Talk:Kylie Minogue

Kylie Minogue Editor Request

Hi. I was reading the Kylie Minogue Wikipedia entry as research for something and feel the personal life section needs to be edited. In the section it is broken down into segments dealing with specific areas of her personal life, specifically Philanthropy and Health.

It begins with the Philanthropy segment, however the very first sentence of it does not deal with anything even remotely relating to Philanthropy, instead it reads as follows "Minogue has never married and has no children".

Even if we're going by the broadest of definitions available you would have to agree that this sentence does not belong in this segment. I feel that either creating an additional segment or removing it entirely would be appropriate. 2A02:C7E:163E:C600:3415:6050:C214:492F (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the random sentence and moved it to the top of the section, but I also added a template requesting more information. That sentence alone is a sad excuse of an intro for the personal life section. Something about it also just feels wrong. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Shoestringnomad, you need to chill out. I'm not sure what "it [...] just feels wrong" is supposed to mean; but at any rate, nothing about that blurb was inaccurate because among other things, it was well-sourced. What is inaccurate is your claim that other editors removed it; in fact, the only other editor who seemed to have a problem with it was an IP whose only edit was at the beginning of this very talk page section. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Erpert, Rhodes00 is another editor that reverted your edit, not an anonymous IP address. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see that at first; but frankly, edit summaries like that don't even deserve a response. Anyway, are you going to honestly say that you have never seen another BLP on here that mentions marital status? More than that, your main issue seems to be that that didn't fall under philanthropy; that's debatable, but it certainly falls under her personal life. If you think it doesn't, please explain how. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Rhodes00's edit summary pretty much gets to the point. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

People who search at Wikipedia look for facts and things that DO happened. Being childless and unmarried says absolutely nothing about her. Marriage and motherhood aren't innate goals of a woman, of anyone, really. However, I think it's worth mentioning her past desire to have children and how she learnt to cope with it after her breast cancer diagnose. Rhodes00 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So you agree with incivility? Anyway, no one addressed the point that plenty of articles mention the respective subjects being childless and unmarried (for example, Patricia Clarkson, Debra Jo Rupp, Martha Wash). Do y'all plan to remove the blurbs from those respective articles as well simply because you don't want it there? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(←) Who was being uncivil? As it was written, stating she was married and childless lacked context for why it could be considered noteworthy. Rhodes00's suggestion to provide such context is not a bad one, but that has not been attempted. Perhaps you just want it there. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-asking questions that were already answered goes nowhere (as well as trying to reuse an argument against me that I already used). Anyway, I find it interesting that you are avoiding addressing the simple point that I made. Unless you plan to go the respective articles of every person who mentions being unmarried and childless and removing them all, my point is valid. A vote does not equal consensus. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Sasse

Joshua Sasse should be added to the relationships section since they dated for 3 years and he has a Wikipedia article 2A00:23EE:1490:FA2E:D531:611F:714E:4A04 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Kylie Sasse" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kylie Sasse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2 § Kylie Sasse until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Love Kylie" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Love Kylie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 3 § Love Kylie until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Bio Dome

don't forget Bio-Dome, as much as some people may want to. I love that flick. 174.251.135.167 (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

@Tomica: for your information, I was the one that added the #1 albums in five consecutive decades info in the Disco section back in 2020. You can look it up in the edit history of the article. That info was merely copied/pasted in the top of the article by another editor later on. I gave a valid reason for removing it in the opening section. Her other achievements in the charts such quantity of number one hits in Uk/Australia and record of top 10 hits in 5 consecutive decades both in Australia and the UK aren't mentioned as well in the opening paragraph. I made a Valid point about "Especially for You", "Timebomb" and "Santa Baby", you gave ZERO reason for adding "Timebomb" and "Santa Baby" back in the opening paragraph. "Santa Baby" is not a Kylie Minogue single. Timebomb peaked at 32 in the Uk and didn't enter top ten in Australia. Both songs aren't more successful than Especially for You which is a #1 hit in the UK and #2 in Australia. If you wanna edit war, probably best to take it here in the talk page so we could discuss it more. You've pretty much reverted everything I did in the opening paragraphs, and only restored I Believe in You and Padam Padam, when you were called out for editing without using the edit summary. I don't appreciate this behavior. TheHotwiki (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: First things first, calm down and stop being passive-aggressive about it. Neither you nor I own ANY article on Wikipedia. I was called out only by YOU for actually just merging the sentence into the paragraph. And yes, those things should be mentioned because guess what? She is a singer foremost, and then everything else. Her movie career can be omitted from the lead tbh, because it is merely notable. However, her music records and achievements should be present there. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but this is a featured article, so any changes should of high quality and not break-up the prose like it is the state of the lead right now. — Tom^(T2ME) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

She achieved so much more than #1 albums in five decades. Her achievements such as top ten hits in five decades, quantity of number one singles both in UK/Australia aren't mentioned in the opening paragraph, as well sales figures. Yet #1 albums in five consecutive decades is mentioned? I didn't remove it again as a way to compromise. Also, me mentioning that I was the one who added the same info in Disco section back in 2020, is just me showing that I don't disregard the #1 albums in 5 decades achievement. @Tomica: I just don't appreciate every recent edit I did in the opening paragraph were reverted for absolutely zero explanation, and I wouldn't have gotten an explanation if I didn't call you out. TheHotwiki (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Then add what else she has achieved music-wise, not just the album thing. Still, we need to focus on her music achievements and highlights in the lead, not some minor roles she had or some books with 0 impact she wrote. Where is the mention of Kylie Wines in the lead? That itself is more important than her movie roles or the books we are trying to mention. At the end of the day, I am not saying you don't care about UK #1 album in 5 decades' information, but still, it is a really big feat, and it should be mentioned. — Tom^(T2ME) 15:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Your concerns about her film appearances/books and the wine business are another issues though, which have nothing to do with my recent edits. I am aware of the success of Kylie Minogue Wines and I'm in agreement that it should be mentioned as well next to her other endeavors.TheHotwiki (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Tension Tour 2024

@T929212: Kylie Minogue hasn't OFFICIALLY announced a Tension Tour for 2024. The press are merely assuming it that she would have a tour in support of her forthcoming sixteenth studio album. The Word is Out she may have a tour for it, but it ISN'T OFFICIALLY announced. There is no start date, no locations, no any announcement coming from the 10 Out of 10 singer herself, Kylie Minogue, in her official website and any of her official social media accounts about a Tension tour. Please stop edit warring and wait until Kylie Minogue officially announce and Say Something about a Tension Tour in 2024. I started this discussion Especially for You, to prevent more edit warring and disruption towards the article. Feel free to reply. Thank you for cooperation! TheHotwiki (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

This is a note to the editor who has been drastically changing the lead section. First of all not all her PWL albums are teen pop albums. Rhythm of Love and Let's Get to It aren't and I can provide several references to back that up. "Padam Padam" is a hit but its not a cultural moment (this isn't even referenced anywhere in the article) when it only charted at the top ten in 2 major English speaking markets (Uk/Ireland). Having #1 albums and a top ten in five consecutive decades in the UK, are backed up with real official data and isn't some made up claim, unlike "cultural moments". If I remember correctly, I removed the "#1 number albums in five consecutive decades" only to be reverted back. So I'm taking consideration of that revert into this scenario as well, that it should remain here. TheHotwiki (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I will add more, once the recent editor drastically change the lead section again.TheHotwiki (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@PHShanghai: Instead of dropping edit warring warnings in my talk page, you should be discussing things in the article's talkpage like I've suggested earlier. Not all her PWL albums are teen pop albums. "Padam Padam" isn't a cultural significant moment, especially when that claim from yours is unreferenced. Those are just some of my issues with you drastically changing the lead section.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

quite frankly you are edit warring though PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Insignificant (but productive) lead changes contested by one editor

@Hotwiki: Remember that WP:BURO and WP:BATTLE. That being said, all of the changes I am making to the lead are simple facts reinstated from their respective lead sections:

Confide in Me: "Confide in Me" has been recognised by authors as an important period of Minogue's career and musical "re-inventions".

Can't Get You Out of My Head: "The song reached number one on charts in 40 countries worldwide."

• This holds more long-lasting weight than the "most successful 2000s single" line, however truth be told there is space for both records to be mentioned in some form.

Say Something / Magic: Truth be told, in the version you blindly reverted, you would see that the "critical praise" comment was removed from the sentence mentioning her notable singles released in the BMG era. I simply added the two as they were her lead singles from Disco.

• You may have assumed that I just simply reverted, however you did not see that there were changes made to accommodate some of your feedback.

Padam Padam (song): "Since its release, Padam Padam [...] has been recognised by notable publications for its cultural significance in pop culture."

• Why are you saying my claim is unreferenced? It's right there in the third paragraph of the lead section and it's been there for months now.

Tension (album): "Tension received critical acclaim from music critics. On Metacritic, [...] the album scored 86 [...] indicating universal acclaim, making it Minogue's highest-rated album on the site."

• This is Kylie's highest acclaimed album according to critics; why do you insist on removing it? It is a massive achievement for a woman of her legacy to still release some of her best albums late in her career.

Re: UK Record: Please provide a source from the Official Charts Company that specifically highlights that Kylie "is the only female artist to have no. 1 albums and top ten singles in the 1980s and 2020s in the UK." With that specific phrasing.

• So far, the only source I can find from OCC is that she is the fourth solo artist to achieve top 10 hits in 5 decades; which is however different from what the article is saying. Unless proven otherwise, this source lacks verifiability.

Rolling Stone Australia: "[Kylie] is an icon, a living legend and is in a league of her own."

• I don't even know why you want to remove this one. See articles like Beyoncé. These big Rolling Stone listicles have weight; they're not just throwaway mentions of artists impact.

Furthermore:

• You added back the Billboard reference next to her birthday, which does not mention her birthday nor anything regarding the other Kylie. What purpose does it serve?

• The Vice fashion icon article doesn't seem to be any more lead worthy than the Rolling Stone article which you keep removing. There is a seperate section for "public image."

I will concede that the PWL albums may not all be "teen pop" genre; I have not listened to those and I have no judgements on them yet whatsoever.

Lastly: there is no rule against making "drastic changes" to the lead section (changes I have shown that are backed up with proper information and sources). There are, however, rules against being rude (WP:HOSTILE) and rules against preventing other editors from making changes to an article. (WP:OOP) PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Only Cher, Lulu, Kylie Minogue and Diana Ross have scored a top ten hit single in 5 consecutive decades in the UK. Per Official Charts Company. Cher, Lulu and Ross have done it the 60s to 2000s, while Minogue achieved it from the 80s to the 2010s. Kylie Minogue is also the only female artist to have a number one album in five consecutive decades (from the 80s to 20s) in the UK. Have you read the references attached to the article? The sources for those are included in the achievements section. Now feel free to point out if there's another artist that have scored a top ten single in the UK from the 80s to the 2010s. These are significant achievements and aren't made up or based on someone's opinion, compare to you claiming that "Padam Padam" is a culturally significant moment".TheHotwiki (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there's no need to mention every lead single that Minogue have released, in the lead section (hence why Into the Blue", "Word is Out" and "Some Kind of Bliss" aren't mentioned and this isn't a discography article or an albums article). "Say Something" and "Magic" didn't chart in the top 40 in her main markets (Australia and the UK). No sales certifications as well. Only mention the truly significant singles in the lead section. "Dancing" is mentioned because it was the first single under BMG Rights Management and have been certified Silver in Australia and the UK. You cannot claim that to "Say Something" and "Magic".TheHotwiki (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)