Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Scott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop redirecting this page

[edit]

Per WP:COMPOSER

  • 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition - Has cowritten several Lady A songs that have charted
  • Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. - Won songwriter of the year by SESAC

Plus there are tons of significant coverage about her through many many articles. She's definitely notable enough to have an article Corpx (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Year Ambiguous

[edit]

Which of the dates stated as her birth year is right: 1984 or 1986? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.197.29 (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking 1986. There's an article from November, 2010 stating that she was 20 when the band started(that was 2006) and she's now 24. All I've seen that would confirm 84 is pictures claiming to be from a 25th birthday party in 2009. But i think I'd trust her word over that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.92.49 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Why do people keep vandalizing this page? Do we have to get it protected or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorkyA.N. (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2017

[edit]
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: Moved to Hillary Scott. While the vote counts are similar in both directions, I find the evidence about PTOPIC persuasive enough to move, in combination with WP:TWODABS. No such user (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hillary Scott (singer) → Hillary Scott – Overwhelmingly the primary topic for the term by any and all means. Firstly, pageviews show that people are overwhelmingly looking for the singer. Also, up to the 10th page of a Google search for ”Hillary Scott” does not return pages relating to anyone other than the singer, Last but not least, Google Books search for the name also does not reveal anything about Hillary Scott (actress), yes, the latter was created before the former, but there is no long-term significance in any case. PS there is no need for the dab to be retained per WP:TWODABS. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article subjects' ages have nothing to do with primary topic determinations. Primary topic begins and ends at comparing reliable source coverage — it is entirely possible for a younger person to be primary topic over an older person with the same name. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation. She receives 68.8% of the page views, and more than the only other topic even discounting the spikes.[1] She also receives the vast majority of the coverage in reliable sources between the two. I think the oppose !votes above are off point in regards to what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says. Standard Google searches may obscure hits for a porn actress, but Google Books and News would not, and the singer is far and away more prominent there. Google would also not affect page views, where the singer also predominates. Additionally, the fact that the two are "relatively close in age" has no bearing on whether one is the primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is not Google. In this case, neither the singer nor the porn star is more significant than the other. Two singles are not enough to make the singer more primary than the other. If she releases more singles, and she becomes more prominent, then we can reconsider. Right now, this screams "recentism". --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC); see newer vote. George Ho (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, she has only released two singles as a solo artist, but the fact that the singer is part of an award-winning band which has released quite a few hits (she is more known as part of a group than a solo artist) does not scream recentism of any sort IMO. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... The singer's significance seems to be group-based (thanks for pointing it out), but she recently started her solo career... Actually, she collaborated with her family. However, the actress also won awards whose natures are... too explicit to describe. Hmm... her films haven't reach the significance similar to those of the singer's works.

        On to usage, the pageviews says that the singer bio is more viewed than the other... but not enough in my mind. I don't know what to say about the mountainous spikes of the views on the singer page, but they happen occasionally for a few days or weeks. Compare last year's.

        Also, MOS:LEAD says that most readers can skim to just the introduction of the article and move on to something else. Why forcing other readers to be given a hatnote and then directed to another article? Well, some readers can read more about either the singer or the actress, especially by looking at the discography or filmography. Frankly, I'm uncertain how many readers can read the whole article about the singer (or the actress).

        After further findings, I decided to withdraw the "oppose" vote. However, even so, without violating WP:CBALL, I won't support the move, leaving me neutral toward the matter. Frankly, are we putting ourselves first before general audience by making the singer the primary topic? --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a clear case of PTOPIC. Google Trends show clearly higher interest for the singer compared to the actress. The fact that both topics are of a similar age is evidence that neither topic suffers from more recentism than the other. feminist 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillary Scott. 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) 00:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Scott&oldid=1205140824"