Talk:Darren Hayes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Darren Hayes article.
Article policies
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Contents

[edit] vandalism

12:13, 7 November 2007 - Article has been vandalised again, I have reverted the changes on it. (Vandal: 211.26.30.72) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.188.188 (talk) {|} Following a spot of vandalism this article was nominated for deletion and speedily kept after the vandalism had been removed. -Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QUT?

Did Darren Hayes really study at QUT? I've heard UQ from some sources. They're two separate universities, and I'd like a source for the QUT reference (mainly because I'm there too hahaha). - Mydemand 203.100.24.127 04:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links Issues

Does anyone have any suggestions they'd like to make regarding what sites should be included with this article? I've seen in the history that there has been a sort of battle between those who want their Darren Hayes fansite included and those who don't want this article to just act as a link farm for those who want to self-promote through Wikipedia.

What criteria are we looking for in links besides those we know to be official? Should we even have any outside of official sites? I'm thinking maybe not since in order to be fair we would have to include all sites and there are many fansites out there, so perhaps better to include no unofficial sites unless they present something noteworthy? Sunhawk 03:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion, people need to read up on this Policy page regarding the External Links section, because it explicitly says that sites that do not contribute any original or unique information should not be included in the External Links section. As well, fansites should be limited to one large fansite so it would be best if we could have some kind of democratic vote rather than the same people putting up links to their own websites over and over again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links Sunhawk 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is having looked at other artists pages some have fansites some do not I certainly don't think its one person's decision to remove them and I would appreciate you leaving them alone. Someone however has seemed particularly keen on removing mine for whatever reason. As I've only seen about 6 fansites added at any one time it feels as if they should just be left there - Maggz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.49.239 (talk • contribs)
Well I'm glad to see some discussion finally on this issue. I don't know about removing particular fansites, when i check Darren's articles I remove all fansites to be fair. Someone does seem keen on adding your website more often than other fansites, perhaps that is why it appears that your site is removed more frequently, because in that sense it is. As well, the issue isn't that fansites cannot be added period, it is that they cannot be added unless they are providing something more than the average fansite which tend to have the same articles and photos. If you feel your site has something more to offer, please specify what that is and offer us some links to evaluate. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used a place to promote websites, that is also site policy. Nor is the removal of fansites being done soley by myself, I just appear to be the only person interested in discussing the issue. Sunhawk 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, in case you missed this part of the External Links policy link I provided, this is something to keep in mind, as part of "Links Normally To Be Avoided" : "3. A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." - hence my bringing up this issue. Sunhawk 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The site is ADDED more often as others seem more intent on removing it more often so don't mistake the order in which things happen. I would be very interested to hear why it is being removed by other people but as I suspect its being done out of spite they are not likely to speak up in which case that should not be made my problem. Clearly the site has a large amount of relevant information including the archive of hundreds of interviews, public postings made by Darren Hayes, the fact that it is updated regularly, lyrics, discography etc.. - Maggz
I definitely think your website is one of the larger fan sites out there and has reason to petition to be included. The thing is that there is a process to adding fansites to articles and it is done for the good of Wikipedia. You may not agree with that process or the limitations Wikipedia sets but that doesn't mean you can just ignore them and keep adding your site. A lot of people work hard to keep the articles on Wikipedia adhering to the standards set out, so unless you have actual proof that people are removing your site for malicious reasons rather than because you are ignoring protocol, another policy of Wikipedia states it is better to assume good faith about their intentions WP:AGF
I get the impression you feel this discussion is unnecessary and being done out of spite as well but I am merely trying to solve this issue in the manner in which Wikipedia encourages - through consensus WP:CON As well, I've had a few people emailing me as to why your website was "allowed" to remain while other fansites were removed, I felt it would be best to try to make it as transparent as possible why the article is the way it is and show that we will, in fact, allow certain fansites if a consensus is reached about them. But that can only come through actual discussion. Sunhawk 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If there are several people emailing you to enquire why their sites were removed I find it confusing as to their lack of involvement in this discussion if they feel so strongly about it. How can the matter be discussed or resolved or a consensus reached if other people refuse to participate. Maggz
Just to be clear, I did not mean to suggest I am acting as a spokesperson for anyone, I am merely speaking for myself. I, in fact, share your frustration about the lack of participation in this talk page about this issue, hence why I started the original topic of External Links. But it may be that those interested simply have not been to Wikipedia since I started the topic, since it appears to be fairly common to take breaks from Wikipedia and as for myself, I don't spend all my time here and tend to leave for weeks at a time. Again, we should assume good faith rather than speculate that they have sinister reasons (such as "refusing") for not participating in this discussion. Especially since I get the impression that some of the editors here are also unfamiliar with Wikipedia and may not understand how a talk page operates, given the occasional awkward editing we get in the articles. I think patience is the best solution, hopefully we can get more editors involved and if we do not, ir may be best to go through the process of outside arbitration to resolve the matter without personal bias.
Incidently, if you want to reply to a reply, all you need to do is add a colon to the number I used for my reply (two) and then the reply will thread properly :) Sunhawk 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Close For Comfort

Mention should be made of Darren's Too Close For Comfort performances in the UK. He will be performing at the Sydney Opera House this month which willed be filmed for DVD.

[edit] Coming Out

Darren Hayes has said he is a "gay" man not a "bi-sexual" man. If you go to YouTube you can find his online March 19, 2007 interview from an Australian program where he says "as a Gay man." He says "they knew I was gay before I did," and numerous other times he says he is gay.

I am just as excited as everyone else about the news but let's please try to limit the amount of speculative information we include that seems validated by Darren's announcement. Darren has always been very private and one announcement about his private life is not a green light to go crazy including everything thought to be known about that private life. Just my two cents Sunhawk 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this again, I'm also going to remove him from the "Gay Musicians" category seen as he hasn't stated whether he is bisexual or gay. I would probably assume bisexual, but if anyone has specific information, please site references and edit as appropriate. Thanks.
Agreed. Sunhawk 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Darren is both gay and bisexual...
Yeah i've noticed that little edit-tussle going on *chuckle* Sunhawk 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it possible to be both gay and bisexual. The former implies exclusive interest in one's own sex, the latter implies there is no such exclusive interest. Either you swing one way only; or two ways. You can't do both. JackofOz 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay or bisexual - you cannot be both

By definition Darren must be one or the other. Considering he has married people of both sexes I would say he is bisexual. Yes, he is a private person but the evidence available suggests he is bisexual. Dankru 04:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is one of the reasons that Darren went so long without confirming anything more about his sexuality because we, as a social whole, are so quick and keen to label people this way. I say we make it bisexual since that's the less restrictive of the two labels. Sunhawk 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say Darren is gay. Just because he was previously married to a woman does not automatically make him bisexual. As it is, unless Darren specifically states one way or another then his sexuality is his own business.

  • Sure, you may say that Darren Hayes is a homosexual male (please avoid using the word gay as it has its denotations]], but it is said that he, himself, doesn't classify himself to be straight, gay, or bisexual. We aren't saying he's bisexual because he previously married a wife, but we are saying it as he himself stated it apparently. It doesn't actually matter, just say that he's sexual orientation current is either gay or bisexual. --Qwerty 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Should it really matter what his sexuality is? If he doesn't find the need to declare himself as either or any other, I think it's not our "duty" to decide one for him, and more importantly saying he's either when he hasn't said he is would just make the article inaccurate. --Hcblue 19:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He clearly says he is gay, so it's fair enough. Changed as appropriate - Ashadeofgrey 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My girlfriend and I were at the Darren Hayes "Club Delicacy" show on Thursday, March 29th, 2007. During the show, he was making small talk to the crowd when he declared, "Things change as you get older. I wear glasses now. I'm gay. [audience cheers] And I wear glasses now." So the question of whether he is gay, bisexual, and the question of whether or not he openly talks about it are both answered in this funny excerpt from an amazing Darren Hayes show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.103.80 (talk)


[edit] Trivia

Why someone decided to (a) add information about his personal life in the trivia section and (b) add information that has already been stated is beyond me and is hence going to be removed. - A Shade of Grey

[edit] Guest Appearences

Hasn't Darren also performed for the Rosie Christmas album? Also "What's Going On" Tribute and 'Sol de Mio, Pavaroti & Friends...

Added above to article December 20, 2006. SERSeanCrane 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

Removed: "Many in Europe thought the song "I Want You" was actually sung by the Swedish rock/pop group Roxette for having a similar sounding style." (No citation)

Please don't mark edits as minor if material is removed. SERSeanCrane 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If an edit is minor, I'm going to mark it as minor.--AshadeofgreyTalk 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See usage guidelines for minor edits. Specifically the second bullet of Things to Remember. It reads "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text." I'm not trying to nit-pick, it just helps make the editing process better. Agreed?
It's referring to major edits which remove text--AshadeofgreyTalk 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." I'm assuming you believe you're removal isn't subject to a dispute. You cite WP:NOTABILITY#Notability_is_generally_permanent, but by this logic one could add to the Lenny Hayes article that Darren is not related to Lenny. If this is the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to have mention to Lenny on Darren's article, perhaps in the See Also section. I'm assuming, in good faith, that the person who added the trivia bullet-point finds that Darren and Lenny are thought to be related in some circles...I'm not terribly familiar with Australian culture, though, so it might be something worth discussing...perhaps disputing. Hmmm... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Unlovable Download Single?

Should there be a mention of the Unlovable download?

Depends on how you believe that to be notable, feel free to explain why you think it is worth mentioning. Sunhawk 05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
More specifically should it be listed as a single. Even though it wasn't a "commercial release," it was released, and a video was made.
Do we have clear documentation that the video is directly linked to the download release? Sunhawk 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't find anything directly linking the video to the download release, but SonyBMG did call it a single in their news letter [1]
I suppose I should clarify and just say that I think it should be added to the list of singles. Not necissarily a write up.
Unless someone has a good reason to contest this I'll be placing Unlovable in the list of singles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.28.34 (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] MySpace

The MySpace blog reference is from Darren Hayes' official MySpace. See http://www.darrenhayes.com if you'd like to confirm. This qualifies as official "authority," therefore there is no reason to remove the reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

The following reference/footnote has been removed several times citing "external links" guidlines:[1][2]

  1. ^ [h*tp://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=115154439&MyToken=a4edfa67-3e1c-44c7-a4fe-3a0900cd63e3ML Hayes' MySpace Blog]
  2. ^ On November 19, Darren wrote on his myspace blog and among other things he said "I have become obsessed with MySpace...What am I going to do when I'm not recording and have to go out and earn a living?"

As mentioned above, the blog is official and should be allowed for use.

Thoughts? Opinions? Agree? Disagree? A discussion on this topic would be great... SERSeanCrane 03:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sean Crane. EL doesn't hold here, but rather RS holds, RS has more weight and further see V which is policy. The overarching principle is that blogs writen by the subject of the article are perfectly acceptable sources. Wjhonson 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a RS if it's not verifiable: "This blog is set to private. This user must add you as a friend to see his/her blog." ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Darren hasn't finished recording "This Delicate Thing We've Made". On his blog, he's still regularly talking about the recording process, and is about half way through now, I think. More info: it's going to be two discs, some of it produced with Justin Shave and some Robert Conaly. This might be a bit much detail for the article, I just wanted to point out it wasn't actually finished yet, predicted to be in August, and there is citation on his website.

Kiwi from hell 03:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He has finished his album, the blogs he posts are post-dated from earlier posts from his members only blog on his website Cor84 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dhayes.jpg

Image:Dhayes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trulymadlycompletely.jpg

Image:Trulymadlycompletely.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singles

I don't think "Who would have..." was an official single, although it was one of the tracks that was released with an animated video. As the album article states, the singles so far have been "On the verge...", "Me, Myself and I" and "Casey". --Nerwende (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a downloadable single, and I believe you could buy a hard copy.