This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Kylie Minogue is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kylie Minogue, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kylie Minogue on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kylie MinogueWikipedia:WikiProject Kylie MinogueTemplate:WikiProject Kylie MinogueKylie Minogue
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Rhythm of Love and Let's Get To It, her last two albums under PWL, are not "bubblegum" nor are they necessarily "dance pop *influenced." They are just mature adult dance pop when Kylie was becoming a more serious artist. It is much more accurate to say they are "4 pop albums released under PWL" and then marking her shift to trip hop and house with KM94 and later on, Impossible Princess. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a reference in Wikipedia articles. Again, I asked your for a reference, meaning a reliable reference from third-party sources, and not a Wikipedia article which anyone can edit. Hotwiki (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also stating Rhythm of Love/Lets Get to It aren't not dance-pop influenced, yet you labeled them as more mature adult dance pop. So, its still dance pop either way? Hotwiki (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, link the reference here if thats so important. Based from your argument "dance pop influence" is still dance pop when you described those two albums as more more mature adult dance pop". Hotwiki (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the Rhythm of Love page, it leads to an AllMusic source and a book source which I just now added. There is credible and reliable references for Rhythm of Love (and also Let's Get To It) for NOT being bubblegum pop albums like her first two albums. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PHShanghai:, whats up with these numerous lead changes again?[1] You are clearly aware that when you make several changes into the lead section, several issues always come up. Having been discussed this in ANI, last year - I would have thought you knew better to at least discuss changes first in the talk page, to not repeat the cycle again. Adding a Billboard Women in Music Award is not in the top priority of things, when Minogue have received dozens of awards in different organizations. Its not as prestigious as the Grammys and Brits. Why are you including Padam Padam (2023) in the list of hits post-Fever era/pre-BMG era, when that clearly occured years after she signed to Bmg in 2017. Hotwiki (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And highlighting the fact the single "Come Into the World" won a Grammy Award isn't needed, since it was already mentioned in the lead that Minogue won 2 Grammy Awards. Hotwiki (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, to other awards organizations already mentioned in the lead - the lead section isn't highlighting which single or album gave Minogue her first Aria Award (Locomotion in 1988) and Brit Award (Fever in 2002), for her 1st Grammy to be highlighted. Hotwiki (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kylie is the first Australian artist in the 21st century to win a Grammy. According to the Come Into My World article, no Australian artists had won there since 1982. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned that she won two Grammy awards. You are moving the goalpost by bringing up she's the first Australian artist to won a Grammy since 1982, when that wasn't even mentioned in your edit.[2] That doesn't make sense. Hotwiki (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also already explained last year (April 2024) why it doesn't need to be mentioned.[3] and you are back at it again, several months later, in March 2025. After two separate discussions in Ani, I would have thought, you would stop going back to resurrecting contents that I didn't agree with in the past, especially you know for a fact it caused issues which led us to ANI twice. Hotwiki (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both ANI discussions specifically came with warnings from other editors to lighten on your status quo stonewalling, which you have been doing for two years now, since 2023. Other editors in the community have told you to "give way" for other editors to edit this article. You have been consistently uncompromising when editing this article. I wish we would collaborate more. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't being stonewalled, when you have changed the picture in the infobox and you didn't see me removing the picture you just posted few days ago. Though it doesn't mean I cannot revert your "drastic" edits when I don't agree with your changes. This is simply a case of Wikipedia:BRD. After two reports from ANI, you have not changed your habits by making numerous changes to the lead changes to the lead section which just causes issues to your fellow editors and we are back in the cycle again. I have already discussed about the thing with Grammy Awards back in April of 2024[4] and you are back at it again months later. How is this helping? Hotwiki (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't compromising when you went back at resurrecting content, I clearly didn't agree in the past. Like I said, we are back in this cycle again. Someone already told you in ANI, you shouldn't be doing this. Hotwiki (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to say that I am resurrecting the same content that you revert before- please feel free to look at my last edit to the lead before your edit war and to look at this current edit to my lead. Can you see that they are completely different and completely separate things were edited? I had not added "Come Into My World" to her lead until this edit, when she performed it at the Tension Tour. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is mentioning Come Into My World winning a Grammy, was already contested before and discussed in the talk page. After two discussions in Ani, you should know better not to bring back content into the article, that clearly caused issues in the past. Its like you didn't learn anything in the past from Two Ani incident reports, and just continued the cycle yet again in 2025. Hotwiki (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to point where Come Into My World winning a Grammy was contested and discussed in the talk page. Because that was for Padam Padam. You mentioned yourself that Come Into My World won a Grammy and that part wasn't mentioned in my edit at the time. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was already linked twice[6] Like I said in that time, we aren't enumerating the awards that gave her a Brit and an Aria Award, for you to highlight her Grammy wins. Hotwiki (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: I'm going to give the short answer here and say that I feel the version of the lead which Hotwiki reverted to is superior. It's a better summary, it's more concise, is better organized, and just reads better. I've copyedited over a thousand articles and I feel pretty confident about this. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Came across this discussion, and decided to give my two cents. Firstly, from just viewing some of the past discussions on the talk page, it seems like both editors have strong ill-feelings towards each other. As a small reminder, just remember Wikipedia is meant to be fun. If you feel like arguing with each other, you might want to take a break because this is not worth arguing over. I am sure there is a peaceful resolution.
I think you both bring up excellent points. I don't think every single award needs mentioning for sure. Is a "Grammy for Best Dance Recording" really that notable to mention on its own? And then at the same time, I think a Billboard Women in Music Award is pretty notable, as Billboard is one of (if not the most?) notable music magazines/awards/charts in the US. I'm sure neither of you want to end up in more ANI situations, which could lead to both of you being banned from editing pages related to the topic. Would it not be more useful to come up with a peaceful compromise, rather than constant reverting back to the "right" version of the page? Maxwell Smart12332101:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxwell Smart123321: My issue with Billboard Women in Music award being mentioned in the lead section next to Grammys, Brit Awards and Aria Awards, is its not a competitive awards show compare to the Grammys, Brit Awards and Aria Awards - which are the most prestigious music awards show in their respective country of origin. Billboard's competitive awards is Billboard Music Awards, which I don't think Minogue had received any awards. Hotwiki (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article history says otherwise. You have reverted my edits in the article several times in the past. The fact you resurrected a contested content from last year, implies you are still try to edit war. Hotwiki (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what ways specifically? I don't think the lead is bad, but for someone to make sure that the lead should never be edited again because there is "no need" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's collaborative process. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing me that I claimed the lead section should never be edited again because "there's no need for it". This month, you changed the picture of the infobox, which is just next to the lead section and you didn't see me removing the newly uploaded file. If you are being reverted, there are reasons for it, which I discussed thoroughly in this talk page. The talk page archive is filled with lots of explanations towards my reverts to your changes, which contained a lot of misinformation from you. Hotwiki (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with that persons edits but I feel as if reverting them completely with a simple reasoning of "not an improvement" undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and fails to WP:AGF. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I wrote in my edit summary when I made that revert "You enumerated some of her albums/singles, and then left out important changes in her music career such as going through different labels and trying out different genres. Definitely not an improvement for a featured Wikipedia article". It was not just three short words of "Not an improvement". You trying to spin that revert as me not assuming good faith to other editors, when the revert wasn't even personal in the first place, is just wrong. Hotwiki (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PHShanghai:, what is the point of your recent edit?[7] You didn't fill out your edit summary, then you marked it as a "minor" edit which in my opinion, isn't a minor edit when you have changed the flow of the sentence and added another Wikilink into the sentence. I don't think changing it to "one of 100 of the most influential" reads better than just "one of the most influential". Adding those two words "of 100" sounds clunky to me. I've also mentioned in the past (talk page), that there's no need to have two Wikilinks for Time Magazine, as the readers would see a Wikilink for Time (magazine), when they visit the Wikipedia article of Time 100, so I'm basically once again repeating what I've already discussed in the talk page.[8] The one I've reverted to, also contains less characters (27). Hotwiki (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the second time this month, you've resurrected an already contested content from last year, which have been discussed in the talkpage. How can you say you are not edit warring with this @PHShanghai:? Hotwiki (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^True A harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTrue_A (help); Barron 2012, p. 65 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarron2012 (help)
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
3O Response: I'm going to give the short answer here and say that I feel the version of the lead which Hotwiki reverted to is superior. It's a better summary, it's more concise, is better organized, and just reads better. I've copyedited over a thousand articles and I feel pretty confident about this. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)