Jump to content

Talk:Dolores O'Riordan/Archive 1

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

I cleaned up the external links on 14/02/2007. A russian "portal" had been listing its 3 domain names in the external links section. I guess that fan page with no interesting content trying to abuse Wikipedia doesn't belong there. OrdinaryDay 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... Could someone *else* select the links that should stay and the links that should go? OrdinaryDay 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Is something really very serious here? --Bhadani 11:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Biography

This isn't a biography--Domingo Portales 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is, or at least the Personal Life section is; a poor one, but we can do little about that, as she is very discreet about her personal life. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why but 71.52.190.115 (talk · contribs) has been removing the text added by Domingo Portales over and over again [1]; please, 71.52.190.115, I beg you, explain us why. The text is well referenced (what can be better of one of her interviews?), and considering how difficult it is to obtain any data on her personal life, why do you keep removing it? Do you have any reason to doubt the sources? Please explain your edits, or I'll have to keep reverting them. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Because it has absolutely nothing to do with her birth. It's about how she was raised *after* her birth. I understand the need to put it somewhere because of the tiny amount of information about her, but it doesn't really fit in the part about her birth. Maybe you could try putting it in the footnote or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.190.115 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 May 2007.

That section is about her personal life, and the part is about her childhood; her birth can be (and is) stated with just one sentence. How she was raised can be considered part of that. Personally, if it wasn't sourced I'd have removed that information myself, but as she said it herself, I don't see any reason to hide it. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Well if it means that much to you guys to have it on, then I'm done messing with it. Though in note I didn't say to hide it either. It just seemed best to me to put elsewhere under her pesonal life, only an opinion though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.190.115 (talk) 02:10, May 13, 2007‎ (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dolores O'Riordan - Are You Listening.jpg

Image:Dolores O'Riordan - Are You Listening.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yodeling

Dolores is one best-known singer able to yodel, and she is mentioned in that article, so why not inserting it in the article? Fans should know where, among other of her singing abilities. Sobreira (parlez) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about changing the template used here to include all of her singing styles and listing them there?Kresock (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hot Press interview in 1994

Since Dolores O'Riordan appeared on the cover of Hot Press at the beginning of the year, her life has changed dramatically on both a personal and professional level. --candle•wicke 09:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

children

she allways says that she has 4 kids. in the entry appear only DOB of three of tham84.111.126.196 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad URL

the link http://www.doloresoriordan.com/ gives the error "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanasazi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dolores O'Riordan. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dolores O'Riordan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 18:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dolores O'Riordan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dolores O'Riordan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Irish republican?

Why is she included in the catogery Irish republicans, along with Sinn Fein politicians IRA members and such? Has she made public such a position? If so, that should probably be included in the article if she is to be included in the Irish republicans category.

The Cranberries post 2009

The two citations now in place for DO as patron of University Philosophical Society discuss how the group reunited to play for that Society in 2009. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I made the change to explain context of reunion in 2009. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Add this specifics to her early life section:

"Born in Ballybricken, Co Limerick, O’Riordan was the youngest of nine children (two of whom died in infancy) of Terence O’Riordan, a former farm labourer who was left unable to work after an accident, and his wife, Eileen, a school caterer, and went to Laurel Hill, a Roman Catholic school in Limerick."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jan/16/dolores-o-riordan-obituary Arash azarmi (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about sourcing

Although the subject of this article is dead, her article still gets the protection of BLP. This precludes the use of tabloid sourcing. --John (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: I assume you are talking about The Sun and this edit? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Source wanted

Resolved

If anyone has access to a back copy of Mademoiselle: The Magazine for the Smart Young Woman, Volume 100 (1994) I think there is a print interview that can be sourced. — xaosflux Talk 21:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Posted to WP:RX. — xaosflux Talk 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Was fulfilled! — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

I think the two detailed images currently, in Solo career and Personal life respectively, are simply too small to be seen clearly. The second one also seems to be out of line with the text chronology. I don't see the benefit in having it left aligned. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that those two images pertain to the same year, 1995, they are aesthetically well-placed, as the images in the article seem to appear at regular intervals. The two left-aligned images are both low-resolution crops of much larger images, at best, or scans from print media, of photos taken from a distance under non-ideal conditions. There is no higher resolution available on Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately, Commons is stringent about images being free to use, and apparently these two were available for use on Commons. The Pavarotti photo has recently been nominated for deletion. Can you suggest any better images?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The same year? The caption for the first is "O'Riordan promoting her debut solo album Are You Listening? in 2007." The second should be next to the paragraph that mentions 1995? Sorry no, I can't suggest any others. It has always seemed to me that the insistence on low quality images is in direct conflict with building a high-quality encyclopedia. The quality of that Pavarotti image is truly awful. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

exact cause of death

Although an official cause of death has yet to be released to the public, some news outlets are reporting that London police found counterfeit fentanyl pills near her bed. I don't want to add this unfounded material as I am not sure how reliable it is. I think we should wait until more comes out before we add anything, the autopsy results are not complete until at least April and they may or may not be made public , I don't think we can rely on unfounded reports police are treating the death as not suspicious and have not stated this in reliable sources so it makers me wonder are these just false allegations please help. Amy foster (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It should not be added at this time. With stories like this it helps to follow the links to their origin. This one can be traced to a report by the Santa Monica Observer, a small paper in California, but has not been covered by any significant news publications with an editorial board at all. If more significant coverage does appear in the coming days then perhaps consider adding it, but at the moment it's likely not verified and probably speculation, if not outright clickbait. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Santa Monica Observer is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santa_Monica_Observer. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic chat
I have no idea if anything is suspicious or not but ... taking more than 3 months of inquiry is awful. Do they want to deliberately not tell the truth to the public or something? 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:D127:6107:A96E:296A (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

inquest into cause of death cancelled

A number of newspapers are today reporting that the scheduled inquest into her death that was meant to have been today has for reasons not known been cancelled and appears to have put back to a later date. Is this important to add to the death section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.173.182 (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Per WP:BLPCAT and the category description, the Category:Irish Roman Catholics isn't appropriate for this biography. BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." (My emphasis added). Her Catholicism isn't even addressed in the article except to say her mother is a devout Catholic and she was raised as one. Meeting the pope and singing for him doesn't count. What was Dolores notable for? Being a rock star. So neither of the two criteria in BLPCAT are satisfied.

Now actually look at the category and its members. "[Irish] Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-identified as a Roman Catholic." (My emphasis added.) Again, neither qualification is satisfied. Look at the other category members - famously Catholic journalists, columnists; activists and campaigners; revolutionaries. Similar categories for other countries are definitely much more lax about enforcing the eligibility requirements. Not the case here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You must havent read the entry because it says: "O'Riordan was raised as a Roman Catholic. Her mother is a devout Catholic who chose her daughter's name in reference to the Lady of the Seven Dolours.[45]/ She admired Pope John Paul II,[46] whom she met twice, in 2001 and 2002.[47] She performed at the invitation of Pope Francis in 2013 at the Vatican's annual Christmas concert.[48]/ In September 1995, she performed Ave Maria along with Luciano Pavarotti; Princess Diana, who attended the live performance, told O'Riordan that the song brought her to tears.[49]" You seem to have a particular obsession with leaving people outside that category, so I think it will better to discuss more properly who should be included there than to engage in edit warring.Mistico (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"O'Riordan was raised as a Roman Catholic" - is meaningless in the context of the category requirements. "Her mother is a devout Catholic, etc." - likewise. Liking a pope? Same. Performing a gig? Likewise. Singing a religious song? I know loads of people who sing Christmas carols but aren't Christians, your point? The inclusion criteria in both BLPCAT and the particular category description are crystal clear. She doesn't meet them. She's notable as an amazing singer and rock star; not for being a Catholic. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Simply daft. Irish Roman Catholic is an identity and she is notable for it every bit as Prince falls into Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses and Trevor Rabin falls into Category:South African Jews. The categories are wrong or stupid, take your pick. Category:Irish Catholics has Sinéad O'Connor and the instructions are "This category should only include Irish Catholics who are not in communion with Rome. Roman Catholics should be placed in the subcategory." The subcategory listed there that they are telling you to use is Category:Irish Roman Catholics‎! The category is faulty because you are trying to confine it to clergy or activists and that isn't what the term means. Category corrected. Somehow, there should be a way to categorize the obvious and not have a common identity stripped from people.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
You've completely ignored BLPCAT, I see. Putting someone in a cat because of their religion is not what categories are for. Otherwise >90% if Irish biographies would have it included, making it even more meaningless. Sinéad O'Connor properly belongs in Category:Irish Catholics because of notable things such as, e.g., being ordained. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, two editors at Category talk:Irish Roman Catholics decided all of what you are putting forward and you are one of them. That cat isn't at all consistent with the other subcats in Category:Roman Catholics by nationality and you can't reconcile the discrepancies between Category:Irish Catholics and Category:Irish Roman Catholics‎ either. You introduced instruction creep there that doesn't need to be followed in the way you describe. You don't have consensus and have been reverted by three different editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The guidelines in use are, in fact, in full compliance with category and biography policies, lined and outlined above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Her entire funeral mass was broadcast live on radio in Limerick and the Catholic Church published a media notice. Ref. Notable as Irish Roman Catholic.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, wtf? She received a Catholic funeral and, being a hugely popular entertainer, it was broadcast. Completely irrelevant to inclusion in a category! I'm not seeing where "two editors at Category talk:Irish Roman Catholics decided all of what you are putting forward and you are one of them" - I'm not Domer48 or One Night In Hackney. Look, offhand, I can think of several Irish singers much better known for their religious beliefs than Dolores - and they're (properly) not included in the category, either! That she was Catholic isn't in question. That her notability derived from her Catholicism very much is. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Prince's notability didn't derive from being a Jehovah's Witness and Trevor Rabin's wasn't derived from being Jewish either. The cat should not be as limited as what you project and that is through your faulty interpretation of BLP policy. You see, it only implies that some relevance is needed. So, three of you decided instead of two...same thing, it was done with relative isolation. You haven't addressed the issues that I have brought up. In addition to the two performers above, why is Sonny Bono in Category:American Roman Catholics? Why is Geezer Butler from Black Sabbath in Category:English Roman Catholics? Did Tony Blair's notability derive from being Catholic? He's is also in that same category. Again, the other cats in Category:Roman Catholics by nationality do not match what you are attempting to do. Go look at Category:Brazilian Roman Catholics and see all of those footballers, singers, actors, etc. and none of them follow the convention that you are trying to enforce here. You do not have policy nor convention backing you up.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the previous user. If we used such a narrow interpretation for the Irish Roman Catholics category, then we should do the same for other similar categories. For some strange reason the user who has this peculiar view of that category has never tried to aply it in other similar national categories.Mistico (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely - we should do the same for other religious and sexual orientation categories, as that's exactly what we're mandated to do by policy. I only have so much time and energy, though, and so, being Irish, I keep an eye on Irish-related categories. Odd that you seem to know my entire edit history! When I've made similar edits to biography articles of people from other countries, I inevitably came across editors who ignore the stated policies and category descriptions and insist on adding "nationality Roman Catholics", "nationality Jehovah's Witnesses" or "nationality atheists" (etc) to biogrpahies, usually (but not always) because they're adherents of that religion (or lack thereof), have crosses or similar symbols and religious userboxes on their user page, and seem to think they should add the cat to as many articles as possible so their side "wins", or something.
The most knowledgeable people I know on the issue of religion in infoboxes and on categories as a whole are Guy Macon and BrownHairedGirl, respectively, so pinging them for input too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines on categorising biogs by religion

I am responding to a ping by @Bastun. I urge all participants in the discussion above (i.e. @Bastun, Mistico, and Berean Hunter) to read and apply the relevant guidelines, rather than applying their own personal reasoning.

Since Dolores O'Riordan is dead, WP:BLPCAT no longer applies. The relevant guidelines are WP:COP and WP:CAT/R.

Taking WP:COP, it says at General_considerations: "not all categories are comprehensive: For some sensitive categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples" and also "categorize by defining characteristics".

WP:CAT/R is part of WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which says in its first section General:

The "defining" principle applies to gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categorization as to any other, i.e.:
A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
In other words, avoiding categorizing by non-defining characteristics is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories

WP:CAT/R says:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.

Applying all that to the case of Dolores O'Riordan, we have several tests to apply:

  1. the broad definingness test: Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define O'Riordan as being an Irish Roman Catholic?
  2. the narrower WP:CAT/R test: Is there a a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate?

Since WP:CAT/R is the more specific guideline, that verified consensus of reliable published sources is what should be applied here. That tallies with the specific guidance in Category:Irish Roman Catholics which Bastun quoted above.

I am not familiar with the sources on O'Riordan, so I will leave the editors who know this article to apply the test. But I will note a few points:

  • Being raised in a religion does not necessarily mean that someone continued to practise that religion as an adult. Ireland has moved significantly away from religion in the last few decades, and many people no longer identify with or practice the religion in which they were raised.
  • Examples of other biographical articles are unlikely to be helpful, because either:
    • they have been categorised correctly on the basis of their reliable sources, which won't be the same as the reliable sources on O'Riordan; or
    • their categorisation does not reflect the guidelines

So this article should be assessed against the guidance, rather than against other articles.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive response, BrownHairedGirl, much appreciated! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Having now had time to fully consider BHG's comprehensive response above, looked for reliable sources commonly and consistently defining Dolores O'Riordan as a Roman Catholic, and more specifically, looked for "verified consensus of reliable published sources", I have failed to find same. Yes, some sources (some seemingly based off this article) describe her as either being, or being raised as, Roman Catholic. Some mention that she performed for Pope Francis and met Pope John Paul II. But there's not one that could be said to describe her Catholicism as "defining", per the description above. I am therefore going to remove the category. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And... Berean Hunter has just reverted, saying s/he doesn't see where the consensus has changed - apparently missing the new contributions here, including the clarifications on categories from BrownHairedGirl, or the actual policy-based reasons for the removal. Any chance of engaging here, responding to my points or BHG's? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
  • "The Church influenced a lot of my development as an artist and as a musician. I learned an awful lot of my music through the church and stuff like that. For me It’s always been a good thing, a positive thing in my life." Dolores O'Riordan 1 (multiple sources)
  • I haven't seen a change in consensus and you didn't seem to look very hard. I don't suppose that it has dawned on you that if Catholic publications are publishing articles on her then she might be notable as a Catholic to them?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm finding that quote in three non-blog sources apart from yours. An Irish showbiz site, an Irish parish newsletter online, and some sort of evangelical newsletter that sources the quote to the Daily Mail (not a reliable source, but that's beside the point). But the first two sentences in that quote are entirely irrelevant in any case! The last sentence is the only vaguely relevant one. But again - because it apparently bears repeating - that Dolores O'Riordan was a Catholic is not in question. The category is not for everyone who is or was Catholic but rather for people whose Catholicism defines them. A defining characteristic is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
In other words, avoiding categorizing by non-defining characteristics is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories." Dolores O'Riordan's notability and defining characteristics are as an Irish rock singer. Not as an Irish rock singer who happened to be a Catholic. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Consensus hasn't changed to favor you...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Still not addressed, and no response to the advice from BrownHairedGirl... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The status quo is that consensus does not favor you and I didn't see anything else to discuss. Multiple editors placed it in and only you tried to remove it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, two is indeed a "multiple". You completely ignored the contribution from BHG - again - I see. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
No I didn't, she said, "I am not familiar with the sources on O'Riordan, so I will leave the editors who know this article to apply the test."...she didn't state that she was in favor of removing the category.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct, BrownHairedGirl didn't say that. She did say "this article should be assessed against the guidance, rather than against other articles" and the guidance is:

"Applying all that to the case of Dolores O'Riordan, we have several tests to apply:

  1. the broad definingness test: Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define O'Riordan as being an Irish Roman Catholic?
  2. the narrower WP:CAT/R test: Is there a a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate?

Since WP:CAT/R is the more specific guideline, that verified consensus of reliable published sources is what should be applied here. That tallies with the specific guidance in Category:Irish Roman Catholics which Bastun quoted above."

I'm seeing lots of sources saying she went to a Catholic school, her funeral was in a Catholic church, she was buried in a Catholic cemetary, etc., but once again, the fact that she was a Catholic isn't in question, her inclusion in a category that's for people notable because of their faith is. Dolores doesn't really seem to meet the first criterion above and certainly doesn't seem to meet the second one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, you failed to respond to anything here from either me or BrownHairedGirl, then when you do it's via edit summary including a threat and a personal attack? Conduct unbecoming an admin... Given the prominent Celtic cross on your userpage, do you have possibly a less than neutral PoV on this? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't fail to respond, I didn't find your argument convincing and saw no need. There were multiple editors that reverted you so you don't have consensus and are editing against it. Without any address here, you tried to sneak the change in during another edit. I have assumed that one day, others may join in this discussion and a new consensus may form but there was no change to consensus and your edit comes across as a sneaky attempt to run around it. Pointing out the lack of integrity that it took to do that is not a personal attack. And yes, I have a Celtic Cross...um, so what? What does that convict me of...liking Celtic music?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, correction, you didn't fail to respond, you just chose not to. Acknowledged. Two is a "multiple", I guess. I still maintain that consensus (of 2 people to 1 person) doesn't trump the relevant policy and guidelines, as set out by BHG above, but obviously your mileage varies. Accusing someone of lacking integrity - nah, sorry, that's a personal attack. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
201.145.169.177 (contribs), Mistico (diff) and myself (diff) makes three. You are the only editor to try to make your change stick. Trying to undermine consensus with a misleading "ce" for an edit summary a few months after and no mention here looks sneaky, deceptive and lacking in integrity to me. Unless someone else joins this thread, you have no business making that change.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
An anon IP with 3 edits who clearly doesn't understand the categorisation guidelines? Seriously?! I'm fully within my rights to copyedit an article according to stated policy and guidelines, with an edit summary of copy edit - especially when the other person involved in the discussion failed to respond. "You are the only editor to try to make your change stick." - well, apart from you, that is - the person editing against policy because "consensus!" Please now cease with the continued personal attacks - it's unbecoming of a regular editor, let alone an admin. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
You aren't following policy or guideline. I responded above in green to satisfy CAT/R that a consensus of sources acknowledge her Roman Catholicism. It isn't in question and there are plenty of sources. You also didn't follow WP:CONSENSUS. I disagree with your interpretations that in order to use the category that it had to be some overly defining aspect of her life. Pretty stupid that there are only 32 Irish Roman Catholics in the main category and others must be priests or bishops or activists subdivided? Policy wonkery or faulty readings of guidelines. You said on this page that this cat is being treated differently and that all others need to be made to conform like this...I disagree.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again: two people versus one person isn't a consensus. Once again: her Roman Catholicism isn't in question; but the category is not for every Roman Catholic. That's per BLP and WP:CATDEF, from which Category:Irish Roman Catholics follows with its guidelines for inclusion. It did so long before I started keeping an eye on the category, and makes perfect sense - Liam Cunningham, to take one example I came across today, is described in his bio as raised as Catholic, sans referencing or anything else to indicate his actual religion or lack thereof, and previously would have been slapped into the Irish RC category, making it completely meaningless. It's perfectly normal and standard practice to use subcats - I don't see why that's an issue for you.
Please have a look at WP:DEFINING - "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
  • standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality
  • the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for." In Dolores' case - that's "singer", not "Roman Catholic". I'd also seriously recommend you read the following paragraph on Overcategorisation, because most of that is directly applicable to this situation too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No response or rebuttal? Can I take that as acceptance that WP:CAT/R, WP:DEFINING and WP:CATDEF are applicable? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it means that I've been busy. No deadline. You are the only one that wants to remove this despite it being in many established editors' watchlists. It hasn't occurred to anyone else that it needs to be removed and that ought to tell you something. No consensus to add back and we will have to wait on others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You're persisting with the WP:CON argument and ignoring all the others. You are the only one that wants to restore this despite it being in many established editors' watchlists. It hasn't occurred to anyone else that it needs to be restored and that ought to tell you something. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources have this as a defining characteristic

"Dolores O’Riordan ‘took a lot of influence from her spirituality’, bishop says: The Cranberries singer spoke frequently about her Catholic faith" 1 which also renders "O’Riordan frequently spoke about her Catholic faith and the importance of prayer in her life."

"Catholic musician Dolores O’Riordan, lead singer of The Cranberries, dies suddenly in London" 2 which also gives "ROCK singer Dolores O’Riordan was sexually abused as a child, battled with depression, and after meeting Pope John Paul II credited her faith as one of her greatest musical influences." and "Ms O’Riordan said in 2013 her faith as one of her greatest musical influences."

"‘It Belittles Women’: Cranberries Singer Dolores O’Riordan Once Passionately Slammed Abortion" 3 which has "Not that the freewheeling possibilities of a rock lifestyle have totally swayed O’Riordan from her conservative Irish Catholic roots.", a quote from Rolling Stone but seperately the author states "O’Riordan was a lifelong Catholic."

"Catholic Leaders Remember Faith of the Late Cranberries Frontwoman" 4

"Cranberries' lead singer Dolores O'Riordan dies" 5 which has "Unlike so many entertainers/singers, Dolores O'Riordan remained staunchly Roman Catholic, meeting Pope John Paul II, and performing at the Vatican's annual Christmas concerts for now-Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI several times. It was long debated whether the Cranberries' "The Icicle Melts", was a pro-life, anti-abortion song." The radio host goes on to compare and contrast Sinead O'Conner and O'Riordan and will conclude "Two headstrong female Irish singer--songwriters. Two vastly different life journeys. Both shaped, in different ways, by their Irish Catholic upbringings."

In "The untold truth of The Cranberries' lead singer Dolores O'Riordan" 6, the author discusses this Telegraph article from 2001 and this article from the Independent. "She always kept her Catholic faith" and "O'Riordan frequently talked about the values instilled in her during her childhood, which The Telegraph called "old-fashioned, romantic, and Catholic." O'Riordan herself told The Irish Independent, "I believe in God, and life after death."

She was outspoken about her anti-abortion views and that was a direct result of her catholic upbringing. I also think that this category is more appropriate for her because she is recognized for it unlike, for example, any of the members of Thin Lizzy. Some of the (past) members may be Irish Roman Catholics but I wouldn't think this category applies to them because it isn't something that they are known for. I think we might agree on that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This argument essentially repeats your earlier argument - "she should be in the category 'Irish Roman Catholics' because she was a Catholic". And I must again repeat: that she was a Catholic is not in dispute, but religion categories are not for every member of a religion. Yes, she is recognised for being Catholic by Catholic organs, because of course they would - every proponent of a viewpoint wants celebrity endorsement. And her Catholicsim gets passing mention in mainstream media. The question is, though - is O'Riordan known for (notable for) being a Catholic generally - and the answer is no, she isn't and wasn't. She was and is known for being the lead singer of the Cranberries. Your Thin Lizzy comparison is valid. I've no idea what religion, if any, any members were, and they're not included in any religious categories. Daniel O'Donnell and Dana Rosemary Scallon have also performed for Popes and likewise aren't in the category - not a defining characteristic. Compare also to Sinéad O'Connor - her religious views are very much notable and defining, hence she's properly included in Category:Irish Catholics. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Just to add - sources do not have "this" as a defining characteristic. Some Catholic sources of course say she was Catholic, and mention how important her religion was to her (as it should be for every devout religious person, surely), and some mainstream sources mention her religion, too. But that's it. Even in the news reports the day of and the day after her inquest, her family and bandmates are remembering her as a mother, a friend, and a bandmate. Her religion doesn't merit a mention. Circa 37,000 News ghits for +"Dolores O'Riordan" +"Catholic" (which is also returning a lot of false positives) versus 52,000 for +"Dolores O'Riordan" +Limerick, or 3,000,000 for +"Dolores O'Riordan" +Cranberries. Even +"Dolores O'Riordan" +drowned gets 2.3 million hits. So yes - her religion was important to her, but not a defining characteristic as far as the rest of the world was concerned. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as wer're talking about defining characteristics, it's worth quoting WP:CATDEF here, in fact:
"A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio."(Original emphasis used). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Suddenly vs unexpectedly adjective edit war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Dolores_O%27Riordan#Suddenly_vs_unexpectedly_adjective_edit_war Jazzbox (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I will submit this to moderation or somebody jump in and do it rather than keep wasting time on an editwar. I only did moderation once. I consider "unexpectedly" more appropriate. Jazzbox (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Meant adverb Jazzbox (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere, there is a list of the dumbest edit wars on Wikipedia. This one is working toward that list.
For suddenly, I get "quickly and unexpectedly".
For unexpectedly, I get "in a way that was not expected or regarded as likely".
The difference between the two is that "suddenly" says that she died quickly.
The first five sources in the Death section say: "suddenly", "sudden" (quoting the statement), "sudden" (quoting the statement), no modifier, no modifier. I see nothing to indicate her death was what I would consider prolonged. I've had two deaths in my family from illnesses where death was expected for a month or longer.
I'd say "suddenly" covers what reliable sources say at the moment. It's of course possible that information yet to be released would change that, if she was seriously ill for some time prior or something. If there is considerable disagreement here, we can go without modifiers and stick to the facts as Rolling Stone and RTE do. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The key issue is no one expected her to die since she appeared healthy aside from non lethal back pain. We expect her to live another 30 years. A soldier in battle may die suddenly but not unexpectedly. I don't buy the argument from authority you present. What I object to is having my edit removed while the case can be made that it is more appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzbox (talk • contribs) 22:25, April 25, 2018 (UTC)
You are saying she died unexpectedly. "Suddenly" -- meaning "quickly and unexpectedly" -- covers that. I do not see any indication that her death was not quick, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is fair but because words mean different things depending on context I believe my choice of words fits better... I will present a cogent argument as soon as I submit the request for moderation. Jazzbox (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I will accept the judgment of a neutral moderator. To be perfectly honest I suspect this revision is an attempt by fans to lessen any likelihood that one would suspect suicide in this case. The word "unexpectedly" is often used to describe this scenario, when frankly no one expects it. There are many connotations of words that vary depending upon the context. Regarding your argument of sources we are under no obligation to make rote copying of phrases. Jazzbox (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm an admin and I am neutral in the sense that I was not particularly a fan of O'Riordan's music. I have 12 years' experience editing here. Will you accept my opinion? If not there are other avenues we can look at, but could you please refrain from edit-warring meantime? The fact that you are in a minority of one, and that three other editors have all undone your proposed change, should be a clue to you. --John (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
No I won't accept your opinion since you seem to be about half of the edit war. Incidentally, it did say "unexpectedly" for months, so I don't accept the notion I am the sole cause of the edit war given that she was a popular singer and many people no doubt read the description with no objection. You seem to have shown up with your edit axe. As far as being outnumbered, so what? That only means that groupthink is a possibility, notwithstanding your condescending remark that I'm not clued in. I don't like being bullied out of this frankly. There is a subtle difference between the two words IN THIS CONTEXT. Jazzbox (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammar rules would mean that unexpectedly is the proper choice regardless of Wikipedia policies. Gune (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Um...Which grammar rules in particular? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The closing of the dispute resolution found a rough consensus for "suddenly". - SummerPhDv2.0 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Which was a complete waste of time. The moderator only wanted to close it ASAP. You guys collectively focused on my secondary remarks but never defeated the main argument: the context should govern the word choice, not a dictionary definition that is used by the sources. You don't need to cede word choice to the sources you know and stop thinking on your own. So I think your victory is pyrrhic at best. Jazzbox (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow. WP:FLOG, much? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You guys love your little cult like rules and expressions. Computers can apply blanket rules. Nobody here actually wants to think, just apply rules and procedures instead. I'm not pursuing this further, if that is what you mean. I learned that a lot of editing here appeals to people who like rules and procedures mostly. For my part I thought about context, and how that governs word choices. Jazzbox (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Bastun...it is time to move on. This thread will be irrelevant once they finally make an announcement anyway.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This very trivial distinction doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on, and agree with the "move on" suggestions above. Ceoil (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If I had been notified of this dispute, I would have "voted" on the side of "unexpectedly". Once. Lexein (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This issue is long dead and we do not vote. If, for some reason, you feel we need to re-open this pointless dispute, you would need to build a new consensus for any change. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Death" section rework

There are some problems with the Death section. In addition to wordiness and other edits the entire second paragraph should probably be dropped. I want to leave this open to suggestions and comments for a while before I just start making the edits myself. Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to make the edits, or discuss specific edits you want to make but think might be disputed here. Ashmoo (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think it's abusive to CANCEL more and more, I spent a lot of time updating this paragraph, and brought information to Dolores O'Riordan's Wikipedia. Your desires to delete the paragraph "Death", and others, are only your personal taste. Dolores' page is very poor next to David Bowie or Chris Cornell by example, who had unnecessary paragraphs (as "Sexuality"), and they have the name of their children, but with Dolores O'Riordan it's impossible to write the name of her children??? It's a bit strange! In the pages of Chris Cornell or Kurt Cobain, their paragraphs "Death" and "Tributes" are three times larger than those of Dolores O'Riordan. It's the proof that you want to diminish Dolores O'Riordan and destroy all my work. Maybe you want to delete O'Riordan's page? Oroborvs (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oroborvs, I want to first thank you for taking the time to research and edit the page, and talk about it here. Since you mentioned you are new to wikipedia, I would suggest that it is better to make small numbers of edits at a time. This avoids doing a lot of work that gets changed or removed, if it is decided by consensus that the text is not suitable for wikipedia. I hope you can understand that the metric we decide whether text belongs in the article in the quality and suitability of the text, not whether an editor spent a lot of time researching. (I agree this can be frustrating).
I agree that what I think should be included in the article is 'my personal taste'. That is why we have these talk pages. So that we can discuss what we think should be in, listen to other editors opinions, check with the wikipedia policies and try to reach a consensus.
Specifically regarding the names of the children: I only removed them from the Death section because they are included elsewhere so repeating them in this section adds no information.
And your last to sentences, 'It's the proof...' and 'Maybe you...' are not appropriate for wikpedia Talk pages. Please read the wikipedia policies Assume Good Faith and No personal attacks. Ashmoo (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Abuse comments

I modified this text from the early life section: 

Following her father's death in 2011, O'Riordan described how, from the age of eight, she was sexually abused for four years by an unnamed person whom she trusted

At it stands it seems to allude to her father sexually abusing her, without directly saying it. However later in the article it says that the abuser was at her father's funeral. Also, it is normally not a good idea to include the source of information in the text itself, unless its veracity is in doubt. Unfortunately, the change was reverted without any comment. Could we discuss this here? Ashmoo (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You cancel everything but at the same time, you have not read the page in its entirety. It is written in "Personal Life" that she was forced to face her abuser at her father's funeral. And his father had permanent brain damage, he was disabled. When you write: "At the moment, he seems to be referring to his father who sexually abuses him", that's just your misinterpretation Oroborvs (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's how I read it too. It was badly phrased. We write for the reader, and we can't assume someone will read the whole article, in order, from start to finish. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Oroborvs, I'm a little confused by your comments. You say 'you have not read the page in its entirety' but in my first comment, I specifically mention the later text that you refer to. Either way, we should not assume that reader's will read everything, especially if it could lead to horrible misunderstandings about people, even the deceased. I commend you for trying to clarify things in you latest edit. However, the text you added is confusing. It says 'face to face with her abuser at his funeral'. This is unclear whether it was her father's funeral or her abuser's. Also, we are now adding multiple sentence about something that happened in the last years of her life into the Early Life section. Wouldn't it be clearer to just mention that she was abused, and add all the details about meeting her abuser in the section about her father's funeral? Ashmoo (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ashmoo, your editing is more confusing than mine, you wrote: "From the age of eight, she was sexually assaulted for four years by an anonymous person whom she trusted." .... For me, it could be her father (an anonymous person whom she trusted). At first, the original text did not come from me, so I canceled your edit to restore it as originally, because I was confused too! So now, I delete my text: "face to face with his attacker at his funeral". That's what I can do for the moment as there's no more details about this sordid event. But that's not a problem, the most frustrating for me (as I took Dolores's page seriously), that's what I read above, in the "Death" section: "the entire second paragraph should probably be dropped". 80% of this paragraph comes from me. I took the time to do research and it's difficult for me because I am a beginner on Wikipedia. At the same time I like a lot her music but I am not the biggest fan of The Cranberries, I try to stay neutral all the time. I try to expand her page, this is my goal, and paragraphs such as "Death" and "Tributes, Legacies" are part of the life of all artists. As I said, Chris Cornell has sold 25 million albums and Dolores, 40 million albums, but Cornell has no problem to have huge paragraphs like "Death and aftermath", "Memorial and Tributes" , "Legacy", but the paragraph of Dolores O'Riordan: "Tributes, reactions and legacy" should be dropped ?? it's very unfair. Oroborvs (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oroborvs! Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your message contains a number of different things, so I'll try to address them all in a clear way. I agree we need to be as clear as possible about the identity of her attacker. This is made difficult because our sources are so vague. My main issue is to avoid putting the source in the text unless necessary, and to keep the Early Life section about her early life. I hope we can edit it together to get something clear.
For what it's worth, I've been editing wikipedia for over 12 years and the main thing I've learnt is that it is better to not get too attached to any one text or idea (there is even a WP policy for it WP:OWN). We are all trying to make the best article we can, and should accept the perspective of other editors. Sometimes it can be frustrating if we've spent a long time on getting some information. But our concern is the quality of the article. Regarding the Chris Connell article: my concern is this article, so comparisons to that article aren't particulary useful. And the number of albums sold should have no affect on how we write the article. Although, sometimes, comparing specific features of that article to this one might be useful. But the Connell article is in no way a standard that we need to follow. Ashmoo (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ashmoo. I am well aware of what you explain to me. About the man who abused Dolores : nothing on the internet gives his identity, in the media, it says to the most precise: "between the ages of eight and 12 she had been sexually abused by a family friend". There is no name for this man, most likely kept private within her family. Are you and Arbalest Mike going to delete 100% of the texts written in the paragraph "Tributes, reactions and legacy"? Why not creating a paragraph : "Awards and achievements" ? because there are essential texts to keep, there's her posthumous awards and the official statement of the real purpose of her trip to London (where she died) which gives accurate information about the circumstances surrounding her last hours in life, these ones : 

→ On 19 January 2018, Lindsey Holmes Publicity...
→ The “In Memoriam” segment of the 2018 Grammy Awards...
→ On October 11, 2018 O'Riordan was named the best female artist of all time in Billboard's Alternative Songs chart...
→ On January 18, 2019, O'Riordan was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by University of Limerick (UL)...

I would also like to add a little paragraph : "Songwriting". Oroborvs (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to a Songwriting section. Ashmoo (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I reworked the "Death" section of her page, making separations in this illegible paragraph (it was random and terrible, in my opinion). So I added: "Memorial service", "Remembrances and legacy" and "Aftermath". I also added the paragraph "Awards and nominations". I'm working next week on the new paragraph "Songwriting", then after I will work on "Early life". I would like to insert the paragraph "Songwriting" between : "2014–2018: D.A.R.K." and "Personnal life". In the future, I would add the paragraph "Voice" or "Vocal style" (about her voice type, vocal range, the yodeling, her influences,...). I am open to all observation. Oroborvs (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Death section looks good now. I'll do some small copy editing and moving things a bit to make it a bit more of a narrative. Your proposed new sections sound good too. Ashmoo (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that thank you, it's much more pleasant to read like that. Also, I think it's more interesting to read with subchapters, rather than a huge text. I have a question : for the subchapter "Songwriting" I have a lot of elements, but there is only one source ... Does a source have to refer to a maximum number of lines in a given text? Oroborvs (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is a set maximum. Although, we should be aware of POV issues when using a single source for large amounts of text. Ashmoo (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

On the page : Zombie (song), the song by The Cranberries, users regularly add their favorite covers versions of Zombie at the bottom of the page, there are too many, it becomes a page dedicated to covers as much as the original song Oroborvs (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that page is a bit bad. This is a problem with a lot of pages on wikipedia. Ashmoo (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, can somebody correct possible mistakes of writing in the paragraphs "Influences" and "Songwriting". I speak two languages, I make mistakes I think (wrote .. or was writing?). The problem, for me, on the page of "Zombie (song)" is the cover of the metal band that take up as much space as the original... I mean it's a rock classic. Oroborvs (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dolores_O%27Riordan/Archive_1&oldid=1074830225"