Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Katy_Perry?useskin=vector#2000%E2%80%932006:_Career_beginnings,_Katy_Hudson,_and_Fingerprints ] (]) 00:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Katy_Perry?useskin=vector#2000%E2%80%932006:_Career_beginnings,_Katy_Hudson,_and_Fingerprints ] (]) 00:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I went ahead and . If anybody thinks it's repetitive to have two different timestamps in quick succession and knows a way to merge them into one citation, then that would be nice to learn about because I couldn't think of how. ] (] / ]) 01:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:53, 22 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katy Perry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Katy Perry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Katy Perry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Katy PerryWikipedia:WikiProject Katy PerryTemplate:WikiProject Katy PerryKaty Perry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Perry is famous for her LGBT-themed songs and is an LGBT rights activistLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
Now, I’m not a Katy Perry fan myself, but your assertion tickles me. If that’s your guiding philosophy, why not just delete the whole article and save some time? No one would care but the “fans”. 136.47.184.99 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "contralto voice range" to "mezzo-soprano voice range"' The source linked is an article inaccurately attributing Perry's voice type as a contralto when any musically trained/knowledged person can easily assert she is a mezzo soprano. 2601:300:477F:2470:F568:9D3B:E4AB:4909 (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: There are two cited sources that say it is contralto. If you want to change it you will need to find sources that say otherwise. RudolfRed (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
In a cursory examination after being reverted of a content addition, I find out that this article is plainly speaking, non-neutral. It seems that the subject's public image section shuns the lacklustre reception of Perry's single "Woman's World", or her heavily critisised collaboration with producer Dr. Luke, which for some reason do not conform to Perry's public image, preferring instead to exclusively pander to the subject's reputation with positive cruft.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say one song's reviews are fit for a "public image" section. If anywhere, this would be better for "Life and career" which discusses when the song came out. Same goes for investigation over a music video for "Lifetimes" (which is what you added), but I'm not sure how much on that would be worth adding here vs. the song's own page when there so far haven't been any legal charges. For what it's worth, other parts of page do discuss things like controversy over the lyrical themes of "I Kissed A Girl", having her Sesame Street segment pulled from broadcast, and some negative commentary on vocals. That being said, it's not like the article as a whole only focuses on "positive cruft". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
New main picture.
There are hundreds of thousands of pictures of Katy Perry on the internet. Why have we chosen a low resolution video screenshot to represent her? Teutonkahmun (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it was the most recent non-copyrighted picture available at the time of insertion, but either way this is far from the lowest quality existing one. Feel free to list any suggestions you might have for a replacement that isn't copyrighted per WP:Image use policy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Recent isn't necessarily better... substituting a video screenshot for high-quality photography isn't great unless there more recent image shows a substantial change in appearance.Proposing replacing the current infobox image with a crop of the following image (a featured picture on Commons); it's a few years old but the subject's looks haven't change drastically between then and now and the way she looks in the photo isn't a departure from her common and recognizable styling.
I believe at least one crop of that already exists somewhere, and "a few years old" is an understatement for something from 2016. While you do make a valid point on newer not always meaning better, do you have any other ideas in mind before swapping out the current image? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The current crop on commons is of an unretouched version so it's a little grainy, if we were to go with this one I'd make a fresh crop of the retouched version.Like I said, a high quality image like this should easily take precedent over a grainy screenshot with an awkward facial expression from 2023, especially given there have been no substantial changes in her appearance since then, and the styling in the photo represents a very "general" Katy Perry look. The image also shows her performing, which is her whole claim to fame.Unretouched crop:
Other higher quality, more recent images are the blonde one from 2019 that is currently used further down in the article (and I believe was the lead image for a while), but I'd avoid this one as the lead at this point... it would've been fine back in 2019, but to re-use it now would do readers a disservice, IMO, because the way she's styled in it was a very specific (and short lived) phase of her career and not representative of how she "generally" looks:
There's this one from 2021 that could be cropped. Not the best photo, but it could work as a candid shot if cropped properly:
You are correct that the linked blonde image was once used in her infobox. If going with the 2021 photo (which I would prefer to over the former to avoid duplication), then definitely crop it to focus more on Katy's face. Feel free to be bold and crop yourself as you see fit. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and replaced the lead image with the one from 2021, cropped and retouched to remove the people in the background. It's not my first choice, but it's better than what was there.
I’ve returned it to the long-standing status quo as the image on Commons has been challenged. As this article is TFA tomorrow, it’s best this is stable until it passes off the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Bad, bad idea. These are two of the worst photos of Katy Perry I've ever seen. Why do people do this? I've literally never seen photos of her so bad. Yet one appears on the main page and the other in the infobox. Why? This is madness. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Given the possible copyright issues with the 2021 photo I reiterate my proposal for the 2016 photo for the reasons previously given – it seems there are currently no newer photos available of comparable quality and encyclopedic value.
Wont happen until after it falls off the main page, though – I was surprised to find out that this was appearing on the MP with that photo (didn’t realize it was scheduled for main page until just now), but it is what it is. RachelTensions (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Jumping in to support the use of this photo. It is much higher quality than the one used in the article currently, both technically and as a representation of the subject. The recency argument is not compelling in this case, given the available options. Her appearance today is not substantially changed such that this 2016 photo would mislead readers. A suitable caption can include the date (at least year) to avoid any possible misrepresentation. This high quality image shows the subject doing what she is most notable for. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll add another voice in endorsement of this line of reasoning. Recency is not the only (or even necessarily one of the top) criteria when picking an encyclopedically representative and high quality image form among available free options. The image of Perry performing immediately above feels the most in line, of the options discussed here, with her standard image as a performer, which is the core element of her encyclopedic notability. SnowRise23:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
It would be better if there wasn't a microphone and hand covering most of her face, however. The editors at Madonna complained of a similar issue- her most prominent photo that was used for several years, had her microphone on stage covering half of her face. This was changed after new photos were released during The Celebration Tour. While Madonna is more recognizable than Katy Perry was then, I do not think this photo is good enough to warrant the solid 30% of her face being covered. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS Sure, the cropped one. I'm not that experienced in image copyright, though I think this picture isn't that wrong and the image is officially from the Voice of America (given from the credit in the original, uncropped photo). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗22:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
As someone who's been involved in the past two lead image changes of this article, I'm surprised that it was changed so quickly and I wish that I was pinged in the discussion to contribute to it,. My primary issue is I think the 2016 photo is very inferior; the mic is prominently covering half of her face and it is an 8 year old photo, when professional photography of Perry post 2020 has already been mentioned up above as a very suitable lead image. Personally, I suggest to find an image that's within the past 4 years? She has multiple interviews with Vogue Taiwan- I don't think video screenshots are inherently bad, I think the quality of the video needs to be set to it's highest and then a screenshot would suffice. Many high quality articles with Vogue Taiwan lead images exist, such as Billie Eilish or Kylie Jenner. I think recognizability is more important than recency, and in my personal opinion post-pregnancy Perry's face looks more defined than it did in 2016. Just my two cents. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Expanding my thoughts- this may be an unnecessary edit for this timeframe anyway. Perry is set to embark on The Lifetimes Tour for 143 soon next year. As with many female artists on Misplaced Pages tend to do, there will be a huge influx of images from said Lifetimes Tour that we may be able to use for the lead image. But for now, I think the 2021 image is far more superior and shows 100% of her face. After the commons deletion discussion hopefully ends with a Keep, may we re-discuss about using that image for this article instead? Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for neglecting to ping you earlier for input. I don't know what you mean by a "more defined" face, but assuming the 2021 pic does get kept, I doubt it would be easy to persuade any of the users above who opposed implementing this. We either way definitely should wait for the deletion thread to close before going any further with image changes or proposals to do so. As for new tour photos, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's just say that historically, free photography from Katy Perry concert performances has beennot great, so let's not get our hopes up there.Obviously a more recent image would be better but until we have a suitable high-quality image to replace it with I'm not sure there are any better options than the 2016 one. RachelTensions (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The Play tour's only other photographer was seated far away from the main stage- otherwise I actually think several of the Witness Tour photos are pretty good and high quality. But I think the 2021 image is both high quality, doesn't partially hide her face, and doesn't suffer from being a really old photo. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I think your opinion on that has been registered, but there is pretty clear consensus above that the 2016 image is more suitable, all factors considered, than the 2021 photo. Recency is not trumps-all factor, and a face being slightly obscured by a musician holding a muc to their mouth to sing into is a pretty unavoidable quality of an image which shows one singing into a microphone: which context is actually part of value added observed in a number of the !votes above. The 2021 image is not the worst, but I wouldn't call it optimal either, and if it is presently up for deletion, that is all the more reason not to rely on it at present. As to any forthcoming images, those are obviously speculative possibilities and I don't see what influence they can possibly have on the discussion until any such exist. SnowRise08:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
In a section of the article, theres a timestamp of a source that doesn't lead to whats being spoken about.
Specifically "Transitioning from gospel music to secular music, Perry started working with producer Glen Ballard". An additional timestamp off 28:19 is probably much needed since it talks about what the second part of the sentence states
I went ahead and added this. If anybody thinks it's repetitive to have two different timestamps in quick succession and knows a way to merge them into one citation, then that would be nice to learn about because I couldn't think of how. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: There are two cited sources that say it is contralto. If you want to change it you will need to find sources that say otherwise. RudolfRed (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Done it's been added as a reasonable DAB. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
_restored.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_cropped.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}