Talk:Debbie Reynolds/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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 21:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agnes Morehead Affair?

I would like to see a citation for this rumor. How likely is it that they had a lesbian affair given the 32 years difference in their ages?T.E. Goodwin 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In the recent Agnes Moorehead biography by Charles Tranberg, Debbie Reynolds goes on the record and says it is not true. That of course will not stop vicious gossips who never let the truth stand in their way.

I don't know about Agnes Morehead but from what I remember in Las Vegas being her limo driver she chased the female maids around. She would frighten the maids and they would quit because they did not like being hit on. I have no problem with anyone being gay, I just wish more people would come out. Maybe it would be more excepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.183.116 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Oh please, if that were true it would have come out years ago, a lot of people like to make up stories or exaggerate things…User:76.202.183.116, I think you’re just a troll making up stories too…if it’s true, then prove it find a credible source not some obscure website that runs on rumor. Anyway, many people have who actually knew Agnes Moorhead well have said that she was not gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't she die last week?

My dad said he heard on the news last week (today is April 6th) that she died last week. Could someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.203.136 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not her, as her official site has nothing about any death, and Google doesn't either. XPhile2868 (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Is there a more recent image of her. All the ones in the article are so old. Bytebear (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link at References

Reference #5, "How Celebrities Go Bankrupt at legalzoom.com" is dead - and I don't know how to remove it. Paulburnett (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Her maternal grandmother did not die in 1932, as this article says.

"Her maternal grandmother Joan Harmon (September 5, 1883 – October 31, 1932) was an actress who worked on Broadway from 1929 until late 1930."

I think this sentence is wrong. It exists pictures of Debbie Reynolds' grandmother with her great-granddaughter (Carrie Fisher) on the internet, and Carrie was born in 1956. I have also found information on "www.rootsweb.com" saying that Debbie Reynolds maternal grandmother was Maxie Harmon (1889-1976). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.129.196 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Debbie Reynolds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debbie Reynolds. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

What on earth is that trip down memory lane doing on Wikipedia?

Other Relationships involving Debbie Reynolds

I'm surprised this page doesn't mention the infamous love triangle between Elizabeth Taylor, Eddie Fisher, and Debbie Reynolds. It also doesn't say her children's names, one of which is Carrie. Shouldn't you at least mention that Carrie Fisher (from Star Wars) is her daughter?2003graduate

Image

Fair use rationale for use in the article Debbie Reynolds

1. Image is used solely for the identification of the subject.

2. The image is readily available on the source website, [1] or [2] and the further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder.

3. The subject of the photograph is living and is currently still performing. The image of this person conveys

  • the person's current appearance,
  • the difference between her present appearance and that of the other image in the article which is from the 1952 film, Singin' in the Rain,
  • her durability in terms of career and
  • her versatility in terms of the varied media in which she has appeared throughout her career.

4. No free image has yet been located for this person which would convey all of the above information and characteristics.

5. It should be borne in mind by editors that the image is first and foremost a poster (and is captioned as such) for a concert which took place in 2005. By definition, a poster is intended to be seen by as wide an audience as possible and is a promotional tool. A promotional tool is, by definition, designed to promote an event or a person and is generally used by the promoters to cover as wide an audience as possible, in the same way as a film poster. Film posters are are considered fair use in that the copyright holder, if one exists, has implicitly allowed the image to be widely broadcast and propagated.

Irish Ancestry??

Reynolds can be either Irish Or English. And Harmon her mothers maiden name is English. The source provided that she is Irish is not valid. I believe she is of English ancestry and not irish. At least partially English.

American Comedy Awards: Lifetime Achievement Award in Comedy twice?

Apparently (according to the Lifetime Achievement Award page) she won only in 1997. If so, then the 1996 entry should be removed. Renato (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No Ms. Henson (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

Take away the deceased quotation mark next to Carrie Fisher, its unnecessary Lionpetercarmoo (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Already done No quotation marks there. -- Dane talk 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Debbie Reynolds

If more recent editing expands the article, we might consider forking content to List of awards and nominations received by Debbie Reynolds. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Death stoke ??

Could someone authorised correct the typo in the summary box at the top of the page ? (Stoke -> stroke) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lintawa (talk • contribs) 06:34, December 29, 2016 (UTC–5)

 Fixed. And please sign your talk comments in the future. — Wyliepedia 11:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

The Awards section shows her winning the American Comedy Awards Lifetime Achievement Award in Comedy in both 1996 and 1997. She won in 1997 so the 1996 entry should be removed. LittleDove (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you. — Wyliepedia 12:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Broken Heart Syndrome

CNN is speculating that it is broken-heart syndrome [1] -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CNN Newsroom Live. 29 December 2016. CNN. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episode= ignored (help) @circa 2:40am EST
Wikipedia prefers not to publish speculation. And if she died of a stroke, then it's not broken heart syndrome.
Broken Heart Syndrome.[4] Stress cardiomyopathy is now a well-recognized cause of acute heart failure, lethal ventricular arrhythmias, and ventricular rupture.[5] Peter K Burian (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Stroke is when poor blood flow to the brain results in cell death. [i.e. not a heart syndrome] There are two main types of stroke: ischemic, due to lack of blood flow, and hemorrhagic, due to bleeding. They result in part of the brain not functioning properly. Of course, we do not have an official cause of death but Todd Fisher is quoted as saying "severe stroke". Peter K Burian (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly we should not speculate that her death was directly related to her daughters passing the day before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:C567:F0E9:FA37:BF6E (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Drawing of "Irene"

Hey, Light show. Where did you retrieve the "Irene" drawing? I like to know and want to add the main source of the image. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinterest. Here's one from Masterworksbroadway, although by another artist. --Light show (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Filmography incomplete

Could someone include the important film - "CALAMITY JANE" (1953 I think). I cannot find it in the filmography of any other site either (wierd) - one of her best. Calamity Jane does have a Wikipedia page. Trackmarshall (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That was Doris Day [3] - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Right. Calamity Jane


Doris Day - Calamity Jane Howard Keel - Wild Bill Hickok Allyn Ann McLerie - Katie Brown Philip Carey - Lt. Daniel Gilmartin Dick Wesson - Francis Fryer Paul Harvey - Henry Miller Chubby Johnson - Rattlesnake Gale Robbins - Adelaid Adams Francis McDonald - Hank Monte Montague - Pete Bess Flowers - Officer's Wife in Reception Peter K Burian (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: The link I provided does not suffice ? we have to post the entire cast ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Trivia and sources

Mlpearc and Winkelvi, just to clarify: I am not mainly responsible for additions by Light show. All I did was reformatting the references with templates. Nevertheless, while Light show added "notable works" in the infobox, I made some changes in the parameter before removal as "cherry picking". We can discuss this over here... or let this slide. --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about you and/or @Light snow:. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Is that a comment or a prediction? ;) --Light show (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in cluttering the infobox either. The films noted were the ones that TCM selected as being among her most notable, FWIW. But since they're in the lead, it doesn't matter to me either way. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

Not sure why this article is so full of useless quotes. Can the page be deleted and a new one started? I would be willing to help. However I am not sure how to insert the books I have as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E1:E8A2:601C:5BBE:D534:C355 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! No, this page cannot be deleted for having too many quotes. I agree eliminating some of the quotes would be more effective. I think some of what is conveyed in quotes can be paraphrased. As for how to edit, I recommend going over to the Teahouse if you have general editing questions. If there is a fact you would like to add the the article, you can also leave a message here on the talk page and include information as to the source and another editor can add it to the article for you. Knope7 (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

vandalism in google search?

searching "debbie reynolds" in google brings up this:

https://s28.postimg.org/90vqtedzx/vand.jpg

seems a bit disrespectful. was this vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.118.134 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with Google searches. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
There was an incident of move vandalism for about 2 minutes earlier today. The fact that it now persists on search results hours later seems like a major screw-up on the part of Googlebot. See WP:GOOGLEPURGE and complain at them. Qzd (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Organization

Aren't Stage work and Nightclub performer overlapping categories? Since a lot of Reynolds activities don't fit neatly into the subsections we currently have, would chronological organization work better? We could still use headings but place things in their chronological order rather than trying to figure out whether a project is film or singing, etc. Knope7 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't overlap in the least. Stage = plays. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
If we want to get super technical about this, her Broadway debut was a musical. That doesn't address whether chronological organization would improve the article. Knope7 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, stage = plays + musicals. And no, I don't think it needs to be restructured. As it stands now, it's in roughly chronological order already. Putting it into strict chronological order would make it too choppy. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In Hospital

Someone did an edit saying Reynolds had died but that was quickly reverted. She is only in hospital; no real specifics on the cause although TMZ claims it is a stroke. (Many other sites claiming it is a stroke also got the info from TMZ). http://www.tmz.com/2016/12/28/debbie-reynolds-hospitalized-stroke/

Example of a news item that gets the stroke info from TMZ http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/celebrity/debbie-reynolds-carrie-fishers-mother-rushed-to-hospital-after-suffering-alleged-stroke

Of course, I would not cite TMZ so I went with two highly-respected sources. Other credible sources: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/entertainment/debbie-reynolds-hospitalized/ and http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/debbie-reynolds-rushed-hospital-medical-emergency-report-959634 and http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-debbie-reynolds-ill-20161228-story.html Peter K Burian (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And User:SNUGGUMS we have been very, very careful to word the info about this to be as factual as possible. We did not claim it was a stroke as TMZ claims. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Even the Washington Post is quoting TMZ about the stroke. Strange. (But Wikipedia is NOT doing so) ..... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/28/debbie-reynolds-rushed-to-hospital-reports-say/ Peter K Burian (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's best to avoid using claims from TMZ, and we shouldn't even use links that contain things like "according to TMZ" or "TMZ reports" as they use TMZ (which is an unreliable gossip site) as a basis for reports. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I deleted the citations and added one from the LA Times that does not mention TMZ. But so many major news organizations, including NPR and Washington Post, are citing TMZ. Weird. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess User:Frank and I are now on the same wavelength. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

But User:SNUGGUMS and I are not quite on the same wavelength on one issue: Both User:Frank and I are convinced that the Facts section should show that her daughter is deceased. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
If by "facts section" you mean the infobox, then its purpose isn't to be overfilled with details. What's important for an infobox is the children themselves rather than whether they're alive. The only death an infobox should focus on is the article subject him/herself and spouses if they are widows/widowers as that tells how marriage ended. On another note, I'm glad that the lead citation has been replaced with something not based off of TMZ reports. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC Radio 5 Live has just announced she's passed away, quoting agencies. No doubt reliable sources will be available shortly. -- 83.104.44.241 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think TMZ is reliable. I've never known them to report anything erroneously. They vet their sources extensively, although I can understand the perception that they're not a legitimate source. For something more reputable, Variety is also reporting that Ms. Reynolds has passed away. Debbie Reynolds dead at 84

63.92.241.153 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Darwin

I have yet to find a highly reliable source that states the official cause of death. All discussions about a stroke had been based on a TMZ article and TMZ is not the most reliable source. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No cause of death provided to the media yet. We cannot speculate or rely on TMZ. e.g. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-debbie-reynolds-ill-20161228-story.html

Still no official reason for being in hospital nor cause of death. It might be a stroke but we want some definite statement about that, not news sources repeating TMZ. Peter K Burian (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes TMZ unreliable? Just because you say it doesn't make it true, and, if you check, their right/wrong ratio is going to be as good as any source you've dubbed "reliable". There's a reason that "reliable sources" quote them without a second thought. As stated above, they aren't some rag like the Enquirer. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ask what makes TMZ unreliable? But the person above me has beat me to it. Is there a rule that TMZ can't be used a a source? When has TMZ been wrong? I've never seen TMZ sued over false info. Other sources cite TMZ, ABC, CBS etc, yet Wikipedia won't use TMZ as a source? 2601:483:100:CB54:85BA:B8EA:B077:5A31 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

^ My thoughts exactly. TMZ is usually the first to break the news of celebrity deaths, and I've never known them to be wrong. 63.92.248.121 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Darwin
TMZ was also used as a source for Reynolds by the New York Times. --Light show (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Best lead image options

Since the lead image keeps getting changed without much explanation, the editors might want to consider from some of the recent ones used:

Lead photo options
  • 1 (1987)
    1 (1987)
  • 2 (1975)
    2 (1975)
  • 3 (1970)
    3 (1970)
  • 4 (1986)
    4 (1986)
  • ah excuse me?? doesnt ANYONE beside ME.. see that even though YOU/WIKI have label #1 and #4 as different years, they ARE quite OBVIOUSLY taken same day/time. Same dress, same artwork frame?, same curtains.. etc. Com' on folks, see what youre looking at! 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:4917:D734:6D06:F8F8 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #2. The photo had been in the lead without issue for about the last few years until an hour ago. --Light show (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 This appears to be of better quality than the current one. More consistent lighting, subject is looking directly into the camera etc.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 or #3 the 2nd one is... well, gaudy. It hardly seems like the best representation for her. She looks like "I Dream of Jeannie", to be frank. Number 3 is the best but 1 is also good -Jennica✿ / talk 05:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 is exquisite. #3 is great, but... as a lead image? No, not in my mind. Why is #2 used for the last few years? George Ho (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Three editors favouring #1, plus myself = four. Have changed. MurielMary (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #3 until a better one comes along. Reynolds was very Hollywood/Vegas and 3 represents that. 1 makes her look like a combination of Kathryn Kuhlman and Sue Ann Nivens, 4 is not infobox material, 2 is simply awful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #3 seems to be the best representation of her and is the most visually appealing as a lead image. #1 looks awkward to me, noticeably staged, and I think the lighting makes her face look unnatural, whereas #3 has better lighting and a clearer representation of her as a person. #2 definitely looks gaudy, and it also looks hardly anything like her. The lighting is awkward and the image is grainy. Passing on #4 because I think color pictures are generally preferred over black and white except in instances where there are no other alternatives. Rcul4u998 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the coloring on #3 is too loud, with the bright yellow and orange. I like #1 because it is more sedate, official looking.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 is the best and neutral representation IMO for the infobox, while #3 is canned and less appropriate. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 – I'm not sure what guidelines are available to decide this beyond personal preference, but #1 looks the best to me. Mz7 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Enhanced #1

Since #1 is the preferred photo, I uploaded an enhanced version under the same license to Flickr. I assume it's OK to use, so if anyone wants to upload it to the Commons, feel free. One of weak points of the original was that the face was washed out with too much flash. I tried to add some skin tone back. --Light show (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering this just happened as a result of this, it would seem that you are asking someone to proxy edit for you at Commons. I imagine that's just as much against policy there as it is here? I recommend no one upload this photo on behalf of Light show. But maybe that's just me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering it was you that made the magic happen with a little help from your friends, you're right. It's just you. --Light show (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't upload a copyrighted image with a clear copyright noted on it, then reupload with the copyright cropped out, that was you. I haven't played fast and loose with copyrighted content here or in Commons for years and have been sanctioned for it more than once, that was you. I was not blocked at Commons less than a half-hour ago and then, just a few minutes ago, asked for someone to proxy edit there on my behalf, that was you, as well. I take no pleasure in seeing you blocked anywhere, because I think you're a decent editor, but simply cannot find fault in anyone but you for what just happened. That you are blaming others for your own poor choices, irrespective of the warnings and second chances you had been given repeatedly only shows the block was appropriate. Lord knows, I've made my share of mistakes in Wikipedia, but I've never intentionally tried to skirt policy on anything, let alone copyright law. That's a serious, serious policy violation that could put Commons and Wikipedia in jeopardy, legally. Surely, you understand why the policies on copyright exist and that they must be followed without exception? Your attempt to blame anyone other than yourself is not just transparent, it's foolish. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you should read User:Jee's post there, where they just explained why the photo was approved and restored. As an editor whose been blocked for disruptive editing 14 times just over the past few years, I'd think you'd want to keep a lower profile. But then again, since you've proven to have some very impressive editing skills for a newbie after your first few days of editing WP, maybe not. --Light show (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Not that this is the place for it, but since you brought it up: I have been blocked 10 times. Four of those blocks have been lifted within 24 hours. Two of them were lifted within minutes. My block log has nothing to do with your violations of the copyright policy not just in Commons but here in Wikipedia. This discussion is about photos you have uploaded. Based on your history of policy-violating uploads of images as well as your indefinite block at Commons, it's prudent to take caution from here on out with any images you have had anything to do with, in my estimation. My guess is, based on comments he made quite recently at another talk page, Cassianto would agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you at least have a sense of humor. Since as you know, it was he and his team that got me banned from a few articles after they took over. I applaud your comedic timing. --Light show (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, you might also want to strike your comments above now that you've been again proven wrong, despite your best efforts.--Light show (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We'll see. There are still a lot of Support !votes for indef community banning you at Commons (same discussion, started days ago). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Commons AN discussion ended as I suspected it would: blocked indefinitely at Commons.[4] I'm sorry to see it did happen, because, as I've already said, I think you are a decent editor. It wouldn't have ended that way if you had done what was expected when you agreed to certain conditions in order to be allowed to start uploading images there again. The Community there has lost faith in you, rightly so. For me, that translates to having doubts about whether good faith should be shown here in the en.wikipedia regarding images, as well (as it did here and here). Your long history here on the same subject isn't really any better.

My feelings on all this remain the same: any photos you bring forth as a result of your uploads are suspect and deserve complete scrutiny. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Reynolds' high school

Debbie Reynolds did not attend or graduate from Burbank High School. She attended and graduated from John Burroughs High School in Burbank, California. I am a 1972 graduate of JBHS and while I attended, there was a large mural on the auditorium featuring various students, including Debbie. If you do a Google search for "Debbie Reynolds high school", this can be verified, and I am sure JBHS can verify it, too. Ron Howard and Rene Russo also attended JBHS. Gsmithesq54 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done a quick look online, and cannot find anything from a reliable source stating which high school she attended. For now, I've removed the name of the high school until something solid and acceptable reference-wise can be found to confirm which school she attended. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
According to John_Burroughs_High_School#Notable_alumni, with a reference to her autobiography, she attended JBHS when it was a junior high school and graduated from Burbank High School. (Note that Ron Howard and Rene Russo are quite a bit younger than Reynolds was.)  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Very possible this is true, however, we don't use Wikipedia as a reliable source, so it's not enough to support anything. We will still need a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
...which could explain why I specifically included the fact that there was a reference to her autobiography in that article...  Frank  |  talk  15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of that book to confirm, do you? Undoubtedly, if she went to Burbank High or Burroughs High, that will come out in the next few days, months, whatever, in a reliable source that can be verified for immediate purposes. Until that happens, we are better off leaving it as it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
...which could explain why I haven't made any article edits on this matter. My original response was to the original poster, explaining why it would be inappropriate to change the article to reflect that she graduated from John Burroughs High School, but acknowledging that there is every reason to believe that she did indeed attend JBHS. This is, after all, a talk page.  Frank  |  talk  15:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This article from the Los Angeles Times from 28 December does make reference to JBHS: "Growing up, Reynolds was a natural mimic, often performing for classmates at John Burroughs High School to compensate for the embarrassment she felt over her spare wardrobe." But since it makes only a passing reference to the school, and we don't know if she then went on to attend Burbank (which I assume would be the case if JBHS was a junior high school), I think we should wait. Perhaps someone will delve into the biography and find out what the exact situation was. This is Paul (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So, we now have two sources - one that states she attended BHHS and one that states she attended JBHS. At this point, it appears she may have attended both, the question is from which did she graduate? When we have conflicting sources like this, I believe it's not unusual to wait for better, or further confirmation. After all, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

[5] This local article states that she graduated from John Burroughs High School. It's coming from the Burbank mayor Jess Talamantes, so I'd imagine he'd have some inside knowledge into the local history. Not sure about the notability of the source. It appears to be a source local to Southern California. "Burbank Mayor Jess Talamantes called Reynolds a local icon who graduated from John Burroughs High School. Talamantes plans to adjourn the Jan. 10 city council meeting in her name. “She’s been the face of Burbank for many years,” he said. “Having been brought up here and having been Miss Burbank, she was one of us in spite (of) her going to Hollywood and having all that success.”" Rcul4u998 (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I found a few newspaper sources that state she went to BHS (Independent Press-Telegram (Long Beach, California) 17 Feb 1963) and others, and a few that say she graduated there(The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California) 17 Jul 1953), (1974) and others. Another LAT article from 1990 says "... in the days when freckle-faced Ron Howard was graduating from John Burroughs High School or even when Debbie Reynolds went to cross-town rival Burbank High." I did find one, but only one, (LAT, 5-8-1953) that said she graduated from JBHS--Light show (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
A bit of original research here, but it's just a thought. Our article on JBHS says it was established in 1948, at which time Reynolds would have been fifteen/sixteen, so which school did she attend before then? Did she perhaps start at Burbank and relocate to JBHS when that school was founded? That seems possible as Burbank was established in 1914. This is Paul (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's possible she attended both. The "Daily Breeze" article linked to above, though -- not so sure they should be considered a reliable source. I have to wonder how much oversight they implement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What's really interesting is that she once broke the Burbank mayor's office window and smashed his collection of paper weights. --Light show (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
[6] LA Times article from yesterday afternoon that corroborates the Daily Breeze article about her graduating from JBHS. Appears to cover the same statements made by Jess Talamantes. Rcul4u998 (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC) And I know it doesn't have much in the way of notability, but [7] this archived Burbank Leader article from 2001 supports some of our theories: "Shirley knew Reynolds at Burbank High before Reynolds transferred to the new high school, John Burroughs. Reynolds was in Burroughs' first graduating class." Rcul4u998 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No official Cause of Death declared

We cannot work with rumors or TMZ claims that it was a stroke. e.g. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-debbie-reynolds-ill-20161228-story.html

TMZ is not creditable enough for this type of news for a BLP article. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 02:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, the article is not a BLP. TMZ is reliable for celebrity deaths, however, I do not object to waiting. Knope7 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Article remains a BLP for up to two years following the death of an article subject. That said, I have included a reference for Variety, a reliable source, that states it is believed she died of a stroke. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
TMZ isn't that credible of a news source, over the years they have erroneously reported the deaths of a number of people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:D4E3:9F7A:444D:199D (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
"Article remains a BLP for up to two years following the death of an article subject." I'd like to see the specific policy on this and "up to" sounds extremely vague. The purpose of being careful with BLPs is not expose Wikipedia to libel. You cannot libel a dead person, not in The United States at least.Wlmg (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:BDP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok here's the specific policy I don't see how it's the least bit applicable here:"Recently dead or probably dead. Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people." Wlmg (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
As of 11pm, EST, no official cause for the hospitalization or the death has been released. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/entertainment/debbie-reynolds-hospitalized/ Reynolds had complained of breathing problems, an unidentified source told The [Los Angeles] Times. Todd Fisher told CNN, "My mother passed away a short time ago. She spoke to me this morning and said she missed Carrie." Fisher did not give a cause of death.
OK I get it no reason to jump the gun. It took months for the cause of death for Anna Nicole to be known. However, I suspect The cause of D.R's death will be forthcoming soon and the up to 2-year BLP rule will be moot.Wlmg (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious why you're so anxious for this article to no longer be considered a BLP. BLP is a higher standard for editing. Personally, I think that's an optimal editing environment and benefits readers more. Regardless, this article will likely be considered a BLP for at least six months, however, as stated above, it could be treated as such for up to two years. That said, you're welcome to take your desire for it to have its BLP status removed quickly to the BLP Noticeboard and see how it flies there. In the meantime, here, on this talkpage, isn't the place to debate this BLP's BLP status. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not understand the policy ty for clarifying it. As I previously posted "OK I get it no reason to jump the gun." Wlmg (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Since we've just been through this at Carrie Fisher, I'll mention only that cause of death is a medical pronouncement. Only a qualified professional with first-hand knowledge, such as a medical examiner, can so make. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Todd fisher finally has been quoted re: "severe stroke". I have added that but the actual cause of death will need to be based on a medical statement from the hospital. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/28/debbie-reynolds-hospital-carrie-fisher-mother Peter K Burian (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Who says that it needs to be based on a statement from the hospital? Hospitals don't generally go around releasing that information (privacy laws still apply after you're dead). The cause of death reported in the media is often picked up from obituaries--which are written by the family, not the hospital. Illnesses and death certificates aren't public information/records. If the next of kin explicitly says "it was a stroke", then it was a stroke. No other information is needed, nor is it necessarily forthcoming. To stick with your standard, you're going to need redact the cause of death from at least hundreds of articles. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP is a higher standard for editing. Yes, and that is definitely valid in the few days after a person dies! Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Cause of Death in the facts box. Revision as of 15:03, 29 December 2016
Wlmg (talk | contribs) (changed cause of death from suspected stroke to undetermined--see talk only a qualified medical examiner can say and WP is not a crystal ball) Interesting. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Armchair medical examiners, gotta love 'em Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedians who engage in personal attacks gotta love 'em Wlmg (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Cause of Death has not yet been revealed by Medical authorities. BLP is a higher standard for editing. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that TMZ might death certificates for both Reynolds and Fisher at some point, perhaps we could wait for those. Connormah (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Survived by

I never feel this is appropriate in an encyc. article. thats memorial/obit language. (mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:AD1B:8B60:27CB:9BF3 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It has encyclopedic value or EV.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree, simply by virtue of what it means. The articles already list their spouses (as well as the year the marriage ended & whether it was due to the death of one of the parties) & children (as well as their birth and death). So all mentioning "survivors" does is remove that extra tiny bit of effort from the reader by putting what's already in the article into plainer text--it doesn't add any new information. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

In three places, the possessive of her last name is written Reynold's. Her last name is Reynolds; you cannot form a possessive by inserting an apostrophe into the middle of it. The apostrophe must come after the name, making the possessive either Reynolds' or Reynolds's. 2605:A601:4100:3300:2306:3E9B:EE82:C306 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 02:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Uh no Reynolds' would be the form of possessive for more than one Reynolds e.g. Whose car is that ? Oh it's the Reynolds' carWlmg (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it would be the possessive for more than one Reynold. Reynold singular possessive: Reynold's; Reynold plural possessive: Reynolds'; ReynoldS singular possessive: Reynolds'; ReynoldS plural possessive: Reynolds'--you don't drop a letter to make something possessive. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Info box could use a better photograph of Debbie Reynolds

The info box photograph of Debbie Reynolds is not very flattering. Her face, neckline, and hands are grossly overexposed, and there's no contrast in the background. I have noticed that a lot of info box photos don't really help the subject.

The existing photograph should be replaced with a better one.

Anthony22 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and uploaded an enhanced version under the same license to Flickr. It's OK to use since it has the same license, so if anyone wants to upload it to the Commons, feel free. One of weak points of the original was that the face is washed out with too much flash, so I added some skin tone back. --Light show (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You've been indeffed at Commons (as of yesterday) for continuous copyright violations and unwillingness to comply with the conditions of your last indef block for copyright violations and now want people here to proxy upload images for you that you've edited. Sounds highly unethical to me and as if you're putting the editors who proxy for you into a position that makes their ethics questionable. Not to mention, if you continue to do this, you could be setting up those who proxy for you to copyright violation issues since you have a history of playing fast and loose with copyrighted content. If I'm wrong on the scenario, feel free to correct me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You've been corrected repeatedly, but I assume your cut-and-paste is too tempting a talent to waste. --Light show (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
When I "cut and paste", no one has reason to worry if it's copyrighted material. Can't say the same about you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the introduction should read:

On December 28, 2016, Reynolds was hospitalized at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center following a medical emergency, which her son, Todd Fisher, later described as a "severe stroke". She died that afternoon, one day after the death of her daughter, actress Carrie Fisher.

1) The name of the hospital should be mentioned in the sentence about her being hospitalized--it's too out of place in the following sentence.

2) There is no other Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, so there's no reason to specify that it's "Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles". If adding a location is necessary, it should read "Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles".

3) The name "Todd Fisher" is a parenthetical in that sentence & should be off-set by commas.

4) In the context of these two sentences, "later" is redundant. The deceased can't be hospitalized, so her dying would obviously come after, rather than before, her hospitalization.

5) Usage of "a" as replacement for the number "one" is not encyclopedic language.

6) The name "Carrie Fisher" is a parenthetical in that sentence & should be off-set by commas.

7) It doesn't hurt to add the extra word to explain Carrie's notability for those unfamiliar, in order to save them the click of seeing why Carrie has a blue linked name.

8) Use of the word "died" at both the beginning and end of the sentence is unnecessary and repetitive.

Also, footnote 10 is just a picture of Carrie and Debbie--it adds absolutely nothing, and, at the very least, doesn't belong as a source for that sentence. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thankyou for the edit. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

De-mentioning Carrie's death in the lead

If the consensus at Talk:Carrie Fisher says not to mention Reynolds' death in the lead, why is Fisher's death mentioned in the lead about Reynolds? I thought about removing or moving it into body. However, I shall discuss this first. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant to Reynolds' life, that's why it's in the lede. One is quite different from the other. Please don't remove it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Using ref codes to warn everyone

Clarawolfe, I don't know why sending message to everyone is necessary, especially to readers. And I don't know why ref codes are used. However, is the message helpful, or would it scare everyone? --George Ho (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved: --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Suicide speculations

I'm sorry, but film critic's Dan Callahan's theory - http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/debbie-reynolds-1932-2016 - should be mentioned in the article. This is not fake news or tabloid, as one editor mentioned, this is information, which was published on a critically-acclaimed website (Rogerebert.com) for info on movies, actors and directors. These speculations should be mentioned in spite of their controversial nature.Radiohist (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Where do I even begin? Speculation is not encyclopedic, this content has zero encyclopedic value and simply does not belong in a WP:BLP. Then there's WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA, WP:TABLOID. Just because it's on a "reputable" website, that doesn't make it appropriate here. There's also WP:BRD, which you've ignored three times now. Edit warring over this isn't going to make this crap stick to the wall. No reader is going to be further informed by this content and it does nothing to assist the reader in better understanding the article subject (which is the goal of Wikipedia articles). It simply has no place in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an Encyclopedia, we don't do speculations or theories. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that this information might be used on her page years from now and no one will raise any objections. I don't mind I'm used certain editors having hissy fits over things like this. I remember what a magilla was raised over Joan Gerber's death being reported by colleagues on a podcast and they wouldn't let it be known she had passed. You can see what the status quo is now.Radiohist (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Also may I remind you of Wikipedia:Be bold. You cannot ignore that cardinal rule.Radiohist (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
See ya back here in a few years :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
What does :P mean?Radiohist (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
:P = - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're behavior is not helping Wikipedia, the readers or anyone, except your egos. Should Dan Callahan had known better before publishing this? Yes. Did she really commit suicide? We don't know. Is this something that is properly referenced? Yes. Why do you insist on making analogies between this and fake news stories. There is nothing in common between them. This is a film critic for pete's sake.Radiohist (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Callahan is a film critic, not an expert in death in general and Reynolds's death in particular. If this were a theory about one of Reynolds's films - maybe. This is a theory about her death being from suicide. That's a lot more serious. We need considerably more than a couple of throwaway lines (quite possibly misinterpreted) from a film critic on a blog. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct.Radiohist (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Though, if I may they were not misinterpreted. Mr. Callahan did not mention stroke anywhere in the article, but you have a good point nonetheless. Thank you for ending the vicious cycle of :P.Radiohist (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
As you're well aware, the article by Callahan which you linked to, did not even remotely theorize or mention anything related to suicide. The fact that it came from a site called "Balder and dash" is probably coincidental to your insertion of the uncited commentary, which is true "balderdash", defined as senseless talk or writing; nonsense, bunk, piffle, poppycock or twaddle. --Light show (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping we could end this discussion, but you obviously have a unhinged desire to make me a fool and make you feel good about yourself. The site is called Rogerebert.com. The column is called Balder and dash and this is how it identifies itself - The place for everything that doesn't have a home elsewhere on RogerEbert.com, this is a collection of thoughts, ideas, snippets, and other fun things that Roger and others posted over the years. Dan Callahan wrote - isher’s unexpected death at age 60 dealt a blow to Reynolds that must have played a role in taking her own life right afterward. Please refrain from comments if they include lies. Hoping we could end this on a positive note.Radiohist (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This will end on a great note when you finally WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My comment isn't intended to revive the discussion, but I feel like it should be pointed out that Callahan seems to be referring to "Fisher's unexpected death" as the thing that took "her own life afterward", he is not writing that Reynolds killed herself. Or as someone else had commented on the column:

"Dan isn't claiming that Reynolds took her own life. Read the sentence again: Dan merely suggests that Carrie Fisher's death at least partially caused Debbie Reynolds' death:

"Fisher’s unexpected death...must have played a role in taking [Reynolds'] own life right afterward."" I.e. Radiohist seems to have misread the sentence, which could have been worded better. I feel like this needed to be stated there, errors like this can so quickly snowball into something bigger on the internet. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Should Professional Name/Birth Name Be Separate?

Hello, I'm Joel (Clarawolfe). I'm new here. I'm passionate about Wikipedia and doing what's right as far as content, appearance of content etc. That being said, I have a situation I don't know the correct answer to, so I've come here. I'm partial to articles of famous persons that start off with the name they are best known by and then the birth name following that name, such as:

'Joan Crawford (born Lucille Fay LeSueur; March 23, c. 1904[Note 2] – May 10, 1977)'.

I keep changing Ms. Reynolds' page to:

'Debbie Reynolds (born Mary Frances Reynolds; April 1, 1932 – December 28, 2016),' 

and someone else keeps changing it back to:

'Mary Frances "Debbie" Reynolds (April 1, 1932–December 28, 2016).'

I think it makes more sense the way I have it. 'Debbie' wasn't a nickname derived from her birth name. It was its own name entirely, and the only one she was known by in the public for sixty years. I also think it looks more dignified to separate them. Which is the proper way? Thank you. Clarawolfe (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Antonioatrylia and Winkelvi, your thoughts? So far, I've seen reverts on Clarawolfe's attempted changes on the opening name. I really hope further talking prevents further warring. George Ho (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debbie_Reynolds/Archive_1&oldid=1136655190"