Talk:Lorde/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From 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 "Royals" sound specifically early-21st-century teen Southeast English, IMO. The rest's like the same adopting a 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 The Beatles sing in an American accent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 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, Lorde redirected to Audre Lorde who is also known to those who know her work as Lorde. The creation of the singer/songwriter's page overwrote the redirect to the writer/activist (who is highly notable and might be expected to remain so well after the singer's star has faded). Dwpaul (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To answer the question you posed at Talk:Lorde (disambiguation) (not here), my !vote is that Lorde should be a disambiguation page (as it was -- briefly -- before you moved it without consensus) per policy, since no one of the 3 potential meanings enumerated there is primary. Dwpaul (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)
@Gadfium:Thank you. There was only the single Talk section about the subject's accent prior to the move, so I can't imagine the Talk history was/is significant. Dwpaul (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@ShakyIsles:May I gently suggest you may have a Wikipedia:Vested interest as the creator[2] of the article on the singer/songwriter (which overwrote the then existing redirect), and that this may have/yet influence your position on this question? Dwpaul (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 WP:2DABS.) Dwpaul (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 Madonna, Queen, Journey. These are all trademarked names for musical performers. Trademarking does not invalidate or diminish a claim for all other uses, especially when we are talking about names of living persons. Trademarks for a particular use have nothing to do with disambiguation, but if they did, these examples would support my argument. Dwpaul (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)

@ShakyIsles: If you intended that this be an RfC, as your comments on the other Talk pages now pointing to this one suggest, please pose the question here (offering two or more clear alternatives to be considered). At the moment, the question does not appear on this page, which may be confusing for some potential !voters. Dwpaul (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 Template:Use British (Oxford) English, common in Template:Use British English and, without it, I my 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)
MOS:FOREIGN states "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines." The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary lists "debut" but not "début". Adabow (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I am disarmed :) Meanwhile, according to wiktionary:début (my 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)? Dwpaul (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. Dwpaul (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 Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses), then by all means it can be included in the article. Until then, our hands are tied. I've sent messages to a couple of Flickr users to ask them to release their Lorde photos under a suitable licence, but I haven't heard back from either of them yet. 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. Dwpaul (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. Dwpaul (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)
Adabow, thanks again and specifically to you, then! I emailed Kirk per his request to let him know that they've been placed, and also respond on his Talk just to be thorough. Dwpaul (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 List of awards an nominations received by Lorde. What about the format at Nicole Scherzinger#Awards and nominations?. 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

@Amynewyork4248: You seem to have some problem allowing the claims concerning the subject's early accomplishments (specifically, her helping to edit her mother's thesis at 14) to stand as described in the cited source. You first removed that claim altogether as "not verifiable," then (after this was reverted) inserted a statement that (only) the subject makes that claim. You do not know (and neither do I) that the author of the cited article did not interview the subject's mother and/or others to confirm the information appearing in the article. While you may be skeptical of the claim, your skepticism is not NPOV and does not need to be (should not be) reflected in the wording of this Wikipedia article. The information is here because it is relevant to a biographical article on the subject and appears in a reliable source, and does not require qualification or expression of doubt here. Dwpaul 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] Dwpaul Talk 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize that a mother claiming their child did something noteworthy was considered verifiable. I also didn't realize that a parent had a NPOV. Sorry to offend. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Parents don't need to have a NPOV (and rarely do). That's a Wikipedia requirement, not one of parenthood. We report here what is relevant and reported in our sources, and try not to reflect our own biases, even our disbelief. It is verifiable to the extent that the mother is quoted as saying that it happened, and there are no known conflicting sources. We do not need more. Dwpaul 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." Dwpaul 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. Dwpaul 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 reliable sources (see Rolling Stone cite above); you are engaged in original research, which has no place in this article and should not be used to contradict reliable sources. Dwpaul Talk 01:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversial feuds?

I wouldn't really consider it as 'controversial feuds', but I was wondering, would adding her 'comments' towards other musician's be added in the "Musical Style" or have it's own "Feuds" sub-article, or should it not be added? Please response GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 05:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles of feuds:

  • Nicki Minaj and Drake [5]
  • Lana Del Rey [6]
  • David Guetta [7] and his comment: [8]
  • Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez [9]
  • Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber [10]
  • One Direction [11]
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 reach/market penetration. Thus, without encumbering ourselves with the explanation of marketing term(s) to the Universe – How about we rename the section Popularity (or similar as/more 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, DjScrawl (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
In fact, "This sure ain't Kansas" would fit the content better than "Influence" and be funnier, also being well prepared for Tim Burton recruiting Yelich-O'Connor for a 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):

21:24, 19 December 2013 Adabow: "keep it simple. This is the consensus style for discographies on artists' articles"

Discography section: Threaded discussion

Lorde#Discography has thrashed a little since the inception of Lorde discography (see history, above). Obviously (from my edits and their annotation), I disagree with WP:WPMAG#Discography_section regarding the amount of info' from the dedicated discography article exposed/uplifted to the musician article, which I may take-up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines. Here I'd like to discuss:

  1. Absence of a date in our current
  2. The inclusion of The Love Club EP (since WPMAG supports article-wise EP inclusion and The_Love_Club_EP#Track_listing contains the original releases of: "Bravado" (Lorde's 10th most listened song), "Million Dollar Bills", "The Love Club" (12th most listened), "Biting Down" and, on US iTunes version, "Swingin' Party"; which're not on the standard Pure_Heroine#Track_listing.
  3. Subsequently, increasing the date precision to show the month – since, with EP(s) included, release frequency generally becomes higher than annually.
  4. Also, since we're in the realm of WP:EDM, remixes tend to be highly distinct, thus there may be justified to include orig' releases with remixes (which are not on a pre-Lorde#Discography-elevated release). However, I do not currently know the remixes well enough to make such a justification myself.   – Ian DjScrawl (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

When's the 1st "Royals" could've been considered a download single?

A question of how we represent "Royals" parental-release – The Love Club EP (then SoundCloud or retail) or Pure Heroine – from when/which we represent that on the Lorde discography#Singles 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)

  • @184.144.78.109: Thanks for commenting. It seems, you may have some useful input – However, it's not made clear, for me.
Your wider Wikipedia Music disgruntlement seems like as side-rant, which is refuted by was for: (a) Why? How? See: Wikipedia:Notability (music) inc WP:CSB (b) In a search / linked-navigation environment folk are unlikely to find themselves on pages that they had not clicked in positive interest (c) If you are criticising editors allocation of time/effort, ! (This comment is ironic.) I suggest you try doubling our remuneration. ! (This comment is ironic.)
NB: The majority of requests we get for more info' that we get on the comments-feature is for more personal stuff. Where we have verified content to that effect, it's inclusion is mitigated by WP:BLP.
Elaboration vis "too-long" and "fevered chapters" would be of most germane interest.   – Thanks, Ian DjScrawl (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Can't say I disagree. At this point, she is a one-hit wonder, at least here in the States. There really is nothing negative posted in this article despite a wide range of criticism available about this person via a basic Internet search. A bit more neutrality for this article wouldn't be a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.29.251 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Lorde might be a one-hit wonder in the States, but she's not in New Zealand. Wikipedia does not have an American-focus and articles can indeed be about notable people who are completely unknown in America. Robyn2000 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Her full name

I think her name in the lead section should be shortened to Ella Yelich-O'Connor. Her real name is too long for the intro and should remain only in the infobox, don't you think? Also, besides Lorde, of course, the media/the industry usually refers to her simply as Ella Yelich-O'Connor (example), without these two middle names. --Helptottt (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:FULLNAME for the MOS guideline on this matter. Adabow (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


"Minimal" under genre

I'm removing "minimal" from genres of her music; while her music could be described as "minimal" in the literal sense of the word, it has nothing to do with "minimal music," the genre that one gets linked to, which is people like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, etc. Unless someone wants to start a "minimal pop" article with reliable sources etc., "minimal" should refer to minimalist music and not pop described as minimal. 142.157.229.164 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) <edit: well actually I can't edit it because the article is semi-protected, but I advocate for it being removed> 142.157.229.164 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request jan 2014

in the third paragraph of the "Career" section the last sentence is "She performed before 10,000 people in northern Byron Bay, Australia, where the festival is based in 2013.[25]" I am quite sure she PERFORMED IN FRONT OF, not before the people. Sounds like a german/dutch person might have written this? Wassermelone89 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

i'm confused—isn't "in front of" one of the meanings of before? ~ Boomur [☎] 01:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It is where I come from (neither Germany nor the Netherlands). Otherwise, to be entirely accurate, we would have to say "She performed in front of and slightly above 10,000 people."  ;-) Dwpaul Talk 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright then, sorry for the distraction. just Sounds weird to my ears. Wassermelone89 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Suppressed Grammy speech

Just a spoof
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've read that for her grammy acceptance speech she delivered a long diatribe about capatilism, but this was not broadcast with some rehearsal footage show instead. I've read this on a blog so it does not count as a WP:RS does anyone elese know about this? Source Clipping Queen Bee’s Wings: Lorde’s real Grammy speech suppressed, Lorde’s Suppressed Grammy Award acceptance speech (Full Transcript) 26 January 2014 both from http://snoopman.wordpress.com/.--Salix alba (talk): 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a joke to me made up by that blogger. Definitely has not been covered by any reliable sources. STATic message me! 20:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The blogger (Snoopman) classifies it as, "Satire, sarcasm and snoofs," the "snoofs" have gone viral on Facebook. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the other odd thing is its fully referenced. Not the sort of thing you get in a speech.--Salix alba (talk): 06:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

  • "I started writing songs when I was 13 or 14, because I've always been a huge reader. My mum's a poet and we've always had so many books, and that's always been a big thing for me, arguably more so than music." —Lorde speaking of her songwriting technique[5]

She doesn't mention any technique and it's sufficient to mention what she said in the article without a quote box.

  • Lorde's mother encouraged her to read books and is quoted as saying that at age 12 Lorde was reading Raymond Carver and Kurt Vonnegut[17][18] and at 14 she was proofreading her master's thesis for her.[17]

This is pretty biased, Lorde reading books by "impressive" authors and proofreading her mother's thesis isn't notable information at all.

  • Flom played the EP to Sean Parker who loved it and added "Royals" to his very influential Spotify playlist Hipster International.[21]

How can a Spotify playlist be very influential? Inclusion of this isn't necessary.

  • She was contacted on 26 July 2013, the Friday immediately prior to the weekend of the festival, while she was at a party with friends in Auckland, New Zealand. She performed before 10,000 people in northern Byron Bay, Australia, where the festival is based in 2013.[26]

Where she was when she got the call asking her to perform and in front of how many people is not notable information.

  • In a September 2013 interview for TV3's 3rd Degree, Lorde revealed that she had declined an offer from singer Katy Perry to be a supporting act on Perry's world tour.[39][40]

Not notable information, a lot of people decline offers to support other singers.

  • Lorde was the subject of a Rolling Stone magazine cover story in January 2014,[44] with her pictured wearing a t-shirt of the cover art of The Cramps' album Bad Music for Bad People.[45]

Being on the cover of a magazine and what clothes she was wearing is trivial.

  • Lorde's voice is "unique and powerfully intriguing" according to music online publication PopMatters and has been described as being "way beyond her years"[51][52]

This is not a description of her voice, just compliments.

  • Lorde's writing style and lyrical context on The Love Club EP has been described as aiming "to capture what it really is to be a teen", singing from a range of topics including the "all-consuming nature of friendship" to "finding yourself come hell or high water."[57] [...] Pure Heroine lyrical themes have been said to "explore classic teen-pop themes – social anxiety, romantic yearning, debilitating ennui, booze-soaked ragers – with an eerie, zoomed-out detachment;"[58] and be "certainly underpin[ed by]" "an adolescent aggrievance and angst."[59] Rolling Stone wrote "Lorde's languidly aphoristic lyrics balance rock-star swagger and torqued-up teenage angst" and that her lyrics "have a rattle-nerve pathos and power like nothing else going in 2013."[60]

Her lyrical themes don't have to be repeated over and over, summarizing them in one or two sentences would be enough.

  • Lorde has also indicated that she is influenced by artists who originated in the late 1970s era of American alternative and punk rock. She was photographed on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine wearing a t-shirt for the Cramps album Bad Music For Bad People[46]

The content of the first sentence isn't mentioned in the source and the second part is trivial information.

  • The entire "stage presence" part is unnecessary and is just a list of compliments she's gotten.
  • In a November 2013 interview, Lorde expressed a kind of bewilderment at the financial rewards that will accompany her fame and dismissively stated that she will use the money on "geeky" items such as "first-edition books and rare pressings of records."
  • The artist also provided an insight into a history of frugality in the same interview: "I am so used to not having money that spending over $200—I don't even think I could do it."[73]

Biased and unnecessary information.

  • Regarding her relationship: just mention his name and age, not where they've gone together, her feelings about him or his work, that doesn't belong here.
  • The "Achievements" section is unnecessary, just mention those things in the Career section.

Littlecarmen (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay so the issues in the first bullet point and the 11th bullet point you mentioned were removed. I changed the issues with the the Spotify comment, the festival, her influences, and her boyfriend. Hope that helped. I read this article a couple of times and I don't think think it's biased now. I don't know if you really don't like Lorde or something but it's neutral. The comments about her singing style, lyrics, stage presence, etc, aren't "compliments" as you said. They're just describing. If you still think there's bias then you should change it yourself instead of just pointing it out.--Divine618 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing wrong with pointing out the issues like this. Thank you for providing detailed feedback and thank you to divine for responding to them. I was going to, but my time is severly limited at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
"unique and powerfully intriguing" and "way beyond her years" don't tell the reader anything about her voice, her vocal range and singing style should be described but those really are just comments, not descriptions. The third paragraph of the "Voice and music" section keep repeating the same thing. I think that should be summarized. I have nothing against Lorde, I like some of her music, but I still think Wikipedia articles should be as informational and neutral as possible. I have tried to make some of the changes I suggested in my first comment but it was just reverted so I decided to wait and see what other editors thought. I still stand by the other points I made in that comment. Littlecarmen (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

400 Lux

I know that Lorde also made a song called 400 Lux and it is one of my favorites, but they didn't mention it in the article. :-( Dance3600 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

See Pure Heroine. Adabow (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ella Maria Lani Yelich-O'Connor

Is her name Ella Maria Lani Yelich-O'Connor? I do not think there is a J in her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmmwa (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All Apologies

I think performing with Nirvana is important enough to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.152 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I put in an edit request for that to be mentioned but it was initially denied because I forgot to add sources. I just re-activated the request and there's now five sources there that all have the possibility to be deemed reliable enough to get this mentioned. If you could help me out by adding more sources that'd be great! :) Thanks in advance, YLCC23 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)YLCC23

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

Can someone add even a small sentence mentioning her performance of All Apologies with the surviving members of Nirvana? YLCC23 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)YLCC23 04:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11236544 http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6049353/nirvana-joined-by-joan-jett-kim-gordon-st-vincent-lorde-at-rock-hall-ceremony http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lorde-is-giving-dave-grohl-hope-for-the-future-of-pop-music-20140425 are these articles deemed reliable enough sources to include something about Lorde performing "All Apologies" with the remaining members of Nirvana at their Hall of Fame induction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.212.39 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nirvana-reunite-with-lorde-joan-jett-on-vocals-for-rock-hall-of-fame-20140411 Would this be considered a reliable source? How about a video of her performing All Apologies with the surviving members? Is that considered reliable enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKOYlt6XE8o YLCC23 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)YLCC23

These sources are all reliable, except the YouTube video. However, is this notable enough to include? If so, where in the article should it be added? Adabow (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. I just put in the sentence myself along with all of the sources that were presented here. Thank you 210.55.212.39 for the three sources. :) Adabow I added it under career, as that is technically what it was part of. YLCC23 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)YLCC23
YLCC23, just to let you know, according to this page's protection level and your user rights, you should have been able to go in and make the edits yourself without having to post a request. Registered users are able to edit semi-protected articles after 4 days and 10 edits (see Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed). Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Mz7 I'm aware of that, but when I made the request I was not autoconfirmed. I didn't actually become autoconfirmed until about half an hour ago. If I had been autoconfirmed back then I would've made the edit right away. Thanks for reminding me about that policy though :) YLCC23 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)YLCC23

@YLCC23: Trout me please. I didn't realize you were the one who actually implemented the change. Interestingly enough, your tenth edit was the edit request itself. So technically, by making an edit request, you allowed yourself to go in and make the change... Anyway, thanks for your contributions! smile Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lorde

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lorde's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AUS":

  • From Broods: "Discography Broods". Australian-charts.com. (Hung Medien). Retrieved 26 February 2014.
  • From Lorde discography: Peak positions in Australia:
  • From Lea Michele: Hung, Steffen. "Discography Lea Michele". Australian Charts Portal. Hung Medien (Steffen Hung).
  • From Disclosure (band): Peak positions in Australia:
  • From James Arthur discography: Hung, Steffen. "Discography James Arthur". Australian Charts Portal. Hung Medien (Steffen Hung).

Reference named "NZ":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Lorde

IPA symbols for "Lorde"

This article incorrectly showed an /r/ phoneme among the IPA characters for "Lorde".

Please note that in NZ English, the /r/ is not uttered (because NZE is non-rhotic).

In NZE, the name "Lorde" rhymes with "awed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lorde/Archive_1&oldid=1090568189"