Jump to content

Talk:Lemmy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎One hit wonder?: new section
Line 307: Line 307:


How could he have had prostate cancer if it was in the head and neck? ([[Special:Contributions/79.67.106.249|79.67.106.249]] ([[User talk:79.67.106.249|talk]]) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
How could he have had prostate cancer if it was in the head and neck? ([[Special:Contributions/79.67.106.249|79.67.106.249]] ([[User talk:79.67.106.249|talk]]) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

== One hit wonder? ==

Should the article mention that Lemmy only had one major hit? ([[Special:Contributions/79.67.106.249|79.67.106.249]] ([[User talk:79.67.106.249|talk]]) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Revision as of 19:35, 21 January 2016

Was Lemmy the bass player in the Anglsey Strangers - Rock Group in the 1960's

I played keyboards in a rock group in the 1960's and the group played alternate weeks at the Winter Gardens Ballroom in Llandudno, which was attached to the Odeon Cinema. The rock group that played the alternate week to us was the Anglsey Strangers and I think the bass player did have the nickname Lemmy. The biography dates and locations do seem to fit quite well; anyone have any further information on this? Alan at ARM 21:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He's on record as saying he'd never played bass before joining Hawkwind and that he thought he was replacing Huw Lloyd-Langton when he signed up. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search finds a few sources which suggests a link, though some are in Welsh. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Daily Post article just says: "One of those who watched and listened carefully then was a boy named Ian Kilmister." and this blog post says "We were not averse to letting the odd ‘guest musician’ sit in with us at gigs from time to time, and Lemmy was a frequent visitor on stage, as he was living in the area at that time, before his trip to London & fame & fortune. I recall he played guitar, rather than bass, in those days, and sometimes came along to roadie for us for a couple of quid when he was short of cash – quite a frequent occurrence." - but the band is named as "The Questions" (later "Uncle Herbert’s Big Soul Band") Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bass models

I am pretty sure that Lemmy's original Rickenbacker bass model, famously used with Hawkwind and thereafter with Motörhead, for a long while was an (increasingly heavily modified) 4000 -- not a 4001 (and of course not the much later 4003, though I guess he did use those ... and he probably has some 4001s kicking around. The main visible modification was the addition of a neck pickup (the original reputedly from a Gibson Thunderbird bass), making the 4000 look more like a 4001/3. There's a fair bit of detail about Lemmy's basses floating around on Internet forums and stuff, though I am not sure if that is suitable for referencing here! A few published books on Hawkwind may mention some tidbits .... Carlsefni (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The header states 4004LK (correct) but the body states 4001LK (incorrect). The link for the citation is also incorrect, as it does a search for "Lemmy Rickenbacker", although this finds no references on the target page. Changing the search to "Lemmy" should fix this. Can't fix these at the moment as the page is non-updateable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.139.229.64 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source works for me (it's a Google Books link), and it does say 4004LK, so I've changed that. You can update the page yourself by creating an account, making 10 edits and waiting 4 days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Citation needed)

I have to ask - do we really need a citation for the sentence "He is also known for his appearance, including his friendly mutton chops, prominent facial moles, and gravelly voice."

Exactly what would that citation look like? What sort of authority would be appropriate to conclude that, yes, Lemmy actually does have muttonchops, moles and a gravelly voice? And would we expect there to be controversy about these traits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much what his appearance was, as that it was a particularly notable feature. That is to say, that his appearance was noted by others. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the bit about the moles, as that could easily be vandalism. Please only add back if you find a reliable reference. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that he is commonly referred to by the mononym. Jenks24 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Lemmy → Lemmy Kilmister – I don't believe Mr. Kilmister was so universally known only by his adopted name that we should avoid the surname, although the title surely shouldn't be "Ian Fraser Kilmister" either. Yes, the BBC [1] and the New York Times [2] prefer the mononym. But Rolling Stone [3] and the Washington Post [4] and the Wall Street Journal [5] all prefer the surname. With usage being split, the article should follow the normal practice of using a full name. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely shouldn't do that, until a consensus is formed here to move it. FULLNAME says that the full name needs to be mentioned in the lead sentence, and doesn't prohibit a one name title. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is Lemmy Kilmister known as just "Lemmy".? TheJack15 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources the IP included above, for example, and others. This isnt cut and dried. I've always known of him as "Lemmy", much as there's a singer known only as "Cher". – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Incendiary Iconoclasm: @Lugnuts: @Spacecowboy420: @Muboshgu: please see WP:NOT OPRAH: In ictu oculi (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah), Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

I followed that link and read "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." Since there are no other notable people called Lemmy, the current title would seem to match that criteria. Unlike Oprah or Kylie, Lemmy is not his "given name" nor is it a "family name", neither are Fish or Seal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Serious books do call him "Lemmy Kilminster" - I sincerely hope no-one is proposing to call him Kilminster(sic) and I don't think these can be considered "Serious books" if they can't even get his name right - it was Kilmister - Arjayay (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but shouldn't any move be to Ian Fraser 'Lemmy' Kilmister as per the Motorhead facebook page? Dead and Gone, RIP Lemmy, see you in hell my friend. He may be Lemmy to us but not them, the general public. Playing Lemmy's music LOUD now! It will change, correctly, but NOT TODAY. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could always !vote to not move to that either. But I see your point. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and snow close. Oprah is her name, Lemmy is his nickname, which is as valid as Prince, Seal or Fish (as pointed above), so there is no comparison. No real discussion here so I'm asking for a premature close. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't those last three subatomic particles? Lemmy's in a class of his own. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to their dabs, they are simply dabbed due to technical reasons (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), if there weren't other more prominent or relevant uses of "Prince", "Fish" or "Seal", they'd be primaries. Without even looking the articles at List of one-word stage names, I know most are, either, their birth names, unambiguous names, or disambiguated. Here, there is no reason to mix his nickname with his last name solely because it sometimes happens ("Yes, the BBC and the New York Times prefer the mononym. But [other sites don't]"). This doesn't justify the move to either Lemmy Kilmister, Ian Kilmister, or Lemmy (musician). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know that without even looking? I'm very impressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search shows that a majority of sources call him "Lemmy" and that even some of the ones that used his full name in an article or obit used just "Lemmy" in their headline. He is clearly known primarily as "Lemmy". Also, where a name other than "Lemmy" is used there doesn't seem to be any general agreement among sources on what it is (e.g. "Lemmy Kilmister", "Ian 'Lemmy' Kilmister", "Ian Fraser 'Lemmy' Kilmister") so the most common and concise name is just "Lemmy". TheBlinkster (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: while I had heard the name of the band, I hadn't ever heard about this guy until he died. As you can imagine, I was amazed by the amount of coverage. But he cannot possibly be "Lemmy" with all the world. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find it necessary to comment on all "support"s? Interesting. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Only two of the three, so far. And one of those was a public information message. More "tedious" than "interesting", I suspect. But, by all means, answer my question. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling old - I can't even remember when I first heard about Lemmy, it's like he'd always been around somewhere. Anyway, as he put it to Q magazine issue 163 (April 2000) when asked "It she [Lemmy's mum] the only one allowed [to call him "Ian"]?" - "She's the only one that bothers. Everyone else knows me as fucking Lemmy." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe a two-word title might be better after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've always heard of this guy as "Lemmy Kilmister". JIP | Talk 20:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose About 35 years ago someone I knew described hanging out with Lemmy: I wasn't there so I can't say if what was said was true, but the point is that, until a few days ago, I had no idea of Lemmy's real name. I suspect I'm not alone in that. Is 35 years long enough? What is Prince's real name? No idea. HTH Nortonius (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Charming! Nortonius (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose. Almost never referred to as anything other than Lemmy and clearly the primary topic for that name. And I speak as someone with absolutely no knowledge of or interest in his music. But I would still immediately know who was being referred to if the name Lemmy was mentioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did this guy smoke cigarettes???

I think this settles the answer.....although we don't know if that's tobacco, of course

Did this guy smoke cigarettes??? I never heard of the guy until I turned the news on today, and the news is that he died of a very aggressive form of cancer, and the reporter also noted his alcohol intake, but I wonder if this guy smoked cigarettes given that they don't note the specific cancer. Did he smoke? A lot?Betathetapi545 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was killed by death. It is more than possible he has on occasion smoked a cigarette, but whether there is a reliable source for this, is another matter. Leutha (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes! there is a source. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lemmy-roars-again-20140122 (I must admit it was really really hard to type "Lemmy Smokes" into google.) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a Q Magazine interview with Lemmy about 25 years ago where there was a shot of him obscured by a huge cloud of cigarette smoke. It wasn't as prominent as Jack Daniel's and speed, but what was? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marlboro here, I think (2001)? But only one pack a week by 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Emerson - knives

it states that in his autobiography, Emerson used the knives he was given by Lemmy, until he destroyed them. Can someone confirm if he intentionally destroyed them for some reason, or if they were destroyed by accident/overuse/etc? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took The Nice to GA, which indeed mentions Lemmy's tenure as a roadie and donation of daggers to Keith Emerson. I didn't see anything in sources as to what happened to the knives; I can only imagine that throwing them at a dartboard night after night would eventually blunt or otherwise disfigure them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Keith knows all about the importance of a good Knife Edge. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Last concert

Motörhead were in the middle of an European tour when Lemmy died. Lemmy's (and quite possibly Motörheads') last concert was at the Max-Schmelling-Halle in Berlin, Germany, on the 11th of December 2015 (according to LastFM: http://www.last.fm/music/Mot%C3%B6rhead/+events/2015?page=2). They were supported on the tour by Girlschool and Saxon. According to imotorhead.com (Motörheads' official website) they were planning on continuing their tour (with the same supporting acts) at the Clyde Auditorium, Glasgow, Scotland, on the 24th of january 2016. I think this information should be included in the article - and possibly also in the Motörhead article.

Although he died in LA? But I agree it could be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

Page needs updated as Lemmy passed away yesterday.

216.92.130.45 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Try reading the page which starts:-
"Ian Fraser "Lemmy" Kilmister (24 December 1945 – 28 December 2015) was ... "
- Arjayay (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

Died December 28, 2015 at 70 years old

184.14.44.221 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Already in article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

There might be some useful info in https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/lemmys-last-days-metal-legend-celebrated-70th-stared-194400242-rolling-stone.html. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015

Died on the 28th of December 2015 in Los Angeles, California

81.216.206.9 (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The article clearly states:-
On 28 December 2015, four days after his 70th birthday, Lemmy died at his home in Los Angeles at 16:00 PST, from an "extremely aggressive cancer".
- Arjayay (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Reactions To His Death

"Lost one of my best friends, Lemmy, today. He will be sadly missed. He was a warrior and a legend. I will see you on the other side." Ozzy Osbourne as well as possibly "Lemmy was a true rock icon, singular in voice and spirit. Metal flags fly at half mast tonight as we salute the incomparable Ace Of Spades." Tom Morello.

Telegraph is in poor taste and has much lower circulation. 2607:FB90:246B:13A9:764C:FFB0:CBDC:EFCC (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why "Telegraph is in poor taste", exactly? And it has a lower circulation than what? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"grizzled", "bronchial", "weather-beaten" all imply he was very unhealthy whereas all reports are that 1 week before his death, he had no major health issues.. But also notability - given motörhead fans are unlikely to associate with that conservative paper, especially given no one has put their name on the "tribute". An anonymous obituary in an agenda driven conservative paper is less relevant than a writeup from a friend (Ozzy Osbourne) with over 30,000 RTs. In general, anonymous articles are poor sources when they can be avoided. 2607:FB90:7C5:48E4:65D9:1D2:5778:2A57 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was their contention that he looked like that just a week before his death, but rather that he did for the entire time with Motörhead. This article isn't written for Motörhead fans. And the Telegraph piece is not billed as "a tribute", it's an obituary. I'm really not sure what "agenda" you think the paper had on Lemmy (or rock music in general). But you haven't shown us where Ozzy's writeup can be found? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzy's tweeet (also Morello) more relevant than telegraph, whose relatively small distribution doesn't even read that section. telegraph's contention that he had looked unhealthy for years undermines his abrupt death. 2607:FB90:76E:7B45:AF91:88E9:AF31:D05F (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just primary sources. It's not usual to paste multiple Tweets into an article without some evidence of their general notability, even if the Tweeter him or herself is a "big sleb". I'd have no objection to adding those quotes, if they could be supported by a secondary source, although I'm not sure of Tom Morello's general notability outside the US. As regards "distribution", I don't think broadsheet circulation and number of Twitter followers are really comparable. As regards The Telegraph's description, I don't see how it can "undermine" Lemmy's death. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. looking forward to all of us seeing Ozzy "on the other side" - I didn't even know that his BBC contract had expired.[reply]
I do agree Martin that Morello, while his words mean more than someone anonymous at the telegraph, does not have the notability to be included in an unbiased encyclopedia. But the telegraph article "undermines" how quickly Lemmy fell ill, by insinuating that he had been extremely unhealthy for years. A paper with "broadsheet circulation" such as hack newspaper the telegraph (or sun or daily mail) is considerably less encyclopedic than an honest, public tribute by a legend (and friend of Lemmy) such as Ozzy. But the sun & daily mail do have wide circulation adding some noteworthiness to them, whereas telegraph doesn't even have that. Why do you like that telegraph quote so much? Certainly it's replaceable & if the writer was a fan of Lemmy's (ie actually understood Lemmy, which is a requirement to having a worthwhile comment on his death & the meaning of his life), the author would have written his name. 2607:FB90:2400:B4E6:60FB:BC61:53C5:3DB9 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't equate Twitter with "honesty", lol. But yes, free of any editorial pressure. I think that description about Lemmy's appearance has nothing to do with his death, however sudden or unexpected. If you can find a more fitting quote from that obit, by all means suggest it. But again, we're not looking for something written by "a fan", just a general appraisal in the public eye. And a source for the Ozzy quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
twitter is a very honest way for an individual to make a public statement, as Ozzy has done. It works perfectly well as source material. The telegraph, especially anonymously written, is a very dishonest way for an individual to make a public statement. i could google "scott weiland" and provide a "general appraisal" of him, but since i don't know him / i wasn't "a fan", i would be wildly underqualified to do so. and then my "general appraisal" would have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. 2607:FB90:240E:A1E5:2363:E19E:523F:F1D0 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a medium, twitter is no more honest tham semiphore, forexample. As regards the Telegraph, it does not matter whether a writer is anonymous or not, and It is hard to see why an a nonbymous contribution shoulc be regarded as a personal statement, honest or otherwise. However, as a mouthpiece of conservative opinion it does representa viewpoint which can be used with caution.Leutha (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as a medium, twitter is more honest than telegraph. it doesn't matter that telegraph's anonymous, true, it matters more that the paper's writeup is poor & the paper itself is very unencyclopedic. Are you arguing that if twitter existed 30 years ago and that Jim Beach's speech about Freddy Mercury was first broadcast over twitter that it would be unencyclopedic? Or are you coming up with any excuse to shape his wiki death section to give the appearance Lemmy died of natural causes over the course of several years when in fact his cancer diagnosis was abrupt? 2607:FB90:240C:6E42:C76E:435A:6232:DD20 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This time you lost me after the word "honest". But who were you asking? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you lost me with "i don't equate Twitter with honesty". You saying Ozzy (or Morello) didn't create that tweet? 2607:FB90:2405:BEDB:DEA4:F651:2E93:2981 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You think everyone always tweets "the truth"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

As regards "reduces amusing quote to a mundane and worthless homily?", as an encyclopedia I am not sure generating amusing quotes is our main job. Too many quotes are bad and we should have less of them, not more. --John (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how many we have to start with? I'm pretty sure that generating amusing quotes is not our main job. But that quote seemed to me to show Lemmy's sense of humour. I agree "Lemmy later commenting that it was difficult but interesting to be the only English pupil at his school" is more factual, and also quite dull. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offence but I find the quote also to be quite dull. It's not that interesting or unusual a story, that he moved to a different area when a child and felt out of place. What does the quote tell us that the paraphrase doesn't? That Lemmy knew and could correctly use words like "anthropological"? With that quote restored, the article currently has:
  1. "funnily enough, being the only English kid among 700 Welsh ones didn't make for the happiest time, but it was interesting from an anthropological point of view."
  2. Lemmy mentions having a son whose mother has only recently "found him" and "hadn't got the heart to tell him who his father was" (not properly sourced either)
  3. "I had to stand on this platform while the camera went around and did the hologram thing and then they made the model, only smaller. They said it's an action figure and I said, 'So, you're gonna put a dick on it?' They said, 'No.' I said, 'Well, then it's not going to get much action then, is it?' A bad name for it, right?" (dreadful source)
  4. "We recorded his track in Los Angeles in maybe two takes about a year and a half ago. Until then I'd never met what I'd call a real rock 'n' roll hero before. Fuck Elvis and Keith Richards, Lemmy's the king of rock 'n' roll – he told me he never considered Motörhead a metal band, he was quite adamant. Lemmy's a living, breathing, drinking and snorting fucking legend. No one else comes close." (Dave Grohl)
  5. "In those days just having a guitar was enough… that was it". (not properly sourced)
  6. They became interested in how long "you could make the human body jump about without stopping," (not properly sourced)
  7. "I first got into speed because it was a utilitarian drug and kept you awake when you needed to be awake, when otherwise you'd just be flat out on your back. If you drive to Glasgow for nine hours in the back of a sweaty truck you don't really feel like going onstage feeling all bright and breezy ... It's the only drug I've found that I can get on with, and I've tried them all – except smack [heroin] and morphine: I've never "fixed" anything." (not properly sourced)
  8. "I have never had heroin, but since I moved to London from North Wales in '67 I have mixed with junkies on a casual and almost daily basis," he said. "I also lived with a young woman who tried heroin just to see what it was like. It killed her three years later. I hate the idea even as I say it, but I do believe the only way to treat heroin is to legalise it."
  9. "Dogged insolence in the face of mounting opposition to the contrary" (from the Guardian obit)
  10. "He was innovative, true to his art and continually relevant even though he never cared about being relevant. ... He was always creating and redefining hard rock and the role of bass within it. Offstage, he was a gem. I can't think of anyone who didn't adore Lemmy. He was such an original character in rock, and I will truly miss seeing him out on the road." (Alice Cooper)
  11. "Lemmy, you are one of the primary reasons this band exists. We are forever grateful for all of your inspiration. Rest In Peace." (Metallica, via Facebook)
  12. "Over the years as guitarists and drummers passed through Motörhead’s lineup, Lemmy remained the grizzled heart of the machine. His bronchial rasp — directed into a towering microphone tilted down into his weather-beaten face — was one of the most recognisable voices in rock, while his Rickenbacker guitar recast the bass as an overpowered, distorted rhythmic rumble." (Telegraph obit)
  13. "People don’t become better when they’re dead; you just talk about them as if they are, but it’s not true! People are still a--holes, they’re just dead a--holes! ... I didn’t have a really important life, but at least it’s been funny." (Autobio, via Telegraph obit)
My question would be, are they all essential? I thought the school one was the weakest but I really do not believe we need this many quotes. --John (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the limit for an article this size? Those not properly sourced should go. Happy to see Metallica go, but another editor has been asking for two more tweets to be added (see previous thread). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. when can I start saying "with all due respect"? [reply]
John - the school one, noting that he was the only english student amongst tons of welsh provides tons of insight into what made him tick. the telegraph obit adds nothing, and was pretty clearly written anonymously by someone who did not know Lemmy well at all. Ozzy was a friend and is extremely well known globally. it's far more worth including than the telegraph obit. 2607:FB90:2400:B4E6:60FB:BC61:53C5:3DB9 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzy needs a source other than Twitter. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
That's the trouble, 2607:FB90:2400:B4E6:60FB:BC61:53C5:3DB9; if we emphasise this by publishing the quote in full, it does make it look like this was a hugely significant thing in his life. Maybe it was; I don't know for sure. Do you? Loads of people move school to a new area, and most of them do not become legendary bass players and singers. Do you see the problem? --John (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like it was a hugely significant thing in his life. But I guess he was never asked to produce a numerically ranked table of all events, so that we might properly judge. Martinevans123 (talk)
Why was it so significant? He wrote an autobiography, what does he say about it there? --John (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A good question. Although I think Wales OnLine is a perfectly appropriate source for something about Wales. Maybe his autobiography has more gravitas? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it is substantially the same according to Amazon. "I was in a very bad school, being the only English kid among about seven hundred Welsh - that was made for fun and profit, right?" He moved from Stoke to North Wales because his father had left. The story of him going for a pizza with his father many years later is much more interesting, if we can tell it in our own words without just using ctrl-C, ctrl-V. --John (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is a place for "our own words", but I'm not convinced that they can always improve first person quotes, just 'cos they're "ours". I'm not sure where Wikipedia would be without ctrl-C, ctrl-V. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: no need to invent "trouble". i suggested the Ozzy quote (or part of it) since he is extremely well known and was a friend of Lemmy. he'd do a far better commemoration than the anonymous blurb written by someone at the telegraph who clearly does not understand the intricacies of what made Lemmy tick. any particular reason the telegraph bit is even in there at all? 2607:FB90:240E:A1E5:2363:E19E:523F:F1D0 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is something people don't really get unless they have occasion to write professionally or take part in peer review. Work you clip straight from the source is not your own work. It is somebody else's. This is not necessarily plagiarism if you identify and credit the source, but articles made up largely of quotes are dreadful ones. Writing an article in this way is intellectually lazy and leads to a poor article. There is no numerical limit for how much quoted material we use, though 10% is often cited as the upper limit of fair use. In my opinion, this article is skirting the maximum and some of the poorer quotes should be summarised. The full quotes can still be kept in the ref if people feel this is important, but we will no longer have an article in which every second paragraph has a long, often poorly sourced quotation of dubious relevance. --John (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I added Alice Cooper and Metallica, both from Rolling Stone. And two from The Telegraph (the second of which is now sourced to his autobiography). If that counts as "intellectually lazy", so be it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't argue for no quotations, just for them to be fewer and better. Maybe if we began by removing the ones that are poorly sourced? John (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which do you consider poorly sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    2, 3, 5, 6, 11 on the list above. I especially dislike 3. --John (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The source for 11 is Rolling Stone magazine? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so it is. It was the mention of Facebook that made me think it might be worthless trash. Isn't 3 a beauty? --John (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Someone kindly found the archive after I had tagged it as dead (hoping it might go away). But it's not just WP:SPS commercial promo, it's archived WP:SPS commercial promo. That quote is a lot to have to go through just to get to Lemmy's (alleged) painfully contrived joke. But then, I don't have one of those models in my personal collection, so who am I to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, your premise, "this article is skirting the maximum", is flawed when conrad tao has 3 times the number of sources as Lemmy despite having accomplished significantly less thusfar in his life than Lemmy over the course of 70 years. And I do like Conrad + am not advocating his page be cut, i'm just pointing out inconsistency with information being restricted in this article.
Having said that, going with Your wikiadmin Premise, why occupy space with that unrepresentative unencyclopedic telegraph quote? 2607:FB90:240C:6E42:C76E:435A:6232:DD20 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, is there some kind of quote quota that a Wikipedia article cannot exceed? If a quote is relevant and properly sourced, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. It gives us a much better insight into the man's mind and character than a sterile paraphrasing written by someone who never knew him. Zacwill (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is some useful guidance on this at WP:Quotations. --John (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were you talking to yourself John? "The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject". If you're looking to cut the article, that telegraph quote does not help to understand Lemmy.2607:FB90:2405:BEDB:DEA4:F651:2E93:2981 (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was replying to User:Zacwill, as shown by the indentation. Are you new here? --John (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
more parts lurker than anything. do wiki admins always contradict themselves? i've noticed very often that all logic is lost when an admin bears a personal grudge (ie here where Nymf's mass deletions were upheld by ponyo & the user doing beneficial edits was banned (nightly show too edgy?). Or the hypocrisy whereby 2012 Aurora Shooting sources were insta-deleted by 2 sketchy sockpuppets while Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has its own page (since Holmes is alive & could potentially be partly exonerated whereas Lanza is dead?). But I digress. Given your "this article is too long" demeanor, why keep that useless telegraph quote that doesn't aid understanding of Lemmy? 2607:FB90:2405:BEDB:7D3E:BE61:54EE:D7E3 (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the article is too long. I think it isn't very good, and it has too many quotes. --John (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do digress. You should raise those concerns at the appropriate Talk Pages, not here. By all means write an essay on admin's problems with logic - but in your own Talk Page sandbox. What is a "more parts lurker", sounds quite punky? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
anyone who brings those issues up "at the appropriate talk pages" gets banned by Edward Fitzgerald. But feel free to examine the Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests for how wikipedia bullshit gets truth tellers banned. I deleted the two worst quotes John. Hopefully that improves the article. 198.22.122.12 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. My idea was we would come to a shared understanding here then start trimming and paraphrasing the quotes. --John (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going for concensus too. In addition to deleting the telegraph and autobiographical quote, John, you & disagree with all 4 of those changes (Piece of Ozzy quote ; Dave Grohl tattoo mention ; Removing obit by a telegraph guy who knew next to nothing about Lemmy ; Removing his autobiographical quote about his death). If anything, 4 stays imo but there's plenty of much better Lemmy quotes than that 1. Or are we still defending the telegraph? 2607:FB90:769:87F8:37E0:F37B:FE35:144C (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Edward Fitzgerald is misusing any privileges, you can report at WP:AN/I, but not here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly AN/I leadership is scared and/or complicit. Are we still defending the telegraph quote from a guy who doesn't understand Lemmy at all? 2607:FB90:769:87F8:37E0:F37B:FE35:144C (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which "guy" was that, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this discussion prior to my removing some of the extensive quotes form the "Later years and death" section. Regarding Martinevans123's question, "how many tributes are permitted?", I'd say just mention them but don't include any actual quote unless it serves a purpose. All tributes from fellow rock stars can be summarized as "Lemmy was a great musician and a friend and we regret to hear he's dead [insert desired number of expletives]". That is exactly what is to be expected from such tributes, so they add no information. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying, essentially: "tributes are a waste of time because they are all quite similar and add no encyclopedic facts"? And possibly "the fact that musician x was a friend of musician y, or thought highly of musician z, is not notable, unless it's already mentioned", in which case any tribute is redundant? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. These remarks are generally not considered to be encyclopedic. See the Freddie Mercury page for instance on tributes. What perhaps is better is to include quotes of what was said at the funeral. Karst (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Quotes" is a bigger topic. But as regards tributes perhaps we should be aiming for the same simplicity as at David Bowie? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Grohl tattoo

Is this notable? Or just hyped celebrity excess of the most idiotic and tasteless kind? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Third possibility: touching and artistic personal tribute to an icon of rock music?[reply]

a half a sentence addition about a tribute made to Lemmy helps to better understand him imho 2607:FB90:2405:BEDB:DEA4:F651:2E93:2981 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What would half a sentence look like? Is it like the sound of one hand clapping? --John (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
just spitballing, but something like "Lemmy's death sent waves throughout the rock community with Ozzy Osbourne mourning the loss of 'one of my best friends' and Dave Grohl emblazoning a commemorative 'Ace of Spades' ink on his inner wrist" would work. 2607:FB90:2405:BEDB:7D3E:BE61:54EE:D7E3 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I am not sure if this tattoo is really notable for Wikipedia purposes, and we would not use tabloidese phrases like "sent waves through" or "emblazoning" even if it was. --John (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would have been news of his death, not the death itself. Or maybe I'm just not mystically attuned. And I don't think Grohl actually did the emblazoning himself. But I see that his John Bonham tattoo already gets a mention over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes as indicated. Deleted the telegraph quote. 198.22.122.12 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't helpful. Thank you User:Nortonius for undoing this. --John (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
198.22.122.12, this thread is entitled "Dave Grohl tattoo". Ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pretty sure he added something about Dave Grohl 2607:FB90:769:87F8:37E0:F37B:FE35:144C (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure he deleted The Telegraph quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throat cancer

He died of throat cancer that had spread to his brain. (92.4.12.161 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The source currently used from musicnews.com, quotes manager, Todd Singerman as saying ".. after the brain scan they found the cancer in his brain and his neck.. " If you have a more detailed, or competing, source please provide it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ian Fraser "Lemmy" Kilmister

Why is his name shown like this? It makes no sense. Surely "Ian Fraser Kilmister, better known as Lemmy" would be more appropriate. It just seems a bit weird to bung his nickname (or stage name, whichever it is) in the middle of his formal name. I know it may be nitpicking, but it just looks really strange. —Vom (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree, as he rarely used his surname. A comparable article subject might be Sting (musician) which opens: "Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner CBE (born 2 October 1951), known professionally by his stage name Sting ..." The move request above has now been closed with the summary "There is a consensus that he is commonly referred to by the mononym." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most common format variation across notable person articles, at least the most I've seen. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should say "Ian Fraser Kilmister (24 December 1945 – 28 December 2015), known professionally as Lemmy ..." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to clarify it as a nickname, as opposed to a stage name? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Muboshgu's example is acceptable with no further expansion or explanations. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to it the other way, if that were to be consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was a nick-name that became a stage name. Happy to stay with simple version. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it even simpler, removing 'professionally', as I doubt he was much known as 'Ian'. I agree that he was not 'Lemmy Kilmister', so just 'known as Lemmy'. Rothorpe (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Known as Lemmy to everyone, Lem to his close friends. -- The Anome (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milk advert

"Mötorhead's Lemmy stars in milk ad released weeks after his death": [6] - a TV ad for Finnish dairy giant Valio. Apparently also, his funeral will be "live-streamed on 9 January", from Hollywood at 11pm. A live streaming of a funeral, by YouTube, seems notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ad is notable as something involving Lemmy that was in production at the time of his death, and for its release as a "tribute" to him: if he'd made it and it had been released years ago – or even a month ago – I'd say no, too trivial. Also it's stated that he is ad-libbing, which I think adds something. I'm in no doubt that the streaming of his funeral is notable, although I get WP:NOTNEWS. Oh and thanks for the tip, I'll probably watch it. Nortonius (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sun always shines in Hollywood (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Ow! Evidently the sun doesn't always shine... Nortonius (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of last name

I had to look up in other sources how his last name is pronounced because I wasn't sure. Even though "kil mis ter" seems obvious, I got tripped up by it being spelled similarly to Kilmeister ("kil my ster"). I thought maybe it was just a variant spelling but the pronunciation was the same. I wasn't really into him, and besides people usually just refer to him by his first name so I had no way of knowing without looking it up. I wonder if there are others in the same boat as me, and we should have a pronunciation guide for his last name in the opening paragraph. Wbeaumo (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other two articles for people with that surname, Clive W. Kilmister and Wally Kilmister, contain no guide. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The video of his memorial ceremony shows clearly that it's pronounced "kill mister". RIP Lemmy. -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbitt

Could we add Lemmy's small part in Ron Jeremy's classic John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut to the cameo section?

The Hedgehog said: "He did [a song] for the John Wayne Bobbitt movie, Under the Knife. Isn’t that perfect? Very generous. Good guy." [1] --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to keep it out, I'd say. If only we had the song, though? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ron Jeremy in the Guardian piece Lemmy stars as a cop, but as he clearly isn't in the clip linked to above, I wondered whether Ron's claim about "Under the Knife" featuring in the film was correct. However, after watching the entire film through, I can confirm that indeed it does. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dave Schilling (29 December 2015). "Getting drunk and getting laid: LA rock fans raise a glass to Lemmy". The Granuiad.

Prostate cancer?

How could he have had prostate cancer if it was in the head and neck? (79.67.106.249 (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

One hit wonder?

Should the article mention that Lemmy only had one major hit? (79.67.106.249 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lemmy&oldid=700979099"