Talk:Kylie Minogue: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:58, 4 May 2007

Latest revision as of 14:57, 17 August 2025

(953 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

{{ArticleHistory

{{Talk header}}

{{Not a forum |small=yes}}

{{Australian English}}

{{Article history

|action1=PR

|action1date=12:59, 29 Jan 2005

|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Kylie Minogue/archive1

|action1result=reviewed

|action1oldid=9779395

Line 11 ⟶ 15:

|action2result=promoted

|action2oldid=10695916

|action3=FAR

|action3date=22:22, 20 September 2009

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kylie Minogue/archive1

|action3result=kept

|action3oldid=314844403

|otd1date=2017-05-28

|otd1oldid=782618658

|otd2date=2018-05-28

|otd2oldid=843269319

|otd3date=2019-05-28

|otd3oldid=899210443

|maindate=April 27, 2005

|otd4date=2024-05-28|otd4oldid=1226001472

|currentstatus=FA

|otd5date=2025-05-28|otd5oldid=1292734598

|currentstatus=FFA

|action4 = FAR

|action4date = 2025-08-16

|action4link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kylie Minogue/archive2

|action4result = demoted

|action4oldid = 1305225465

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |collapsed=yes |blp=yes |vital=yes |listas=Minogue, Kylie |1=

{{WikiProjectBanners

{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}

|1={{FAOL|Croatian|hr:Kylie Minogue|lang2=Indonesian|link2=id:Kylie Minogue}}

{{WikiProject Women}}

|2={{WPBiography|living=yes|class=FA|priority=High|musician-work-group=yes|listas=Minogue, Kylie}}

{{WikiProject Biography |musician-work-group=yes |musician-priority=High |filmbio-work-group=yes |filmbio-priority=Mid}}

|3={{WP Australia|television=yes|Melbourne=yes|class=FA|importance=mid|portal=Week 14, 2006}}

{{WikiProject Australia |importance=Mid |music=yes |television=yes |Melbourne=yes |television-importance=mid |music-importance=top |Melbourne-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Kylie Minogue |importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Doctor Who |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Pop music |importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Rock music |importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Television |importance=Low |the-x-factor=yes |the-x-factor-importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Fashion |importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Women in Music |importance=High}}

}}

{{Annual Readership}}

{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Arts|small=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

{{archive box|

|algo = old(60d)

# [[/Archive 1|Archive 1: April 2005 – Sept 2005]]

|archive = Talk:Kylie Minogue/Archive %(counter)d

# [[/Archive 2|Archive 2: Oct 2005 – June 2006]]

|counter = 6

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archiveheader = {{tan}}

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|minthreadsleft = 2

}}

==Unsourced statementsMissing ==

Kylie Minogue and Michael Hutchence (singer of INXS) were in a relationship from 1989 to 1991

there is a huge amount of unsourced statements in this article which must be addressed, many of which seem to be obvious, but as it is a FA, it requires these statements to be sourced. There is also a lot of unsourced POV. --[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]] 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::Its now included in the personal life section.[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 21:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:So you've added 21 points that need citing. I can't help but feel that this is a bad faith action on your part. Looking at your edit history you don't seem to have edited pop culture articles in the recent past, and this comes a few minutes after I'd objected at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIV]]. I'm not interested in playing games with you. Don't make edits such as this just to [[WP:POINT|make a point]] [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, I contributed to this article 1 August 2006. I waited a month for changes to be implemented and nothing was done. If you think this is a reflection on yourself, then you hold yourself in too high a regard. --[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]] 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::So you did. You made a few minor changes to the way a few existing references were formatted. If you were waiting for "changes to be implemented" it seems odd that you didn't put a message on the talk page, and the timing of your 21 point "this needs to be cited" plan is still coincidental, coming about 10 minutes after I objected to your FA nomination. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Exactly, coincidental, the two are unlinked. Stop being paranoid or is it vanity? --[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]] 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm not paranoid or vain but let's not steer this unpleasant exchange into name-calling. You are quite right in many of the things you've requested a cite for, although some of them appear excessive to me. I'll cite what I'm able to, as time permits, and there are other regular editors here who will probably also work on it. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

#"dismissed by critics" - removed "cite needed" - this summarises comments that are made and sourced in the article.

#"highest ticket sales" - source provided, also in main article.

# childhood acting roles - removed POV from sentence which is now supported by her IMDb entry and does not require cite.

#high rating for wedding episode of ''Neighbours'', changed "record" audience to "large" audience. cites provided, including one from BBC UK and another website also reproduces Minogue on cover of ''Time Magazine'' - headline ''Australian Soaps Captivate the World''.

#"Singing Budgie" - source provided.

# "Dropped by Geffen Records" - not relevant. removed the text.

#"In Australia her popularity of the previous years diminished" - removed "cite needed". [[Kylie Minogue discography]] shows chart positions for her records with sources attributed. Pretty clear her records of this time were not hits.

#Collaborations with Pet Shop Boys etc - not important. removed the offending text.

#second to Madonna in UK. source provided.

#"I Believe in You" not played by radio "stateside" - how sad, who cares? Removed offending sentence.

# breast cancer diagnosis and postponement of tour - source already provided for both in "Breast cancer" section but have copied the link, which covers both points.

#''Delinquents'' film poorly reviewed. - source provided

#''Delinquents'' film success. - two sources - one showing box office takings for UK, and one showing it as number one Australian film of 1990 in Australia.

#''Streetfighter'' film. Removed "cite needed". Trimmed back sentence so that its point is covered by the existing source cited.

#''Moulin Rouge'' film. Removed the text saying it's her most widely seen film. Now it only says that she was in it.

#comparisons to Madonna. source provided.

#"Lack of talent". Removed "cite needed". Covered by the same source as the sourced quote from Miki Berenyi which follows it. If a paragraph is all sourced from the same material there's no need to provide a cite at the end of each sentence.

#Moving away from sex pot image. Removed "cite needed". The whole paragraph is covered by the same source which is stated at the end of the paragraph. Not going to source the paragraph sentence by sentence.

#Steve Brack's statement. Removed "cite needed". the entire paragraph is sourced to the two references given at the end of the paragraph. Once again, not going to list a source at the end of every sentence.

#media attention subsided. not important. removed sentence. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== Lessons ==

Should something be mentioned about her upcoming album? I read about it in Google News once. The album was supposed to be titled "Lessons" but I can't source that and even if I could, I wouldn't exactly be sure how to. ([[User:Too Much To Ask|Too Much To Ask]] 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

== Popular? ==

for the perople in the united states of america, is kylie as popular as britney, christina, janet and madonna or is she more popular like a c-star. cause here in europe she is highly popular [[User:FANSTAR|FANSTAR]] 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

She is hardly even a C-star really. There is noway she is as popular in the united states as Britney Spears, Jlo, Christina, Ashlee Simpson, Kelly Clarkson, Jessica Simpson, Madonna or Hilary Duff. They are all much much bigger here [[User:152.163.100.6|152.163.100.6]]

==Unsourced==

I just noticed that the "return to stage" section is unsourced, I added an unsourced tag to draw attention. I'm pretty sure the section is factually correct, but as a FA it should be sourced. [[User:James086|James086]]^{[[User talk:James086|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/James086|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]]} 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:You're right, it should be sourced. It's been fixed. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

==Hospital==

I get SO ANGRY (up to the point where i'm crying) everytime people accuse her of moving cardiac patients....SO WHAT?! EVEN IF IT HAPPENED! Kylie is way more important then those people, and she did not order the movings! She is I N N O N O G U E you morons! She deserves your credit. Go Australia and GO KYLIE you Queen!! -Danny <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Chovain|Chovain]] 16:10, December 4 2006 (UTC)

:This isn't really the right place to comment about it, and definitely not the right way to go about changing peoples' minds. [[User:Indja|Indja]] 09:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

==Nelly Furtado==

Interesting combination. I've reworded the bit about [[Nelly Furtado]] and Minogue recording a duet. There are numerous websites speculating that they are planning a duet and these seem to date from about December 1st. Several of them refer back to a music.com site as their source, but reading that source piece, it's completely different. Furtado said 1. she admired Minogue's courage. 2. she would have loved to have had her on her recent album 3. Minogue is the person she would most like to record with and 4. She likes "Can't Get You Out Of My Head". If there is anything more recent that is more than rumour, then please rewrite it again, and provide an updated source. For now it seems to be speculation and it that's the case, we should be clear about it. Thanks [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 07:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==New photo for Main page==

Is there any chance of updating the main photo for this page to a post-cancer shot, maybe from the Homecoming tour? [[Peter2012]]

:The main photo can only be changed if another free image can be found. So if you know of anyone who has attened one of Minogue's latest shows and is willing to have their photos displayed on Wikipedia then it can be changed. But until then, the current photo cannot be removed. -- [[User:Underneath-it-All|Underneath-it-All]] 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Someone sneaked in "I mean, as if anyone cares. She's rich enough! " ==

Look in the subsection "Stock, Aitken and Waterman: 1987 – 1992", someone sneaked in the text quoted in this subject line. It does not show up in the edit box of the article. I guess it is some "creative" html or script coding. Can someone knowlegdeable take care of that? Is this type of hack widespread and does it have a name? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/84.72.47.216|84.72.47.216]] ([[User talk:84.72.47.216|talk]]) 17:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Category cleanup ==

This article currently has 28 category tags, and I think that's a bit over the top. I've taken a look at the (somewhat rambling) [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] guideline, which states: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." Some other useful quotes from the guideline: "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article" and "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

So, let's take a look at what we've got. I'll list the current categories, some comments, and my recommendation for what to do with them.

* ''1968 births'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Actor-singers'': yes, she's been an actor who sings or a singer who (tried to) act. '''keep'''

* ''ARIA Award winners'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Australian child actors'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Australian dance musicians'': what constitutes a "dance musician"? Isn't it possible to dance on ''all'' types of music? Questionable. '''delete'''

* ''Australian dancers'': is she primarily known for being a dancer? Questionable. '''delete'''

* ''Australian expatriates in the United Kingdom'': yes, she lives in the UK. Is this a notable property of Minogue, though? <s>'''dunno'''</s> '''delete'''

* ''Australian female singers'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Australian film actors'': factually accurate. Unfortunate but true. '''keep'''

* ''Australian pop musicians''': factually accurate. But, do we need to list her both as a singer ''and'' a musician? '''delete'''

* ''Australian pop singers'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Australian singer-songwriters'': factually accurate. Good description of (one of the aspects of) her profession. '''keep'''

* ''Australian songwriters'': factually accurate. But likewise, do we need ''both'' the "singer-songwriter" and the "songwriter" tags? '''delete'''

* ''Australian television actors'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Breast cancer activists'': what constitutes a "breast cancer activist?" Disputable. '''delete'''

* ''Breast cancer patients'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Brit Award winners'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Dance musicians'': same comment as for "Australian dance musicians." Also, why do we need both tags? The more inclusive one would be sufficient, no? '''delete'''

* ''Gold Logie winners'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Grammy Award winners'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Kath & Kim actors'': factually accurate. But, featuring as a guest star in one episode wouldn't make this a momentous achievement, I'd say. '''delete'''

* ''Living people'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''Neighbours actors'': factually accurate. Significant to her rise to fame. '''keep'''

* ''Parlophone artists'': factually accurate. '''keep'''

* ''People from Melbourne'': factually accurate. Is it important, though? <s>'''dunno'''</s> '''keep'''

* ''Rhythmic contemporary musicians'': what on Earth is "rhythmic contemporary" music? It should be obvious by now that creating arcane labels in a futile attempt to categorise music is one of my pet peeves. The accompanying article doesn't offer much help, either. This tag should die, with extreme prejudice. '''delete'''

* ''The Sullivans actors'': factually accurate. But, as with "Kath & Kim", a short-lived appearance might not be enough reason to tag her for it. '''delete'''

* ''Welsh Australians'': So her mother is from Wales. Does that make her a "Welsh Australian?" Maybe, but is that a notable piece of information? '''delete'''

Comments, suggestions and dissenting opinions are welcome. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-eight categories is a bit excessive! I agree with all the categories that you suggest should be kept, but here are my thoughts on the others:

* ''Australian dancers'': I don't think anyone really considers Minogue to be a dancer. So I agree, the category should be deleted.

* ''Australian expatriates in the United Kingdom'': She does primarily live in the UK, but hasn't she been spending a lot of time living in France the past year or so. I don't really see the point to this category, so yes, delete.

* ''Australian songwriters'': I think that the ''Australian singer-songwriters'' tag fits better.

* ''Australian pop musicians'': I don't usually think of Minogue as a pop musician, but as a pop singer. The ''Australian pop singers'' tag fits better.

* ''Rhythmic contemporary musicians'': Huh? No clue what the point of this tag is. Delete.

* ''Breast cancer activists'': She has done stuff to raise money for breast cancer charities, but nothing really notable, so delete.

* ''Kath & Kim actors'': If her role was bigger than a guest spot then I'd say keep the tag, so delete.

* ''People from Melbourne'': I say keep. She was born and raised in Melbourne.

* ''The Sullivans actors'': Like I wrote for the ''Kath & Kim actors'' tag. Delete.

* ''Welsh Australians'': I don't think that Minogue's mother's background is important. So delete.

* ''Dance musicians'': If were going to keep one of the categories than it should be the ''Australian dance musicians'' one since it's more specific. -- [[User:Underneath-it-All|Underneath-it-All]] 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm very much in agreement with [[User:Underneath-it-All|Underneath-it-All]]. I agree with the "keeps" listed by [[User:Plek|Plek]] so it's really the deletes that need to be mentioned. So:

*''Australian dancers'' - the fact that she happens to dance during her concerts and in her videos does not make her any more a dancer than any pop singer you could name, all of whom move in one way or another to their music, in a manner that could be interpreted as dancing. If she ever makes a video in which she doesn't sing (or speak), then I'll change my mind ;-) Delete.

*''Australian expatriates in the UK'' - barely relevant, delete.

*''Australian songwriters'' - again, it's not what she's particularly known for. These days everyone writes at least some of their own material, and most of Minogue's catalogue was written by others. Delete.

*''Australian pop musicians'' - delete. ''Australian pop singers'' is a better choice.

*''Rhythmic contemporary musicians'' - I too am mystified. Delete.

*''Breast cancer activists'' - I haven't seen anything substantial in the news that warrants her inclusion in this category. Delete.

*''Kath & Kim actors'' - very interesting CfD on Murder She Wrote and X Files actors led to a decision to categorise only the regular or frequently recurring cast members - not guest stars or minor characters. I think this is very sensible, and would allow deletion from ''Kath & Kim actors'' and maybe ''Sullivans actors''. See the [[:Category:Murder, She Wrote cast members]] page - I'd love to see this implemented on a wider scale to remove some of the cruftier entries.

*''Welsh Australians'' - delete, delete, delete !!! This would make some sense if Wikipedia was a geneology site. There seems to be a trend to research people down to the 16th Century and then apply a lot of categories to them, but I think it should only be used where someone is born in one country and migrates to another, not for their offspring down through the years. Carol Minogue is a Welsh Australian. Kylie Minogue is an Australian, with some Welsh (and other) ancestry. Not enough to merit categorisation. What if Kylie and Olivier have a baby and it becomes famous? Will he/she be a French-Welsh-Australian or a Welsh-Australian-French? It's nonsense IMO.

*''Dance musicians'' - as above ''Australian dance musicians'' would be better, but she's still a singer rather than a musician. She certainly qualifies for this category better than most, but ''Australian dance acts'' or ''Australian dance performers'' would actually be more accurate. Not sure what to do with this one. I think it's significant that she's been successful as a club performer, and has won awards specifically for dance music, as opposed to the notion (which I agree with) that you can dance to pretty well any sort of music if you try hard enough. This is acknowledging a specific genre, which is more applicable to her than some of the other acts so categorised.

*''People from Melbourne'' - I would keep this one. It's not different to any of the other ''People from xxxx'' categories and I think there is a degree of relevance in it. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 09:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Thanks to you both for your comments! I've updated my initial list to take your wise words into account. It seems we're all in total agreement; I feel warm and fuzzy. The tags will be purged shortly. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I have added the {{tl|DEFAULTSORT}} template to the category tag list. Using that, you don't have to add a pipe link to individual tags anymore. See also [[Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting]]. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Citations cleanup and re-evaluation ==

I noticed that the first half of the article was using in-line free-format citations, whereas the second half was using <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> templates. I have started migrating all in-line citations towards using the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> templates, and will complete the task tomorrow (ish). My intention is to do a full review of all references soon. I have a nagging feeling that not all of them will stand up to close scrutiny, and that important pieces of information are lacking references altogether. Please share your thoughts on all of this. Thanks! --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I think that in-line citations (especially when using the cite templates) make for crappy editing as they break up the text flow, but I don't see a viable alternative. Please correct my hapless ignorance if I'm mistaken. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

: I have now completed the migration of all in-line references to <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> templates. Almost all links were still alive, with the exception of #7: [http://www.abc.net.au/love/episodes/transcript4.htm Transcript of television documentary ''Love Is In The Air'']. I couldn't find an alternative source, so I changed it to an ''archive.org'' link. I also corrected some LiMBO links and removed some duplicates. Everything should point to where it's supposed to, now.

: Unfortunately, I do think that the references are not quite up to the current FA standards. "Back in the days," citations were mainly added after direct quotes, and the article is well-covered in that regard. However, nowadays it's expected to provide ample references to support the factual information in the article, and I think it comes up a bit short there (nothing too dramatic, but still lacking in some areas). As I don't want to pepper the text with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, maybe we can decide in here which parts could use some references, and then set out to get them in place? Comments welcome. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I'll have a look through the article and see what I think we need to address. I agree with you, but I also think the main points that would need citing are those that could possibly be legitimately challenged and a lot of factual information is fairly innocuous. Another editor added about 25 "cite needed" tags several months ago. You'll see the comments further up in the discussion page. Some of the "cite needed" tags were added unnecessarily. Also, some of the paragraphs are covered completely by one cite at the end, which can make it appear that the first couple of sentences are not cited. I don't know how to solve that problem. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Alrighty. I'll see what you come up with. In the meantime, here are my ideas:

:::* The "Childhood/beginnings" part could get a cite, just to cover the basics.

::::''Kylie:Confidential'' has some very detailed info. Also offers a different slant on the story of "successful TV actress stumbles accidentally into a singing career". The story according to Sean Smith : Seems Kylie and Dannii both wanted to be singers all along. Dannii, the more precocious of the two, becomes a major child-star (at least in Australia), while Kylie achieves some notability as "Dannii Minogue's older sister". She takes acting roles, and inspired by Dannii's success, finances two recording demos in 1985. They aren't successful but they catch the ear of a record producer, and by the time she famously takes the mic for a stirring rendition of "Locomotion" with other ''Neighbours'' casts members, she has been tutored and mentored by said record producer for more than a year, in anticipation of just such an opportunity. I wonder if we should expand this section by a short paragraph or so. The story of shy Kylie being coaxed into joining her cast-mates for a chorus of "Locomotion" is great showbusiness folk-lore but perhaps it's not entirely accurate. What do you think? [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 10:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::(Why is it that these talk page discussions always turn into a typographical maze?) I think it might be an interesting peek into her early career and motivations, and something that could also shed some light on the relationship with her sister. Definitely worth more to the article than the odd bits of trivia that have been added here and there over the years. Still, I'm not too comfortable with relying on a single source, especially when it's a book that begins with a 10-page astrological chart (or whatever that is). Do you know of any independent sources that can confirm these stories? Also, I think the article is becoming a tad too long, so some pruning might be in order when expanding the "Early life" section. Just a thought. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::No, I don't know of any other sources and I've been looking, without success. I don't think it's a major omission. Perhaps it's just something to keep in mind in the event of us ever finding a credible source. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* The last two paragraphs of the SAW section

:::* The Deconstruction section: there is a lot of info here, but apart from the Towa Tei bit (and the direct quotes), citing is a bit light. The final two paragraphs of the section could do with one cite each.

:::* The high ratings of the Money Can't Buy TV special.

:::* Baker discussing her status as sex symbol.

::::I have a strong feeling that quote was once referenced and it's somehow been lost over time. I think it came from ''La La La''. I'll have a look. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I've added a cite. It was in the "Afterword" section of the 2003 paperback revised edition. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::* ''She has been acknowledged as the highest selling female recording artist in Australia and Europe of the period from her debut in 1987 to the present.'' The reference to this is an ''undated'' biography on All Music Guide. Doesn't that make the "to the present" bit somewhat unreliable?

::::It's a fairly bold claim isn't it? And without an excellent source it's somewhat excessive. Perhaps the article could survive with its removal? [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I wouldn't be surprised if she's the best-selling female recording artist (henceforth known as "BSFRA") in Australia and in the UK. It should be possible to find some sources more authoritative than All Music Guide to settle that one. But all of Europe? Hmmm... I'd say doubtful. Madonna fans may be right in nerfing this statement for that (even though it's semantically correct). Do you know any good pan-European record sales statistics sources (short of adding up the numbers from all the national [[MAFIAA]] branches)? --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::No, I'm afraid I don't but that's exactly what we need to find. I think Kylie may well be the BSFRA in Australia. She's always been particularly beloved and her records, even the bad ones ("Especially For You"), have done well. Madonna's chart performance has been more erratic. Often a high chart placing but a short chart run, but she's had several hugely successful singles too. Hard to say who would come out the winner in Australia. I would expect Madonna to be the BSFRA in the UK - she's had considerably more hits there and she's been more consistent. Anything with her name on it seems to go straight into the Top 5. I'd have no trouble believing Kylie is 2nd best selling in the UK, but I doubt she's the best-selling. I think we're on shakey ground with this one. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh, and I find it a tad irksome that we only have the single "hardcopy" reference in "La La La". Are you perhaps familiar with the melodramatically titled "Kylie: Story of a Survivor"[http://www.amazon.com/Kylie-Story-Survivor-Emily-Herbert/dp/1844543625] or "Kylie: The Biography"[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kylie-Biography-Sean-Smith/dp/1847390307]? I might just pick one of them up if they're any good. Cheers. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Don't waste your money, Plek. I have the more luridly titled ''Kylie:Confidential'' also by Sean Smith. Same book maybe? I bought it in a bargain bin when we did the big rewrite on this and it was worth almost every cent of the $2.99 I paid for it. I'll dig it out and see if it contains anything useful. I ''think'' it's quite accurate but you have to get past the tabloidy gossipy style of it. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, I recalled your "bargain bin" comment after I noticed Sean Smith was the author. Judging from the synopsis, it might just be an updated version of ''Kylie: Confidential''. Into the garbage bin it goes, then. I might still order some semi-random Kylie books from Amazon as soon as I work my way through the (unrelated) reading backlog. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::::it may serve a purpose in the discussion of her childhood. ''La La La'' (if my memory is right) tends to skim over her childhood.

== "See also" section cleanup ==

I have nuked the "See also" section, because it's mostly superfluous. My reasoning can be found below:

* ''List of Kylie Minogue concert tours'': moved to "Tours" section, as a <nowiki>{{seealso}}</nowiki> tag. This way, the link supports the article where it is needed.

* ''List of Kylie Minogue awards and accolades'': moved to "Image and celebrity status" section, also as a <nowiki>{{seealso}}</nowiki> tag (I'm not ''entirely'' sure this is the right place to put it, but saw no better alternative and didn't want to completely nuke the link).

* ''List of unreleased songs by Kylie Minogue'': tangential information that can be reached via the nav bar. Deleted.

* ''Best selling music artists'': link to a biased and incomplete article (as is stated on the page itself). Not really something to point to from an FA. Deleted.

* ''List of number-one dance hits (United States)'': Kylie is hardly notable for her success in the U.S. Deleted.

* ''List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Dance chart'': Ditto, deleted.

The end result is that the "See also" section no longer exists. ''When in doubt, simplify!'' --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 14:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Misfit ==

Any room for a mention of ''Misfit''[http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/however/v2_1_2003/current/others/killian.shtm], in which she mimes to a recording of a [[castrato]]? It's not typical of her regular stuff, but it's unusual enough to get a mention. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

==Incorrect info==

Though I love Kylie to bits, the information in the intro is misguiding. yes, a newspaper article may say Kylie is the best-selling female artist in Europe, but newspaper articles should not be used for data in Encyclopoedias as they often tell lies. Madonna has benn certified by the IFPI (so nothing gets motre official) to have sold 80m albums alone in Europe (which means, about 120/130m betewwn albums and singles0> According to most sources, , including Wikipedia, Kylie has sold a worldwide total of 50-70million abetween albuums and singles. This does not even match Madonna''s EU album tally, let alone her total. Also, Mina Mazzini has sold 64million records worldwide, aminly in Europe, an mainly albums, so, again, there is a problem here. hese are certified sales, not what newspaper articles say. You need to stick to official data if you want to write a credible encyclopoedia. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/84.70.80.195|84.70.80.195]] ([[User talk:84.70.80.195|talk]]) 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

: I have found that piece of information troublesome for quite some time now. So, I've removed it. Let's try to find some reliable sources first, before putting any statement about Euro-wide sales back in. If you know any, please list them. Thanks for your comment. --[[User:Plek|Plek]] 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

== Ummm...? ==

Yeah, i'm not a Kylie Minogue fan, but i'm pretty sure this isn't supposed to be in the article...

"Kylie Ann Minogue (born May 28, 1968) is a dumb, talentless alleged performer. She cannot sing, dance or act. Or do anything of any note actually."

[[User:The Mischief Man|The Mischief Man]] 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:Well, no, it's not exactly encyclopedic. I suspect she's done more of note than the person who made that edit, who probably can't sing, dance or act either, and whose biggest contribution to world culture to date is most likely some grammatically awkward internet vandalism. That's not a problem. It takes about 2 seconds to revert. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

==Nelly Furtado==

I remove the lines about Nelly Furtdao expressing an interest in working with Minogue. This is not exactly encyclopedic is it? I think these types of rumours / gossip are more suitable for a fan page.[[User:Paul75|Paul75]] 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

==Vandalism==

Poor old Kylie, she's hated so much she's the most vandalised entry on Wikipedia...

:Really? I was always under the impression she was very liked and respected. There isn't much about her to vandalise her, unlike, say Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith... Or were you being sarcastic?? [[User:80.41.38.77|80.41.38.77]] 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed/reverted the "Helloooo !!!" from "Childhood and beginning." [[User:Fustigate314159|Fustigate314159]] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia standards ==

==New album==

Can we start a section or a page for Kylie's new album? [[User:68.82.82.248|68.82.82.248]] 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Ping|PHShanghai}} How are these changes[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kylie_Minogue&diff=1305225465&oldid=1305209365] exactly following Wikipedia standards? You are making it sound like the version before your edits, was inferior and doesn't pass up the "Wikipedia standards". The lead section was already brought up to [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]] and it got this comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kylie_Minogue&diff=prev&oldid=1281374139]. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 20:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

== Kylie WikiProject ==

:Yes, multiple issues have been raised by people that the article doesn't follow Featured Article standards anymore and that the prose is not the same quality as it was in the past. Your [[WP:OWN]] edit warring behavior over this article is exactly the reason why this article is going to be delisted soon because you prevent people, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kylie_Minogue&diff=prev&oldid=1299917601 even admins of Wikipedia,] from making any edits to this page. Noted. [[User:PHShanghai|PHShanghai &#124; they/them]] ([[User talk:PHShanghai|talk]]) 02:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm interested in creating a [[WikiProject]] for Kylie much like the one on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF|The KLF]]. I just want to know if anyone would be interested in participating in it. -- [[User:Underneath-it-All|Underneath-it-All]] 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Multiple people you mean you and 750h+, the later which didn't really address the problem of the article and didn't even edit this article after their FAR comments. You've already brought this article to many Wikipedia pages and you are never content with the article's lead section. After you didn't get your way in [[Wikipedia:Third Opinion]] in March 2025, you suddenly put this up to Featured article review in April 2025. Months later. No other editor except 750h+, commented what needed to be change in the article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)