyrus is not usually just known simply as Miley. Kylie Minogue, however, is very commonly simply known as Kylie. If someone said "Miley" you may struggle to realise who they were talking about; if someone, at least in the UK, said "Kylie" you'd instantly know who they were talking about. That's the difference. The issue is more like Beyoncé than Miley Cyrus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear primary usage of the name Kylie is Kylie Minogue. She may not be quite so well-known in North America; she is very well-known in Britain and her native Australia and here if you say "Kylie" everyone knows who you're talking about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Kylie Minogue is the only relevant "Kylie". Felipeedit (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this move but Support a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How can there be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT without a move? — AjaxSmack 02:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I support having Kylie redirect to Kylie Minogue with a hatnote to Kylie (disambiguation) but I don't support Kylie Minogue being moved to Kylie. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 02:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean, no-one suggested Kylie Minogue being moved to Kylie... TheKaphox (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I said in the previous RM, not everyone necessarily thinks of the singer right away Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Between Kylie Jenner, Kylie Minogue, and Kylie (album) there's not a clear primary topic. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This isn't Oprah; there are dozens of people named Kylie at Kylie (name), so the long-term historical importance of the anthroponymy article can not be discounted either. bd2412 T 15:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose precisely per BD2412 Red Slash 18:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing at all has changed since the last RM, and nothing will be likely to have changed in a year, or three years, or five. There is no principle on WP by which one re-re-re-tries a failed proposal until one gets what one wants (see WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:TE). Kylie is a general human (usually female) name in various (mostly Western) cultures. Having it go to the singer "seems very Australian-centric", to turn the nominator's words around. The original argument made no sense anyway; the name has become popular in the US for post-millennial girls because of the popularity of the Australian pop singer, so this is not a "US vs. Australia" matter. Dwelling on the singer is WP:RECENTISM — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The >only< thing I definitely "oppose" here is the idea of moving Kylie Minogue to Kylie. If anything the later could be used as a redirect to either Kylie (name) or Kylie (disambiguation). Surely the second of these two locations (or the present one) should act as home for the long list of people/topics. Greg Kaye 09:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Most dissenters argue that there are other popular people named Kylie, however Kylie Minogue is undisputedly the only one identified by her mononym, and this has been the case for decades. Therefore she is primary topic for the term "Kylie", although she is not primary topic among all people whose first name is Kylie, but that is irrelevant here. The most reader-friendly and policy-compliant setup is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT where Kylie redirects to Kylie Minogue as was the case before the 2015 move. I would phrase the hatnote thus: This article is about the Australian singer. For other people called Kylie, see Kylie (name). — JFG ^talk 23:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats seem not to support a move for statistical reasons. On 26 Aug, I created a new redirect at "Kylie Minogue (singer)" and piped it on the Kylie Minogue link on the Kylie dab page to determine traffic through that page to the Kylie Minogue page. A comparison of hits for the two (uncheck the "logarithmic scale" box) over the subsequent five days shows only 43 links to Kylie Minogue via the piped link the versus 328 total views of the Kylie page during the same time (i.e. the link to Kylie Minogue receives only 13% of the dab page's total traffic). — AjaxSmack 01:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Kylie Minogue is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by criterion 2, long term significance. She has been around and using this name for 30+ years, and none of the other Kylies come close in that category. — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking

Please note that TheKaphox has been inviting users to participate in this discussion, in violation of WP:CANVAS. So far, he's up to eight users: Felipeedit Hotwiki Subtropical-man Californiadreamsfan SnapSnap Another Believer Unreal7 and Necrothesp. Given that the last two users sided in his favor in the previous move request above, and has provided no notice of these "invitations" here as outlined at WP:APPNOTE, it's pretty obvious he's trying to WP:VOTESTACK. Calidum ¤ 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The users I have sent notices to on their talk pages are simply users that are either part of the Kylie Minogue WikiProject, or that I have seen actively editing relevant articles. I do not know anything about which way they will vote, but simply have assumed that they might be interested in the ongoing discussion. I think it's quite harsh to assume I have a malicious intent. TheKaphox (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Unreal7 nor Necrothesp are involved in the wikiproject you mentioned (or made an edit to Minogue's article in the last two years), and anyone reading this page can clearly see how they voted in the move request in the section right above this one. Calidum ¤ 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Yes, I read the previous discussion and saw that both users made well thought out points, so I thought they'd simply be interested that there's a new discussion too. Assuming I'm trying to manipulate the vote or WP:VOTESTACK is simply an exaggeration. And despite the previous vote, I don't know how they will react to the new move discussion. TheKaphox (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the intent, what you described is the definition of votestacking. Calidum ¤ 03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheKaphox: "users that are either part of the Kylie Minogue WikiProject, or that I have seen actively editing relevant articles" = canvassing. The entire point of WP:RM is that it's a site-wide process intended to bring minds to the question who do not have a vested interest in one viewpoint on the matter. RM, RfCs, and similar processes are specifically designed to short-circuit WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:POV, WP:OWN, and similar problems that adhere to topics of fandom, religious, technical, and other highly specialized interest. It was sufficient to notify Talk:Kylie Minogue and Wikipedi talk:WikiProject Kylie Minogue, neutrally, and leave it at that, not fish for votes from people who are fans of Minogue and likely to be biased in favor of that outcome. Fat lot of good it did anyway. This should be WP:SNOW closed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes that were in opposition only started coming in masses after User:Calidum decided to notify EVERYONE who had supported his PoV in the previous discussion. Before that, it was neck-and-neck. So no, not a 'fat lot of good it did anyway'. TheKaphox (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, I have notified the other registered users who participated in the previous move request about this discussion. Calidum ¤ 03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them? That's a much worse case of WP:VOTESTACKING... TheKaphox (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem with notifying ALL previous participants. It would only be a concern if they were selectively notified. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.