Jump to content

Talk:AJ Michalka

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davey2010 (talk | contribs) at 00:24, 28 June 2018 (OneClickArchiver archived picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Justify the separate articles

Explain why each half of a duo who are not notable separate from each other should have separate articles when evrything that's in this individual articles is already in the article for the duo. There should not be three separate articles with the same information in them. Otto4711 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is similar information in each article, but Alyson Michalka and Amanda Michalka are both notable picture, and in the future, their articles will differ. Acalamari 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what "both notable picture" means. The simple fact is that as of now the two are not notable as individuals. They are only notable as members of the duo and the information in the individual articles is all but identical to the information in the duo article. If at some point in future they have solo careers or are in any other way notable as individuals, then fine, write separate articles. But separate articles for each girl to list the same discography, filmography and background information is pointless. Otto4711 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, heh, I actually meant "both notable people." I do agree though that both articles need expansion. I don't think changing them both to redirects is the answer. Acalamari 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand them with what, exactly? What information is there that is pertinent to one and not the other? We are not talking about Sonny and Cher or Donny and Marie here. Look at the articles. All three talk about where they were born, all three talk about how they moved to Seattle with their parents, all three have filmographies and discographies. They do not have solo careers or independent ventures. The likelihood that someone will be looking for information about them as individuals as opposed to as a duo is extremely low. There is no justification for maintaining separate articles. I suspect that your objections are rooted largely in WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion discussion: you wanted to change both the pages to redirects, and bringing up WP:ILIKEIT here counts as a personal attack. Acalamari 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it does not. Don't be absurd. Otto4711 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keeping the articles "only because I like them." Yes, I do like Aly & AJ, but that's not the only reason why I want to keep both the articles. Both pages have been in existence for well over a year, which I find weird that you choose now as the time to have both the pages turned into redirects. How about we do this then: let's remove the "dual filmography" section in Aly & AJ and incorporate them into both the articles about the Michalka sisters. The personal filmographies of Alyson Michalka and Amanda Michalka do vary, so we can focus editing there. If it's possible we can also find some information about each of the girls. If we do these two things, we should be able to get differences between all three articles. Anyway, the Amanda Michalka page is different from the Alyson Michalka page, but yes, both do need some work. I don't believe that turning each page into a redirect is the solution here. We also mustn't limit the improvements to us though; we should allow other users to suggest things too, we're not talking about editing a section here: we talking about removing the encyclopedic content of both articles. Acalamari 04:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Subject

As the notability of the subject is in dispute here, would someone please outline what part of WP:BIO this subject meets? Alan.ca 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the duo passes WP:BIO but the girls individually do not. However, given that I have been falsely accused of vandalism for boldly redirecting the two pages and given that I really don't care enough about this issue to put up with that level of aggravation, I am withdrawing from the discussion following this posting. Otto4711 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto4711, you didn't vandalize at all; I never said you did. All I said in my summaries was that you didn't discuss the change on the talk pages first. I was always taught that major changes should be discussed first. If you thought that I called you a vandal, I'm sorry. You are not a vandal. Acalamari 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

This article has very little independent information. All of the information in the three articles should be collected into the article on the duo, and the sisters' articles should just redirect there.Kww (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here and at Talk:Aly & AJ last year. Consensus seemed to favor leaving everything separate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While they are in the duo, they both have there independent work and I think keeping them seperated allows for them to be seen as individuals (which they are). --Iroc24 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]




This is my first time I've changed an article's tag, but I'm following WP:be_bold. The tag has been here intermittently(sp?) since 2007. The discussion that took place on the Aly+AJ page last year seemed evident that "no merge" came out of it. The highlights of the argument were: Aly does meet wp:notable (no comment on AJ, whether or not she is notable outside of the duo belongs on AJ's page or the Aly+AJ page but not here), additionally she is 19 and active in her career (she has two movies contracted for 08/09 as well as a planned album in 2009) so its a growing case for notability, for those who believe she is only marginal notable (but don't dismiss her notability based on analogies--strictly read the notability:checklist and compare it to the facts and discussion over at the aly+aj page).

I am not basing this on my own preference or private agenda, as I'm attaching my signature to this. I feel very confident I can defend the action because I have thoroughly reviewed the wp:notability, and I have reviewed the facts, and I have applied one to the other. Additionally, over half of the discussion participants also agreed that she is notable outside of Aly+AJ enough to justify her own article. Lastly, consensus has already been reached (especially at other page, but here too) so I'm merely taking the action of removing the tag and this action is consistent with wp:policy and with the overall conclusion of the group of editors of both pages (collectively). If someone feels I have erred, feel free to add the merge tag back to the article, and discuss below your reasons and let me reply. Sentriclecub (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending the Merge tag (Amanda's article)

I'm getting rid of the same tag for AJ. They each have growing notability individually, and I see no reason to combine the pages. If nothing else, they have different filmographies. And, eventually, one or the other of them is going to get married or something, creating separate personal life sections. This has been thoroughly discussed for Alyson and is much the same for Amanda. Cowgod14 (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of her birthday?

Why was her birthday removed? It's very encyclopaedic and IMDB at the least has her birthday listed. I'm sure there are multiple places her birthday is listed, it seems public knowledge. Sorry, I just happened upon this by chance LOL Kb5694 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

[1] Year ranges which include a dash do not sort correctly for readers using some versions of Safari. An easy fix is to avoid using dashes, eg (2002 to 2004 rather than 2002–2004). An IP editor has elected to remove this fix over objections. We generally do a number of things to to wikitext to facilitate relatively small numbers of readers in other ways. Do editors agree in reducing or obstructing functionality when a simple fix is available? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I've applied the {{sort}} template to the two ranges with dashes; they should now sort as if they read, for example, "2002 to 2004" even though the display text is "2002–2004". —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fix is unwarranted for a browser with a fraction of a percent usage. It obfuscates the wiki-text for 100% of users. Please revert to the MOS form. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text is displaying correctly for me for both Safari (albeit a current version) and Firefox. What's your objection with the current form? —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It works correctly for me, either way (with modern browsers). My objection is that it is unwarranted to make such a 'fix' for so few users. For the vast majority of editors, the MOS form is sufficient and the fact that it does not work for a very few should not drive the format that all editors must deal with (in the editbox). Somewhere, someone is still running Mosaic; it prolly doesn't' work for them, either, and we don't care. Users of deficient browsers do not warrant this clutter being inflicted on all editors. Most readers (and editors) don't even see the sort controls. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fix is easy; why do you refuse to use it, and routinely undo my edits? (Note that {{sort}} may need to be applied to *all* ranges for the {{sort}} fix to work correctly; User:RexxS agreed that using "2002 to 2004" works for everyone.) What percent use does JAWS have? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

explained above; UNWARRANTED. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. Try again. RexxS agreed that using "2002 to 2004" works for everyone. This doesn't "obfuscate the wiki-text". So why, specifically, do you refuse to allow its use, routinely reverting any edit which fixes sorting in this manner? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It. Is. Unwarranted. For. A. Dead. Browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a browser that some segment of readers use. Again, specifically, why do you refuse to allow a fix that makes the sorting functionality work correctly for that segment of readers? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YEAR, part of the Manual of Style, says "Year ranges, like all ranges, are normally separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash". Thus, "2002 to 2004" is non-standard per the MOS. The sorting issue is not a sufficient reason to have the nonstandard text visible. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"normally"? When something suggested by the MOS doesn't work for a segment of readers? So the MOS absolutely and unquestionably overrules any other consideration? Is that what you are saying? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. However, when there's a solution that presents the text per the format recommended by the MOS and sorts the table properly, I don't see a reason not to use that solution. —C.Fred (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if en-dashes in ranges are routinely affecting table sort order, that's a matter that needs to taken to discussion at the talk page for WP:MOSNUM or at the appropriate biography or television WikiProject page. —C.Fred (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

amanda michalka annoces that her and daniel moore dating and she in a relationship with him www.facebook.com/amandamichalkamusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckydog92 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandamichalka21 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a gossip column. We don't typically report every person a celebrity dates; only marriages and other similar long-term relationships should be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C.Fred I found this on Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). www.facebook.com/amandamichalkamusic that she married Daniel Moore Amanda Michalka — with Daniel Ray Moore. 4 mins · · Married Daniel Ray Moore Today See Friendship Amanda Michalka's photo. Daniel Ray Moore's photo. LikeLike · — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentisgood (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raising the red flag of reliability. It's a personal page, not an official Facebook page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but C.Fred thats all the proof i have why cant you accept it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentisgood (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't comply with WP:RS. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how can i make it comply with wp:RS C.Fred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentisgood (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, find it reported in a newspaper or other source that is reliable. Secondarily, prove unequivocally that the Facebook account in question is owned by Michalka—something similar to the verification of accounts that Twitter does. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on AJ Michalka Facebook page Amanda Michalka 4 minutes ago Im excited to annouce that we will having a new member join our group 78Violet and we are adding a name to our bands name as of 11/17/2014 78Violet will now be 78Violet91Hulkster. Daniel Moore of 91Hulkster will make an apparance with us 78Violet91Hulkster on 11/18/2014 and we will be making an album with him and will be released next year Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). www.facebook.com/Ajmichalkaof78Violet Silentisgood (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)silentisgoodSilentisgood (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page is not verified by Facebook, so I would not consider it a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AJ Michalka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AJ Michalka. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:AJ_Michalka&oldid=847818437"