Jump to content

Talk:Kylie Minogue/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Queen of Pop

Why isn't Kylie mentioned as Pop Queen, She is given this title in Europe and Australia!! Why is it that an artist must make it in the US to gain the title on Wikipedia??? Can somebody please edit this. Thank you

I guess that's because she's NOT given this title. Europe clearly calls her only "Princess of Pop", not "Queen". I really don't like Madonna at all, but I reckon everyone's aware she is the Queen.161.148.79.76 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Princess is used far more often in reference to Kylie than Queen is. F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a real title! There's no official accolade of "Queen of Pop", that isn't encyclopaedic at all. This is a document of her merit as an artist, not a comparison to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.42.31 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish Australian

I'm glad that people stopped removing Category:Irish Australians. I've added it at least six times in the last few months or so, and someone (who I assume has problems with Irish people)kept removing it. Removing categories won't change facts about her ancestry!!!

Unsourced statements

there is a huge amount of unsourced statements in this article which must be addressed, many of which seem to be obvious, but as it is a FA, it requires these statements to be sourced. There is also a lot of unsourced POV. --Bob 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So you've added 21 points that need citing. I can't help but feel that this is a bad faith action on your part. Looking at your edit history you don't seem to have edited pop culture articles in the recent past, and this comes a few minutes after I'd objected at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIV. I'm not interested in playing games with you. Don't make edits such as this just to make a point Rossrs 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I contributed to this article 1 August 2006. I waited a month for changes to be implemented and nothing was done. If you think this is a reflection on yourself, then you hold yourself in too high a regard. --Bob 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So you did. You made a few minor changes to the way a few existing references were formatted. If you were waiting for "changes to be implemented" it seems odd that you didn't put a message on the talk page, and the timing of your 21 point "this needs to be cited" plan is still coincidental, coming about 10 minutes after I objected to your FA nomination. Rossrs 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, coincidental, the two are unlinked. Stop being paranoid or is it vanity? --Bob 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not paranoid or vain but let's not steer this unpleasant exchange into name-calling. You are quite right in many of the things you've requested a cite for, although some of them appear excessive to me. I'll cite what I'm able to, as time permits, and there are other regular editors here who will probably also work on it. Rossrs 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

  1. "dismissed by critics" - removed "cite needed" - this summarises comments that are made and sourced in the article.
  2. "highest ticket sales" - source provided, also in main article.
  3. childhood acting roles - removed POV from sentence which is now supported by her IMDb entry and does not require cite.
  4. high rating for wedding episode of Neighbours, changed "record" audience to "large" audience. cites provided, including one from BBC UK and another website also reproduces Minogue on cover of Time Magazine - headline Australian Soaps Captivate the World.
  5. "Singing Budgie" - source provided.
  6. "Dropped by Geffen Records" - not relevant. removed the text.
  7. "In Australia her popularity of the previous years diminished" - removed "cite needed". Kylie Minogue discography shows chart positions for her records with sources attributed. Pretty clear her records of this time were not hits.
  8. Collaborations with Pet Shop Boys etc - not important. removed the offending text.
  9. second to Madonna in UK. source provided.
  10. "I Believe in You" not played by radio "stateside" - how sad, who cares? Removed offending sentence.
  11. breast cancer diagnosis and postponement of tour - source already provided for both in "Breast cancer" section but have copied the link, which covers both points.
  12. Delinquents film poorly reviewed. - source provided
  13. Delinquents film success. - two sources - one showing box office takings for UK, and one showing it as number one Australian film of 1990 in Australia.
  14. Streetfighter film. Removed "cite needed". Trimmed back sentence so that its point is covered by the existing source cited.
  15. Moulin Rouge film. Removed the text saying it's her most widely seen film. Now it only says that she was in it.
  16. comparisons to Madonna. source provided.
  17. "Lack of talent". Removed "cite needed". Covered by the same source as the sourced quote from Miki Berenyi which follows it. If a paragraph is all sourced from the same material there's no need to provide a cite at the end of each sentence.
  18. Moving away from sex pot image. Removed "cite needed". The whole paragraph is covered by the same source which is stated at the end of the paragraph. Not going to source the paragraph sentence by sentence.
  19. Steve Brack's statement. Removed "cite needed". the entire paragraph is sourced to the two references given at the end of the paragraph. Once again, not going to list a source at the end of every sentence.
  20. media attention subsided. not important. removed sentence. Rossrs 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Lessons

Should something be mentioned about her upcoming album? I read about it in Google News once. The album was supposed to be titled "Lessons" but I can't source that and even if I could, I wouldn't exactly be sure how to. (Too Much To Ask 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Popular?

for the perople in the united states of america, is kylie as popular as britney, christina, janet and madonna or is she more popular like a c-star. cause here in europe she is highly popular FANSTAR 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

She is hardly even a C-star really. There is noway she is as popular in the united states as Britney Spears, Jlo, Christina, Ashlee Simpson, Kelly Clarkson, Jessica Simpson, Madonna or Hilary Duff. They are all much much bigger here 152.163.100.6

that`s strange! 86.94.36.240 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is that? What prevents her from acheiving great success in the USA, when she is very popular in so many countries? F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

I just noticed that the "return to stage" section is unsourced, I added an unsourced tag to draw attention. I'm pretty sure the section is factually correct, but as a FA it should be sourced. James086 Talk | Contribs 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it should be sourced. It's been fixed. Rossrs 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hospital

I get SO ANGRY (up to the point where i'm crying) everytime people accuse her of moving cardiac patients....SO WHAT?! EVEN IF IT HAPPENED! Kylie is way more important then those people, and she did not order the movings! She is I N N O N O G U E you morons! She deserves your credit. Go Australia and GO KYLIE you Queen!! -Danny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.33.26.11 (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree totally. I also really hate how Kylie has totally milked the whole cancer thing, just to get sympathy and sell more records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.172.214 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place to comment about it, and definitely not the right way to go about changing peoples' minds. Indja 09:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the first comment in this section has been attributed to me since early December last year. I did not write it; it was written by 145.33.26.11.[1] The user apparently didn't like me reverting their attempt to hide their IP.[2] I have corrected the signature. -- Mark Chovain 09:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Kylie is way more important then those people" WTF? No one is more important than anyone, especially sick people in hospital. This is the rantings of a demented fan, should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.159.15 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

She didn't 'milk' having breast cancer to sell more records. Having to take many months away from her career for treatment and recovery reduced her sales and income. She was never self-pitying, nor attention-seeking, about the matter, so there's no way that the article should say that she was. F W Nietzsche (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

Interesting combination. I've reworded the bit about Nelly Furtado and Minogue recording a duet. There are numerous websites speculating that they are planning a duet and these seem to date from about December 1st. Several of them refer back to a music.com site as their source, but reading that source piece, it's completely different. Furtado said 1. she admired Minogue's courage. 2. she would have loved to have had her on her recent album 3. Minogue is the person she would most like to record with and 4. She likes "Can't Get You Out Of My Head". If there is anything more recent that is more than rumour, then please rewrite it again, and provide an updated source. For now it seems to be speculation and it that's the case, we should be clear about it. Thanks Rossrs 07:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

New photo for Main page

Is there any chance of updating the main photo for this page to a post-cancer shot, maybe from the Homecoming tour? Peter2012

The main photo can only be changed if another free image can be found. So if you know of anyone who has attened one of Minogue's latest shows and is willing to have their photos displayed on Wikipedia then it can be changed. But until then, the current photo cannot be removed. -- Underneath-it-All 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start a war, but is it totally out of the question to alter the background of the current photo in order to de-emphasise the guy with a tie in a Mercedes? I'm happy to do the editing if that's okay.  HWV258.  11:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone sneaked in "I mean, as if anyone cares. She's rich enough!"

Look in the subsection "Stock, Aitken and Waterman: 1987 – 1992", someone sneaked in the text quoted in this subject line. It does not show up in the edit box of the article. I guess it is some "creative" html or script coding. Can someone knowlegdeable take care of that? Is this type of hack widespread and does it have a name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.47.216 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Category cleanup

This article currently has 28 category tags, and I think that's a bit over the top. I've taken a look at the (somewhat rambling) Wikipedia:Categorization guideline, which states: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." Some other useful quotes from the guideline: "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article" and "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

So, let's take a look at what we've got. I'll list the current categories, some comments, and my recommendation for what to do with them.

  • 1968 births: factually accurate. keep
  • Actor-singers: yes, she's been an actor who sings or a singer who (tried to) act. keep
  • ARIA Award winners: factually accurate. keep
  • Australian child actors: factually accurate. keep
  • Australian dance musicians: what constitutes a "dance musician"? Isn't it possible to dance on all types of music? Questionable. delete
  • Australian dancers: is she primarily known for being a dancer? Questionable. delete
  • Australian expatriates in the United Kingdom: yes, she lives in the UK. Is this a notable property of Minogue, though? dunno delete
  • Australian female singers: factually accurate. keep
  • Australian film actors: factually accurate. Unfortunate but true. keep
  • Australian pop musicians': factually accurate. But, do we need to list her both as a singer and a musician? delete
  • Australian pop singers: factually accurate. keep
  • Australian singer-songwriters: factually accurate. Good description of (one of the aspects of) her profession. keep
  • Australian songwriters: factually accurate. But likewise, do we need both the "singer-songwriter" and the "songwriter" tags? delete
  • Australian television actors: factually accurate. keep
  • Breast cancer activists: what constitutes a "breast cancer activist?" Disputable. delete
  • Breast cancer patients: factually accurate. keep
  • Brit Award winners: factually accurate. keep
  • Dance musicians: same comment as for "Australian dance musicians." Also, why do we need both tags? The more inclusive one would be sufficient, no? delete
  • Gold Logie winners: factually accurate. keep
  • Grammy Award winners: factually accurate. keep
  • Kath & Kim actors: factually accurate. But, featuring as a guest star in one episode wouldn't make this a momentous achievement, I'd say. delete
  • Living people: factually accurate. keep
  • Neighbours actors: factually accurate. Significant to her rise to fame. keep
  • Parlophone artists: factually accurate. keep
  • People from Melbourne: factually accurate. Is it important, though? dunno keep
  • Rhythmic contemporary musicians: what on Earth is "rhythmic contemporary" music? It should be obvious by now that creating arcane labels in a futile attempt to categorise music is one of my pet peeves. The accompanying article doesn't offer much help, either. This tag should die, with extreme prejudice. delete
  • The Sullivans actors: factually accurate. But, as with "Kath & Kim", a short-lived appearance might not be enough reason to tag her for it. delete
  • Welsh Australians: So her mother is from Wales. Does that make her a "Welsh Australian?" Maybe, but is that a notable piece of information? delete

Comments, suggestions and dissenting opinions are welcome. --Plek 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-eight categories is a bit excessive! I agree with all the categories that you suggest should be kept, but here are my thoughts on the others:

  • Australian dancers: I don't think anyone really considers Minogue to be a dancer. So I agree, the category should be deleted.
  • Australian expatriates in the United Kingdom: She does primarily live in the UK, but hasn't she been spending a lot of time living in France the past year or so. I don't really see the point to this category, so yes, delete.
  • Australian songwriters: I think that the Australian singer-songwriters tag fits better.
  • Australian pop musicians: I don't usually think of Minogue as a pop musician, but as a pop singer. The Australian pop singers tag fits better.
  • Rhythmic contemporary musicians: Huh? No clue what the point of this tag is. Delete.
  • Breast cancer activists: She has done stuff to raise money for breast cancer charities, but nothing really notable, so delete.
  • Kath & Kim actors: If her role was bigger than a guest spot then I'd say keep the tag, so delete.
  • People from Melbourne: I say keep. She was born and raised in Melbourne.
  • The Sullivans actors: Like I wrote for the Kath & Kim actors tag. Delete.
  • Welsh Australians: I don't think that Minogue's mother's background is important. So delete.
  • Dance musicians: If were going to keep one of the categories than it should be the Australian dance musicians one since it's more specific. -- Underneath-it-All 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm very much in agreement with Underneath-it-All. I agree with the "keeps" listed by Plek so it's really the deletes that need to be mentioned. So:
  • Australian dancers - the fact that she happens to dance during her concerts and in her videos does not make her any more a dancer than any pop singer you could name, all of whom move in one way or another to their music, in a manner that could be interpreted as dancing. If she ever makes a video in which she doesn't sing (or speak), then I'll change my mind ;-) Delete.
  • Australian expatriates in the UK - barely relevant, delete.
  • Australian songwriters - again, it's not what she's particularly known for. These days everyone writes at least some of their own material, and most of Minogue's catalogue was written by others. Delete.
  • Australian pop musicians - delete. Australian pop singers is a better choice.
  • Rhythmic contemporary musicians - I too am mystified. Delete.
  • Breast cancer activists - I haven't seen anything substantial in the news that warrants her inclusion in this category. Delete.
  • Kath & Kim actors - very interesting CfD on Murder She Wrote and X Files actors led to a decision to categorise only the regular or frequently recurring cast members - not guest stars or minor characters. I think this is very sensible, and would allow deletion from Kath & Kim actors and maybe Sullivans actors. See the Category:Murder, She Wrote cast members page - I'd love to see this implemented on a wider scale to remove some of the cruftier entries.
  • Welsh Australians - delete, delete, delete !!! This would make some sense if Wikipedia was a geneology site. There seems to be a trend to research people down to the 16th Century and then apply a lot of categories to them, but I think it should only be used where someone is born in one country and migrates to another, not for their offspring down through the years. Carol Minogue is a Welsh Australian. Kylie Minogue is an Australian, with some Welsh (and other) ancestry. Not enough to merit categorisation. What if Kylie and Olivier have a baby and it becomes famous? Will he/she be a French-Welsh-Australian or a Welsh-Australian-French? It's nonsense IMO.
  • Dance musicians - as above Australian dance musicians would be better, but she's still a singer rather than a musician. She certainly qualifies for this category better than most, but Australian dance acts or Australian dance performers would actually be more accurate. Not sure what to do with this one. I think it's significant that she's been successful as a club performer, and has won awards specifically for dance music, as opposed to the notion (which I agree with) that you can dance to pretty well any sort of music if you try hard enough. This is acknowledging a specific genre, which is more applicable to her than some of the other acts so categorised.
  • People from Melbourne - I would keep this one. It's not different to any of the other People from xxxx categories and I think there is a degree of relevance in it. Rossrs 09:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your comments! I've updated my initial list to take your wise words into account. It seems we're all in total agreement; I feel warm and fuzzy. The tags will be purged shortly. --Plek 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template to the category tag list. Using that, you don't have to add a pipe link to individual tags anymore. See also Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. --Plek 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, relevant categories should remain. People from Melbourne should definitely stay, as she was born and raised there; she is likely the most famous / popular person from Melbourne. Australian expatriates in the United Kingdom is very relevant to her life and career. Australians of Irish descent and Australians of Welsh descent should remain - Irish father, Welsh mother. Kylie's ancestry isn't a complicated case of great-grandparents from various countries; partial ancestry qualifies a person for descent categories. Kylie has stated that she feels part-British, so the fact she lives in the UK and that her mother is from Wales is very relevant. F W Nietzsche (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At Home

What about the "Kylie at Home" range??? deserves a mention i reckon!~ http://www.ashleywildegroup.com/kylie/ 203.15.122.35 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations cleanup and re-evaluation

I noticed that the first half of the article was using in-line free-format citations, whereas the second half was using {{cite}} templates. I have started migrating all in-line citations towards using the {{cite}} templates, and will complete the task tomorrow (ish). My intention is to do a full review of all references soon. I have a nagging feeling that not all of them will stand up to close scrutiny, and that important pieces of information are lacking references altogether. Please share your thoughts on all of this. Thanks! --Plek 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I think that in-line citations (especially when using the cite templates) make for crappy editing as they break up the text flow, but I don't see a viable alternative. Please correct my hapless ignorance if I'm mistaken. --Plek 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now completed the migration of all in-line references to {{cite}} templates. Almost all links were still alive, with the exception of #7: Transcript of television documentary Love Is In The Air. I couldn't find an alternative source, so I changed it to an archive.org link. I also corrected some LiMBO links and removed some duplicates. Everything should point to where it's supposed to, now.
Unfortunately, I do think that the references are not quite up to the current FA standards. "Back in the days," citations were mainly added after direct quotes, and the article is well-covered in that regard. However, nowadays it's expected to provide ample references to support the factual information in the article, and I think it comes up a bit short there (nothing too dramatic, but still lacking in some areas). As I don't want to pepper the text with {{fact}} tags, maybe we can decide in here which parts could use some references, and then set out to get them in place? Comments welcome. --Plek 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look through the article and see what I think we need to address. I agree with you, but I also think the main points that would need citing are those that could possibly be legitimately challenged and a lot of factual information is fairly innocuous. Another editor added about 25 "cite needed" tags several months ago. You'll see the comments further up in the discussion page. Some of the "cite needed" tags were added unnecessarily. Also, some of the paragraphs are covered completely by one cite at the end, which can make it appear that the first couple of sentences are not cited. I don't know how to solve that problem. Rossrs 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty. I'll see what you come up with. In the meantime, here are my ideas:
  • The "Childhood/beginnings" part could get a cite, just to cover the basics.
Kylie:Confidential has some very detailed info. Also offers a different slant on the story of "successful TV actress stumbles accidentally into a singing career". The story according to Sean Smith : Seems Kylie and Dannii both wanted to be singers all along. Dannii, the more precocious of the two, becomes a major child-star (at least in Australia), while Kylie achieves some notability as "Dannii Minogue's older sister". She takes acting roles, and inspired by Dannii's success, finances two recording demos in 1985. They aren't successful but they catch the ear of a record producer, and by the time she famously takes the mic for a stirring rendition of "Locomotion" with other Neighbours casts members, she has been tutored and mentored by said record producer for more than a year, in anticipation of just such an opportunity. I wonder if we should expand this section by a short paragraph or so. The story of shy Kylie being coaxed into joining her cast-mates for a chorus of "Locomotion" is great showbusiness folk-lore but perhaps it's not entirely accurate. What do you think? Rossrs 10:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
(Why is it that these talk page discussions always turn into a typographical maze?) I think it might be an interesting peek into her early career and motivations, and something that could also shed some light on the relationship with her sister. Definitely worth more to the article than the odd bits of trivia that have been added here and there over the years. Still, I'm not too comfortable with relying on a single source, especially when it's a book that begins with a 10-page astrological chart (or whatever that is). Do you know of any independent sources that can confirm these stories? Also, I think the article is becoming a tad too long, so some pruning might be in order when expanding the "Early life" section. Just a thought. --Plek 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't know of any other sources and I've been looking, without success. I don't think it's a major omission. Perhaps it's just something to keep in mind in the event of us ever finding a credible source. Rossrs 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The last two paragraphs of the SAW section
  • The Deconstruction section: there is a lot of info here, but apart from the Towa Tei bit (and the direct quotes), citing is a bit light. The final two paragraphs of the section could do with one cite each.
  • The high ratings of the Money Can't Buy TV special.
  • Baker discussing her status as sex symbol.
I have a strong feeling that quote was once referenced and it's somehow been lost over time. I think it came from La La La. I'll have a look. Rossrs 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added a cite. It was in the "Afterword" section of the 2003 paperback revised edition. Rossrs 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • She has been acknowledged as the highest selling female recording artist in Australia and Europe of the period from her debut in 1987 to the present. The reference to this is an undated biography on All Music Guide. Doesn't that make the "to the present" bit somewhat unreliable?
It's a fairly bold claim isn't it? And without an excellent source it's somewhat excessive. Perhaps the article could survive with its removal? Rossrs 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if she's the best-selling female recording artist (henceforth known as "BSFRA") in Australia and in the UK. It should be possible to find some sources more authoritative than All Music Guide to settle that one. But all of Europe? Hmmm... I'd say doubtful. Madonna fans may be right in nerfing this statement for that (even though it's semantically correct). Do you know any good pan-European record sales statistics sources (short of adding up the numbers from all the national MAFIAA branches)? --Plek 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I don't but that's exactly what we need to find. I think Kylie may well be the BSFRA in Australia. She's always been particularly beloved and her records, even the bad ones ("Especially For You"), have done well. Madonna's chart performance has been more erratic. Often a high chart placing but a short chart run, but she's had several hugely successful singles too. Hard to say who would come out the winner in Australia. I would expect Madonna to be the BSFRA in the UK - she's had considerably more hits there and she's been more consistent. Anything with her name on it seems to go straight into the Top 5. I'd have no trouble believing Kylie is 2nd best selling in the UK, but I doubt she's the best-selling. I think we're on shakey ground with this one. Rossrs 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I find it a tad irksome that we only have the single "hardcopy" reference in "La La La". Are you perhaps familiar with the melodramatically titled "Kylie: Story of a Survivor"[3] or "Kylie: The Biography"[4]? I might just pick one of them up if they're any good. Cheers. --Plek 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't waste your money, Plek. I have the more luridly titled Kylie:Confidential also by Sean Smith. Same book maybe? I bought it in a bargain bin when we did the big rewrite on this and it was worth almost every cent of the $2.99 I paid for it. I'll dig it out and see if it contains anything useful. I think it's quite accurate but you have to get past the tabloidy gossipy style of it. Rossrs 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I recalled your "bargain bin" comment after I noticed Sean Smith was the author. Judging from the synopsis, it might just be an updated version of Kylie: Confidential. Into the garbage bin it goes, then. I might still order some semi-random Kylie books from Amazon as soon as I work my way through the (unrelated) reading backlog. --Plek 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
it may serve a purpose in the discussion of her childhood. La La La (if my memory is right) tends to skim over her childhood.

"See also" section cleanup

I have nuked the "See also" section, because it's mostly superfluous. My reasoning can be found below:

  • List of Kylie Minogue concert tours: moved to "Tours" section, as a {{seealso}} tag. This way, the link supports the article where it is needed.
  • List of Kylie Minogue awards and accolades: moved to "Image and celebrity status" section, also as a {{seealso}} tag (I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to put it, but saw no better alternative and didn't want to completely nuke the link).
  • List of unreleased songs by Kylie Minogue: tangential information that can be reached via the nav bar. Deleted.
  • Best selling music artists: link to a biased and incomplete article (as is stated on the page itself). Not really something to point to from an FA. Deleted.
  • List of number-one dance hits (United States): Kylie is hardly notable for her success in the U.S. Deleted.
  • List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Dance chart: Ditto, deleted.

The end result is that the "See also" section no longer exists. When in doubt, simplify! --Plek 14:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Misfit

Any room for a mention of Misfit[5], in which she mimes to a recording of a castrato? It's not typical of her regular stuff, but it's unusual enough to get a mention. Totnesmartin 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect info

Though I love Kylie to bits, the information in the intro is misguiding. yes, a newspaper article may say Kylie is the best-selling female artist in Europe, but newspaper articles should not be used for data in Encyclopoedias as they often tell lies. Madonna has benn certified by the IFPI (so nothing gets motre official) to have sold 80m albums alone in Europe (which means, about 120/130m betewwn albums and singles0> According to most sources, , including Wikipedia, Kylie has sold a worldwide total of 50-70million abetween albuums and singles. This does not even match Madonnas EU album tally, let alone her total. Also, Mina Mazzini has sold 64million records worldwide, aminly in Europe, an mainly albums, so, again, there is a problem here. hese are certified sales, not what newspaper articles say. You need to stick to official data if you want to write a credible encyclopoedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.80.195 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I have found that piece of information troublesome for quite some time now. So, I've removed it. Let's try to find some reliable sources first, before putting any statement about Euro-wide sales back in. If you know any, please list them. Thanks for your comment. --Plek 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...?

Yeah, i'm not a Kylie Minogue fan, but i'm pretty sure this isn't supposed to be in the article...

"Kylie Ann Minogue (born May 28, 1968) is a dumb, talentless alleged performer. She cannot sing, dance or act. Or do anything of any note actually." The Mischief Man 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not exactly encyclopedic. I suspect she's done more of note than the person who made that edit, who probably can't sing, dance or act either, and whose biggest contribution to world culture to date is most likely some grammatically awkward internet vandalism. That's not a problem. It takes about 2 seconds to revert. Rossrs 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

I remove the lines about Nelly Furtdao expressing an interest in working with Minogue. This is not exactly encyclopedic is it? I think these types of rumours / gossip are more suitable for a fan page.Paul75 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Poor old Kylie, she's hated so much she's the most vandalised entry on Wikipedia...

Really? I was always under the impression she was very liked and respected. There isn't much about her to vandalise her, unlike, say Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith... Or were you being sarcastic?? 80.41.38.77 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed/reverted the "Helloooo !!!" from "Childhood and beginning." Fustigate314159 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New album

Can we start a section or a page for Kylie's new album? 68.82.82.248 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kylie WikiProject

I'm interested in creating a WikiProject for Kylie much like the one on The KLF. I just want to know if anyone would be interested in participating in it. -- Underneath-it-All 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed for time, but would like to lend a (small) hand if you can get it under way. A general cleanup and pruning of this article would be my first suggestion. --Plek 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Kylie Minogue WikiProject has been created! Please join up and help expand and improve articles related to Kylie. -- Underneath-it-All 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures and the daily vandalism thereof

In the lead section is this sentence : "According to Warner Music Australia, Minogue has sold over 40 million records worldwide." (my emphasis) It cites Warner Music as the source - [6] and on this page it says "whilst album sales easily take her record sales worldwide to over 40 million." (my emphasis also) Notice how the 40 million figure is exactly the same in our article and in the source? Clever, huh?

Someone is changing this almost every day to 65 million. Lying about Minogue's achievements, which are impressive enough, does not somehow make her more than she is, so what exactly is the point? I would really love to know why.

To the anons who keep changing this to 65 million, I will accept this edit and stop reverting it if :
1. you link to another reliable source that says she has sold 65 millions records, or
2. you go out and buy 25 million Kylie Minogue records and send the receipt to the Wikimedia foundation for verification.

If not, please leave the 40 million figure alone. Rossrs 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In The Link Says: 40 Million album - 25 Million singles = 65 Million records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.222.110 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It says nothing of the kind. It says EXACTLY what I copied and pasted above. Rossrs 13:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Now there is a link to You Tube featuring an ITV advert for an upcoming Minogue project, in which an anonymous voice-over actor makes an unsupported claim that she's sold over 40 million albums and 60 million singles or whatever ..... the sole purpose of which is to promote Minogue's show. I think this fails WP:V pretty badly. It's not a good source, and it presents a huge discrepancy between the figures quoted by the record company, who in fact would have a genuine vested interest to inflate the figures - and yet they don't. Rossrs 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples specifically notes You Tube as failing to meet our criteria as a reliable source along with other info at WP:V. That, along with the self serving message contained in the promo is enough to justify removing it. I'm in favour of changing the sales figure if it is outdated - and I believe that it is - but ONLY with a good, solid, reliable source. This just isn't good enough. I've removed it, and I hope that rather than just revert this without comment, as has been done already on numerous occasions, any interested person takes the time to comment on it. Also, the way this had been rewritten it was saying that Warner Music cited her sales at 65 million etc. Not true. They don't say that at all. Remember, it's an anonymous voice-actor making that claim on behalf of ITV. Not Warner Music Australia as incorrectly stated. Rossrs 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It said on the Brit awards last night that Kylie has sold over 68 million records worldwide to date. Is this sufficient to update the figure? (looks like the previous 65 million may have been accurate though not cited) Spicefunk (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1991 Kylie won the World Music Awards for highest selling Australian Artist having sold over 30 million records, It is feasible to assume that in the last 18 years Kylie has sold more than enough to take her total record sales to over the 40 million often quoted, are we really saying Kylie has only sold 10 million more records in the last 18 years despite it being fairly universally accepted that her last 10 years has been her most successful period on her long career? , which seems to back up the often quoted (such as her own Kylie show advert) that she has sold 40 million albums and 60 million singles in her 22 year recording career? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.15.67 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Too long?

Morning, who tagged the article with that? I don't think the article is too long, more like it's very comprehensive. IceflamePhoenix 08:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed away things like discogrpahy, tour and film lists on this page, as they have their own respective pages. I think that helps the problem for the time being so i removed the tag. If someone feels it is still too long, feel free to put it back up. Peter2012 3.16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Come now, people should at least be able to *see* a list of the tours and albums, without having to jump through to the more detailed pages and scroll around. IceflamePhoenix 09:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Not when it means the page is getting too long, are people that lazy that they can't click a link to another page? There is always the template at the bottom of the page which lists them all anyway. Peter2012 10.13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unappreciated in Austria

As mentioned in the intro - do they mean Australia?Zagubov (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

well yes, but she was also unappreciated in Austria ..... Rossrs (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrid Peth

I'd just like to flag editors of this page to the discussion regarding merging Kylie Minogue's Doctor Who character's article Astrid Peth into "Voyage of the Damned". Please contribute to the discussion by going to this page. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

Does Kylie have British citizenship? Otherwise how can she as an Australian receive a British honour? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Australia is a commonwealth realm, in that the Queen is Monarch of Australia.

Any Citizen of the United Kingdom and any of the 16 commonwealth realms (where lizzie is monarch) can be awarded an honour.81.155.208.158 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that in any event she'd be eligible for British citizenship since her mother was Welsh. Many Australians with a parent or grandparent born in a European Union country find that taking citizenship of that country is useful for travel to and within the EU (no visas required). They would, however be entitled to retain Australian citizenship and passports, as I imagine nearly all do. Millbanks (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Australian government is now against its nationals being given honours by the British government, instead issuing its own honours - the change was made in stages between the Whitlam and Hawke premierships. The Queen being Queen of Australia as well is irrelevant in this context, although she can still give the honours that are in her personal gift to Australian citizens (e.g. VO awards) but not the OBE. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, she is still fully eligible for British honours. Since she spends a considerable amount of time in Britain it would be completely acceptable for her to receive one. This is the case with all citizens of Commonwealth Realms, who can even use knighthoods if they are awarded them. Their own governments may frown on this, but that is irrelevant if the individual chooses to accept and/or use such honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, though I don't think there is any suggestion that the Australian government frowns on the giving of an OBE to an Australian resident in Britain. I don't think it's completely correct either to say in the earlier comment) that the Australian government is "against its nationals being given honours by the British government". The Australian Labor governments of the 70s and 80s were against Australian federal and state governments nominating Australians for British honours as allowed by the British system, rather than for home-grown honours, and understandably from an egalitarian perspective, they were opposed to the use in Australia of aristocratic titles such as 'Sir' and 'Dame'. But I don't see any evidence that the Australian government opposes an OBE for Kylie, and I trust it would recognise that for her role in the UK, it would be none of its business in any case. Strayan (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE)

Should Minogue's OBE be present in her article so soon.. she doesn't become an invested Officer of the British Empire until June 2008, when the Queen or Prince Charles invests the recipients in the New Year?? PoliceChief (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Recipients are entitled to use their honours as soon as they have been gazetted; they don't have to wait until their investiture. Even knights can start calling themselves "Sir" before their actual dubbing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
How should she be addressed (in order for her OBE title to stand out)? Dame Kylie? --AVM (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for an overhaul?

I think it's time to look carefully at this article, and bring it up to date, by removing or abbreviating some details that have become less significant with the passage of time. For example there is a paragraph about speculation of Minogue appearing in Dr. Who. Now that she has done it - the information about the speculation is irrelevant. I will go through and remove some of these points soon, and will refer back to this by way of edit summary, as I realize that otherwise people may not understand the removal of these details. Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. The article is slowly slipping from FA standards. If you need any help just give me a shout. :) -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will certainly let you know if I have any problems. You're right, it is slipping from FA standard, and I'd like to see it fixed before it slips too much further. Rossrs (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article uses a bunch of fair use images. Comparable music video screenshots were removed from most musician articles a while ago, and appear only in articles on the album or song. Gimmetrow 06:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of images have been purged from a lot of articles, for a lot of reasons, but something else to consider is that the images used here have specific fair use rationales that address and are addressed by the text. This is different to the way screenshots are/were used in a lot of other articles, where there is/was no attempt to link the images and the text, and where they were used only as decoration. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is different. Fair use criteria doesn't specifically say screenshots can be used only in articles about the song or music video, (though this is how it is sometimes interpreted) rather that each use should be justified. Rossrs (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
At least two images do not have fair use rationales. Some others have rather generic rationales which do not seem very strong, and eight audio samples seems rather excessive. Gimmetrow 08:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Which two? All the images have rationales. You were talking about music video screenshots specifically and they all have rationales, one was incorrectly backlinked but in the rationale itself it linked to Kylie Minogue. The album cover should not have been there so I've removed it. The two unfree non-music-video images have weak rationales admittedly, but they have rationales. Maybe it's time to remove all but the most essential. Eight samples is excessive, I agree. Which ones would you remove? Rossrs (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of cutting down quite a bit of content because there was a lot of repetitive stuff including mentions of awards (which has its own page), Kylie's duet with Dannii on the Showgirl Homecoming tour, etc. Everything that I found that was relevant and unsourced, I found sources for and left in. I also reworded a few items because they sounded a bit POV. If anyone has a problem with what I removed, let me know. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kylie's record beaten

I have not put this in the article but someone may want to.

Until 20 Apr 2008 since her hit "slow" Kylie held the record in the UK for the longest span of number 1 hits as a solo female artist of all time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1580000/newsid_1586600/1586698.stm

There was a better reference on a previous Wikipedia entry for this somewhere...

However this was beaten on 20 Apr 2008 when Madoona went to number 1.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7357633.stm

I cannot be bothered to do any more research to make this wiki friendly, however I feel others can research this and update the Madonna and Kylie entries accordingly.

Thanks. Chulcoop (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures in lead

It would be good to update these figures but it is essential that they are only updated with the inclusion of a reliable source. The Times is likely to be reasonably accurate as its primary aim is to inform. The You Tube link, which is incidentally an ITV advert for a Kylie Minogue television presentation, is not a reliable source. An unidentified female voice gushes about Kylie being a "global style icon" and gives some numbers for how many albums and singles she's sold. It needs to be viewed with some criticality and not blindly accepted simply because someone has said it. The intention of the advert is not to inform viewers, but to entice them to watch the documentary. Maybe the figures are correct, and maybe they're not, but there's nothing to suggest any kind of impartiality - in fact, it's the exact opposite. Please stop adding this. There must be a good, reliable source with updated sales figures, but this is not it. Rossrs (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In much the same way that Mariah Carey is often cited as the WORLDS biggest selling female, but then Madonna is supposedly the biggest selling woman ever, despite apparently selling less albums than Celine Dion. The fact is there are no certain ways to certify record sales. With Minogue, we know that she won an award by an internationally recognised body (the world music awards) in 1991 as being the highest selling Australian Artist with record sales of over 30 million. Now it is 2009 and the 2000 to 2009 period has been Minogue's most successful period globally, one can assume fairly confidently, in the 18 years since 1991, that Minogue has comfortably sold more than 10 million records which would othwerwise see her sales at 40 million. It is very feasible that the 40 million albums and 60 million singles (Minogue was always known as a singles artist) is a realistic figure. For all artists there are no absolute sales figures, Minogue is no different and therefore I see no problem in quoting fairly reliable sources for Minogue's sales as is the similar case with every other artist. It is very easy to explain 40 million album sales for Minogue, and that is without a fairly prolific singles catalogue and associated huge sales across the globe.

Sorry, but I see a major problem in quoting "fairly reliable sources". It would be better to say nothing because reliable sourcing is one of the cornerstones on which Wikipedia stands, and this being a featured article we have to be stringent. The sales figures quoted are probably wrong, and I believe are out of date. I'm inclined to believe your line of thought regarding actual figures, but that's not enough. We have to go with the most reliable source available even if we have doubts about it's accuracy, rather than a less reliable source that just happens to support our personal assumptions. Rossrs (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Emerging from 18 months of breast cancer treatment and recovery, Kylie Minogue didn't ease back into her career. Minogue's 10th studio album, X, arrives Tuesday, packed with the kind of fizzy, sexy, celebratory dance-pop that has helped her sell more than 40 million albums worldwide. "Minogue returns like 'a tornado'; New album, energy after cancer battle". Edna Gundersen. USA TODAY. Mar 31, 2008. pg. D.7
  • Ms. Minogue, whose hits include Can't Get You Out of My Head and I Believe in You, is Australia's biggest pop star, with an estimated 40 million records' sold worldwide. Steven McElroy. "Arts, Briefly". New York Times. Jan 2, 2007. pg. E.2 issn 03624331

*Global icon Kylie, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 but is now said to have recovered, will chart her colourful career which spans three decades. She has sold more than 40 million albums worldwide and won both Brit and Grammy awards. "WHY WE LOVE KYLIE ; By three of the people who know her best ...it's friday!" Spencer Bright. Daily Mail. London (UK): Nov 9, 2007. pg. 1 *Since The Loco Motion became her first Australian No 1 in 1987, Kylie has been a record breaker. Her total single sales worldwide are estimated at a staggering 20 million copies, whilst album sales easily take her record sales worldwide to over 40 million. Jenny McQuaile and Neil Cotter. "Irish Fans In A Spin As Showgirl Kylie's Circus Rolls Up At Point". The Daily Mirror. London (UK): Mar 4, 2005. pg. 21 *Pop princess Kylie Minogue is preparing to release a new double CD of her biggest hits. Kylie, who has sold more than 20million singles worldwide and 40million albums, said yesterday: "This collection is very dear to me and holds a lifetime of memories." "Kylie CD is twice as nice". The Daily Mirror. London (UK): Nov 11, 2004. pg. 7

An important qualification is the term "records" which includes both albums and singles. The only source I could find that would indicate 60 million is the 2004 quote from the Daily Mirror. All recent sources quote a total of 40 million albums/records combined. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I had to strike three sources which I just realized came from tabloid sources which cannot meet WP:RS. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But given her continuing worldwide success in the recording realm -- more than 65 million records sold -- Minogue is undoubtedly one of the most successful actors-turned-singers ever. Joshua Ostroff. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 22, 2007. pg. C.1
Found one more, though I'm not sure how exceptional a source wikipedia considers The Ottawa Citizen to be. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic?

I was little surprised to find this category, because I have been interested in Kylie's religion for years, and it seemed it was a complete mystery. I can't tell you how many sites and bios I have checked, and altough they have abundance of all sorts of obscure and personal data, never, I mean never even so much as a hint to her religious background. I often assumed she was a Catholic (or at least raised as Catholic), because of her Irish ancestry, but then again there is always a chance that her family was Protestant- after all, only uneducated people believe that allIrish people are Catholics. But since most of them are, I thought it was the most reasonable assumption. Whoever added "Australian Roman Catholics " category, I would like him to inform me about the sources for this. Because, as I said through the course of years I have checked literally hundreds of webistes about Kylie, and never found anything about her religion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.158.105 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it a couple times as there's no source for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
She had treatment for her breast cancer at a Catholic hospital, which is the only thing 'linking' her to Catholicism that I know of. Being Catholic would not be a requirement of being a patient, and she may have gone there because that particular hospital may have a good reputation / high success rate etc. I've never heard anything about her or her family's religion; it appears she is secular. F W Nietzsche (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are strictly personal matters! Is she Catholic or Protestant? Is she lesbian or straight? How many vaccines has she had? What is her blood type, and what do her last three CBC blood tests say? How does her electrocardiogram look like? What were the results of her breast cancer biopsy analysis? What is her Chinese horoscope sign? What is her Homeopathic constitutional remedy? What is her DNA map like? Are you going to dissect her, or what? For Finagle's sake, let her be, leave her alone! --AVM (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't get your censorship knickers in a twist. A valid point has been raised, this is an online Encyclopedia. If you don't like it: tough. Read WP:BLP and WP:CENSORED Applytheneed1 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

TV commercials?

When Gateway computers was running their TV ad series with the talking cow (with a never explained male voice), there was one advertisement where they were shooting an elaborate music video to introduce Gateway's new desktops. Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt and the cow are seen watching a monitor, he says something about how great the new desktops look, the cow responds "What computers?" Was that Kylie Minogue doing the music video or was it a look-alike with the set and costumes inspired by one of her productions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kylie, school & first job?

where did kylie go to school??? and what was her first job??? she said in a recent interview that she used to work at a video store for a short period of time.....(it's not mentioned in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAna Mimi (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New musical?

Worthy of a mention? Kylie's new project GeneralBelly (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the Crown's Royal Channel on YouTube as reference

I realise there has been some misunderstanding about the Youtube reference [1] I added eariler. I had a brief discussion with Realist2 on his/her talk page, I shall share it here to whom it may concern: --Da Vynci (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No YouTube?

I am interested to know where on Wikipedia guideline say we can't cite youtube videos as a reference. The Royal Channel is the official channel of the Crown. Copyright Holder (in this case, the Crown) has complete right to upload their videos to youtube. Citing the video as reference does not constitute copyright violation in any way. Since it is an official channel, it is considered a reliable source. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE. There is no blanket ban on YouTube, it just rarely meets the requirements of a reliable source. Useight (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything has its first time. Now you see one that actually meets the requirement. The account of The Royal Channel is on the Youtube Parners' list, meaning the account holder is ACTUALLY who they are, in this case the Crown. The Crown is arguably the most reliable publisher on earth. This complies with Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. Youtube isn't a place for unauthorized videos only, there are now many official channels of sovereign, governments, organization and corporations. Good day.--Da Vynci (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll notice I wasn't arguing with you, nor discrediting YouTube, but merely relaying information. Useight (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My (Realist2) response

Well this is a first, a Youtube site that probably does comply with WP:YOUTUBE. Let's cherish this moment folks! In all seriousness, I apologies for removing it. I see people add terrible Youtube links so often, as you can imagine, I've become a little robotic in my Youtube removals since I'm right about 99% of the time. You will also notice that I didn't remove the article content as I knew it could be easily sourced again. Sorry Da Vynci. — Realist2 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope the issue is now clear. Please share your thought, if there is no reply in 2 days, I will re-admit the reference. Good day. --Da Vynci (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As said above, YouTube links very rarely meet the proper requirements here and it's almost second nature for most of us to remove them. I actually didn't revert the addition of the link a day or two ago because it was a YouTube link, I mainly reverted because the content is already sourced in the article itself and I didn't see the need for another source, especially since the content is in the lede and not a questionable point (ie number of records sold, birth name, nationality, etc). Personally, I would only use a video reference if I couldn't find another reliable source, but since Kylie's OBE was widely reported, I would go with something besides the video. However, that is just my personal preference and I'm willing to go with to whatever the community wants to do regarding this. Pinkadelica Say it... 06:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything has its first time, now you see one that actually meets the requirement. The Verifiability of a source does not depend on the media that contains it, it is the author and publisher that counts. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources, articles should rely on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The video I cited is published by The Royal Channel, official channel of the Crown on youtube, thus complies with the "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement. Since it is the Crown who uploaded the video, there is also no plagiarism and copyright violations here. The Royal Channel is listed on Youtube Partners' list, meaning the account holder is ACTUALLY who they are, in this case the Crown.
As for you point about there is already a source provided, that's not a justified reason to repel another source that is just as reliable as the existing one(s), because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Allowing the video reference to be added costs no more than a tiny number in the body of the article and a sentence in the reference section, there is nothing to lose. On the other hand, it proves that we do move forward with time and are not bounded by stereotype and traditional impression toward digital media. Remember some 10 years ago, only printed material were considered reliable sources whereas website were considered unreliable because old-fashion people says "website links very rarely meet the proper requirements"? Now we know it is wrong, websites could be reliable too if it is published by reputable organizations or authors. I think now it is the time for us to move forward and recognise digital video sources of reputable publishers and authors.
If there is no other question, I shall add the video reference back. --Da Vynci (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't question the source. I simply said that as my own personal preference, using videos as sources, regardless of their origin, is risky because YouTube has a nasty habit of pulling videos. I also don't see the point in citing something that is already cited within the article and isn't a source of contention at the moment, but since you seem committed to adding it as a source, have at it. Pinkadelica Say it... 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at a source disregrading its origin is risky not only for a video source, but also for any other types of source. So the origin does matter. The "nasty habit of pulling video" you mentioned is a stereotype, mostly for copyright violating videos on youtube, which is not the case here. Its chance of getting removal is the same as any other infomation published by the Crown via the Internet. Removing reference base on impressions and stereotypes may be a quick and easy approach for some people, but I would rather evaluate reference on case-by-case bases as per WP:YOUTUBE. As for the point, the point is to make a point that I pointed out earlier. Anyway, thanks for finally relinguishing the opposition. Now, is there any other issue other than the stereotype issue that we have discussed? --Da Vynci (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in the reliability or acceptability of using the You Tube link in this case, but I don't see it is being a necessary change or an improvement. The point being cited is not controversial or complicated, and it only needs something basic and reliable to support it. I don't disagree with using this and I don't oppose it, but I don't see it adding anything that wasn't already covered before. The video is interesting and I'm glad I watched it, but it doesn't offer anything that is in the article and that is not in the web reference, which is ultimately the purpose of the cite. Fortunately, in this case, it's a short video so a couple of seconds into it, the confirmation is there. I hope video references are never used to support a fact that's hidden randomly in a 10 minute video. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Kylie Minogue, Prince Charles (2008-07-04). Kylie Minogue at Buckingham Palace (Documentary). UK: The Royal Channel. Retrieved 30 August 2008.

Voice

I wouldn`t think, that Kylie is a mezzo - soprano. I would think soprano. Only, because she doesn`t sing high, it doesn`t mean, that she`s automatically a mezzosoprano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.251.109 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I tagged her vocal range, as it is in the infobox, but nowhere cited in the article. I'm going through the mezzosop category, which always seems to be full of fan speculations, but never citations :-(.Yobmod (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

EMI

Did Kylie end her contract with EMI in 2008??? (MariAna Mimi 12:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

LGBT Project

There is no doubt she is straight, but is a major gay icon. Other famous singers who fit that same description, including Janet Jackson, Britney Spears and Donna Summer, have the LGBT banner on their talk pages - so why doesn't Kylie? F W Nietzsche (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationships

A mere five lines about her sexual relationships is nowhere near long enough. The article does not mention many of her known middle / long-term relationships. F W Nietzsche (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Andres Segura article states they are engaged. If they are, that info should be on this article; if not, it should be removed from his. WP addict 0 (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Genetic mutation?

She was 36 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, which is unusually young. Was it caused by a genetic mutation, such as of BRCA1? Her father has / had prostate cancer, making it likely she inherited a cancer-causing fault from him. Similar information is on Christina Applegate's Wikipedia article (she tested positive for breast cancer and BRCA1). F W Nietzsche (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to the two posts above by User:F W Nietzsche, please see my paragraph above under "Roman Catholic", headed by Those are strictly personal matters!. --AVM (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Retitled album

I was reading in this article that the album "Impossible Princess" was retitled in the UK to "Kylie Minogue" after the death of Princess Diana. But she had already released an album with this title in 1994. Is this correct? I don't own a copy of Impossible Princess (the only Kylie CD I didn't like much), but the "Kylie Minogue" CD from 1994 is very different to "Impossible Princess". How did British audiences distinguish between the two if they were both called by the same name? Cattona (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i think its bullshit, my copy still says impossible princess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.148.147 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for cite in lead section

I do not understand why this sentence needs a cite, and I don't agree that it constitutes original research. The lead section should summarize the article, and the theme of moving forward is covered in several areas. I'm not sure how it isn't a summary. The article discusses her making deliberate changes to make her music more sophisticated and "indie", her video appearance more sexual, she collaborated with Nick Cave to achieve credibility and attract a different audience, enlisted people like Manic Street Preachers to do likewise, she got involved with video production, music production and songwriting, and broke away from Stock, Aitken and Waterman and established herself independently of them. This is all summarized with a fairly simple sentence "During the 1990s, Minogue distanced herself from her earlier work and attempted to establish herself as a credible and independent performer and songwriter." If there is another way of summarizing the path she took during this decade - and try to summarize an entire decade into one sentence and see how difficult it is - then it would be better to reword the sentence, than to put a cite needed tag in the lead section of this article and expect someone else to completely grasp the intention and fix it. This article has existed as a featured article for more than four years with the sentence in the lead without a cite, has appeared on the main page and has been seen by numerous editors who haven't challenged it, so naturally if one editor suddenly slaps a cite needed tag on it, without an explanation, well yes it seems perfectly fair to me that it be removed. If it is being challenged, that's fine, but it would be helpful if the reason could be given more clearly. Rossrs (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it the "distanced herself from her earlier work" that is the problem? Rossrs (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit

This edit of mine - I apologise. I did not intend to call this vandalism, but I hit the wrong button. It's not vandalism. The "You Tube" link is not needed and is not acceptable by WP:EL. There is a copyright issue, and my earlier comment about not being able to view it in my country, was basically to underline the fact that someone is taking the copyright issue seriously enough to ensure that clips are blocked in some countries. I'm sure people in plenty of countries can view the material, but that is not the point. I really don't care who can and who can't see it. As we're aiming for free content, we don't link to copyrighted external links without strong cause, and in this case, there is no strong cause. We link to the kylie.com official site and if they link to "You Tube", that is the correct path to take. Wikipedia doesn't need to link to "You Tube" directly. Again, my apologies to User:MariAna Mimi, who has done nothing wrong, and I'm sorry that my edit looks like an accusation. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Underwear promotion

I'm surprised there's nothing in the article about Kylie's promotion of the Agent Provocatuer underwear range and then her later Lovable underwear range. I can't see anything to imply it's an intentional exclusion but thought I'd ask if there might be a reason for it. ~ Brother William (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Musical genres

How many musical genres should be listed? Allmusic lists several genres that Kylie has "tried out" and I belive that they should all be listed and not just those that other users believe to be correct! (MariAna Mimi 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Everyone should be familiar with Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre. The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). In other words, only use the broadest categories. The genre value of the info box is not meant of a list of every possible genre and fusion genre the artist may have performed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The genre field is not intended to host an exhaustive list and inclusion should not try to list everything she has "tried out". I think you need only look at articles such as Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson, that are both featured articles and that both (well Michael's in particular) attract a lot of traffic, and despite the level of scrutiny given to these articles, they exist with four listed genres each. Madonna is another high traffic, and often contentious article, and it exists with three genres. All of these people have all dabbled in different fields of music, and musically Madonna and Kylie have followed similar paths. I think Kylie can exist very well with four genres, and I think that no more should be added without giving clear reasons why this article should be different to the articles I've given as examples. Rossrs (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternate text

There is some issue with the alternate text here. As per WP:ALT, alternate text should not refer to the actual person but be ambiguous. Most of the images start with Kylie. I think that needs to go. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they're OK per WP:ALT, which uses Greta Garbo as an example. It says the first image should describe the person in general, descriptive terms, but subsequent images presume that the person has already been visually identified and the description should be more about what they're doing. ie it's redundant to describe the general appearance of the person in each image but rather than differences in appearance or attitude, as well as describing what is taking place. The first four images are accompanied by broadly descriptive text, four of the subsequent five images use "Kylie" and one image is newly added and does not have an alt text description. In each of these cases "Kylie" could be replaced by "a young woman" but I don't think that would be particularly helpful.
From WP:ALT If the same person or object appears in many images of an article, later images' alt text can assume that the reader has already read the first image's alt text and caption. For example, if in the Greta Garbo article the first image's alt text describes Garbo's appearance in some detail, alt text for images later in the article can simply say "Garbo" instead of repeatedly describing her appearance. However, in other articles a typical Wikipedia reader cannot be expected to know what Garbo looked like, so an image of her should typically not have Garbo's name in its alt text. Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Olympics

I recall Kylie performing "Dancing Queen" and "On a Night Like This" at the Closing Ceremoney of the Sydney Olympics, but I don't remember her being at the Opening Ceremony. I remember that Nikki Webster from the Opening "grew up" and became Kylie Minogue on a thong during the Closing ceremony. Does this count as being in both? Cattona (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I moderate Culture Victoria. Kylie donates her costumes to The Arts Centre's Performing Arts Collection and we have a story in CV: Kylie's Costumes about how her costumes chart the development of her career. The piece includes around 45 images of her costumes and a video with the curator of the collection. I've had a look at the guidelines for adding external links and thought that a link to CV would be relevant and appropriate. Please let me know what you think.Eleworth (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

General rule if your site is relevant then someone would have already added it. Also your link is broken. Ridernyc (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is not a general rule, or any kind of rule. If it were then it would surely apply to all edits: all articles are perfect, because if an edit were valuable it would already have been made. That is, of course, absurd. WP is far from perfect, many valuable edits (as well as many destructive ones) are made to it every day, and that's what we're here for. Eleworth would have been perfectly entitled to add the link him/herself, but decided to play it safe by suggesting it here and seeking independent opinion. Bravo. -- Zsero (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The site has recently be rebuilt in HTML so the story has only now become easily discoverable. Kylie was involved in the development of the content. Here's the unbroken link: Kylie's CostumesEleworth (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note this

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kylie_Minogue/Archive_3&oldid=1142766991"