Talk:Sara Evans

message: Is it worth mentioning in the article Sara's appearances in both TV and radio commercials for Coca-Cola? I believe the commercials aired in 2004, but I'm not 100% sure; the only reason I even remember this at all is because I'm related to her. Because of that, I think this falls in the "original research" category, but is it even a big enough deal to put in even with cited sources? I wanted to put something in about it, but at the same time I don't want to break any rules... Lycanthrope777 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial Appearances

message: The two sections under Singles are redundant. The second part is at least in chronological order. Backspace 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles 

message: Ok, so which single is coming out? I heard on CMT that Coalmine was the next single and I have yet to hear it on the radio, but in the past couple of weeks, I've heard "Missing Missouri" a dozen times and I've yet to hear "Coalmine". Also, I've heard Coalmine on the net and I have definately not heard it on the radio.
Thanks,
Faris,
:I've heard "Coalmine" on the radio and the DJ said it was the new single.  I have only heard "Missing Missouri" off the CD, never on the radio here. Lord Bodak 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COALMINE or MISSING MISSOURI??? 

message: Ok, I hope this doesn't become a huge issue but I changed the photo back to the old one.
This one just doesn't seem right to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sara_Evans_13.jpg
So I changed it back to the older one. The reason being is that she has curly hair in that pic and she normally doesn't so I think it's better to stick with a current/more recognizable one.
If anyone wants to put the other one back, can they give a reason why that one is better?
Personally, I like the current one or this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sara-albumcovercutout.gif
--Faris b 05:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: I have visited the town where Sara was born and raised. It is located approximately 1.5 hours from my house. I am also a country music fan and would be interested in helping out with this article. --Genius00345 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From my area 

message: Doesn't she have any promo photos or ANYTHING we can use? What about an album cover? This is getting out of hand, every week, 1 or 2 people are either trying to get the image codes right to post one or they post one that's unsourced.
Anyone know of any pics that we can actually use?
Faris b 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we certainly can't use an album cover solely to depict Sara Evans.  That would be a violation of the image's license.  --Yamla 16:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't say to hell with copyright info because that opens Wikipedia up to being sued.  We certainly can use a promotional image, though, with the right rationale.  --Yamla 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, in blatant violation of the image's license and without a detailed fair-use rationale.  That image is marked for deletion.  --Yamla 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly expect that she does have promotional images, we just can't find any.  --Yamla 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WE NEED A PIC! 

message: So, I guess I was right! It WILL be a single after all.
Faris b 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Missouri a single after all? 

message: I think that the singles should be all in one list on the main page, instead of her Top 25 hits being on one page and her lower hits being on the Discography page. It's just easier that way -- plus, just about every other artist page on Wikipedia is set up that way. TenPoundHammer 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles 

message: Some of the information on the song "As If" , I don't feel, should have been posted on here, as it has been taken from her fan club, and thus, was only supposed to be for fan club memebers, not the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by happychick13 (talk • contribs) 
:Artists post stuff on their fan club sites all the time.  That information is not meant to be for the members only.  It gets out and published all over.  Wikipedia is no different.  There is nothing wrong in my opinion with the info that was posted.  My only concern would be if it belongs in an encyclopeadic context.  --Renrenren 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THat is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  Unfortunately, stuff that happens in fanclubs does not STAY in fanclubs.  Info gets released all the time, even if it is on an unofficial basis.  Fanclubs are mostly there for merchandise and ticket sales and are not always used by artists to communicate with their fans.  Although I hear that Sara does keep in touch through the FC.  --Renrenren 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As If  

message: I have included facts from the latest news story that cited Sara Evans as having almost a dozen affairs including Richard Marx, Kenny Chesney, Tony Dovolani, and the members of the rock group Three Doors Down.  This edit is in no way a defamation of character to Evans; it was just a newsworthy fact that needed to be added to the article.  The edit was cited and linked appropriately. --Candy156sweet 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited your work and made some slight copy editing to the piece.  I hope that you don't mind.  Take care and have a fantastic weekend....  --Candy156sweet 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sara Evans' Controversy 

message: I'm new to the talk page.  Until today, I didn't know there was one!  
I wanted to let everyone know that I have spent this entire summer working on a complete revision of this article.  I'd like to go into all my reasons for doing it, but it'd take too long.  I finished the project today, and this was my first time coming back to the page since about the second week in May.
It scares me a little that there are so many flags on the current article, especially the one about the "2005-present" section being too long (when I know it's shorter than it was a few months ago!).  Wait till they see my "2000-2004" section -- all 13 paragraphs!  (Heck, the articles on game shows like Pyramid and Family Feud have an astounding amount of detail.  Three paragraphs on changes in the color of the set in the 1970's?  Where are the flags on that?)  
I do understand the flag about improving the quality; not to brag, but that would be accomplished for sure!  That was my main objective.  I wrote my revision in the style of a newspaper or magazine story, so overall, it would be about 8-10 times longer than it is now, and yes, there would be verifiability issues with some statements.  Or is the length not really an issue so long as things are broken down into more sections, maybe?  
I guess what I'm asking is, now that I've done all this writing, what do I do with it?  I need to share it with someone!
Cresty 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is not to completely rewrite an article but to improve upon it.  Take some of what you've written and start putting it in one section at a time... allow some time for people to read over it and to improve upon it as well.  This is a collaborative effort.  The last thing one would want is for the article to be completely replaced with what you have written as that would show little respect for those who have contributed thus far.  --Renrenren 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at major overhaul 

message: The number one problem is the scattered incorrect manner that sources were cited in this article.  I'm going to go through the article and fix them appropriately.  There are many facts within this article that still need to be cited, and I hope that others will take part to fix that problem.  Some of the linked sources do not exist on the net anymore, and other sources should be sought out to support the text in the article.  There is a great deal of grammar checking that needs to be done as well.  I think that the discography should be included in the article.  There is no excuse for it not being there.  --Candy156sweet 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing Sources (references) 

message: I went through the article and cleaned up some of the sections.  I cited and removed duplicate information, replaced facts in the appropriate section on the page, and did some grammar correction.  I wanted to make sure that I mentioned this to remove any confusion about this work.  --Candy156sweet 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying up 

message: I organized the biography, adding and moving sentences and putting them into appropriately-made paragraphs, so the article is more organized. For the controversy and personal section, I got rid of the bullets, so it didn't look like a trivia section, and put it into paragraphs, so it is more organized. I removed my grammatical mistakes. I got rid of the tag on top of the page, being I think I organized the biography appropriately, and also got rid of the tag about the references, being there are 16 references there, that should be plenty for this sized article. - Dottiewest1fan 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned Up Article 

message: Hi I was wondering if we should have a separate part on this page for the stuff Sara does on TV. She often goes on different programs (Like reality shows) so maybe it could be something to add so it's easier to read or something?
(HowIFeel 09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate part for Television stuff? 

message: …the strong statement can be accurately sourced.
The following text regarding refutation of a divorce claim is based on a citation with the seeming unrelated title "Joe Nichols Marries by Candlelight..."; more troubling is the fact that the strong text content was declared a dead link three years ago, and its content has not been and cannot be verified. For these reasons, the statement and reference were moved here to Talk, to allow interested editors to substantiate the content (and if so, return it to the article). As a BLP (both with respect to the article subject, and her spouse), unsubstantiated and unverifiable material cannot remain in place for years.  Here is the redacted text:
:"and Kirt Webster, a spokesman for the rock band 3 Doors Down, stated that the accusations are "ludicrous" and "untrue" and that the band members "are saddened by what she's going through".
Here is the redacted source, minus the ref…/ref apparatus:
: 
Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because BLP, strong statement with broken link, questionable title redacted, until... 

message: I went to this article to understand a recent report of a settled lawsuit in Schelske v Hollins, and found the article section on the divorce incomplete, and with limited clear content regarding the claims and counterclaims of the legal action.
I therefore made the following editorial changes:
*added the missing "temporary" to text appearances of Evans' requested temporary restraining orders, and the one listed was increased to two (since at least two are documented), and a sentence was added indicating that the final (post-temporary) outcome of these legal matters were unclear from published reports;
*expanded and so balanced the claims and counter claims from reports of both claimants' divorce filings; 
*stated the multiple, but reduced the seemingly prurient list of the infidelities that Evans was accused to a single one, the one where there was further report of a response by the named individual (Chesney); other cases are simply unsubstantiated disparagements of other living persons character, and with a nod to BLP, I suggest that there is no need to list them all just because they are celebrity names with Wikipedia articles (esp. without research into their possible published responses); and
* added text and citations regarding the Schelske-Hollins lawsuit and its outcome (financial settlement and apology).
This of course can use further attention, but these are the facts as far as I can see them in published sources. All information is verifiable, though, as this is from the celebrity genre of journalism (since secondary sources, and not primary legal sources, are desired by Wikipedia), there is always room for further careful scrutiny.  Note I have no relationship or fealty to either party, but am simply trying to relate, with balance, the published information that appears on the subject (where the Schelske v Hollins matter, in particular, was unreported here).  Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Divorce paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sara Evans. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gactv.com/gac/ar_az_sara_evans/article/0,,GAC_26110_4703341,00.html
*Added  tag to http://centralillinoisproud.com/content/fulltext/?cid=26521
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220233115/http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/10/23/freetime/doc49005c36e69cd706272770.txt to http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/10/23/freetime/doc49005c36e69cd706272770.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006125423/http://saraevans.com/index.htm?inc=5&news_id=16455 to http://saraevans.com/index.htm?inc=5&news_id=16455
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111175708/http://saraevans.com/videos/sara-evans-simplysara-kaelin-evans-show to http://saraevans.com/videos/sara-evans-simplysara-kaelin-evans-show
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the Commons directory for Sara Evans contains images of two different women.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion