Talk:Sia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 1

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sia Furler → Sia (singer) – Two of her songs already have just her first name in the brackets (Clap Your Hands (Sia song) and You've Changed (Sia song)), and it looks like there'll be third soon - she even ignores her surname on her official site Unreal7 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep See discussions above: typically as a lead singer Furler uses her first name but as a songwriter or producer she uses both names. The two singles/songs can be re-directed to "XXXX (Sia Furler song)" per existing article for "Chandelier (Sia Furler song)" and similar to album article, Best Of... (Sia Furler album). Furthermore, using (singer) as the disambiguation is too restrictive for Furler's career activities.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't move – agree with everything shaidar cuebiyar said. Melonkelon (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't move. Her name isn't "Sia (Singer)", nobody reading the wiki will seach for that. If there are other people called Sia then a surname is the natural way to distinguish between them. Sairp (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I never said her name was "Sia (singer)" - and as for "If there are other people called Sia then a surname is the natural way to distinguish between them" - I don't believe anyone's searching for Adele Adkins or Robyn Carlsson. Unreal7 (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Why do you want to move the page to something which is not her name? Sairp (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but would consider alternative disambiguation. Whilst Sia may be her marketing name, she would use her legal name for songwriting and could for other items .i.e. Richard Starkey, Prince Nelson, Katheryn Hudson. If she is is trading as a mononym then WP should reflect that as WP:COMMONNAME, because others have that name, then it needs to be disambiguated. If (singer) isn't good enough, does anybody have an alternative? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't move. This is an encyclopedia, not a pop magazine. She may currently style herself as Sia, but her name is Sia Furler. With the possible exceptions of Cher, Madonna and (TAFKA) Prince, who established those identities over many years and to the exclusion of any others, we should refer to musical artists here by their real names. Sia is not yet in that league. Dwpaul Talk 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, consider Elvis Presley, who was consistently (uniquely) known as Elvis during his career and released recordings under a mononym, but whose primary article here uses his full name. Dwpaul Talk 22:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Response to Dwpaul. Presley is apples and pears and as I have done, he is also known as Presley, The King and probably a few other "names". He was always marketed (i.e. known as) Elvis Presley, but as Unreal7 points out above, WP has Adele and Robyn amongst others. Neither of these have been established "over many years." and as far as I am aware both articles have always been at the mononym. For me the deciding point is the name the singer is known as, and it appears that is Sia As Sia, she is certainly not primarytopic so a disambiguator has to be used, the question is which one and why? Which ever one is chosen, it is not the name she is known by, it's an artifice because not every article can sit at it's non-disambiguated place. Hence my support for the move. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "[Elvis] was always marketed (i.e. known as) Elvis Presley": Really? Guess you had to be there. Take a look at these covers (all contemporary marketing); see "Presley" anywhere? [1][2][3][4][5]. In any case, I think you missed my point. My point is that regardless of what her handlers/producers/publisher would like to think, Sia Furler has not achieved the enduring and deep name recognition and cultural significance of the other exceptions I mentioned, and until and unless she does, she should not be considered for mononymous treatment in this or any encyclopedia. Nor should any other artist receive this treatment here just because some industry executive orders it. It needs to be earned. Dwpaul Talk 17:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
My point was Presley was marketed as Elvis Presley, whereas Sia Furler is marketed as Sia. That's why references to Presley is misleading not relevant to discussion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes "WP has Adele and Robyn amongst others". But we can not move this page to "Sia" because there is another page there. So we must disambiguate. We could add "Furler", which is her real name, or we could add " (singer)" which is a suffix made up by wiki editors. Nobody else calls her "Sia (singer)". Lots of people call her "Sia Furler". Sairp (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You could argue that Sia is primarytopic. Those that know her as Sia may not appreciate Sia Furler is the same person, but in all likelihood would identify Sia (singer) as the page they are looking for. Equally there is no reason why you can't suggest another disambiguator. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Move as Sia is known mononymously. I was just about to start an RM for this until I found one already in place.--Launchballer 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, just so we're clear, is your !vote to Keep intending to support a move? Because I interpret keep to mean that the article should be kept as it is (and I think that's what the other keep was advocating). Dwpaul Talk 19:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I meant move, I've just come from an AfD.--Launchballer 19:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I took the liberty. Dwpaul Talk 20:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated.--Launchballer 20:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of information. Here is another way to look at this:
Cher, Adele, Madonna and the estate of Elvis all applied for, paid for and received US trademark protection for the use of those mononyms in the sales and marketing of entertainment services. In effect, they own the legal right to be "primary topic" in the US marketplace when and where those mononyms are used. Sia Furler, on the other hand, only applied last February for similar rights to use Sia in trade. Her application status (as of just late last month) is approved for publication in the USPTO Official Gazette, which means only that her paperwork is in order; the merits of the application will not even be considered by the USPTO until it has been published and opportunity has been given for objection. Part of the approval process will include a consideration of whether she has adequately used the mark to the exclusion of others (and whether others have done so to a degree that would make the proposed mark ineligible).
I will not !vote again, but I suggest that this supports the notion that the proposed move of this article would be premature, and that it would in effect substitute our judgment for an established legal process for determining who should possess the right (in the US) to use a mononym for trade in a particular industry. (The article here could perhaps even be used as evidence in that process.) Dwpaul Talk 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. - Prince's trademark registration for Prince was cancelled in 1996, renewed and cancelled again in 2004 due to failure to file renewal documents, and Swedish artist Robin Carlsson never filed in the US for a trademark on Robyn. Dwpaul Talk 14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but you have missed the point. Are you now saying we should move Prince (musician) to Prince Nelson because he doesn't own his own Trade Mark? You can raise a reasonable argument to oppose the move, but Trade Mark Legislation is not it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm (obviously) not suggesting we need to revise every other mononymously-named article on Wikipedia based on this, nor that this should be the only standard used to name articles for musical recording artists. I'm pretty sure I said above that this information supports the position that it would be premature to move this article, and I stand by that position. And yes, the fact that a given artist has successfully trademarked a mononym (or not) should indeed have relevance in naming articles about them here. Dwpaul Talk 17:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Plus, evidence like artwork should be ignored? That makes no sense either. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Rich, I didn't say anything about ignoring anything. Dwpaul Talk 20:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sia Furler → Sia (musician) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name Sia is more suitable because Sia has had a musical career and often used her first name for all of her releases. She even used the name for her Facebook account and her official website. Of course as a songwriter, Sia's credits will be kept as Sia Furler, but with her music releases, Sia is more suitable. Simon (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for the same reasons I articulated when, for all intents, the same request was made just two weeks ago. Dwpaul Talk 03:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Among many other problems with your methodology, you are assuming that every Google™ hit on Sia + musician and Sia + singer refers to Sia Furler. This is demonstrably false (look at your results), as there are other musicians and singers (and/or people talking about musicians and/or singers) named Sia, and/or other meanings of either word. The second returns results, for example, pertaining to Isaac Bashevis Singer, and to rock music photographer Joe Sia at the Singer Bowl in 1968. In Italian, sia is a subjunctive present-tense form of essere, "to be, to exist", so nearly every Italian-language reference to any singer and/or musician could have been captured. Only in a search for Sia + Furler can nearly all the results be reasonably assumed to have something to do with Sia Furler, and when I do so in the US Google (versus Vietnamese) I get about 1,260,000 results. Also note that many articles about Sia Furler contained in your first two example searches likely also contain her last name, so are supersets of the latter example search. Dwpaul Talk 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - as per my initial request above. Unreal7 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, her surname is used on a fairly regular basis, and I think that keeping it in the title is better disambiguation than having a parenthetical disambiguator. WikiRedactor (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Similar request just concluded as "no consensus." Immediate reapplication is inappropriate, could be considered "gaming the system." Xoloz (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You have noticed that Wikipedia is inconsistent. This is not a revelation. ;-) Dwpaul Talk 02:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. It is patently obvious to one and all she is known as "Sia." It is also patently obvious her article cannot be at "Sia." Not her fault some editors have an absurd dislike of disambiguators, even though we have no choice but to use them! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. No need for parenthetical disambiguation then we can use natural one.--Staberinde (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

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

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Although the question of the precision of the disambiguator remains unresolved, there was broad agreement to move the article away from natural disambiguation in order to reflect common usage. Dekimasuよ! 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sia Furler → Sia (musician) – As per WP:COMMONNAME, just Sia would be most suitable. I'm sorry to bring this up again, but despite writing credits, she is just known mononymously as Sia. Most artists use their real names on writing credits in the first place anyway, and she has never been credited as Sia Furler on any music releases. Billboard Man (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I think I have to agree with this move. I know and love Sia, so I can easily recall her last name, but I imagine most people have never even heard her last name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sia Furler successfully registered Sia as a trademark for "Entertainment services in the nature of live visual and audio performances by musicians", etc., effective October 7, 2014, so I withdraw my objection to a previous move request that Sia Furler did not (at that time) have the legal right to use Sia as a trade name. Dwpaul Talk 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Funny enough, I was just looking at this page yesterday and lamenting that it was probably too soon after the most recent discussion to propose it again. But, it's been done, so I'm supporting it. Sia (musician) is overwhelmingly the most common name but is also perhaps more importantly the most recognizable name. The proposed title is easily understood by anyone searching for the subject to be on the subject, the current is not, to the extent that people who don't know her last name will more likely be confused than not. To the extent that, if you asked someone about Sia they would know who you are talking about if you know this subject, but a question about "Sia Furler" would probably lead to a shrug from anyone except her die hard fans. Natural disambiguation is good, but there's no reason to prefer it if it is actively harming the page identification. --Yaksar (let's chat) 20:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME - Everyone generally only knows her first name and since 9 times out of 10 she goes by her first name It makes sense to move imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - why isn't the proposal to Sia (singer)? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, right? She is primarily a vocalist and a songwriter. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't particularly matter to me which one is chosen, but perhaps "musician" is preferred because its broader scope could include her songwriting and composing, which make up a significant portion of her notable work?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions. There are no new important reasons for this move, however the same reasons for not moving still apply. According to WP:NATURALDIS, neither (musician) nor (singer) is better than Furler as a disambiguator.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Natural disambiguation is certainly nice when possible, but it isn't preferred in cases where the common name is so overwhelmingly the common name, to the extent that the natural one is likely not even recognized by the majority of people that know of the subject. Thus, we have lots and lots of pages of people who are disambiguated even though they have perfectly natural middle names that most people don't know of, or even cases like Prince Rogers Nelson where a natural disambiguation does exist but is obviously not preferred. --Yaksar (let's chat) 05:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source

Simon (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Gay or Bisexual or Pansexual?

Ok reading this article is states that Sia is gay, but if you define gay (homosexual) it is "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex." Im no expert in secuality talks... but isnt she Pansexual? she just married a guy Erik

Reference 71 from the article qouted her "Before I was actually successful I'd always said I've always dated boys and girls and anything in between. I don't care what gender you are, it's about people. I didn't just recently open up, I just recently got famous! I've always been... well, flexible is the word I would use.""

Pansexual: not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.229.236 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 February 2015

No, no, no, no, no. MOS:IDENTITY says: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any reliable source refers to Sia as pansexual, nor has she explicitly identified as such. She has identified as bisexual and reliable sources have described her as such as well, so that is what we will use. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4

Move request: Move to "Sia (singer)"

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The argument for a more restrictive disambiguator has not gained consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Sia (musician) → Sia (singer) – A more specific and WP:CONCISE description than "musician". Sia is also more known as a singer. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Although she is also a song-writer, her main profession is singing, especially, lately with her most popular release. I think singer would apply better here rather than musician. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the nominator. IPadPerson (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support proposed nomination; if we're going to use parenthetical dab, we might as well make it more concise and specific if we can. Sia could also be considered as a primary topic. (After all, we've managed to do it with even more common names, such as Adele, and the entire first page of a Google search was results pertaining to Furler.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Now opposed; see my comment in #Comments dated 20:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC). –Chase (talk / contribs)
  • Support, and comment "Musician" implies she is known for playing instruments (which she isn't notable for), and sources seem to notice her for her singing parts. I deleted the Support and Oppose headings because it sounds more like a poll, which are banned in RMs. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Because she's not just a singer but she's also a songwriter and composer so having "musician" makes IMHO far more sense here... –Davey2010Talk 02:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with Chasewc91 - I'd support moving to Sia and moving Sia to dab as that sounds even better... –Davey2010Talk 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Struck as Support below proposal instead. –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 10 February 2015
  • Oppose per Davey2010. The subject of this article is also known for being a songwriter for some of Rihanna's songs, and the notability for this happened prior to becoming notable as a singer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I am neutral on the above-mentioned primary topic claim of this subject. My opinion might change if a discussion happens in regards to moving this article directly to Sia so that I can assess the opinions of other editors in regards to that claim. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sia was notable long before writing for Rihanna or other artists. She was not as popular as she is today, but she was still notable as a singer. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Read previous move nominations: Furler is not just a singer, in fact she's not just a musician. My preference was for Sia Furler per WP:NATURALDIS but this was not supported by sufficient editors. As a dab, Sia (musician) is better than the overly limited Sia (singer), the latter ignores her songwriting and record producing aspects.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sia is not just a singer but is a musician/record producer as well. Sia (singer) is a fairly restrictive definition of this performer. I disagree with the proposals above that it be moved to Sia, as that article is correctly disambiguated with numerous other terms. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Singer would be appropriate if all she did was sing. But she doesn't. Musician is accurate. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the subject is not just a vocalist (and because I'm tired of the continual move requests concerning this page – let's leave it alone for six months). Dwpaul Talk 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible support, it's not that important, either disambiguator is acceptable. But suggest when this RM and the one below both close, one way or another, we then give it a break for at least six months. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another request: Move to "Sia"

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The argument to drop the disambiguator has not gained consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

– Move to Sia - Honestly speaking, she is the primary topic for just "Sia". Sooner or later, this article will be moved there. So I don't see the point in moving the article to "Sia (singer)", but instead propose a move to just "Sia". --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) MaRAno FAN 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

*Move to Sia per HĐ and MaranoFan - CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

I tweaked my argument a little bit. George Ho (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Sia. I would support this. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support original nomination - She is not primary topic of "Sia". There are other Sias. --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Move back to Sia Furler per WP:NCP#Single name. Her surname, Furler, has been fairly often used by most many news articles. --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • She is known more by "Sia" and per WP:COMMONNAME Sia is more suitable ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article" – just like Beyoncé in lieu of Beyoncé Knowles). HĐ (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Regardless, the article is disambiguated by a term instead of a natural surname. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Because it was decided, based on her artistic output, that most people do not know her as "Sia Furler", thus rendering the natural disambiguation useless. (To my knowledge, she has only used her surname in songwriting credits, where full names are generally used.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Check out her first album, OnlySee (1997). Also uses Furler for production work and other attributions.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Sia. There are other people known as Sia and I see no reason to disadvantage readers looking for other Sias. If there is consensus to move to any disambiguator I support the majority. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just the fact that "There are other Sias" doesn't at all rule out Sia (Furler) as the primary topic. The thing is that most of the readers are definitely looking for this Sia. It would confuse, more than help, people to be directed to the disambig page when they are looking for this page. Sia Koroma received 283, Sia Figiel received 371, Sia Berkeley received 564, Beau Sia received 144. Whereas Sia Furler, received 78856 views in the last 30 days. Also, she is the only one known by a mononym. I could go on and on but I believe I have made my point. MaRAno FAN 12:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard of "Sia" until now. The time is too early to make her a primary topic. Probably an insect Sia or a mythical God "Sia" is more of a long-term than some musician herself. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, I've never heard of the "sia" insect or the Sia god until looking at the Sia page. Ignorance, however, is not an excuse for disservicing readers. The insect article received 536 views in the last 90 days, the article about the village in Cyprus received 450, and the god's article 3,357; meanwhile, the singer's article received over 1 million views. (Other topics on the dabpage are not known simply as "Sia" or use the "SIA" acronym, which should remain a redirect to the dabpage.) Furler's article outperforms the insect, god, and village articles combined by a factor of over 250. The stats show that there is a 99.6% chance a reader searching for "Sia" is looking for the singer. Is this something we should ignore? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to Sia - Like Beyonce, Adele, Cher and Rihanna - They're all known by there first names, I can't see why this should be any different...., I appreciate the sources call her "Sia Furler"... but we don't nor I'd imagine does any her fans so per COMMONNAME I say Support. –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 10 February 2015
  • Comment Another significant example is Beck, a recent Grammy Award winner. HĐ (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Sia" WP:RECENTISM only recently has she become high profile. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • She has been accredited as "Sia" since her album Healing Is Difficult in 2001. HĐ (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That has nothing to do with anything. "Sia" is an article title, not the person. She has not become high profile until recently, whatever her stagename has been. "Sia (singer)" is also an aritcle title, which would also fit with her stagename, but it is NOT the same article title as "Sia". -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the primary topic for "Sia" --82.4.111.110 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my comment above –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Sting (musician) - by whatever name she is know is not relevant; this is simply done to avoid disambiguation. She needs to be identified as such, so people can arrive at the right page. It's not a reflection on her profession or the wide variety of her creative output. The infobox and article itself is for all that. Karst (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As you can see by the actual "Sia" page, there are multiple and wide-ranging topics that go by the name Sia, not least of which is a foreign city, several acronyms and a god. I would not suggest that "Blue (Joni Mitchell album)" be moved to "Blue (album)" simply because it is the most famous of those options. It's improper. She's not the only, or more important Sia. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "Sia (musician)" is perfectly adequate. (And because I'm tired of the continual move requests concerning this page – let's leave it alone for six months.) Dwpaul Talk 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and let's have a moratorium on RMs for this page for at least six months. Let the other open one close, one way or another, then give it a break. It's not all that important. Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Sia", I'd prefer Sia Furler as per WP:NATURALDIS, but Sia (musician) is better than Sia and also forcing current Sia content into Sia (disambiguation). I also agree with the "leave it alone" sentiment re:RMs for this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment I think that musician may be a better description of a singer/songwriter than musician. GregKaye 07:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not exactly sure what you are trying to say Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe GregKaye is trying to say that the more broad "musician" disambiguator better reflects the fact that she is known not only for singing, but also writing songs for herself and others. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Greg.) However, I think the argument is flawed, as she is better known as a singer/performer than a behind-the-scenes hitmaker for Flo Rida, Christina Aguilera, et al., and is not known for using instruments other than her voice. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment my first preference is moving back to Sia Furler per WP:NATURALDIS, that said I also oppose current move request as subject's notability isn't limited to singing.--Staberinde (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    But she's never referred to as Sia Furler, only Sia. Unreal7 (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The only music release that has been marketed as Sia Furler is OnlySee (National Library of Australia). She also used "Sia Furler" in songwriting and production credits, which is a smaller aspect compared to her music career (all of her albums except the aforementioned album are released under the name Sia). Furthermore, she has successfully registered Sia as a trademark, so there are no reasons to move back to Sia Furler. HĐ (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NATURAL advises us to "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Thus, the move to "Sia (musician)" should never have occurred in the first place. It is for this reason that I now completely oppose the move to Sia (singer), maintain support for Sia per my previous comments, and if neither then move back to Sia Furler. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisting comment Article view stats have been provided to argue for primary topic, but there are about 60k page views for SIA. So, the disambiguation page at Sia (which is for both Sia and SIA) needs to be considered more thoroughly and carefully than has hitherto been the case in this discussion. Also, there has been no notification at Talk:Sia of this requested move, but all talk pages affected by the move should have been notified. Consequently, I am relisting this for further discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • weak oppose to all. A writer of songs is a musician I guess. I can't see the point of the change. What is a sia? As far as I can see, the disambiguation helps. GregKaye 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Re:SIA - WP:DIFFCAPS applies. "SIA" would obviously remain a redirect to the dab page, and since those 60k are searching for it in all-caps, they wouldn't be affected. As for anyone else, the singer's article would obviously have a link to the dab page in a hatnote. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unofficcial lead singer of Zero 7

@HĐ:, @Binksternet:, @Madreterra: There appears to be a minor disagreement over her role in Zero 7. Whilst I think there is no doubt that Sia's main vocals are an important part of the band's success, others obviously also contributed. So can we call her the unofficial lead-singer of Zero 7 or is she just one of the main vocalists? Karst (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well that's what Billboard recognised. I think it is fine to mention her as an "unofficial" frontwoman of Zero 7. HĐ (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to see a bit of reduction in the prose, a toning down of the mention, since Sia was not the only lead vocalist of Zero 7. Other lead vocalists included Sophie Barker and Mozez on the first Zero 7 album in 2000, Sophie Barker, Mozez and Tina Dico on their second album in 2004, and José González and Henry Binns on their third album in 2006. Sia demonstrated more staying power than the other vocalists, lasting three albums, and she performed along with Barker on the biggest of Zero 7's hit singles: "Destiny". Some sources discuss Sia as collaborating with Zero 7, or as one of Zero 7's three (or four) singers, but by 2009, the string of albums sharing the feature of Sia singing lead on some of the vocals made Billboard's Kerri Mason remark that Sia was the "unofficial, clear-voiced frontwoman" of Zero 7.[6] Mason is alone, as far as I can tell, in calling Sia the lead singer or frontwoman. So for me, attributing Billboard with the comment reduces the impact, makes it less that Wikipedia is saying she was the foremost singer in Zero 7. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 01:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Sia (musician) → Sia Furler – Despite the timing of this RM, this is not for either of the requests above that just failed to gain consensus. This is a request for a move back to natural disambiguation. NATURAL says to "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Parenthetical disambiguation should only be used "if natural disambiguation is not possible." Although the subject is most commonly referred to in sources by her mononym, she is occasionally referred to as Sia Furler: Billboard, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail, New York Times, etc. Additionally, she uses the name Sia Furler in writing credits for other artists (a notable aspect of her career), and her debut album OnlySee was released under her full name.

Therefore, the move to "Sia (musician)" should have never taken place. The discussion there was mainly based on WP:COMMONNAME; I'm not arguing that "Sia" is not the subject's most common name, but as mentioned, Wikipedia prefers natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation where possible. And using natural disambiguation will spare us silly wars over whether "musician" or "singer" is the better disambiguator (see the convoluted last RM). –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move Despite the fact that I'm sick and tired of the continual RMs concerning this article, I support per nom's comments. Dwpaul Talk 22:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Move (actually Return). I agree with Chase's proposal and with Dwpaul's sentiments: I'm also s & t of RM's here. My reasons for Sia Furler have been expressed repeatedly above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Move - I support Chase's statement on the matter. Return it to the original title. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Read my comment above as well as similar comments at the requested move of Beyoncé. HĐ (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Your comments above cite COMMONNAME, which as noted in the proposal is not relevant here. No one is disputing that "Sia" is the subject's common name. However, per the previous discussions we cannot have the article title at Sia, thus disambiguation is necessary. NATURAL says that natural disambiguation can be used even when not the common name and is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. (And as the previous RMs have shown, no one can agree on what the best parenthetical disambiguator is for Sia.)

    Also, please note that Beyoncé and Adele are the primary topics and their article titles do not require any sort of disambiguation. This does not apply to Sia. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 18:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One more point is that Adele's primary topic is not about the singer. — HĐ (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You're completely missing the point. We cannot have the article at Sia – there is no consensus that she is the primary topic. Thus, disambiguation is necessary and Wikipedia policy says that natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical. Please go back and read the OP. And what do you mean Adele's primary topic is not about the singer? Have you been to Adele lately? –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not request this be moved to Sia in this discussion. HĐ (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The arguments just seem to be going around in circles and the same people appear to be involved in the discussion. It just signals that no consensus will be reached again, just like the previous requests. IMHO this just goes against common sense. Karst (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus can be reached if one side provides more valid arguments than the other. In this case, those who support this move back it up with the article titles policy's preference for natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation. Whereas the opposition cites COMMONNAME, another aspect of AT – however, that is flawed as the proposed move to "Sia Furler" is purely for the purpose of disambiguation on an article that is already disambiguated. (There has been no consensus to make Furler the primary topic for "Sia", so some form of dab is currently necessary.) No valid argument has been raised as to why we should ignore the preference for natural disambiguation. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus has changed in the past. There were two requested moves to Sia (musician), only the second of which was successful, so consensus could change back. ekips39 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For god sake can we stop with the requests?, The third fourth time was bad enough ..... Consensus is to keep it at this title so we should leave it at that and if anyone's unhappy then re-request in a year or 2 ..... Requesting again and again won't help. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My argument's based on the fact there's been too many requests here and only in November this was moved to this title - Surely you can see it's disruptive for everyone to keep requesting a move ?, Yup can consensus can change but let's be honest here it won't...., In a year or 2 it might and who knows I may even support then but IMHO for now these are all too soon. –Davey2010Talk 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We are indeed destined to deadlock without consensus again if respondents continue to respond to proposals other than the one being discussed here (such as a move to undisambiguated Sia, which is not an option), which many seem to be doing. Dwpaul Talk 16:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - she is widely known as Sia - not Sia Furler. Unreal7 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I am fine with either Sia, Sia (singer) or Sia (musician). But she is not known as Sia Furler, only Sia. Unreal7 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Please read the OP again for sources that refer to her as "Sia Furler". It may not be the most common usage of her name, but it's common enough that NATURAL would apply. Brandy Norwood is more commonly known as Brandy yet we have her article at her full name, not "Brandy (singer)" or "Brandy (actress)". –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support close call, but the sources provided are good examples to favor WP:NATURAL. Also, "musician" is too vague of a DAB. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I would rather type in full name instead of just one mere name with a parenthetical term that distinguishes this well-known Aussie from others. Unsure of whether "Furler" is fairly often used per WP:SINGLENAME, but I don't have enough energy to be interested in it. The matters are searching for this article, and I'm sure that many readers of Wikipedia are fully aware of her surname. --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I note that not one of the oppose votes above seems to address the rationale given by the proposer. It's a point well made. Andrewa (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Support) Sure, moving it sounds fine -- the sources given support it, though two of them also refer to her simply as Sia. OTOH, no offence but this seems like a bike shed issue. Do our readers care which title it's located at? They both unambiguously refer to her and can be supported by valid arguments. Also, the argument about preferring to search for such-and-such rather than so-and-so is invalid because one title will always redirect to the other. ekips39 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick note - I had to move the article back as it was moved by someone who !voted here - In the long run it could cause problems so I'd rather it was moved legitimately - Had this been a small discussion with barely any !votes I wouldn't of cared, Anyway Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The subject is overwhelmingly best known by simply Sia, to the point where including the last name would add confusion to a large amount of those who are searching for her, to the extent that some may feel they have ended up on the wrong page. Natural disambiguation is always nice, but it's not enough when the common name is so clear cut.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly buying the argument that it would cause confusion. If one were to a buy a Sia album, or check the iTunes metadata for a single of hers, they would see "Sia Furler" in the writing credits. She was billed as "Sia Furler" for her televised Song of the Year nomination at the Grammys. Even so, readers looking for "Sia" would be pointed to a disambiguation page anyway. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Every artists are credited under their full name in songwriting credits (like Beyoncé Knowles). HĐ (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can think of a few examples contrary to your argument: Robyn Fenty, Stefani Germanotta, Katheryn Hudson, etc. Regardless, "Beyoncé Knowles" would be recognizable to readers if her article required disambiguation, and her article was actually located at that title for a very long time. Sia, however, does not have that luxury, since there are other "Sia" topics and we have decided that she is not the primary topic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox title: Sia or "Sia Furler"?

Closing as uninvolved editor. It's only been 11 days, but with the possible exception of the RfC author, consensus seems unanimous that, regardless of the move in the article's namespace for disambiguation purposes (and regardless of the advisability of said move), "Sia" remains the most common name of the article's subject and thus is appropriate as a header for the infobox. (On a side note, it's good to be able to put a name, whichever variation is more accurate, to that voice.) Snow let's rap 10:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite recent renaming to "Sia Furler", Sia vs Sia Furler debate hasn't ended here yet. Which one shall be preferred? --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Just simply use "Sia" in the infobox, even though the page has been renamed. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The infobox title should be "Sia". It has been agreed in the multiple RMs that "Sia" is the subject's common name. The recent move to "Sia Furler" reflects natural disambiguation. If parenthetical disambiguation were still in place, the infobox title would not be "Sia (musician)"; since "Furler" is only in the article title to disambiguate, it should likewise not be in the infobox here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Along those lines, there are Sia-related articles that say Sia and not Sia Furler. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sia - never heard of her but if Sia is her common name, the title of the page should have stayed Sia (musician) to reflect standard naming practices with single-named people where disambiguation is needed, such as Seal (musician), Sting (musician), Madonna (entertainer), Common (rapper), etc. The only reason to put her last name is if "Sia (musician)" is not clear enough because there are two or more musicians named Sia. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Natural disambiguation was chosen because she has released an album under her full name, she is notable for her songwriting and uses her full name in that aspect of her career, and because she is occasionally referred to by her full name in reliable sources (see RM5 above). Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation if another name is common but not as common; Madonna's article, for example, would not work if it was titled "Madonna Ciccone" because her full name is not well known. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Infobox should say Sia, Personally I don't think the article should've been renamed because of issues like this but there we go. –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of songs

I was surprised to see there was not a list of songs recorded by Sia. I redirected List of songs recorded by Sia and List of songs recorded by Sia Furler to here for now (not sure which is preferable), but feel free to get a list going before me if you have time and interest. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Created List of songs recorded by Sia Furler with tracks from the standard versions of her studio albums. Many more songs to add, but it's a start. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sia Furler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination.  — Calvin999 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think info box person is appropriate. This is usually used for someone who crosses over into different areas, such as music, film, politics, etc. I actually think info box songwriter like Diane Warren would be better. Because Sia is only involved in music, and so it seems odd to have info box person and then include a Musical career part.
  • It's not essential info. She's a songwriter primarily, a singer second.  — Calvin999 16:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally, associated acts should only include artists with whom Sia has worked three times or more.
  • is an Australian singer, songwriter and music video director. → is an Australian songwriter and singer. (No need to link, she is primarily a songwriter, and music video director is not something she is known for.
  • Musically and artistically precocious, → This needs context
  • Sia became interested in performing in the style of musicians including Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder and Sting. → What style is this?
  • By 1997, → In 1997
  • You always use 'Sia' and it's getting repetitive. You can use 'she' or 'the singer'
  • There shouldn't be citations in the lead.
  • The album sold 1,200 copies. → This needs a source
  • The first paragraph of the 1997–2006: Zero 7, Healing Is Difficult and Colour the Small One section reads like a list of facts, there's no flow.
  • retro jazz and soul musical styles → retro jazz and soul music
  • dealing with the death of her first love affair. → This is ambiguous. Did she have an affair and it end?
  • Consequently, Sia's manager, David Enthoven, set up a tour across the country to maintain her success. → What success? You just said it was poorly marketed and didn't connect with a pop audience
  • which includes eight → which included eight (tense)
  • Sia released her fourth studio album, Some People Have Real Problems. → Okay, when?
  • The final product, → Later revealed to be called
  • star, Maddie Ziegler → You don't need a comma here
  • songs, Opportunity. → It's a song, so should have quotation marks around it.
  • According to the criteria, one line paragraphs should be kept to an absolute minimum. There are quite a lot of instances of this throughout the article, and unnecessarily so. Paragraphs should be 4 to 5 lines in length.
  • follow her first love, → Not encyclopedic
  • Ref 2 has the URL showing
  • Ref 13 needs formatting
  • It's Digital Spy, not digitalspy.com
Outcome

Overall, not too bad, but needs cleaning up.  — Calvin999 08:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I should have quick failed this article, because you have not contributed significantly to it at all. I should have checked the history of the article prior to completing my review. The only reason why I am saying this now is because I just quick failed your nomination of Jennifer Lopez as you have never edited it. You've only edited Sia Furler a handful of times and they are not significant at all. It's been nearly 7 days since I did this review but I've had no response here. You have been online too, and clearly had time to making ill-judged nominations. I don't think you are serious about making improvements and I don't think you understand the rules of nominations, which is concreted by whim of a Jennifer Lopez nomination. I'm sorry but this article is not worthy of being made a Good Article yet. As I said in my concluding statement of the review, it does need cleaning up.  — Calvin999 10:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Who the heck is "Dan"?

Is there no further identification of the deceased boyfriend? Is there a better way of introducing the subject than "...Sia decided to move to London to follow her first relationship with Dan"? The wording of the section implies there was a previous mention of the fellow earlier in the article (and that "Dan" is possibly a last name). Has this been removed? Is he a member of her first band? How would a first time reader like myself know? If all we have is a first name and no RS on the last name, do we even need to mention the name at all? Is there something really obvious to others I'm not understanding? BusterD (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, yes there is, she is quite repressed and private -- but Google is your friend (try it, you might like it):: Murfett, Andrew (June 18, 2010). "Sia Furler: Fame does not become her". SMH.
Not to mention her fiance as of 2014 -- "Sia Furler's Mystery Fiance Revealed! Singer Songwriter is Engaged to American Documentary Maker Erik Anders Lang". Fashion Times. June 7, 2014. WurmWoodeT 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I performed a google search but didn't find the FT source with the last name. Just because the subject refuses to use the last name doesn't mean we shouldn't track it down and include it if available. To refer to someone over and over again by their first name with zero explanation in text is not only non-encyclopedic style, but it tends to appear as if the name has been intentionally deleted. Thanks for the sources. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Sia

Editors interested in creating and improving articles related to Sia are welcome to join WikiProject Sia. Thanks for your consideration! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bipolar

She is on record as self-identifying as bipolar, this should probably be in the article. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:61E2:9147:7BEB:BD02 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Karst (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sometimes"

The opening says "sometimes referred to mononymously as Sia". Shouldn't "sometimes" be "often"? --Benimation (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed it to professionally, as really, it is a performance name, like Sting (musician) or Madonna (entertainer). Karst (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016


45.50.220.157 (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) PIcture change as well as new biography update

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sia Furler. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Article content change: Sia or Furler?

There is a clear consensus to continue to use "Sia" instead of "Furler" throughout the whole article per WP:COMMONNAME and per the previous discussion at Talk:Sia Furler/Archive 2#Infobox title: Sia or "Sia Furler"?. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current revision uses "Sia" throughout the whole article. I want to change from "Sia" to "Furler" to be consistent with the present title. However, in previous discussions, consensus prefer "Sia" in the infobox instead. Therefore, I figure that a discussion is needed instead. What are your thoughts on this proposal? --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Sia. I came here from the RfC notice. It seems to me that this is the name that she identifies by publicly. It's OK to have the full name as the page title, for disambiguation purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sia - Summoned by bot but also contributed to last RfC above. Per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact she is known mononymously as Sia, we should refer to her throughout the article as such. Meatsgains (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sia per both of the above; her surname provides natural disambiguation but shouldn't be extensively used elsewhere per COMMONNAME. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 06:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sia I would keep it as their stage names as many Wikipedia articles has been consistent on doing so. For instance, Snoop Dogg and Ice-T to name a few. Nick2crosby (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sia, for the same reasons as given in the infobox discussion on the previous archive page. Everyone appears to agree that the subject's common name is "Sia", and that she performs under that name. For the same reasons, Beyonce is so-called throughout her article, rather than being referred to as "Knowles". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image license problem for Sia performing photograph by Kris Krug.jpg?

I'm worried that the image "Sia performing photograph by Kris Krug.jpg" is not compatible with Wikipedia. On its Wikimedia Commons page, the license is listed as "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0" but if you go back to the Flickr page (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kk/2350132325/) it is listed as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 which I thought wouldn't work because of Wikipedia not being a place for noncommercial-only licensed content. On the image's page it says "It was reviewed on 20 August 2009 by the FlickreviewR robot" so maybe the author changed the license after FlickerreviewR bot got to it?

Thanks.Dwiki (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox title, Pt. 2: Sia or "Sia Furler" again?

In the previous RfC, consensus decided to stick to just "Sia", even when the latest RM said to have first and last name in the article title. Somehow, the surname is added in the infobox. Shall we enforce the previous RfC and then re-remove "Furler" from the infobox, or shall we retain "Furler" in the infobox? --George Ho (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - As an outside observer coming in blind, just glancing at the article, it looks pretty clear that it should be simply "Sia" in the infobox, as that is the WP:COMMONNAME. The lead even makes it clear that, as a performer, she has a mononym. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the lead doesn't begin with "Sia", and then expand to state her birthname (maybe even in parenthesis). Fieari (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Fieari, have you read the latest RM from last year yet, the one that resulted in replacing the parenthetical term with the surname? George Ho (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Infobox should include only "Sia" as per WP:COMMONNAME and as Fierari noted, the lead already explains that she is referred to mononymously as Sia. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The OED says there is no such word in the English language as 'mononymously'. Should the article adopt 'Sia' on its own then the problem goes away, but otherwise what is wrong with 'usually known as Sia'? I should perhaps mention that the OED does recognise 'anonymously' and many other similar words ending '-ly' treesmill (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Serial comma

This article omits the serial comma consistently, per MOS:SERIAL. There is no consensus to add it. It clutters up sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the serial comma should be omitted in this article. I agree that it generally clutters up sentences with embedded lists. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that the serial comma is unnecessary in articles and clutters up sentences. Jack1956 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox pic

If she decided not to show her face in public, should it be a (free if is it one out there) pic of herself with a wig that cover her eyes, like she is seen in public now, instead of the current one? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Lead image should be a recent one with the wig (if anyone has a free one), although the current image could be further down in the article, since Wikipedia is not censored. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I was looking on flickr for a recent, free pic and nothing. Just realized the current pic is not that flattering. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. It's not horrible, but it's not good. This is because of Wikipedia's overly-restrictive fair use rules. There is no *legal* reason why we can't use any publicity photo that she has put out at any time in the past, but Wikipedia's image rules don't allow it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
but Zayn Malik is using a professional pic. is that difficult? never paid attention to that. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The copyright holder of that photo licensed it freely under a CC license. Perhaps someone contacted their management and asked if they were willing to do so, and then worked with OTRS to approve it. My experience is that this is a time-consuming and often frustrating process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Sia Furler. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with We Meaning You Tour

There are some sources out there, but not enough (that I can find) to meet WP:Event. Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: I think the article should be kept as a standalone topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is worth noting that Sia's discography has two live albums associated with the tour. Surely there is more sourcing about these, too? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: I don't think the tour article adds anything that can't be adequately addressed in Sia's main article. Apparently the tour was not particularly successful. The two live albums, on the "Monkey Puzzle" label, do not appear to be significant and, of course, did not chart at all. Not every tour needs its own article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm unsure of how to say this without seeming biased; the tour was promoting a moderately-successful album (worldwide) and as such received quite a fair amount of media discussion, there are sources that can clearly be expanded upon with a simple Google search, so I don't know why, of all things, we're looking to merge the tour into the artist's page, and not the album's, or not expanding upon an article that has plenty of sources. Aleccat 06:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleccat (talk • contribs)

Why is there so much emphasis on hiding the fact that Sia was a full-fledged "band-member" in Zero 7?

I constantly see references in wiki's about her that say she was "lead vocalist who also happened to tour with them" ...you've gotta be kidding me. Is there anything stopping us from just out and out saying she was a band member with zero7 and is no longer a band member with them?

She was a full-fledged band member and contributed quite a bit. George Harrison only sang two songs on Abbey Road that doesn't mean he was a "vocalist". He was a full-fledged Beatles band member. I'm not sure why the wikis like to dance around this issue *constantly* like they're walking on eggshells to say anything BUT the fact that she was a band member.

Even for consistency's sake, on the Zero7 band page it lists her as a former member. So I think, quite clearly, all of the stuff mentioning Sia in connection with Zero7 should explicitly mention her as a full-fledged band member from 1997-2008 without having to dance around the issue so opaquely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.78.64 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What you wrote seems to be (1) redundant; (2) is unreferenced; and (3) is not encyclopedic in tone. See WP:V. Note that wikis are not acceptable references on Wikipedia. Is there any reason why "providing lead vocals" would *not* make her a band memeber? And what do the words "full fledged" mean here? Those words are used by marketing people, not encyclopedias. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It is a legal issue if anything. Harrison was part of all the business and contractual goings-on surrounding the Beatles. Zero 7 is Binns and Hardaker, who used a number of guest vocalists. That Billboard calls her the "unofficial" lead-singer is noted in the article, but legally we cannot say that she is a full time member of the band, similarly to George Harrison. And it would be wrong to suggest that she is. Karst (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft for upcoming album

I started a draft for her upcoming Christmas album: Draft:Sia's Christmas album. Feel free to help expand until we're ready to move the draft into the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I tried adding an associated acts section to her info box and it got deleted by another user. Most other music artists on Wikipedia have an associated acts section on their page so why can't Sia have it? My deleted edit was:

| associated_acts =

Nicholas S8 (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes (if one thinks that they are useful at all) are intended to "summarize ... key facts that appear in the article". To use space at the top of the article to list all of these "associated acts" of Sia would be a poor choice, because these names are not "key facts" about Sia. Most of the people you listed have very little to do with Sia's career success. Sia's most important association with another performer is undoubtedly Maddie Ziegler, who dances in her most popular videos and on stage during most of her performances, whom you did not list. Do you have WP:Reliable sources that state that each of the people you listed are "associated acts" of Sia? What exactly do you mean by an "associated act"? It is not defined in Wikipedia, and it is hard to find good definitions elsewhere. So, I strongly oppose adding the field to the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers above; the information cited is not necessary in the infobox. Jack1956 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Most of these artistes don't even rate a mention in the article, so I'm not sure that they can be seen as defining characteristics of Sia. I'm always very sceptical of the people who are crowbarred into the "associated act" sections of infoboxes. The phrase has such an ill-defined meaning, it lacks any credibility. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with the above statements by Ssilvers. Sia has collaborated with many artists. None of them, with the exception of Maddie Ziegler and perhaps the team for Sia's videos, should be considered an "associated act". Somambulant1 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The people who I put were music artists who I am aware have collaborated with her but I understand and respect your decision not to have them on the page. Nicholas S8 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, Hello, may you please explain and justify why you believe the lead should include "mononymously" and all associated acts be removed, instead of citing BOLD and effectively saying "because I can"?

Now, I'm not fully fussed about the inclusion of "known mononymously as" because it is correct per MOS:NICKNAME. However, I don't really think it's necessary to include, as the lead is much cleaner with only her full name, followed by the pronunciation and her date of birth. This leads the reader to realise that Sia is her first name, removing the need to spoonfeed that information to them. Similarly mononymous singers Rihanna and Beyoncé (the latter a GA) do fine without the explanation.

However, I see the associated acts removal as unjustified. It is common for associated acts fields to be wrongly filled with every collaborator ever but this is not the case here. Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts states that "this field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career". It explicitly states "for individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member", which applies to Zero 7 and LSD. The most common thing that should be avoided, which it states, is "[a] one-time collaboration for a single song". This does not apply to David Guetta, who is very notable to her career, collaborating with her on "Titanium", "She Wolf (Falling to Pieces)", "Bang My Head", "Flames", "The Whisperer" and a version of "Helium".

I hope my points are understood, Thanks. Lazz_R 23:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a WP:CONSENSUS to delete the "known mononymously as". As you note, it is correct per the guideline. As for the "associated acts", the ones listed are NOT associated acts, as I understand that term. The only notable people who have consistently performed with Sia over a long period of time are Maddie Ziegler and possibly Ryan Heffington. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, understood. But the template parameter explicitly states to include any groups that he or she has been part of, which does apply to Zero 7 and LSD. Lazz_R 16:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The general Infobox rules say to include only information that the WP:CONSENSUS of editors deems important in the context of an infobox (if you include an infobox at all. See also WP:DISINFOBOX). Zero 7 is not that important, except to say that it was her first band. She has not performed with them for a decade. LSD is a new venture which is supposedly coming out with an album. After it does so, if the album charts well, they could be listed as an associated act (if the album does not do well, I imagine that the three will go their separate ways). Really, the only person who Sia performs with consistently (and in her most important performances/videos) is Ziegler, and if anyone is mentioned in the Infobox as an associated act, it should be Zielger. Even then, we should ask ourselves: Does this information substantially help the casual browser? Because anyone who is more than a casual browser should read the whole Lead section, if not the article itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Repetto

Not of encyclopedic noteworthiness, unless it becomes a major seller. Interesting that the article doesn't mention the upcoming LSD album at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Composing debut

If Sia wins a best score Oscar for the film, or a Grammy for the soundtrack, or if the soundtrack otherwise becomes an important part of Sia's bio, we will certainly say so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

LSD: Mountains EP release

On section 1.7, it mentions the release of Mountains (EP) on Spotify. Is it possible to also add the "No New Friends (EP)" release? If not, that's alright, considering it was hard to find a reliable source besides Spotify directly. Matthewl6500 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh, these are strange. For the record, here's a link to the EP. Not really sure how to handle... @Ss112: Have you seen this before, or have any thoughts on how best to handle in articles/discographies, etc.? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This just looks to be the new "updated collection of songs" thing that artists do in the streaming era. The Chainsmokers and Florida Georgia Line have both done it as well. Each time a new song comes out, the release is updated on streaming services to include the latest song and display its cover art as well as its name. LSD did this for "Mountains" and "No New Friends" before the album announcement happened, it appears. Unless we want to consider each individual version as a separate EP (and have sources for each), then I'd find it difficult to classify. Ss112 04:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ss112: @Another Believer: Is it possible to just remove references to both EP's and just mention the LSD album alone? The EP's were only released on Spotify anyway and seems irrelevant as of now, compared to last November. Matthewl6500 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the new album supersedes the earlier collections, and we can just discuss the LSD album here. On the LSD album article, we can mention the EP releases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IB fields

There has been way too much disruption over the continual changes to the IB over the last few days. There are two fields in question: Spouse and Awards. Please could people discuss before continuing to edit war. (Oh, and Mr. Split, re your edit summary "(and I think got "good article" status) when it was like this. Deletion = vandalism": 1. This is when the article passed GAN and neither of the fields were present. Please check before you make such erroneous comments again. 2. Just because there is disagreement about the inclusion does not mean there is vandalism. I see you've not been on WP for long: you need to learn quickly not to accuse others of vandalism unless there is actually vandalism. You also need to learn not to continue edit warring in support of a disruptive IP.) - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a link to List of awards and nominations received by Sia makes sense given that is a standalone article. I don't think Erik Anders Lang needs to be named, since that was a short relationship (2014 to 2016). I don't have a strong opinion either way.--Eostrix (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Sorry SC I didn't read this first...) Well, I said '*I think* it got "good article" status', as I hadn't noticed the mark before it got protected. Maybe it was "good" back when it didn't have them, but can't these elements make it better? Other singer articles have them all. Besides, the administrator protected the article as it was after my edit, that's enough for me to believe that version's an "approved" one. So I still see the deletion is the disruption. Why do some people keep forcing the other version?Mr. Split (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to link to the awards article in the IB. It is linked elsewhere in the article already, and it is better to keep the IB concise. Erik Anders Lang is not a notable person, and their marriage was relatively brief, so it is, again, better to keep the IB concise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers above: if the article must have an infobox it needs to be kept concise and need not be overloaded. Jack1956 (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Mr Split, as I've said above about vandalism, the same thing goes for describing edits as "disruptive". The only thing disruptive was the IP edit warring. S/he was the one forcing things, and you are equally culpable. Please see WP:STATUSQUO; this advises to leave the previous version in place to discuss matters. Both you and the IP have breached that.
Concerning the two fields in question, I consider that the Anders Lang field is one I'd keep out: too short a relationship to have a major impact (without a source to say otherwise), and a non-notable individual. The awards is a bit less clear, but I think I'd probably opt for keeping it out. IBs work best when 'less is more' is kept in mind, and with the article linked elsewhere I. The text, it isn't of major importance in the IB itself. - SchroCat (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I see; I didn't know the 'Status Quo' rule. I've seen that "Full list" link to awards on other singer info boxes (that include pretty much everything) and looked like a norm. Why let those people keep it if it's frowned upon? And as for Spouse: I was under the impression that mere relationships should be kept out but marrying made you relevant ipso facto. Well, I'd ask to know if there was an agreement with the administrator who protected the article ('cause the history is there: he/she did it following my restoration & that's why I still think it wasn't bad).Mr. Split (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu has already directed you to where the only interaction took place. To reiterate: I requested page protection to stop edit warring and s/he protected it some time later. S/he wouldn't have worried about which version was in place, they would just have acted to stop the edit warring, knowing everyone else can have a discussion to come to a consensus. In other words the version at the time of protection has no favoured status. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'll just say I was quite bothered by this determination to keep non-damaging details out, and leave it at that. Far from me wanting to mess up her article.Mr. Split (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the most heart touching masterpiece by Sia was her song MY Love in the movie The Twilight Saga: Eclipse which released in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.118 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"voice actress and director"

This should be removed, she obviously is not a director just because she has directed a music video. and the voice actress part is not what she's known for/what she regularly does.

You're wrong. She has directed numerous hit music videos and a feature film. The body of the article contains citations to sources for all of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers. I don't understand why this is being disputed. There are numerous articles that reference her credentials. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses to Ssilvers

@Ssilvers: You requested an explanation from me. Here they are.

  • The deletion of the section on the Talk page was because the auto-archiving tool was broken and didn't already do it. That particular thread (titled "Associated Acts" and last dated 20 September 2018) seemed done with, so I archived it. It wasn't deleted.
  • Re: removing a sentence from section "2015–2017: This Is Acting". I removed the sentence "The videos that Sia has posted to her YouTube channel have accumulated a total of more than 8 billion views, and the channel has more than 18 million subscribers." along with a link to Sia's youtube channel. It is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research to do something like count numbers from a youtube channel and post a summary of your findings. And linking to a youtube channel in order to do it is NOT a citation, thereby violating Wikipedia:External links. To include such content you will need to find a secondary source that mentions it.
  • Re removing content from "Activism" section: PETA is not a WP:Reliable source for citations in Wikipedia, and that includes their domain petaasiapacific.com. Content supported by non-RS may be deleted. Similarly, the domain oscarslaw.org is an activist's blog and is not a reliable source. Wikipedia's policy about questionable sources says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information ABOUT THEMSELVES, usually in articles ABOUT THEMSELVES or their activities ... so long as: it does not involve CLAIMS ABOUT THIRD PARTIES." As such, having oscarslaw.org tell something about Sia cannot appear in Sia's wiki article as the source for the content. If you want to include activism and such, you need to provide a secondary source showing it happened. It might well be true, but Wikipedia's rules on reliable source are one of its top guidelines.

Please revert your reversions of my edits on the Sia page. (The Talk page edit can remain, if you like.) Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your statements above, and I disagree with the deletions that you made to Sia's page. YouTube, and in this case Sia's YouTube page, is the definitive source for the number of views that Sia has accumulated on her music videos. This is clearly not WP:OR. Also, PETA is a reliable source with respect to the information cited to it. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The information about the extraordinary success of Sia's videos on YouTube is sourced to Sia's YouTube channel. It is not original research to report the numbers from a YouTube channel. First of all, you are simply wrong about adding numbers. You can do math without violating OR. But in this case, no math is needed, as Sia's "about" page directly reports the total: 9,310,252,228 views. As for the Activism section, you are also wrong that Peta is not a reliable source about Sia's participation at an event they sponsored. You are misreading the SPS rule. I agree with Somambuluant above: your deletions from Sia's page are unconstructive. If you want to find better sources for Sia's activism, feel free to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue advocacy content in this article

(Continuing the same discussion from above)

Ssilvers, you should review the conversation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PETA. In summary, the sort of insertion of PETA and Oscar's Law into the Sia (musician) article violates WP:ADVOCACY and is WP:UNDUE content. Even if you might be allowed to include something like "PETA was invited by Sia to attend..." (sourced at peta.org), you could not include such content as "Sia partnered with various rescue organizations to conduct a dog adoption fair at each of her concerts" or "Sia was nominated for a 2016 Libby Award for Best Voice for Animals" as PETA is NOT a reliable source for this sort of information. You would need to locate and use a traditionally-considered reliable source to cite this content. And if you cannot find anything, then it wasn't important enough and thus... WP:UNDUE. (Pinging Buidhe since you reverted their edit.) Normal Op (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sia is a famous person and there is lots of independent sources, such as news articles, on her activities. If such a source does not exist, the content has to be considered WP:UNDUE, and likely inserted to promote PETA's campaigns (WP:NOTADVOCACY). (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is about weight, not advocacy. If you're going to cite Wikipedia guidelines, please cite a relevant one. In any case, we are simply reporting the historical fact that Sia supported animal rights campaigns. Peta is a reliable source for reporting that she did so. The text of the article doesn't even mention PETA, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: You didn't read this at all, did you? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PETA. — Normal Op (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I did, and I think your arguments there are equally poor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Since there's no consensus for the inclusion of this content, I'm going to remove it per WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 07:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The citations given in the article are reliable sources and that WP:UNDUE is certainly not applicable to this discussion at all. Jack1956 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an example of the problems brought up at RSN. WP:NOT and WP:POV most certainly apply, and there seems to be WP:OR driving some of it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the disputed deletions and therefore I have restored them pending a consensus. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Somambulant1, per WP:ONUS the consensus must come before you restore the disputed content. Normal Op (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I’ll see your onus and raise you a STATUS QUO which says text remains until consensus is achieved. Contrary to the alphabetti-spaghetti, there is no OR here (all information is sourced, but is it a question of wikilawyering around the number and level of sources to support things that are quite clear. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLP: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
Where are the better sources? A YouTube video isn't what I'd hoped. It's not independent. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop being so bloody obstructive. 1. Primary sources are not banned; 2. There are several sources that state this, but a fucking video of the event taking place is more than sufficient for anyone who isn’t deliberately obtuse and obstructive. – SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we follow BLP or not? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
BLP is not in question here. All of the refs given here are clear, acceptable and unambiguous. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I spent 2 minutes searching reliable sources and found a stack of articles supporting the information. That’s a better way to spend time than wikilawyering or spewing an alphabetti spaghetti of policies that are, at best, only tangentially connected. It’s too late for me to add them now, so I’ll do it in the morning, u less someone beats me to adding them. - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we're making slow progress.
I removed the mention of the Beagle Freedom Gala as being WP:SOAP as described here, similar to the PETA links as described at RSN.
Glad to know there's better sources available. Let's see what we can make of what's available. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
All of the sources in the articles are acceptable sources. There is no promotion here at all. We are simply reporting on facts concerning Sia's activism that are verified by the sources cited. The people who began this thread have an obvious WP:POV against PETA, if not all animal activism. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The RSN discussion is clear. BLP is clear. Dismissing policy and editors is no way to create consensus. The burden is on those seeking inclusion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Non biological kids.

An idiot bot which claims doesn't make mistakes reverted my edit. Follow 175th reference. Now. Stephenfryfan (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to specify that in the infobox. They're her children regardless. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Evergreenfir here. And the use of the word non-biological is odd. Karst (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

I would like to propose moving the image of her in the wig to the infobox and moving the current image in the infobox into the body of the article. Her face being covered is a clear part of her image. Since this article focuses on her career more than her personal life (as it should), the main image should be a better representation of her career. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal for the same reasons stated by JDDJS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox template

Shouldn't we be using Template:Infobox musical artist for articles like this? She is still active; and we can add her signature and children through a subbox of Infobox person. niko3818 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

The recent edits have to be seriously reviewed because these were added by activists who are not happy because of Sia's new movie. These are personal opinions & frankly they should not be present on wikipedia.

"its depiction of autism.[158][159] The film also contains scenes of blackface.[160] This has also followed a photo of Sia in blackface resurfacing in 2019 after she defended Scooter Braun, although Sia attempted to deny the photo.[161]" Bnvnly (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not taking a stance one way or the other, but you need to have a specific edit request (e.g., "change X to Y" or "delete Z") as well as reliable sources in order to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This was removed by another editor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticsm by autistic activists

Would it be appropriate to add a section or a note about the fact that she's been criticized by many autistic activists for her new film Music? I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure what the convention is here, but it seems to me that this topic might be notable enough to merit inclusion, though it's also quite likely to be a controversial topic. Thoughts? Aerin17 (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's being discussed concerning the film's article, where it is more relevant. In addition, see WP:CRITS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know; I didn't think to check the discussion on that article. Aerin17 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If the film accolades are relevant in this article, then the extensive autistic criticism is also relevant. Mousecalledgerald (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. The ref already given discusses the criticism, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Another editor, Peterpie, undid my edit. I'm not sure it needs to be in this article, so if you want to argue with Peterpie, ping him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Obscure jargon

The article currently includes the excerpt: 

In 2017, she released another PSA

I have tried searching the web for "PSA pet music" and variants in order to try to find out what this is referring to. Just searching for PSA results in Prostate-specific antigen, Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, Pacific Science Association, etc. so if anyone has any idea what this "PSA" is trying to signify, could they please replace it with something meaningful? If nobody knows what a "PSA" supposedly might be, I suggest just deleting the sentence as gibberish. As long as it doesn't have any readily divinable meaning, it's not contributing anything constructive to the article. 49.181.42.164 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ohhh! That's what it was referring to. OK. Thankyou for fixing that. I think the original "PSA" was needlessly cryptic for no benefit; I mean we could write the entire article in TLAs if we wanted nobody to be able to decode it! Using plain English is infinitely more accessible. Thankyou again! 49.195.131.0 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Katherineinnes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with changing non-text media and don't want to screw up on a presumably higher traffic page but surely we have a better copyright free image available, right? The current info box photo is so obscured it's almost comedic. XeCyranium (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that she purposefully obscures her face in public is, I think, well expressed by this photo, and there is discussion in the article about the fact that she usually does this in performance and often in interviews. Some commentators have, indeed, stated that they thought it was comical or a joke that she does it, but she has explained her reasons in detail. Later in the article there are some photos from earlier eras in her life when she showed her face publicly. In any case, I am not aware of other free recent photos. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Please refer to MOS:FIRSTBIO and WP:ROLEBIO about policy on the lead sentence in biographies. The guideline states that:

"The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources."

I have added two sources that refer to her as a "pop star". Following policy, she should be referred to only as "singer", but I am leaving songwriter in there for now, pending sourcing. LK (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Per policy, please do not add uncited material to a BLP. please discuss before adding material that's contested. Claiming that something is citable is not the same as providing a citation. LK (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some articles that are already cited in the entry that show that she is notable for these other activites:

The cites do not belong in the Lead section, which just summarizes information given in more detail in the body of the article below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not enough to show that a person does or is something. The citations should show that the person is "commonly referred to" in such a way by reliable sources. Please provide these type of citations per the guideline. LK (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we remove the two out-of-place refs after the first sentence, and also remove the less important occupations of director and voice actress? This version is suitable, in my opinion. The two refs are about suicidal thoughts, and may be appropriate for the section about that topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Silvers above. The cites should not be in the lead but in the main body of the article. Jack1956 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we OK with the lead sentence as it stands? I think if we look in most reliable sources, when they refer to her, they call her a pop start, singer, or singer-songwriter. Even articles that talk about her recent film refer to her as a singer or as a singer-songwriter. I don't know of a single source that says something like: "The singer-songwriter, voice actress, director, Sia ....". Unless it can be shown that reliable sources commonly refer to her in such a way, this article's lead should not, as that would not be verifiable and would be "original research". LK (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you're interpreting the idea too literally. The lead is supposed to summarize what they're referred to as, that doesn't mean it needs to directly quote one source for every descriptor in order. It's not WP:OR to use synonyms, so if cited sources refer to her directing of a movie then the lead can refer to her as a "director". XeCyranium (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Policy is that we should refer to a person as they are commonly referred to by reliable sources. It's ok to use synonyms, if a person is commonly referred to as a pop star, we can refer to them as 'singer'. But referring to them in the lead sentence as something that reliable sources do not refer to them as, is OR, and contravenes policy. LK (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with XeC. Sia has directed a feature film and numerous music videos, and she has lent her voice to quite a few films and television shows. If she had only done those things and were not a singer, she would still be notable, so they are worth mentioning. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, policy is that the lead sentence follows how reliable sources refer to a person. It is not enough to show that a person is or has done something. WP:BLPLEAD states that for a role to appear in the lead sentence, reliable sources should refer to person in that way. If you believe the policy is wrong, then discuss it on the policy page. Otherwise, this page should follow policy. LK (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the guideline (not a policy). WP:BLPLEAD states that the Lead sentence should mention the "noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held". The question here is whether, in addition to her singing and songwriting, her directing and voice acting are "noteworthy positions or roles ... emphasize what made the person notable". You and Binksternet don't think her directing and voice acting (which are clearly described in reliable sources) are what makes her notable. Fair enough. But don't pretend that the guideline must be interpreted in the most robotic way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Such disputes are best resolved by identifying sources that give in-depth biographical information, with historical and cultural context. --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page Name

Shouldn’t it be "Sia Furler" because there are many people named Sia. Sqftedits (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME for the relevant explanation of naming policy. XeCyranium (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This was discussed previously at length, Sqftedits. See the archived discussions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved:It is clear that Sia the musician is the primary topic. I have tried to fix all incoming links if any remains please WP:FIXIT Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 10:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

– This was discussed once, back in 2015 [7], and had considerable support then. Now, seven years later, it is clear that Sia has enduring notability and can be considered the primary topic. While it's true that there are many pages listed at the dabpage Sia, most are for things named "SIA"; of the others, it's clear that the musician is the most notable. Much like Nelly, Robyn, Adele, Cher, and many others, we can move this article to the undisambiguated title for the benefit of the 5,000+ [8] readers that visit this page daily. 162 etc. (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Then who would change all the references to other things called Sia to the disambiguation link? There must be thousands. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: Ideally, there shouldn't be any pages linking directly to Sia as of now. This would be flagged as a link to the disambiguation page, and these are repaired with direct links to the intended dab entry (or link removed if there is no entry) by WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. The pages that are still linked should be a handful of still ambiguous redirects that can be easily retargeted using script tools. -2pou (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@2pou: and @162 etc.: What about these?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Sia -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
There are no links from article space directly to Sia. The only wikilinks from articles point to the redirect Sia (disambiguation), so would continue to point to the dab page after it's moved to that name. Station1 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. WP:MONONYM. Most of the articles at Sia are actually SIA (capitalized). By far she is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for those that are named Sia. Showiecz (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - she chose her mononym well and is clearly primary by pageviews and long-term significance. It's appropriate that the encyclopedia that doesn't need dollar bills to have fun would finally make this move happen. Red Slash 00:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Not particularly relevant, but her real name is actually Sia (Sia Kate Isobelle Furler). Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as the overwhelming primary topic. The dab page is attracting over 100 viewers per day, almost all of whom want the singer's article.[9] Capitalized SIA should, of course, continue to be redirected to the dab page after the move. Station1 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Vacamiera (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still agree with the original oppose argument from the previous RM. It is possible that the name "Sia" was inspired by the ancient Egyptian god of the same name. The shortening of her stage name to "Sia" strengthens this mythological link. I rarely believe that names inspired by things should eclipse the thing it was inspired by, as that would go against the longterm significance criterion regardless of their current popularity. In my opinion they should at most be on the same level as them in terms of importance. It's probable that this will be closed as a WP:SNOW move but hey, it's worth a shot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Veganism

Please add how sia is a vegan to her personal life/animal activism part. 14.201.105.149 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section?

There are at least 2 (debateably 3) instances where Sia has done things that could be considered controversial, namely the Plastic Heart music video, Music, and her response to criticism surrounding it. However the article currently contains single sentences about these in a several thousand word text dump about her entire career stretching back over the last 25 years. For now I have added a small sentence in the summary about Music failing and the criticisms of the film, notably missing from the summary, despite it mentioning the film and the album it came out alongside, and then moving on to awards right after. Probably nothing, but if the edit is removed or reversed I might consider raising an eyebrow. TTTime05 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that many other celebrities have controversy sections for fewer and debateably lesser offenses. Perhaps this is improper here, but I feel like they might have been intentionally buried a bit. Or I'm a paranoid nutjob. Who knows. TTTime05 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS. "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". See also WP:BLP. The film has its own article where the criticism is discussed at length. The criticism is also covered adequately in Sia's article, in the Career section, where it says of the film: "It received negative reviews from critics[125][126] and generated controversy for its depiction of autism. It was nominated for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy but won the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director for Sia.[127][128]" What do you mean by "text dump"? The text of this article has been carefully written and discussed and negotiated among multiple editors, and it has been rated a WP:GA. I am removing your new text from the WP:LEAD section, as I do not agree that it is noteworthy enough to be repeated in the Lead. This was, of course, discussed at the time the film came out. Per WP:BRD, do not re-add unless there is a new WP:CONSENSUS to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I haven't looked at this article in a while, but Ssilvers left a note asking me to weigh in, so here I am. I see two questions here. Number one is whether there should be a controversy section, and number two is whether the controversy around Music should be mentioned in the lead.
In regards to the first: I think it's important to note that while yes, WP:CRITS says to avoid controversies sections, CRITS is an essay, not a policy. It's based on the BLP policy, which is less clearcut. Going off of BLP directly, I would still tend to err on the side of respect toward the subject, and avoiding an article structure that puts more weight on flaws and negativity, unless the criticism was unambiguously a defining aspect of the person. I don't think it is in this case. (But even in cases where it is, e.g. J. K. Rowling, the article is carefully structured to make sure the section headings are neutral.) So I would agree that there should not be a controversy section.
I will note that I completely understand what TTTime05 is saying. Yes, the criticism is covered briefly in the article, but a casual reader is not likely to read the entirety of the Career section in depth. It's long and detailed, the kind of thing most people skim for the piece of information they're looking for. This is an unfortunate consequence of the way articles like this are typically structured, and I don't see any easy way to fix it while still maintaining neutrality. This is where the lead comes in, which brings me to...
In regards to the second question, I do think that the Music controversy should be mentioned briefly in the lead. I would propose something along the lines of: "Sia wrote and directed a feature film, titled Music, which was released in early 2021 alongside an album, Music – Songs from and Inspired by the Motion Picture, and received generally negative reviews from critics as well as criticism for its depiction of autism." (Editing welcome; this sentence structure might not be the best.) This is copied directly from the lead of Music (2021 film). The lead mentions briefly the accolades received by her other works, so I think it's only fair to mention the criticism of Music, which is clearly a defining aspect of the film. Aerin17 (t • c) 23:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Aerin17, thanks. OK, if we're going to add that to the Lead, we need to make clear that the criticism and poor reviews were of the film, not the album, so I suggest this: "Sia wrote and directed a feature film, titled Music, which was released in early 2021 alongside an album, Music – Songs from and Inspired by the Motion Picture. The film received generally negative reviews and criticism for its depiction of autism." -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Aerin17 (t • c) 03:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I do believe that last sentence is ill-suited for this article's lead. It's the kind of thing best suited to a movie's lead (and it's there for Music's) or perhaps the director's too but only if it were someone mostly known for their film work. Nearly the same sentence is repeated at the end of her Career section, while the Other Ventures section covers the movie (and the criticism isn't there). That's where it should be left to. Mr. Split (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
As I noted originally, the film's reception is covered adequately in the Career section. I agree with Mr. Split -- the fact that the film did not do well at the box office is not very significant to Sia's career. It's like if she had a clothing line and it didn't do well. It's not one of her main occupations, which are singing and songwriting. I'd also note that the film was nominated for a Golden Globe Award before a few activists from the autism community ran a very effective campaign to sour the critics on it. If we can get a new consensus, I think the Lead would be better if we deleted the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree, and agree on all those points, but I meant keep it to the Other ventures section. That's where most details on the movie are given yet the criticism isn't even mentioned there. Mr. Split (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, currently, the film is discussed both at the end of the Career section and in the Other Ventures section (as well as the Lead section). It would be best to consolidate all the info about the film under Other Ventures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with consolidating all info about the movie to the Other Ventures section (including the criticism) and removing it from Career. However, I still believe that the criticism belongs in the lead. It's a fair point that It's not one of her main occupations, which are singing and songwriting. But Sia was the director of the movie and heavily involved in its production. This was a major project of hers that she put a lot into, and much of the (very widespread) criticism around the movie has been directed at her. Just because her career has focused on other things in the past doesn't mean this isn't also significant. (Perhaps I'm biased because the first time I ever heard about Sia was in connection to Music, so I associate her firmly with the movie.) Aerin17 (t • c) 05:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've consolidated the info about the film under "Other Ventures". I still think that including at least the fact that it got "generally negative reviews" in the Lead is due to WP:RECENTism and is not of material importance the Lead. It also misses a point, which is too long to relate, that the film got reasonable reviews when it was first released in Australia, and the bad reviews came after the autism activists noticed the film and pounced on it (which was partly Sia's fault, as her initial reaction to the criticism was not good, to say the least). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree, and I believe the lead should be mostly what the subject is about. Maybe you could do the change if there's no more objection? Mr. Split (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian? Swedish? Persian?

How did she get the name Sia? (Or why). MBG02 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sia/Archive_2&oldid=1209158449"