Talk:Lorde/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  • Archive 1
  • 2

Accent

Lorde is a New Zealander. So why does she sing with an American accent?203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] might be of interest to you.-gadfium 04:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The first few lines on "
California, US accent. –DjScrawl (talk
) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't sing with an American accent at all. You can clearly hear she's not American. Are you trolling? Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.20 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did
Mongreilf (talk • contribs
) 01:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)‎
Most Beatles stuff isn't in an American accent, but they did use a rock n roll style where appropriate. Some music does work best in an American accent for the same reason that Operas sound best in their original Italian or Deutsch.--82.1.182.234 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

??? Neither Lorde nor the Beatles sing with American accents, get a grip please people. Unless they're making a conscious effort, most people have no accent at all when they sing.

She definitely sounds like she's from New Zealand when she talks, it just changes a little when she sings. Why is this even a discussion? --Divine618 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. It's not that anyone sings with an American accent. The American accent is remarkably similar to the singing voice for all English speakers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3250:83e0:2ccb:7133:243b:346f (talk • contribs) 26 March 2014

Disambiguation

It is ridiculous to have a disambiguation page at Lorde. Lorde the musician is currently getting 40,000 views per day where Audre Lorde gets less than 500. Added to this it is only her last name. At most there should be an 'are you looking for/see also' sort of thing at the top. Or have a separate Lorde (disambiguation) page.

I'm reinstating Lorde (the singer) back at Lorde and adding a 'other uses' link to the new disambiguation page. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pageviews don't matter. Audre Lorde was active in the civil rights, anti-war, and feminist movements, which shaped history. How is Audre Lorde not as notable? Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, it should be noted that from August 2007 to May 2013,
talk
) 02:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To answer the question you posed at
talk
) 03:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added notes on the various talk pages effected by this. Page views should definitely be considered as surely the purpose is to make it as easy as possible for user to find the information that they are looking for. Page views have been a consideration in other similar cases such as Georgia. I'm voting for it to stay as the singer, at least while she is a large rising star who many people are looking for info on. In any case we should leave this discussion open for a few days to ensure people have the chance to voice their opinions. I've also improved the other uses link header to point directly to Audre Lorde. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the original article to this title, solely to preserve the edit history, which was lost in the cut and paste move. This is not an attempt to influence the final title of the article. I have not bothered to fiddle with the talk page history, but if anyone thinks that's important, please follow the process outlined at
Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen.-gadfium
03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@
talk
) 03:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@
talk
) 03:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@Gadfium: Thank you. Sorry that was my bad I tried to undo the move but couldn't so ended so just cut pasted it. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@
Dwpaul: I did create the original Lorde article (about the singer approx. 5 months ago) but I don't feel I have vested interest. I'm not fazed which way this goes. The page is a lot more detailed than when I created it and I don't really update it any more. The singers page has sat at Lorde for 5 months and is being regularly updated and viewed very often. I just feel the vast majority of readers want info about the singer so it makes sense for the page to point there. ShakyIsles (talk
) 04:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
See at
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
:
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
I propose that the article on the singer/songwriter is more likely to be the intended destination for most (but by no means all) readers at the moment, but that the article on the writer/activist is primary by the second criterion. Since they both have qualities that would arguably make them both primary, a disambiguation page is the appropriate destination. (There is actually a third potential meaning, but it is relatively obscure and I mention it only because of
talk
)
In our context Lorde is a brand name (assumedly, owned by
Ella Yelich-O'Connor and/or Universal, or/and exclusively licensed to Universal). As such, providing the term a hyped scope, beyond that it might be trademarked for, seems like homesteading the namespace (which is bad)! –DjScrawl (talk
) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't thought this through. See
talk
) 21:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, you think I'd not criticise Madonna + Queen + Journey page-names as homesteading the namespace and that I not think the avoidance of such should be a guiding principle, on Wikipedia. Vis nothing to do with, proof of a negative precept is a little harder than three (any number of) examples.
NB: I did say seems, i.e. IMO. If anti-homesteading has no bearing on Wikipedia disambiguation / namespace-allocation, my point is merely illustrative. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@

talk
) 12:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I just thought it was worth having a conversation about it and the editors of the other pages should know what was going on. If you feel we need to go through the
WP:RfC
process then we can.
Back on the discussion at hand - from the notes above taken from
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
and more from there below:
Determining a primary topic
There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include:
So using the stated rules what is the situation in this case:
  • From the article traffic statistics Lorde the musician has had over 1,000,000 views in the last 30 days (view number continuing to increase) - One of the busiest page on Wikipedia (almost double that of Barack Obama). Audre Lorde page has had 12,000. This is only 1.2%. This definitely meets highly likely—much more likely than any other topic.
  • Using searches Lorde the musician dominates Google search with Audre Lorde not appearing until the 4th page while Audre Lorde has far more presence in Scholar/Book searches as she has authored multiple books.
  • With respect to long-term significance, at this stage Audre Lorde has more significance as Lorde the musician has only risen to fame this year.
The final point I want to make and I think this is crucial in this debate is that Audre Lorde was her proper name. She was referred to sometime as Lorde but her full name was Audre Lorde. Take Muhammad Ali for example who is often referred to as just Ali. His page gets many more view than the Ali page, he is arguably more notable and more well known, and he features prominently in searches for Ali, yet there is no mention of him on the Ali page because it is not his full name.
I feel given the current interest in Lorde and the fact that the vast majority of people going to the lorde page are looking for information on the musician it make no sense to change it and the hat-note will suffice. ShakyIsles (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2013

Please change the certification of the Love Club EP by RMNZ from "Gold" to "Platinum", it just changed this week. http://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums?chart=2281 Twigman94 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Diacritic mark on début

Is it necessary to add an acute accent on "début"? It is an extremely uncommon spelling and should be reverted to the commonly used "debut". 24.43.65.24 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done You're correct. Thank you.
Adabow (talk
) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
That was, mostly, my 'imperial tyranny', weeks ago. It's de rigueur in
aspie brain tells me "de-but". So, for the likes of me - yes, it's important. –DjScrawl (talk
) 21:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I assumed Template:Use New Zealand English followed British and no one seemed to mind, until now - so, I assumed I was correct in this respect. I suggest adding the NZEng template on all Lorde pages and defering to passing Kiwis who know their language at an encyclopaedic level. –DjScrawl (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Adabow (talk
) 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I am disarmed :) Meanwhile, according to
Compact OED2 two-book thumper is currently in storage), OED has converse listing. I'll scratch the long-e from other Lorde pages on my watch, with annotation pointing here. ¡Forward in all directions! :D –DjScrawl (talk
) 22:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done Royals (song) and Pure Heroine are now more thoroughly antipodean! I'll inform Ms Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. –DjScrawl (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture in Infobox

Hi,

So I recently removed the red link in the info box for the picture of Lorde singing at a concert because there is no picture on Wikipedia, under that name, and it was undone. So my question is, why is it in the infobox if no one has uploaded it. Usually is there isn't a picture uploaded on Wikipedia of a person, you leave that section blank until someone uploads it. Have you guys thought about uploading a picture of Lorde? Just my opinion, but still doesn't make sense.

Thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Contributions) 17 October 2013 23:20 (UTC)

That image used to exist on Wikipedia, or, to be proper, Wikimedia Commons, but it was deleted due to copyright violation (see here). A new image was added later, but it was also in violation of copyright, so it was removed. So far, no one has provided a photo of Lorde that is free to use. I'm not sure why the edit was undone. ~ Boomur [☎] 22:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes more sense now! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Contributions) 18 October 2013

Profile Photo

There is no subject photo for this page, I would like to add one. ElliottOliver (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you own the rights to the photo you propose to add (i.e., is it your own work)?
talk
) 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
How about another question? Where do free photos of other singers on wikipedia usually come from, so that we can go look for one? BollyJeff | talk 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that most of them come from live concerts/performances where a Wikipedian was in attendance and photography wasn't prohibited. Google image search could be useful, especially focusing on photo-sharing sites such as Flickr and Google+ where non-professional photographers post their work. Still need to obtain the photog's permission (and/or have them upload to the Commons), but most should be willing.
talk
) 19:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm deactivating this request as there are no images of Lorde at Wikimedia Commons. If someone can take or find a picture of Lorde at a show or something which is free (under one or more of the licences at
Adabow (talk
) 20:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I like this picture, but I don't think it's suitable for inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have also considered using that image, but I also have reservations about using a sketch. I suppose the purpose of images are to get the reader to identify the person (especially if they have seen them before), and a rough sketch doesn't really do that. It's not like an official, professionally painted portrait which are appropriate for people who lived before the rise of photography.
Adabow (talk
) 20:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's[3] a really nice set on Flickr, but the (seemingly professional) photog asserts copyright. They might be willing to release it on one image (or even offer an outtake) if someone contacted them. I'm pressed for time, else I'd do it.
talk
) 21:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Would like two photos added to Lorde's page

Hi,

I would like these two photos added to Lorde's page, with the first one appearing in the upper right ...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lorde_in_Seattle_2013_-1.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lorde_in_Seattle_2013_-_2.jpg

I took these photos of her in Seattle in September and are similar to some in my Flickr set you mentioned above.

Please reply via email ... [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkstauffer (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirk Kirkstauffer (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Marvelous! Don't know whether Kirk noticed that I had already identified his photos (in the section above) as I saw them posted on Flickr as good candidates for this page, and/or whether someone here contacted him -- thanks to either or both.
talk
) 19:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I contacted Kirk; thanks to you for identifying them! This is why I love Wikipedia!
Adabow (talk
) 19:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Awards table

I've had a go at separating out the different awards into section categories, as this seems to be what the awards template is most suited for. It's currently in my sandbox, here: User:Robyn2000/sandbox#Awards What do y'all think? Is it too big? Premature? Robyn2000 (talk

) 20:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a bit premature; that sort of format is more suitable for something like
Adabow (talk
) 21:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good example! And that's very similar to what is currently there at the moment. I suspect things will change in the future, but at the moment the current format seems sufficient, give or take minor tweaks. Robyn2000 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

needs her 4 or so Grammy nominations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.37.166 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Early life

@

Talk
03:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

“Ella’s a better writer than I’ll ever be,” Sonja says, beaming proudly. “A couple of years ago, I wrote a thesis for my master’s, and I asked Ella to proofread it – 40,000 words. She did an incredible job. And she was 14.” - "Lorde’s Teenage Dream": Jonah Weiner, Rolling Stone, 11/5/2013[4]
Talk
04:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
But there's bias in including such a thing in the first place, as one person might think that proofreading a thesis is remarkable, while another may not. I mean, keep it in, but I think your reasons for doing so are dubious and probably based on fandom. That's cool, but please don't act like you yourself are neutral.Amynewyork4248 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I am neutral, and nothing I have said here would indicate otherwise. If you had made the same or a similar edit to any other article in my watchlist, it would have gotten the same response. We are (at least I am) talking about Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, verifiability, NPOV and being reflective of sources, not about "fandom."
Talk
04:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the following compromise: edit the article to the effect that "Sonja Yelich is quoted as saying that ..." followed by the claims that are based on the mother's quotes (in either or both the Telegraph or Rolling Stone). That way, if the reader wants to discount the claims on an assumption that maternal pride makes the mother a less-than-trustworthy reporter, the reader has that option -- versus you making the assumption and removing the information from the article.
Talk
05:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing I have said here has indicated that I'm not neutral either, yet you had no qualms insinuating that I'm not. The compromise is fine. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually was interested in reading Lorde's mother's thesis, and I found it not to exist! I checked the Australian and New Zealand thesis database available at my university. There are other New Zealand thesis databases to check, and it does not appear to exist there either. I looked at the University of Auckland and it is not in their library. I searched under "Yelich" and "Yelich-O'Connor" and no scholarly documents came up at all under the Yelich name at all. I thought the time-line was suspicious for her mother to be writing a thesis for a masters degree in 2010, when Lorde was 14, because Lorde's mother was awarded a fellowship to write poetry in 2010, which is very different from a masters program and they take normally 2-3 years to complete. I checked Lorde's mom's Wikipedia page as well as other references on the web, and I can't find any source that states in fact that her mother has a master's degree! So, I think the citation of what her mother about Lorde reading her thesis is highly flawed! Omnibus123(talk) 05:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not every thesis that is written is accepted and/or published (the first time, or necessarily ever); that doesn't mean it wasn't written. The fact that one was written (even if just a draft) is established in
talk · contribs
} 05:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles of feuds:

These are not feuds, but comments about music culture hyped by internet blogs, with few mainstream media covering the comments. A couple of sentences about Lorde's critique of pop music could be appropriate, however.
Adabow (talk
) 06:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I Agree. There is no need to make a big deal of this stuff; people talk all the time. But since some of her songs are on the subject of criticizing pop music, it wouldn't hurt to say a few words about that general, if its not already there. BollyJeff | talk 13:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Someone please fix the typo in the first paragraph! "...but felt the name Lord was to masculine so added an 'e' to make it more feminine." It should say "too", not "to". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb5000 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks, i've fixed it in both instances in the article! ~ Boomur [☎] 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Art pop"

The description for the Royals file calls it "art pop". Why is all modern pop music described as "art pop"? It has nothing in relation to the sort of Syd Barrett, Brian Eno, Beck sort of style that the genre is associated with. It is minimalist pop, yes, but not art pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.190.152.114 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal life + boyfriend?

Lorde actually has a boyfriend, according to some news sources. See LA Times and HP. Could this please be added to the article? 108.93.72.117 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So long as info' and sources are within the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons limits / safeguards we work to – Yes, I think a long-standing partner can go in.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias

This article is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.61 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What forms of bias and/or
WP:BIAS are you referring to, please? In which specific sub-sections / examples?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Legacy and influence < Influence < Popularity > Reach/Market penetration?

User:Soulparadox has rearranged, refocused, expladed the Legacy and influence section we had to the prevailing Influence section (oldid=586188573

).

I like the content, it's relevant / cohesive and enough / sufficiently distinctive to warrant a dedicated section. However, its not about "Influence" per se, it's all about

WP:PRECISE).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk
) 18:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am actually unsure. "Popularity" sounds too informal, so I would rather "Popular reception". I will give it more thought.--Soulparadox (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"Popular reception" fits the content much better, with room for moderate growth. It better suits sub-division (e.g. by time-period) and is quite orthodox – thus, good article navigation look'n'feel and it'll have become commonplace because it often works. How about putting that in, with a comment directing interested parties here?   – Ian,
The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) remake (sources pending). ;)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk
) 14:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Popular reception" sounds good. Go for it. BollyJeff | talk 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Soulparadox is having a think and, since the flames in the roof seem relatively small, I think up to 48hr chin-stoking is fine. :)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Discography: Apposite depth, precision, specification

Discography section: Context

Consensus

  1. WP:WPMAG#Discography_section
  2. WP:DISCOGSTYLE (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music
    )
  3. en:Discography

History of Lorde#Discography since Lorde discography creation

17:13, 27 October 2013 Greenock125: (see: Lorde&diff=578976869&oldid=prev)
09:20, 19 December 2013 DjScrawl: "+ The Love Club EP [later: tabulate to surface release Infobox summaries]"
11:19, 19 December 2013 DjScrawl: "+ Live in Concert + Lead"

Albums and EPs recorded by Lorde (see

discography for singles
):

  • The Love Club EP (March 2013, Universal Music Group)
  • Pure Heroine (September 2013, Universal Music)
  • Live in Concert
     (November 2013, Universal Music Group)
21:24, 19 December 2013
Adabow: "keep it simple. This is the consensus style for discographies on artists' articles
"
table.

If editors would like to contribute, it's: Talk:Lorde discography#When's the 1st "Royals" could've been considered a download single?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Too Much Over the Top

This too-long article treats the not-yet-twenty-year-old as some sort of genius worthy of such critical examination. Can we just have the facts? And not all the facts, either.

I notice that wikipedia is the favoured acre of every pop-artist that ever lived, with breathless recitations on someone who has just appeared on the scene (not to mention the old duds who were one-hit wonders fifty years ago). Do you truly think most pop/rock/etc. musicians would make it into a true encyclopedia? Why? because there was more to them than careers and 'personalities'.

Spare us the fevered chapters on personal life. Do you know what personal means? Don't you think there's a disconnect between publicizing someone's personal life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.78.109 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)