Talk:Linda McCartney/Archive 1

dob

Why do we think Linda McCartney was born in 1944? I've only found references that say 1941. DJ Clayworth 21:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I now this because in a interview i saw on telivison with paul maccarteny he said that linda was 3 years younger than him.

I never saw that interview. Most reference books say she was born in 1941. CS

The BBC says 1942. [1] --Westendgirl 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Citation required. --Westendgirl 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

False Trivia

I removed the following "factoid," as it is not true:

Her funeral was the only time that Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison appeared in public together after The Beatles split up in 1970.

In fact, the three Beatles appeared together in public a few times before this, in May of 1979 they all attended Eric Clapton's wedding to Pattie Boyd, and there is a famous picture of the three of them with their women. The wedding party featured a jam session including the three of them, where they played "Sgt. Pepper". I think they also did a short TV appearance around the time of the Anthology, maybe Good Morning America, though I could be dreaming that one. Danthemankhan 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have removed it, but someone else seems to have stuck it back in there...68.45.22.72 12:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT [[2]]

I removed it again. I cited the wrong wedding (I meant Clapton/Boyd but I said Starr/Bach) but it's still wrong. 74.39.17.10 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lady"?

See my comments at [[3]]. Paul McCartney is not a nobleman, so it makes no sense to make the first reference to his wife as "Linda, Lady McCartney" instead of by her actual name. (And anyway the correct form would be "Lady Linda McCartney"; McCartney is a name, not a title.) Acsenray 17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's utterly wrong. Don't pontificate when you don't know what you're talking about. Proteus (Talk) 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have some information rather than "you're wrong, shut up." The basic fact is that the use of "Lady" by the wife of a knight is a courtesy issue (she may call herself lady). It is not an actual title that she possesses. The article should begin with her actual name.Acsenray 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much more I can say. What you've said is wrong (and I've no idea where you got it), so "you're wrong" just about sums it up. Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that despite the rudeness, Proteus is absolutely correct. Paul McCartney was knighted and the title of "Lady" belongs to Linda, as well as to Heather Mills McCartney.Layla12275 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus does not need to be so discourteous. Nevertheless he is right. To expand a bit, the wife, unmarried widow and divorced wife of a knight or baronet is Lady Surname. An unmarried baronet's or knight's widow can also be Dowager Lady Surname (no "The") or First name, Lady Surname. But if he had a previous wife the previous wife is First name, Lady Surname and the widow is Dowager Lady Surname. The wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquess is Lady John Surname; the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl is Lady First name Surname; the wife of a Baron is The Lady Surname; a Viscount's widow is The Dowager Lady Surname; the widow of Viscount Surname is First name, Viscountess Surname, and so on. If a knight remarries, the previous wife becomes Her first name, Lady Surname and the new wife is Lady Surname. - Kittybrewster 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Will and Testament of Linda McCartney

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Linda McCartney's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Linda McCartney. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Linda McCartney's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Linda McCartney. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what date did she marry Paul?

I have read through the article and I have not seen the date on which she married Paul McCartney. Respectfully, SamBlob 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at the Paul McCartney article and added it here. Respectfully, SamBlob 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely derided"?

An editor keeps inserting this text:

Linda was widely derided for hypocrisy after it was revealed that she had availed herself of medicines and therapies that were developed using animal testing despite her position as a spokesperson for the animal protest industry.

The only source provided for the derision is one link to a Free Republic posting, which dosn't count as "wide derision". Second, there's no indication that she knew the medications had been tested, in fact the article now has sources asserting that the information was kept from her. Lastly, I don't see any description of her as a "spokesperson for the animal protest industry". That appears to be a neologism invented by the editor. Without sources for all three assertions this material doesn't belong. -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the text again. There needs to be reliable sourcing for such a statement and a forum post falls extremely short of being a reliable source... beyond that the post doesn't even really source the text being added.--Isotope23 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the citation for this quote? ==Taxico 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who added the material provided these two links as sources. The first isn't a reliable source and neither actually supports the assertions. {www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747249/posts?page=15 } {http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/199457.stm } I removed the first and left the second one. -Will Beback · † · 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first one appears to be like a blog and the second one gives me a 404 error. ==Taxico 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is to a forum, Free Republic, that is generally considered conservative to right wing. In any case forums aren't reliable sources. I fixed the second link (sorry, I'd simply copied what the editor added). The BBC article does not mention any criticism, and even indicates that she had been deceived about the whether her medications had been tested on animals. -Will Beback · † · 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxico, thanks for trying to help, but there are still no sources for the paragraph in question. -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article does not support the "widely derided" claim at all. And Free Republic, as you said, is not a reliable source. I do not think this claim should be made in the article. It is clear that there are no good sources for it. Rhobite 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "widely derided" wording. Obviously that's not encyclopedic. But the BBC article appears to be pointing to some sort of a controversy; it's just that we haven't found any sources directly discussing the controversy. It might be that the controversy is not that notable. In any case I say let the {{fact}} template stay for 3-4 days. If no sources show up we can re-evaluate the situation and move on from there. ==Taxico 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time? -Will Beback · † · 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concert for Linda

April 1999. It should be in. andreasegde 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now.--andreasegde (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture

does anyone know if that linda on the cover photo of the jet singel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.95.162 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i not no, but i'll cheque. --Grandad & Grammar mccartney 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I think this is close to a GA. There are enough references about her on the Net, but a book would be nice (although there are very few). I will start work on it. --andreasegde (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the Lead until last, and refrain from putting links in everywhere, because they only have to be taken out when the Lead is written. --andreasegde (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have upgraded it. --andreasegde (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be ready for a GAR sometime very soon. --andreasegde (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it. --andreasegde (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest doing some cleanup on sentences that simply refer to "McCartney", without specifying Paul or Linda (or someone else). In most cases, it can be inferred that the person being referenced is Paul, but even these are often ambiguous. EJSawyer (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say Paul and call her McCartney, or call him McCartney without calling her Linda. If I call her McCartney, do I call him Sir Paul, her husband, spouse, partner, the ex-Beatle? --andreasegde (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For most of the ones I was looking at, it should be acceptable to just refer to them as Linda and Sir Paul. The only time someone should be referred to simply by last name would be when the context makes it completely clear who is referred to. For example, in the paragraph that begins with "Linda was a strong advocate for animal rights..." (and Paul is not mentioned at all), a later sentence could simply refer to her as McCartney, with no ambiguity issues. EJSawyer (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As soon as Paul McCartney is mentioned, he is thereafter referred to as McCartney. To write about Linda as McCartney would be very confusing: "Linda and McCartney were married in London. McCartney wore a yellow dress." Confusing, no? Calling McCartney Sir Paul would be leapt upon by many other editors, as witnessed on the McCartney page. Besides, he wasn't knighted until only one year before Linda's death. --andreasegde (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking at Alfred Lennon, Julia Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, and Jim and Mary McCartney. These articles all have the same problem, but all passed GA reviews (with no mention of the name problem). The writers of Marie Curie got around the problem by stating her maiden surname with her married name, which is clumsy (as she was not known internationally by a double name). I truly believe there is no way around this, as there are very few precedents of famous people having articles written about them, their relatives, and their family, who all have the same surname. --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein/Beatle issues

Why on earth is her father's name linked to Brian Epstein? Unless they were related (which is not indicated in any way), this should be removed.

Also, it appears that the info about the 3 surviving Beatles reuniting "for the first time" at her funeral has appeared again. Based on the discussion here, as well as my own recollection, I believe this to be patently false. However, I didn't want to remove it if someone has indeed found proof. EJSawyer (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It states very clearly: "which was attended by George Harrison and Ringo Starr, and was the first time the three ex-Beatles had been seen in public together in three decades." I think that's very clear, as it says nothing about reuniting. Any previous meetings were in private or at private weddings (which were not open to the public). --andreasegde (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to get bogged down on writing reams about this, I have deleted the sentence. Two sugars and milk, please. --andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This name thing

Linda Louise, Lady McCartney, or Lady Linda Louise McCartney? Could someone nail this one? --andreasegde (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by Vera, Chuck and Dave.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written:
Pass

- i don't see how this is a good article, its not very well written at all. just critically read it all, its not hard to tell.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.92.255 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass
It is stable:
Pass
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass though it could use more images if it is to be made an A- or FA- class article.
Overall:
Pass Well written, sourced, illustrated, and covered. My opinion is that it is a sho-in. -Ed! (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thank you kindly. Drink a drink of your choice on me, with my hearfelt thanks. --andreasegde (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Should Be Referred to by Surname

[Stop referring to "McCartney" without specifying,] simply use the first name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.92.255 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article is about Linda McCartney, so she should be called McCartney in the article, not Linda. In paragraphs that discuss both her and her husband, first names should be used. That would be the most encyclopedic style. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "To disambiguate between siblings or other family members with the same surname, use the surname of the article's subject to indicate that person, and use given names or complete names to indicate relatives upon first mention. For subsequent uses of relatives with the same surname, refer to them by given name for clarity and brevity." Ariadne55 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit refers to her as McCartney throughout, except when both she and her husband are mentioned in a paragraph. In those paragraphs, if each was referenced only once by name, I used their full names, but if they were both mentioned several times I used their first names. Ariadne55 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you do when she was called Eastman?--212.241.67.98 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In those sections, she is still referred to as McCartney, for consistency, except where it could be confusing. Heavy use is made of personal pronouns, as suggested in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The only place it was it was really a problem was in the Paul McCartney section. There, I referred to her as "the then Linda Eastman" and him by his full name in the first sentence. Then I used their first names for the rest of the paragraph (except where it made more sense to use a full name). Ariadne55 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my earlier reservations, I think you, Ariadne55, have done a really good job.--andreasegde (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Ariadne55 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Eastman Familyjpeg.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Eastman Familyjpeg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linda Eastman McCartney.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Linda Eastman McCartney.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can one say? Pointless, thoroughly disagreeable, petty, and destructive, and that's just my cat.--andreasegde (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Dear reader/editor, very soon there will be no photos of Linda McCartney in this article, because certain editors think they are not needed. If you like reading black & white instruction manuals you may agree.--andreasegde (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disgusting state of affairs, with no photos at all. This is a prime example of Wikipedia eating itself from the inside out. A free-use photo, when the woman is deceased? Do me a lemon...--andreasegde (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in two Commons photos, of which only one shows Linda, and that's in the background.--andreasegde (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Why is the photograph of Linda McCartney dominated by Paul? You can only see her in the background. As it is her article, I find that vaguely inappropriate. --Heslopian (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, it's almost insulting Phyte (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not so good at the photo thing, can someone please find a free use pic of Linda for the article? Cheers! RomaC (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly agree about the photo composition, though I'm not in any sense a fan of Ms. McCartney. Are there no newspaper or journal photos of Ms. McCartney? I'll do some searching as I think it a travesty that this article features a photo of someone other than the subject. Tell someone (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "Photos" section above before you complain.--andreasegde (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi andreasegdeI read the "Photos" section, what do you mean exactly, can you explain? It would be strange if there were not any free use pictures of Linda McCartney available. But unfortunately I don't know how to do the Wiki photo thing, hoping someone who does, will. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three photos of her were deleted. I campaigned to have them kept in, but it was useless. She is dead, and that doesn't seem to matter. I think it's personal.--andreasegde (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I read the discussions on those pictures and I may be mistaken but it seems one picture was her and her family when was very young, and another was when she was very near death. So there were specific objections. If you upload this picture which has free use status then I think it should be fine, anyway I'll back you up. RomaC (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually hold on, according to this Wiki guide, that picture may not be acceptable. I have never uploaded a picture to wiki so I'm sort of lost here it is complicated. I wonder of "fair use" applies if we used a picture from her album? RomaC (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! One year, and not one pic available of Linda McCartney. RomaC ^TALK 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. It's a bugger.--andreasegde (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a real problem with people deleting photos for no reason"". Why don't you relax, and if someone who owns a photo complains about one, deal with it? Linda McCartney and her fans deserve a few good pictures.Billyshiverstick (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Linda McCartney. She was a photographer, not just Paul´s wife. Please change that picture.

Vandalism

The Early years section has been vandalized by user 69.126.11.227. Would one of the regular editors of this article please fix it. StN (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 69.126.11.227: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Linda_McCartney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Fixed. algocu (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discography section

This is a great article - well written and well sourced. I wonder if it would be an improvement though to move the Discography section to the very end because when I first read it, I thought the article ended when I came to that section. Agadant (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing trivia and adding substance

The article seems to have sections loaded with trivial details that could be trimmed. It also could use some added substance in the way of more personal biographical details. I have a few book sources that haven't been used until now, so I'll try to add from those. But anyone can feel free to copy edit, rephrase or correct any facts, especially if the chronology is unclear. I think that after tightening some of the off-topic minutia and adding some details, the article will be about the same length, but easier and more interesting to read. --Light show (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you dont reply on your talk page. We have added to our guidelines MOS:QUOTE ...hope this brings the point home for you. Quotes do not make articles better or make them easier to read - in fact its the opposite. Here is an article for you to read How to paraphrase a source. Moxy (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I did reply to your comments on the article's talk page. --Light show (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will most likly be adding the quote spam template after talking to a few others. Wish you understood the problems of lazy plagiarise of this nature or image copyright..--Moxy (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you yourself understood the difference between using cited quotes in context and plagiarism. "Quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia," per the MOS. If you claim plagiarism again, without any backing, your ongoing anti-quote hounding will go to the ANI, who can help you learn what it means. --Light show (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would be good for others to see this crap. MOS:QUOTE MOS:QUOTE MOS:QUOTE MOS:QUOTE--Moxy (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

her musical contribution

What is her musical/artistic contribution to Wings music? Found nothing about it in this article. Want detail.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Linda McCartney. 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) 05:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming, etc.

I got a warning for disruptive editing, which I thought and still think very constructive editing, for the following points which I mention now in the discussion:

WP:NICKNAME (to which I was directed), etc., says that articles should use the name under which people are known. Fine. The names Linda McCartney is known under is "Linda McCartney", or perhaps "Lady McCartney", "Mrs. McCartney", or even "Linda". The surname "McCartney" alone is not any such name, period. If we read "McCartney", we think the article talks about her husband. Indeed I read the article when it described clearly her, and clearly before her marriage to Paul McCartney, and wondered (knowing her maiden name was Eastman) whether she had married some other McCartney in between.
All the same, after calling her "McCartney" many times before her marriage, the article suddenly changes (for once) to "Eastman", and that at a time where she was the "former Mrs See" and we are not told, so do not know, whether she had took back her maiden name.
Finally, whether we like it or not, calling women with surnames alone is awkward anyway, with some few exceptions.
All this is highlighted by the fact that in the first part of the article (and the part I made the changes to), her name was not in fact McCartney. Now I had not objected to "the later Linda McCartney" or even "Linda McCartney", but I did object to what stood there.
One other thing: I know and agree the separation is between "Career" and "personal life". Still, if a "husband Paul" suddenly appears in the "career" section, there should at least a slight note that she had now married him, for the reader who likes to read the article from up above downwards - even if we should assume that he knows she married one Paul some time in her life.
(Oh, and it just happened that I saw a formulation like: "she did this and that... McCartney's daugher now so-and-so". This totally unneccessary use of a genitive of a name when a possessive pronoun would quite suffice happens to be journalese; in my view, it would have to go even if the naming problem weren't there.)--2001:A61:20DA:5C01:4D4E:B912:D2FB:F9C3 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarsdale Inquirer is newly online

The Scarsdale Inquirer, hometown newspaper for the Eastman Family, is newly online and searchable up to 1959. I added a link on the "Linda" page to a 1947 article about Jack Lawrence's song, "Linda," and I realized that I should alert the editors here that there's a wealth of contemporaneous, secondary sourced material here. Additional years will get added; it's only a coincidence that the current batch stopped with Linda's High School graduation year. Here's a link to a search for "Linda Eastman" in the Scarsdale Inquirer archive: https://news.hrvh.org/veridian/?a=q&hs=1&r=1&results=1&txq=linda+eastman&puq=scarsdaleinquire&txf=txIN&ssnip=txt

Danaxtell (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wings songwriting credits

I've just started a discussion at Talk:My Love (Paul McCartney and Wings song)#Songwriting credit. Would welcome input from all interested editors. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]