Talk:Ladyhawke (musician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

i have a picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineafowlman (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger[edit]

Hi, I added the Asperger data and link, I have it too (asperger) and think Pip is great :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.174.250.32 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, I added that she plays all the instruments :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.174.250.32 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I registered :D Moonsafari (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Erysipelas?[edit]

Did she really contract this disease? What were the odds? Seeing as no human in New Zealand had gotten Erysipelas in 20 years since Pip got it, I'm not sure if I believe it, also I'm doing a project about her and I CAN'T TOLERATE INCORRECT INFORMATION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.115.91 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's erysipeloid, not erysipelas.86.135.229.113 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year[edit]

Trying to determine Ladyhawke's birth year, I've found the following details.

Age Published Source
26 11 February 2008 [1]
26 8 August 2008 [2]
26 25 September 2008 [3]
27 11 September 2008 [4]
28 19 January 2009 [5]
28 March 2009 [6]
29 19 April 2009 [7]
30 8 April 2009 [8]

Additionally the ezine Supersweet states the year is 1981 [9]

The results are contradictory, indicating a range from 9 April 1978 to 11 February 1982. XLerate (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'dd trust the one from 8 April 2009 the most, to be honest.86.135.229.113 (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the year it was published make a difference to its credibility? If an article was published a year ago stating that 2+2=4, and I wrote my own article today stating that 2+2 is in fact equal to 7, does that make me right because my assertion is newer? Information used should be based on credibility, not how shiny and brand new it is. Dylan (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

From a quick glance the 14 July 1979 date seems more accurate and reliable. The tweets re: 'birthday present yesterday' were dated 15 July and also support that same date not 13 July. I'm going to change all birth date information to 14 July 1979 within the article. A better source is needed for 13 July.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hey there,

How are you so sure Ladyhawke was born on 14 July 1979? Also, how come you changed the dates of these links: http://twitter.com/#!/ladyhawkeforyou/status/2635582058 http://twitter.com/#!/ladyhawkeforyou/status/2636039529 from 14 July 2009 to 15 July 2009?

Matthew Fennell (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred the above query from my talkpage. When I looked at the first tweet I noticed the date/time stamp has "3:31 AM - 15 Jul 09" and believe that when it says "Got a PS3 for my birthday yesterday! :-D" that means she celebrated her birthday on 14 July. However the tweet can be interpreted that she got the PS3 yesterday and that it was for her birthday but on some other day. (Presents can be handed out early or late). Upon further consideration, there is a possibility that the tweet's date stamp will appear differently in different time zones – I'm in Australia at UT + 10. Your view may differ.
The second tweet has "4:01 AM - 15 Jul 09" which reiterates the date as being 15 July for this tweet.
With the possibility of some confusion, I suggest we leave both of the Twitter references in the article. I wonder if other editors also see 15 July? A less ambiguous source is needed to nail her dob.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the 13 July date gets another tweet confirmation. Her official page has her forthcoming tour schedule here and she is due to perform at "Sanfrancisco Bathhouse, Wellington, 171 Cuba Street, Central Wellington, Wellington" on that date. Her tweet at 10:26 AM - 10 Apr 12, has details "Also just announced some dates for a Kiwi/Aussie tour! The wellington show is on my birthday!"
I'm happy to change the article to have 13 July as her dob.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence of the main text looks like its got some ref clutter: currently 8 refs. I'm going to use a ref cluster, I'll delete the two older tweets: they don't add anything extra compared with the 10 April tweet. Hope this will make it neater to read.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal[edit]

I see it as totally unwarranted that this article has a separate discography. Ladyhawke is still a relatively short article - it's hardly like The Beatles or Genesis (band) where a separate discography article is necessary to keep sizes manageable. Forcing users to load another page to see fundamental information about an artist is really unhelpful. Furthermore, I think a merged article would have a good shot a GA status. Separately, no chance. dramatic (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support I was trying to get the discography up to FL status, but the lack of size probably won't allow that...yet. Adabow (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Why would this article be any different to any other article on a musical performer, except for The Beatles etc. as you've mentioned whose discography needs to be separate. The article is not even that long, neither is her discography, its silly that they're separate and goes against the norm that is used for other articles of the same category. Uniformity is key. Dylan (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree On the grounds that - 1) It's very common to see articles of musicians with separate discography pages and 2) I'm generally a wiki-separatist. -- I'ḏ♥One 06:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Because: 1) Many artists have separate discography pages 2) Ladyhawke will release a new album this year. The discography page will have additional info (new album, singles, etc) 21:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepblue1 (talk • contribs)

LGBT category[edit]

I've removed Category:LGBT people from New Zealand from the article, because under our BLP policy, this requires a source showing she self-identifies as LGBT. I have found a couple of sources saying she is gay,[10][11] but none that confirm self-identification as such. --Avenue (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ladyhawke / Wonky pop[edit]

I added Wonky pop [[12]] as one of Ladyhawke's associated genre's but this was deleted although she is included on the page with a Guardian article to back up the association.Why was it deleted.If it had a consensus on that page surely the same applies to this page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean it has consensus there. It's meaningless, you need to discuss and arrive at consensus among the editors here about changes to info boxes. Without discussion they quickly grow out of control with every inserting there own opinions in the info boxes. Ridernyc (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record I oppose the addition of "Wonky Pop". I feel info boxes should present the larger actual genres and not ever increasing stylistic sub-genres. Ridernyc (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1981 year of birth according to IMDB.COM[edit]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3413563/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

IMDB.com puts her year of birth as 1981, but this wikipedia article says she was born in 1979. Both sources can't be true, so which one is right? This is wikipedia, which is prone to vandalism, and there is no citation given whatsoever in the article, so I'm more inclined to believe IMDB on this. --99.24.181.162 (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ladyhawke (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ladyhawke (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ladyhawke (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ladyhawke (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2022[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– I believe the musician is far more likely to be the primary topic over the disambiguation page. Looking at the pageviews, the musician received 4,405 pageviews over the last three weeks, which is an average of 210 a day (as seen here), compared to the disambiguation page, which received 656 pageviews during the same time period, an average of 31 a day (as seen here). Naturally, pageviews aren't the only thing which determine primary topics, but the comprehensive coverage of the subject within the article is indicative of her lasting influence and legacy when compared to other articles by this name. Sean Stephens (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Pageviews [13] are unquestionably in favour of Ladyhawke (film), not the musician. 162 etc. (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the film has a lasting influence as well with the article mentioning that it was nominated for two Academy Awards. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The film is also a potential significant topic, so there is no primary topic here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no primary topic with respect to usage (Wikinav stats). – Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: Sean Stephens, in your pageviews link you're not comparing like with like. Dab pages almost always receive significantly less traffic than the articles they link to; that's because they generally have no incoming links, from within or outside Wikipedia, and the search engine don't send any meaningful traffic to them (and links and search engines are what accounts for the vast majority of the pageviews for each page). If the pageview statistics are to be used, you'd need to compare not one article against the dab page, but all the articles between themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this explanation; I apologise for only seeing this now. I guess this disambiguation page is effectively a two-entry disambiguation page, with the album making up a third entry. Taking a look at the film article, I didn't feel there was much coverage compared to the musician, but I guess that's just my assessment of it. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per other comments.Mozzie (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's a musician called Ladyhawke?! Seriously, the classic film is just as notable and has clear long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ladyhawke_(musician)&oldid=1207400158"