Talk:Delia Derbyshire

photo of Delia

Maybe it's just me, but I find the photo on the article of Delia to be a little unbecoming and undignified. Anyone agree ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's foul. What about the most famous one with tape recorders? Martinwguy 15:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but which one can we get the rights to use ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just doing a google image search when i seen that photo, it was so bad i had to see where it was from, can't believe it on wikipedia. I can see why it has not been replaced, it is not like the image is PD or anything. King dumb (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Film work

Does anyone know if Delia Derbyshire provided the electronic "music" for Dr No (film)?Foofbun (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg

The image Image:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This theme sounds to be very late third doctor/fourth doctor. Better, surely, would be an excerpt from the first doctors' theme music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.210.109 (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Banners

Any uncited information can be deemed WP:OR as per WP:VERIFY. Do not assume the reader has prior knowlege of the subject matter. Currently Early Career, Other Work, Later Life are subject to said guidelines Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still unclear. Specifically what parts of the those sections are you questioning? Her place of birth? Her education? Date she started work? I'm all for providing backup, but does that mean we have to footnote every single sentence? Thanks, Konczewski (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in all seriousness, do you really need someone to hold your hand with this? I didn't write the guidelines but they do exist for a reason and should be be read. Ultimately, ANY unsourced information may be deleted. Please review WP:VERIFY Semitransgenic (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just asking you to take an extra step to help write a better article, not just leave a tag and cite WP articles. What is your specific quibble with the facts in this article? If you can't give an example of a fact that needs verification, perhaps you should consider removing the tag. Thanks, Konczewski (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you should consider following guidelines instead of pushing your own agenda. If you wish that I pick through the article and place citation requests throughout fine. But please read WP:VERIFY as requested and note the statement: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.". Note, this is true of all information, I believe this is a good policy and I find it strange that you insist on removing the banners yet you appear not to have enough interest in the article to actually find sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid this was going to be the response I would get. Please understand I have no agenda other than trying to improve the article. I agree with the statement you quoted from the WP; in fact, I removed several of those kinds of statements from the article prior from removing the tags. Since you replaced the tags, I reached out to you to understand what specific statements made you feel it was necessary to replace them. If you're just putting them back for general principles, then I must politely disagree with you. But if you have a concern about some specific items in the article, I am eager to have them pointed out to me so I can do the research necessary to improve the article.

So, just to reiterate--no agenda, not trying to cause trouble, just want your help to improve an article. Thanks, 20:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm afraid this is becoming circular, this article is not a priority of mine, it appears to be of concern to you right now, so please try harder to address the outstanding issues by finding sources. Principles are paramount. Wikipedia is the one place on the internet where readers can be briefed with regard to the potential inaccuracy, or worse still, potential falsehood, of information that is presented as fact, that is why banners are essential. At least here, in using standard guidelines, we can encourage people to be more discerning. I do not have an issue with banner usage or the continued existence of banners in articles that do not conform and it appears we differ in that respect. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy is just spamming WP complaints. Without identifying a specific area of concern, his complaints are unproductive and completely unactionable. 67.191.154.34 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Family? Children?

There is almost nothing in the article about her background or family. Did she have any children, for instance? Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the section abt the marriage of convenience and its being "brief and disastrous" sounds to me like she was gay. is that the case/intent of that section? 209.172.25.139 (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

References

One of the references is to the "Official Delia Derbyshire website" and it has a link to the disambiguation page for David Butler. However, although there is an academic on this list, it is not the same one who is responsible for this website. Would it be better to add another 'David Butler' page, or remove the link in this reference? For reference, is it this guy. Jrmh (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the link. If anyone writes an article about the correct person, we can replace the link :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another BBC Radio 4 programme about Derbyshire

Here [1]. Still available to 'Listen Again' for another few days. 81.156.125.126 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Validity of using Breenan thesis as reference

I would question the validity/ usefulness of using the Breenan thesis as a reference as it is unpublished, and therefore hasn't been peer reviewed either (if it is I cannot find it anywhere). Ultimately, doing so does not provide us with the actual *source* of evidence for the information it is used to back up. A link to the paper would be useful in order to review it first hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdw512 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alcoholism claim

I quote the article:

Derbyshire died of [[renal failure]] due to chronic alcoholism, aged 64, in July 2001.<ref name="Guardian Obit"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://delia-derbyshire.net/sites/mailonsunday.html|title=Daily Mail article on Delia Derbyshire|publisher=}}</ref>

The Guardian obituary says "died of renal failure aged 64". It doesn't say why. And the Mail is unreliable. I propose to delete the Mail reference and, unless anyone can source it reliably, the alcoholism claim. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. Moriori (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember listening to one of her friends on the radio mentioning her life was chaotic due to the alcoholism which eventually killed her, there might be other sources than the Mail out there to corroborate this Unibond (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about her, and am willing to believe that she was an alcoholic who was killed by her alcoholism. But if so, we do need a better source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Mail is an awful rag but why would they have an agenda in this instance ? Unibond (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A reasonable question. I first looked at this without any reason to think that they would, or that the author would. But I did skimread the particular article, and got the impression that its author hoped to have her readers slobbering over the talk of orgies and so forth. And what can fit the Mail agenda better than salacious tidbits about somebody's libertine lifestyle, ended with her comeuppance (cancer, AIDS, or other painful/embarrassing death)? -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting irony involved here. Hoary started this thread with "I quote the article". But, he didn't quote it correctly because the article does not appear as Derbyshire died of [[renal failure]] due to chronic alcoholism, aged 64, in July 2001.<ref name="Guardian Obit"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://delia-derbyshire.net/sites/mailonsunday.html|title=Daily Mail article on Delia Derbyshire|publisher=}}</ref>. I removed the nowikis so that it correctly quoted it as "Derbyshire died of renal failure due to chronic alcoholism, aged 64, in July 2001.[1][33]" It was reverted, but that's OK. Now, had it been the DM which said our article contained visible nowikis and brackets and ref templates in that sentence, then.... Moriori (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I still agree we should remove the claim unless we get a better reference. Moriori (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote carelessly. I should have said "I quote the source for the text". Sorry. My own wording aside, my reason for littering this with double brackets and so on was to spare us unneeded references-that-appear-like-references. (I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that anybody likely to participate here on this talk page would understand what was meant by the double brackets and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've cut it. NB the same Mail article remains cited twice for other matters. It shouldn't be. -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I found some more references for the Alcoholism [2] [3] [4] I think it should go back in Unibond (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The first two seem to be private websites run by enthusiasts. Scrupulous though they look, they really aren't very good for this purpose. The third does seem good, though. Feel free to readd, and let's try to remove the other references to the Mail (on Sunday). -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Unibond:@Hoary: The third source, Quietus, says she "struggled with alcoholism". Which is not the same as dying of "chronic alcoholism". I know, it's a fine line, but there is a difference and we've got to be precise. So far I can't find a source for chronic alcoholism contributing to the cause of death. A lot of people "struggle with alcoholism" but it doesn't necessarily kill them. Therefore I don't agree with putting that line back in. Kind regards, Yintan  09:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We have reputable sources saying she died of renal failure, reputable sources saying she was an alcoholic and another source saying she died of alcoholism. Occam's razor would suggest that is the case, I think this anti Daily Mail conspiracy theory is going too far. Unibond (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Let the WP article say what reliable sources say, no more and no less. I don't think that the Mail has conspired to say anything here and I don't think anyone has conspired against it here. But it's unreliable in general and this article within it seems sensationalist. If we can eventually get reliable sources to back up what's claimed in the Mail article, let's cite these sources for this purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to reflect substantiated position, any good ? Unibond (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes: thank you, Unibond. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Delia Derbyshire. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604033717/http://www.barrshill.coventry.sch.uk/index.php/general-news-newsmenu-37/392-did-you-know to http://www.barrshill.coventry.sch.uk/index.php/general-news-newsmenu-37/392-did-you-know
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911230845/http://www.cblackburn.fslife.co.uk/about_delia.htm to http://www.cblackburn.fslife.co.uk/about_delia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914075457/http://www.roland-collection.com/rolandcollection/section/29/660.htm to http://www.roland-collection.com/rolandcollection/section/29/660.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)