This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Natalie Tran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Natalie Tran, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Natalie Tran, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no 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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has absolutely no reason to exist and jokes about the serious concept of wikipedia. Does the author really thinks every youtuber should have an article on a Enciclopedia? Please someone delete this article. It makes no sense. And diminishes credibility on wikipedia.-- 88.157.120.168 ( talk) 11:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
As being discussed at the AfD this article should be moved to Natalie Tran. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The current images are copyrighted and can't be used in this manner, but there are two ways to include images:
Since there are no disadvantages to using low resolution images to illustrate the article, I suggest re-uploading lower resolution images, using an appropriate license - everything you need can be found at the example I linked. Rror ( talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Which way should the word be spelled in the article? Both are correct spellings of the word so which one should be used-the Australian spelling or the American spelling?- Schnurrbart ( talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Natalie Tran has been featured at least once as one of the "Women of the Web" on G4's Attack of the Show.. [1] Does anyone know when her earlier appearance on the show was?- Schnurrbart ( talk) 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Some highlights from the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
Radagast3 ( talk) 02:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
ths artile seems more of a promotional stunt. how do I nominate it for deletion? Zobango ( talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose we should give this article an importance rating on the internet culture basis, of which it's not yet recieved a rating. Who want's to do this? I suggest we put this as a mid-importance article as it's one of the highest viewed YouTube channels in the world. What do you think? Overthetop2 ( talk) 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I added to the introductory sentence that Natalie is "a proficient violin player" and attached two citations, which are links to vlog episodes. One shows her discussing that she is a violinst, the other shows her playing. My edit was reverted by Apoc2400 because he/she said "proficient" is a POV word. I disagree. A POV description would have been to call her a prodigy or to say she plays beautifully. It's clear from watching her play that she isn't a novice. She plays without hesitation and demonstrates advanced techniques.
I added the information because it's pertinent, as it's what she studies at her arts college, though it would seem she likely takes some video production classes as well. Furthermore, don't revert the entire edit because you don't like one word. If you disagree with "proficient," find another word that accurately describes her obvious skill. But don't delete the only mention of her being a violinist. She thinks it's worth informing the viewers about, and she displays the violin in virtually every video. I was actually surprised no one else had mentioned it. -- Preston McConkie ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you know what she is studying at her university? Just because she plays the violin doesn't mean she is studying that at her uni. Maybe she learned how to play when she was in grade school. The point is we don't know what she is studying at her school. Also, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that she plays the violin (along with the links you posted earlier) but this fact is more like trivia and belongs elsewhere in the article and not in the very first sentence.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The information included in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. This is especially true when it comes to controversial claims in which a number of editors disagree. If you cannot verify that playing the violin is central to her identity, the that claim should not be made. I'm not denying that she plays the violin. You could include that somewhere in the article along with the links to the videos you mentioned. However, like I said above, just because she plays the violin doesn't necessarily mean that this is central to her identity.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Her playing the violin in a video doesn't mean that it is a core part of her life. One of my friends won a piano competition when he was in 10th grade, but the standard of playing was good enough for 2nd year university. He later did medicine, so having a video of a proficient player does not demonstrate that she is a "student violinist" (ie training to be a violinist as a first priority). Just stating "is a violinist" in a lead would suggest her career is as a musician, of which there is no proof either. Adding in the body that she plays her violin on her videos is fine. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
So we see her playing the violin and she is a violinist. We have also seen her dancing and singing in her videos, so why not say "Natalie Tyler Tran is a student, violinist, singer and dancer"? Maybe because this gives undue weight? The linked videos are not even a primary source, because you don't hear "I'm a violinist". Given the length of the discussion above, this is a big guessing game, and as such should be avoided completely if dealing with biographies. Rror ( talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Discuss. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 07:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember when this article was first created and people were calling for it to be deleted because it looked like a fan page rather than a legitimate encyclopedia entry. A number of editors worked on it so that it became a legitimate Wikipedia article by establishing her notability and by making other improvements. Now one editor wants to start adding things to the article that she says she does in her videos such as playing the violin. They argue that anything that occupies her time and that she does is worth adding. Adding anything that describes her and anything someone might wonder about her should be added, according to this editor. That might be fine for a fan site but not for an encyclopedia article. If we did that, the article would quickly degenerate into a huge mass of random trivia about her filled with links to her videos in which she mentions something she does, regardless of how banal it may be. For example, in a recent video she said she went to the Supanova convention in Sydney dressed as a character from Battlestar Galactica. Since going to conventions and cosplaying are something she does, shouldn't they be added to the article? She also mentions her fish in a number of videos. Like her violin, her fish tank is in the background in many of her videos. Shouldn't we mention that she is an aquarist because of this? She has also mentioned reading books and watching films in her videos. She even lists some of her favorites on her channel page. Since these things are things she does and that occupy her time, shouldn't they be added to the article? The list of things she does could go on and on. If people add a bunch of things she does and things that occupy her time that someone might wonder about or that could describe her, other editors will see this article as just a mass of trivia and a fan page again and the article will be deleted or all of this excess material will have to be deleted to keep it. We should maintain this article as a legitimate encyclopedia article and not let it degenerate into a mess.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Having received a request on my talk page to unprotect, are we all in agreement now? Looking for agreement from Schnurrbart, Preston McConkie, and Rror in particular. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It is done. Play nicely, everyone. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I just changed it to 24th, because of another reference which indicated that. AndrewHarvey4 ( talk) 12:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Aaftabj removed the DOB information from the userbox and the edit summary read: "Removed birthdate. See guidelines for live biographies. Personal security info like birthdays should not be posted." The relevant guidelines are here. I don't think her DOB should be removed from the article because she revealed this information in two of her videos so I don't she objects to this information being publicly known. - Schnurrbart ( talk) 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The DOB needs to be fixed, and since the page is protected I can't change it myself. If her DOB is going to be included, then it should be the correct date. In this video (approximately 4 minutes in) Tran directly states that her birthday is on the 24th, not the 23rd. I assume that the reason for the confusion is the time zone difference between Australia and America. -- 71.226.62.137 ( talk) 08:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Her birthday is definitely on 24 July, but what is the source for the year (1986)? I ask this because this Forbes article states she is 23 years old (at the time the article was written), which would make her year of birth 1987. Unless Forbes got it wrong, although I find that unlikely as they actually interviewed her in the article. U-238 ( talk) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In Natalie's latest video, she says she was interviewed for a possible Rolling Stone article. We should keep this in mind because that could be a good information source and reference.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Natalie posted a picture of herself sitting in one of the judge's seats at the rehearsals of Australian Idol (I assume) on twitter. [2] Did she/will she make an appearance on the show? It would be great if someone who watches the show could find out.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
the infobox is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.186 ( talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there is a friendly rivalry between these two Youtube channels. Natalie mentioned this in one of her videos. Gatting87 ( talk) 10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, something should be mentioned about this in the article. 95.146.233.95 ( talk) 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
At the end of the first paragraph, it should read that she is actually a FIRST generation Vietnamese Australian. Her parents emigrated from Vietnam.
Ohyeahpaulchin ( talk) 05:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Can you add this tag under the article?
because I translated this article to Korean. And I think connecting two article would be better than being separated. Thank you
Mintaek Lee (이민택) 09:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
She deleted her official twitter. I suspect this means she's not making any more youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenosy ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to update the image of Natalie with a better one, but I see no edit button. Can someone help me out? :-- Homezfoo ( talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
A few days ago, a user added her birthday (with no citation) as "July 23, 1986". However, in her "getting in shape" video from 2007, she states that her birthday is on July 24th. I'm not autoconfirmed,so I can't make the edit. Thegeniusboy05 ( talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to notify you that [natalietran.me] redirects to the youtube page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.146.72 ( talk) 11:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It may not be important, but I just noted that in talking nonsense, she stated that her sister was getting married soon (indicating that she has a sister). I was wondering if anyone knew whether she had any other siblings, or if that was even important. Unlike some other YouTubers, I noticed that she rarely talks about her family.
I see there's an unresolved issue of her nationality being debated over the last few days. If her parents are both Vietnamese or whatever they are, doesn't that make her a Vietnamese-Australian? Furthermore, if she calls herself "Vietnamese-Australian" then it should be included. If she calls herself just plain "Australian", then it's slightly more contentious to call her Vietnamese-Australian in the article although it still has some merit, since she wouldn't be a plain old Australian if her parents weren't and she doesn't act Australian. I'm just saying that hypothetically; I don't know where her parents are from or whether she acts Australian, since she's not even famous. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 10:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC))
Vidstatsx is not a reliable source, it ranks three channels in its top 10, that don't have any videos. There is no reliable source stating she is the fourth most subscribed Australian. What does "of all time" mean, and why is it stated? There is no reliable source stating she is the 47th most-subscribed comedy vlogger, in fact it sounds like synth. There is no reliable source stating she averages 1.52 million views per upload, it spells like OR, and is close to not needing to be mentioned anyways. The succession boxes are outdated, unreferenced, and the linked articles don't continue the succession. These removals don't need to be discussed, WP:BLPREMOVE. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Vidstatsx a reliable source to cite YouTube statistics? A previous discussion at WP:RSN received little input, so the question is being reposted here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
VDX uses a professional mathematical modeling program and is an important source for data. Bshawnp ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I support keeping the source. Thanks. Wickedlizzie ( talk) 10:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Vidstatsx, SocialBlade, and the like are self-published. Sadly, they also provide needed statistics for YouTubers such as "CommunityChannel" Natalie Tran. Is there a reliable source that provides these statistics? Is there any harm in using these self-published sources even if they are otherwise reliable mathematically? Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
On the VDX matter. Even if the site is "self-published", the sophisticated proprietary data modeling program it uses is not. Indeed, the mathematical modeling system employed by VDX is among the data collection processes used on Bloomberg Machines, a hi-tech computer found in most financial offices. I use one regularly. Simply put, a complex data program that can accurately perform averages, compare and compile rankings, while making future projections based on the available information is a serious tool. For a more complete Natalie Tran page, the source should be used. Good day to all. Bshawnp ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, as I said, the VDX data model is proprietary—a protected ‘white box’ collection system to be precise. The program is specifically designed to organize, interpret and present an inordinate amount of data in a fashion that is both readable and digestible. It is among the modeling systems used by research analysts—like myself—as well as financial analysts, economists, mathematicians, and sociologists. In other words, it is an industry standard. VDX did not reinvent the wheel.
Sadly, YouTube does not afford its viewers with anything approaching the level of data that VDX provides—although they surely could. In using a recognizable and trusted modeling system, VDX helps interested parties, like Forbes, for instance, acquire valuable figures in order to form a more complete picture.
All told, this is the best case I can make without employing overly technical or academic language, the language of which I am accustom. Good day to all. Bshawnp ( talk) 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is Vidstatsx and if it is a source, why is there a problem with it? I'm new to RfCs, so forgive my lack of knowledge. Thanks. Wickedlizzie ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Post-close comment
Here is my proposed closing statement:I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting Chris troutman ( talk · contribs)'s close, a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC.The consensus is that VidStatsX should not be used in this biography of a living person because it is a self-published source. Although the data published by VidStatsX was used by reliable sources such as Forbes ( link) and The Washington Post ( link), its usage on Wikipedia would violate the policy WP:BLPSPS, which says, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject".
117Avenue ( talk · contribs)'s removal of the content sourced to VidStatsX on the basis of WP:BLPREMOVE is upheld.
I also took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx about the source.
http://vidstatsx.com/tos says: "The owner of this site disclaims any and all liability that may result from your use of the site. Again, this site, the data, access to it, etc. etc. are provided without guarantee or warranty of accuracy or fitness for any purpose... use it at your risk!" This is further evidence that VidStatsX does not pass the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
See the ANRFC section regarding this discussion and User talk:Cunard. Cunard ( talk) 08:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Apperetly there's a child actress with the same name that played in "Looking Past You". Other references on IMDB might refer to her, not to Nat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.127.147 ( talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Natalie Tran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Natalie Tran. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Natalie Tran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Natalie Tran, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Natalie Tran, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no 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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has absolutely no reason to exist and jokes about the serious concept of wikipedia. Does the author really thinks every youtuber should have an article on a Enciclopedia? Please someone delete this article. It makes no sense. And diminishes credibility on wikipedia.-- 88.157.120.168 ( talk) 11:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
As being discussed at the AfD this article should be moved to Natalie Tran. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The current images are copyrighted and can't be used in this manner, but there are two ways to include images:
Since there are no disadvantages to using low resolution images to illustrate the article, I suggest re-uploading lower resolution images, using an appropriate license - everything you need can be found at the example I linked. Rror ( talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Which way should the word be spelled in the article? Both are correct spellings of the word so which one should be used-the Australian spelling or the American spelling?- Schnurrbart ( talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Natalie Tran has been featured at least once as one of the "Women of the Web" on G4's Attack of the Show.. [1] Does anyone know when her earlier appearance on the show was?- Schnurrbart ( talk) 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Some highlights from the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
Radagast3 ( talk) 02:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
ths artile seems more of a promotional stunt. how do I nominate it for deletion? Zobango ( talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose we should give this article an importance rating on the internet culture basis, of which it's not yet recieved a rating. Who want's to do this? I suggest we put this as a mid-importance article as it's one of the highest viewed YouTube channels in the world. What do you think? Overthetop2 ( talk) 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I added to the introductory sentence that Natalie is "a proficient violin player" and attached two citations, which are links to vlog episodes. One shows her discussing that she is a violinst, the other shows her playing. My edit was reverted by Apoc2400 because he/she said "proficient" is a POV word. I disagree. A POV description would have been to call her a prodigy or to say she plays beautifully. It's clear from watching her play that she isn't a novice. She plays without hesitation and demonstrates advanced techniques.
I added the information because it's pertinent, as it's what she studies at her arts college, though it would seem she likely takes some video production classes as well. Furthermore, don't revert the entire edit because you don't like one word. If you disagree with "proficient," find another word that accurately describes her obvious skill. But don't delete the only mention of her being a violinist. She thinks it's worth informing the viewers about, and she displays the violin in virtually every video. I was actually surprised no one else had mentioned it. -- Preston McConkie ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you know what she is studying at her university? Just because she plays the violin doesn't mean she is studying that at her uni. Maybe she learned how to play when she was in grade school. The point is we don't know what she is studying at her school. Also, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that she plays the violin (along with the links you posted earlier) but this fact is more like trivia and belongs elsewhere in the article and not in the very first sentence.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The information included in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. This is especially true when it comes to controversial claims in which a number of editors disagree. If you cannot verify that playing the violin is central to her identity, the that claim should not be made. I'm not denying that she plays the violin. You could include that somewhere in the article along with the links to the videos you mentioned. However, like I said above, just because she plays the violin doesn't necessarily mean that this is central to her identity.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Her playing the violin in a video doesn't mean that it is a core part of her life. One of my friends won a piano competition when he was in 10th grade, but the standard of playing was good enough for 2nd year university. He later did medicine, so having a video of a proficient player does not demonstrate that she is a "student violinist" (ie training to be a violinist as a first priority). Just stating "is a violinist" in a lead would suggest her career is as a musician, of which there is no proof either. Adding in the body that she plays her violin on her videos is fine. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
So we see her playing the violin and she is a violinist. We have also seen her dancing and singing in her videos, so why not say "Natalie Tyler Tran is a student, violinist, singer and dancer"? Maybe because this gives undue weight? The linked videos are not even a primary source, because you don't hear "I'm a violinist". Given the length of the discussion above, this is a big guessing game, and as such should be avoided completely if dealing with biographies. Rror ( talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Discuss. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 07:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember when this article was first created and people were calling for it to be deleted because it looked like a fan page rather than a legitimate encyclopedia entry. A number of editors worked on it so that it became a legitimate Wikipedia article by establishing her notability and by making other improvements. Now one editor wants to start adding things to the article that she says she does in her videos such as playing the violin. They argue that anything that occupies her time and that she does is worth adding. Adding anything that describes her and anything someone might wonder about her should be added, according to this editor. That might be fine for a fan site but not for an encyclopedia article. If we did that, the article would quickly degenerate into a huge mass of random trivia about her filled with links to her videos in which she mentions something she does, regardless of how banal it may be. For example, in a recent video she said she went to the Supanova convention in Sydney dressed as a character from Battlestar Galactica. Since going to conventions and cosplaying are something she does, shouldn't they be added to the article? She also mentions her fish in a number of videos. Like her violin, her fish tank is in the background in many of her videos. Shouldn't we mention that she is an aquarist because of this? She has also mentioned reading books and watching films in her videos. She even lists some of her favorites on her channel page. Since these things are things she does and that occupy her time, shouldn't they be added to the article? The list of things she does could go on and on. If people add a bunch of things she does and things that occupy her time that someone might wonder about or that could describe her, other editors will see this article as just a mass of trivia and a fan page again and the article will be deleted or all of this excess material will have to be deleted to keep it. We should maintain this article as a legitimate encyclopedia article and not let it degenerate into a mess.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 05:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Having received a request on my talk page to unprotect, are we all in agreement now? Looking for agreement from Schnurrbart, Preston McConkie, and Rror in particular. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It is done. Play nicely, everyone. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I just changed it to 24th, because of another reference which indicated that. AndrewHarvey4 ( talk) 12:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Aaftabj removed the DOB information from the userbox and the edit summary read: "Removed birthdate. See guidelines for live biographies. Personal security info like birthdays should not be posted." The relevant guidelines are here. I don't think her DOB should be removed from the article because she revealed this information in two of her videos so I don't she objects to this information being publicly known. - Schnurrbart ( talk) 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The DOB needs to be fixed, and since the page is protected I can't change it myself. If her DOB is going to be included, then it should be the correct date. In this video (approximately 4 minutes in) Tran directly states that her birthday is on the 24th, not the 23rd. I assume that the reason for the confusion is the time zone difference between Australia and America. -- 71.226.62.137 ( talk) 08:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Her birthday is definitely on 24 July, but what is the source for the year (1986)? I ask this because this Forbes article states she is 23 years old (at the time the article was written), which would make her year of birth 1987. Unless Forbes got it wrong, although I find that unlikely as they actually interviewed her in the article. U-238 ( talk) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In Natalie's latest video, she says she was interviewed for a possible Rolling Stone article. We should keep this in mind because that could be a good information source and reference.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Natalie posted a picture of herself sitting in one of the judge's seats at the rehearsals of Australian Idol (I assume) on twitter. [2] Did she/will she make an appearance on the show? It would be great if someone who watches the show could find out.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
the infobox is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.186 ( talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently there is a friendly rivalry between these two Youtube channels. Natalie mentioned this in one of her videos. Gatting87 ( talk) 10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, something should be mentioned about this in the article. 95.146.233.95 ( talk) 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
At the end of the first paragraph, it should read that she is actually a FIRST generation Vietnamese Australian. Her parents emigrated from Vietnam.
Ohyeahpaulchin ( talk) 05:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Can you add this tag under the article?
because I translated this article to Korean. And I think connecting two article would be better than being separated. Thank you
Mintaek Lee (이민택) 09:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
She deleted her official twitter. I suspect this means she's not making any more youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenosy ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to update the image of Natalie with a better one, but I see no edit button. Can someone help me out? :-- Homezfoo ( talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
A few days ago, a user added her birthday (with no citation) as "July 23, 1986". However, in her "getting in shape" video from 2007, she states that her birthday is on July 24th. I'm not autoconfirmed,so I can't make the edit. Thegeniusboy05 ( talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to notify you that [natalietran.me] redirects to the youtube page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.146.72 ( talk) 11:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It may not be important, but I just noted that in talking nonsense, she stated that her sister was getting married soon (indicating that she has a sister). I was wondering if anyone knew whether she had any other siblings, or if that was even important. Unlike some other YouTubers, I noticed that she rarely talks about her family.
I see there's an unresolved issue of her nationality being debated over the last few days. If her parents are both Vietnamese or whatever they are, doesn't that make her a Vietnamese-Australian? Furthermore, if she calls herself "Vietnamese-Australian" then it should be included. If she calls herself just plain "Australian", then it's slightly more contentious to call her Vietnamese-Australian in the article although it still has some merit, since she wouldn't be a plain old Australian if her parents weren't and she doesn't act Australian. I'm just saying that hypothetically; I don't know where her parents are from or whether she acts Australian, since she's not even famous. ( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 10:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC))
Vidstatsx is not a reliable source, it ranks three channels in its top 10, that don't have any videos. There is no reliable source stating she is the fourth most subscribed Australian. What does "of all time" mean, and why is it stated? There is no reliable source stating she is the 47th most-subscribed comedy vlogger, in fact it sounds like synth. There is no reliable source stating she averages 1.52 million views per upload, it spells like OR, and is close to not needing to be mentioned anyways. The succession boxes are outdated, unreferenced, and the linked articles don't continue the succession. These removals don't need to be discussed, WP:BLPREMOVE. 117Avenue ( talk) 03:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Vidstatsx a reliable source to cite YouTube statistics? A previous discussion at WP:RSN received little input, so the question is being reposted here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
VDX uses a professional mathematical modeling program and is an important source for data. Bshawnp ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I support keeping the source. Thanks. Wickedlizzie ( talk) 10:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Vidstatsx, SocialBlade, and the like are self-published. Sadly, they also provide needed statistics for YouTubers such as "CommunityChannel" Natalie Tran. Is there a reliable source that provides these statistics? Is there any harm in using these self-published sources even if they are otherwise reliable mathematically? Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
On the VDX matter. Even if the site is "self-published", the sophisticated proprietary data modeling program it uses is not. Indeed, the mathematical modeling system employed by VDX is among the data collection processes used on Bloomberg Machines, a hi-tech computer found in most financial offices. I use one regularly. Simply put, a complex data program that can accurately perform averages, compare and compile rankings, while making future projections based on the available information is a serious tool. For a more complete Natalie Tran page, the source should be used. Good day to all. Bshawnp ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, as I said, the VDX data model is proprietary—a protected ‘white box’ collection system to be precise. The program is specifically designed to organize, interpret and present an inordinate amount of data in a fashion that is both readable and digestible. It is among the modeling systems used by research analysts—like myself—as well as financial analysts, economists, mathematicians, and sociologists. In other words, it is an industry standard. VDX did not reinvent the wheel.
Sadly, YouTube does not afford its viewers with anything approaching the level of data that VDX provides—although they surely could. In using a recognizable and trusted modeling system, VDX helps interested parties, like Forbes, for instance, acquire valuable figures in order to form a more complete picture.
All told, this is the best case I can make without employing overly technical or academic language, the language of which I am accustom. Good day to all. Bshawnp ( talk) 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is Vidstatsx and if it is a source, why is there a problem with it? I'm new to RfCs, so forgive my lack of knowledge. Thanks. Wickedlizzie ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Post-close comment
Here is my proposed closing statement:I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting Chris troutman ( talk · contribs)'s close, a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC.The consensus is that VidStatsX should not be used in this biography of a living person because it is a self-published source. Although the data published by VidStatsX was used by reliable sources such as Forbes ( link) and The Washington Post ( link), its usage on Wikipedia would violate the policy WP:BLPSPS, which says, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject".
117Avenue ( talk · contribs)'s removal of the content sourced to VidStatsX on the basis of WP:BLPREMOVE is upheld.
I also took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx about the source.
http://vidstatsx.com/tos says: "The owner of this site disclaims any and all liability that may result from your use of the site. Again, this site, the data, access to it, etc. etc. are provided without guarantee or warranty of accuracy or fitness for any purpose... use it at your risk!" This is further evidence that VidStatsX does not pass the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
See the ANRFC section regarding this discussion and User talk:Cunard. Cunard ( talk) 08:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Apperetly there's a child actress with the same name that played in "Looking Past You". Other references on IMDB might refer to her, not to Nat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.127.147 ( talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Natalie Tran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Natalie Tran. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)