Talk:Nancy Wilson (rock musician)/Archive 1

Missing Lead Vocals Song
Nancy Wilson sang lead vocals on "I Want Your World To Turn", album "Brigade". Syntap (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No solo discography?
Ann has a mention of her solo work, but Nancy doesn't? Let's fix that...Rhodesisland (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Divorce Filing Date
The Washington Post states that her divorce was filed on September 16, 2010. Cjstanonis (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092306302.html

Collaborators?
Ann and Nancy have published their auto biography, so it is now possible to write a more comprehensive and authoritative article. I'm sure Ann's entry will have plenty of volunteers, but not so sure of Nancy's. Anyone want to collaborate to split up sections and check each other's work? Plutonix (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Revised, Updated, Expanded

 * Updated with info from her auto-bio book
 * Assorted research on album, song performance, including RIAA
 * Cross checked against published comments by Roger regarding The Breakup to try to give an unbiased account
 * Revised to include wiki links for bands and albums mentioned
 * Added a few interesting commons photos
 * Fact checked several things like exact dates to minimize 'about this time...' usage
 * Checked some of the content against the Heart entry and Ann's entry

TO DO: A couple of external links are intended. Wedding photos and such. Plutonix (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edits

 * Incorporated some "notes" text into the article body or ref section. There is still one, but it seems appropriate.
 * Added even more wiki links to get rid of the Underlinked tag...
 * Fixed disambig links...


 * Reverted spelling of her middle name to 'LamoureAux'...its how it is spelled in her bookPlutonix (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Loves It
Nancy must love this page. Where you discuss her motherhood not on the talk page but out in the open in her article. And presume she adopted rather than gave birth with absolutely no evidence either way. Chalk up another one for the fabulous Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.88.129 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any useful information to add? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How's that even possible given the subject matter and that this is Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (Smug smile.) It seems that my analytic skills of March 2009 were spot on!
 * As for Nancy must love this page, she's had much worse to put up with than someone deducing the obvious ... Pdfpdf (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Page should be longer and more organized
imo. Give a proper 'contents' heading, etc. This is a page about one of the greatest guitar players ever, certainly one of the greatest female guitar players. I'm not even fangirling here either, it's a fact. idk, the page just looks crap. /rant 24.63.181.223 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have interesting content to add, feel free to do it. Be bold.--Gorpik (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nancy is a great guitarist, but currently the page is too long with lots of minor trivia instead of focusing on the highlights which makes it look like a fan page. The page is longer than the one for Heart. 22yearswothanks (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not so two years ago. As of today, I would agree with you that this is getting maybe too long and nitpicky.--Gorpik (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Two years ago they hadn't yet realeased their long promised and long awaited: All of you are entitled to your opinions, but how are your opinions useful? And are you going to do anything (other than complain) to address the problems you perceive? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * User:22yearswothanks : but currently the page is too long with lots of minor trivia instead of focusing on the highlights which makes it look like a fan page. The page is longer than the one for Heart.
 * The page is longer than the one for Heart. - Well that one is easy: No, you're wrong. The page is NOT longer. This page is 64,724 bytes; the Heart page is 79,807 bytes - that means the Heart page is nearly 25% bigger (23.3% if you want to be pedantic.)
 * but currently the page is too long - In your opinion. I will WP:AGF and politely ask: "What do you mean by 'too long'?", and: "Why do you think this page is too long?"
 * Your comments don't say anything useful; nor do they say anything about how to address the issues you perceive as problems. I am therefore tempted to respond "so what?", and as I can't think of a better response, I'll stop. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For one, she is primarily known as a member of Heart. If her solo career was anywhere near as successful as she has had with Heart, then an article of similar length may be merited due to equivalent level of importance. It should be about 1/4 to half the size of the Heart article which is her main claim to fame. Two, much of this looks like it was copied from a bio. It should more concise to focus on highlights otherwise the major events in her history are buried and hard to find. For example, the section on Nancy joining Heart could be trimmed to one sentence about when she joined and visiting her sister and maybe a mention of the band adding some acoustic songs. 22yearswothanks (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not sure I agree with the details, but I now understand what you mean. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (BTW: Great effort was put in by Plutonix to make sure that this could in no way be interpreted to be a copyright violation of the bio. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC))


 * User:Gorpik : As of today, I would agree with you that this is getting maybe too long and nitpicky. - Why do you say that? i.e. Could I bother you to explain why you hold that opinion? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is too much information about Heart that goes well in the band page, but is not specifically related to Nancy. And too many details that may go well in a complete biography book, but not so much here. An example near the beginning of the article: The "CONNIE" section just mentions Nancy marginally and goes into details such as the specific brand of a camera Ann (not Nancy) won in some local contest.--Gorpik (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. I think I'm inclined to agree with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

False info
In this article is used the source with the false info: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-musicians-who-saw-the-beatles-standing-there/ (Doug Clifford never spoke - see below):

"The lightning bolt came out of the heavens and struck Ann and me the first time we saw the Beatles on 'The Ed Sullivan Show.' ... There'd been so much anticipation and hype about the Beatles that it was a huge event, like the lunar landing: that was the moment Ann and I heard the call to become rock musicians......." - Soon1452 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC).


 * What does Doug Clifford have to do with this quote?--Gorpik (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
As long as this text refers to its subject by her first name, it's a fanpage and not an article for an encyclopedia. And this is only symptomatic for the approach with all the misspent love for irrelevant details and lack of distance. Chilrreh (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally, after the first mention, a person is referred to by surname only (WP:SURNAME). In this article, Nancy Wilson is frequently mentioned in close proximity to her sister Ann Wilson. Use of the surname alone would be confusing, or strange (WP:SAMESURNAME). I think use of her given name has more to do with clarity than lack of distance. – Wdchk (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you also have the same problem in articles where father and son have the same name, which is even more perplexing. --RAN (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I see the use of the first name as only symptomatic for contributors' lack of distance and lack of proper guidance on what a Wikipedia article should be. Only compare the length of the article with other articles about artists or musicians of similar recognition. And the clarity argument obviously doesn't work. The subject's first name is used regardless of her sister being around in that part of the article. And even then it would be better, if they were distinguished by the use of the full name or mentioning "her sister" or "her sister Ann". As it is now, it is a piece of devotion and not close to what it should look like. Chilrreh (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2018

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The editor  whose username is Z0 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nancy Wilson (rock musician) → Nancy Wilson (musician) – No need for the "rock" designation - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed title is too vague when compared with Nancy Wilson (jazz singer). Nohomersryan (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the difference between Singer & Musician vague ? Sorry just don't see it. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nancy Wilson (blues singer) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Singers are musicians, too. And Nancy Wilson (instrumentalist) looks silly (and inaccurate).--Gorpik (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nohomersryan, In ictu oculi and Gorpik.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.