Talk:Ashford & Simpson

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

Daughter[edit]

Nicholas Ashford and Valerie Simpson had a daughter named Nicole, you never see or read anything about her. What is she doing.

On finding two good third party references for their daughter, I added this fact (with the references, of course) to the article. Coyets (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Winehouse[edit]

they are also credited for Amy Winehouse- Tears Dry On Their Own —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.199.205 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the music in the background included sampling of an A&S song.76.232.10.199 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Amy Winehouse recording was a new performance, not a sample. The arrangement followed the original Marvin Gaye/Tammi Terrell version very closely, but was in a different key.

The musicians in the Winehouse version are listed in this link; Ashford and Simpson are credited as co-writers. http://www.discogs.com/Amy-Winehouse-Tears-Dry-On-Their-Own/release/1044112

71.203.230.254 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split into 3 articles[edit]

I won't be doing this myself, but i think that each performer should have their own article, and this article be about the duo. Jerry Leiber of Leiber & Stoller also passed away today, and the same splitting should apply there, IMHO.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question is, since they apparently wrote as a duo, and mostly performed as a duo, and (from what I can glean from the article and news of his death) are famous as a duo, have either of them done enough solo to be notable on their own? Or, put another way, is there enough info for 2 separate articles that wouldn't just duplicate 85% of what's already here? Aldaryx (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an obvious place where the woman who contributes is being neglected, whereas the man has his own page. I thought Wikipedia was trying to become more gender-equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipperdoop (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think a better question would be why the separate article on Ashford was created, rather than it being a redirect to this article, as it was until 2015. My view is that neither of them have had sufficiently notable careers outside their partnership to justify separate articles. If no-one else expresses a view here, I may propose that the Ashford article be merged back into this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We're not supposed to make judgements based on gender. We create articles based in part on availability of sources. All information comes from published sources. We don't invent it. Readers of Wikipedia would benefit from reading the documentation on what constitutes notability.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the Ashford article was created by an editor currently blocked as a sockpuppet. I'll change it back to a redirect and see if there are any objections. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations[edit]

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ashford & Simpson[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ashford & Simpson's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "can":

  • From Tammi Terrell: "CAN Charts > Tammi Terrell". RPM. Retrieved 2013-02-05. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • From Lioness: Hidden Treasures: "Amy Winehouse – Chart history: Canadian Albums". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
  • From The Brothers Johnson: "CAN Charts > Brothers Johnson". RPM. Retrieved 2012-01-21. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • From Rufus (band): "CAN Charts > Rufus". RPM. Retrieved 2012-02-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should their individual pages redirect to here?[edit]

This page should be focused on their career as a musical duo, while their personal page is about their individual career and life. It's no different to having a page for both Radiohead and Thom Yorke. Simpson has continued to write after Ashford's death, where is all this meant to go? It can't be under Ashford & Simpson. MarshallMolasses (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Simpson's work after the end of the partnership sufficiently notable to justify a separate article? If not (and I don't know the answer), her work can simply be mentioned briefly in this article rather than having a new article created. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashford & Simpson. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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) 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashford & Simpson. 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).

  • 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) 09:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashford & Simpson. 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).

  • 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) 14:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashford_%26_Simpson&oldid=1205399221"