Talk:Paul McCartney and Wings

Awards

The Awards section is getting quite large. Is it time to create List of awards and nominations received by Wings (similar to List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles)? GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Large and growing. Becoming a full-time job just trying to keep track of the additions (most of which are uncited) by this one editor. I support any recomendation to reduce the scope of this section. Ckruschke (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Timeline

In the timeline picture, it says Laurence Juber and Steve Holley stayed with the band until its break-up, but in the written table below it, it says the group was once again reduced to the core trio from 1980 to its dissolution. Does anyone know which is correct? Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Juber and Holley participated in Wings' recording sessions in January 1981, doing overdubs for the Cold Cuts album. That was the last time the group was active. Piriczki (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

According to this website, they left Wings on February 1981. Not that sure if this is true. SUPERASTIG 00:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with trying to specify an exact point in time the group "broke up" is that Wings were really a band in name only and so couldn't "break up" in the sense that the Beatles did. When did the Plastic Ono Band break up? Wings were employees of Paul McCartney and served at his discretion and at some point their services were no longer needed. Here is the timeline for the end of Wings.

November 1980: Laurence Juber and Steve Holley are told they will not be needed for McCartney's upcoming album but they will be working on the Cold Cuts album in January.

December: McCartney, with Denny Laine, begins recording Tug of War at AIR Studios in London.

January 1981: Wings record overdubs for the Cold Cuts tracks. After those sessions Juber moves to New York at the end of January, seeing "the writing on the wall" about the group's future. Holley seems less aware.

February: McCartney, Laine and various guest musicians record more tracks for Tug of War at AIR Studios in Montserrat.

April 27: Laine announces he is quitting Wings due to McCartney's reluctance to tour. The newspaper article carrying Laine's announcement says that his departure leaves Wings with only two permanent members, McCartney and wife Linda. McCartney's spokesman says this not the necessarily the end of Wings and that "Wings are Paul and Linda McCartney and whoever they wish to record with." Apparently this is Holley's first indication he is no longer in Wings and calls McCartney to find out what is going on.

There was never any "announcement" that Wings broke up. Rolling Stone magazine didn't even mention Laine's departure. Many people just assumed Wings were no more when McCartney II came out, and most everyone assumed Wings were done after Laine quit, despite McCartney saying that wasn't the case. Piriczki (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Piriczki: now, I kinda understand. Looks like Wings was a vehicle for Macca's collaborative and solo projects. And, to me, the term "discontinued" (permanently) is more legit to use than the term "broke up". SUPERASTIG 01:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Columbia & Cold Cuts

I was wondering. Was Columbia Records' lack of interest in releasing the Cold Cuts album one of the reasons why Wings broke up? SUPERASTIG 00:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Denny Laine is not on the main picture!

The caption below the main picture says, "L–R: Joe English, Denny Laine, Linda McCartney...", however, what we really see there is some guy, which I don't know, then Joe English, Linda McCartney and so on. Where is Denny Laine?

Trikita (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Er, no. The caption is correct. We have, from L to R: Joe English, Denny Laine, Linda McCartney, Jimmy McCulloch and Paul McCartney. JG66 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Denny Laine five songs

I think we need to find a reference for the five songs Laine wrote on London Town. He gave an interview to Culture Sonar recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The larger issue is that you have been violating WP:REFSPAM, using IPs and a couple of registered usernames to pump up the web presence of Eoghan Lyng. We are still talking about what to do with you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Linkspam citing Eoghan Lyng... Filter? Any inclusion of Lyng's work would be an insult to Wikipedia because of the systematic way that his writings have been added, for the purpose of puffing up the web presence of Lyng, as opposed to educating the reader. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, you come across as a bully. -Emnetinlurve — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieMcMilie (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

Tour names

I added a citation for the five Wings tours, and also standardized the tour names, using that citation as a guide. Matuko (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wings picture

I think a better quality picture of Wings must be added in the first page. On the current one the people in it are barely recognizable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:66E4:B400:5EA:E645:5999:2519 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Article title and opening line

The article's title "Paul McCartney and Wings" and the first line "Paul McCartney and Wings, often billed simply as Wings..." seem to be backwards.

"Wings" was McCartney's chosen name for the group and the moniker "Paul McCartney and Wings" came from the record company, and was only used in 1973/74 for Red Rose Speedway and Band on the Run as well as some but not all of the singles in that period. The name was not used on their other five studio albums, their live album, or the band's compilations. [The "PM and" naming convention does come back on McCartney's solo singles when Wings songs appeared as b-sides, but the logical conclusion is that was to associate it with the performer of the A-side while delineating that it was recorded by a different outfit.] In either case, the name "Wings" was not only used significantly more than "PM and" ever was, it was also used at the time of their most successful 1975-77 period.

Is there any particular reason this article isn't simply titled "Wings" and that the first line doesn't read ""Wings, sometimes billed as Paul McCartney and Wings..."? McCartney75 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was moved (without discussion) in 2017, citing WP:NATURAL as justification. Both titles have their pros and cons, and a discussion is probably warranted. See WP:RM. 162 etc. (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The title is definitely arguable (the natural redirect is nice), but I definitely agree on the opening sentence. A change to "Wings, sometimes billed as Paul McCartney and Wings" would probably be in order. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Wings (band), with an opening line to follow suit. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Wings (band) should be the article title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Wings (band) The evidence from McCartney75 concerning its usage suggests that its benefits outweigh it being "unnatural" Dantus21 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@McCartney75 @162 etc. @Seltaeb Eht @Martinevans123 @Ghmyrtle I see a rough consensus to move the title to Wings (band). Should we move it right now or start an RM to get wider consensus? Dantus21 (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No objections to moving it now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@SilkTork: 162 etc. (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I also support the title becoming ‘Wings (band)’. Humbledaisy (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC),

Thanks for the ping. I checked, and I'm the person who moved the article in 2017 as both Wings (band) and Paul McCartney and Wings were in use on Wikipedia, and WP:NATURAL seemed to make sense (and still does). There may, of course, be an argument that Wings should be the title of the article with a hatnote pointing people to Wing if that's what they were after. But, sadly, there are a lot of articles called Wings, so we need to choose either Wings (band) or Paul McCartney and Wings, with one redirecting to the other. As Wings (band) is not a natural term, while Paul McCartney and Wings is a natural term, and is one that was used on two albums and several singles, and is the term used by Britannica: [1] and AllMusic: [2], and is used in the title of several books such as The Music Of Paul McCartney And Wings and Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings, I think we are really in the same situation now as in 2017. Some reliable sources use "Paul McCartney and Wings" and some reliable sources use "Wings". We use both Wings (band) and Paul McCartney and Wings on Wikipedia. There is nothing that is satisfactorily urging us to use either term, other than personal preference. However, our guideline in such a situation, Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation gives us three main options: Natural, Comma, Parenthetical. The first choice is WP:NATURAL: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred." The second choice, Comma, is mainly used for places and doesn't really apply here. Parenthetical is the third choice, and is generally used when neither Natural or Comma work: "Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." (My emphasis). All things considered our guideline clearly supports the use of Natural, which is Paul McCartney and Wings. I think if people wish to move away from the guideline and the established usage there needs to be a significant argument explaining why Natural is not appropriate in this situation, and at the very least a formal move request. SilkTork (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)