This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Re: Katie Meyer. The date of death is either incorrect in this article (claims, February 28) ... or in her dedicated article (claims, March 1). Does anyone know for sure? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the usual issue. Body discovered on the morning of 1 March but she "may" have died on evening of 28 February. Most RS are publishing 1 March, so that is safer until we can see a death certificate or funeral notice. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, agreed. I think that -- at least, internally -- Wikipedia articles should be consistent. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on William Hurt. But, does The Incredible Hulk really belong in his "top three"? C'mon. I looked at his filmography ... he's got tons of good / famous / top-notch films. I doubt that this one is in his "top three". Not to mention, several Oscar-recognized roles. The Incredible Hulk? Really? Seems like an insult to such a great actor. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would have added A History of Violence, a magnificent movie he was Oscar nominated for, but his most watched movies are from the Marvel universe. Maybe remove The Incredible Hulk in favour of Marvel Cinematic Universe? Nukualofa (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Hulk would be "an insult", that's a kind of silly thing to say. And in general sense he's participated in several MCU properties, I used Hulk given it was his first and arguably most prominent participation. I'd rather not use MCU by itself as a means to keep consistency in credit format. Rusted AutoParts 00:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the age-old distinction: "top-quality films" with cinematic expertise / excellence, which most of the public never sees, but they win the "Best Picture" Oscar because film critics love them; ... versus ... "low-quality" films that appeal to mass audiences and have wide viewership / popularity but little artistic / cinematic value. I never heard of -- and never saw -- The Incredible Hulk ... but, given its title, (which brings to mind the cheesy 1970's TV show), I assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that this film falls into the second bracket. And, Hurt -- an excellent actor -- has tons of credits in the first bracket. On a side note ... this conversation reminds me of the Shakespearean-trained actor Robert Reed, who was relegated to -- and despised with a passion -- acting in a silly / mindless TV sit-com, The Brady Bunch. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really just doing the best to reflect 3 of his works that people would know him for, and that'll always be a topic of argument as to what people would best know him from. If I inserted my own bias into the choices, I would have included Michael as I grew up watching that film. But I know it's not in the spectrum of his best known works. Kiss of the Spider Woman is obvious, that was his Oscar win, and Broadcast News is another Oscar nom. Hurt later in his career became known to a bigger audience of people with his participation in the MCU and has come up prominently in many obituaries so it made sense to me that his involvement in that be reflected. Whether it's not one of their finer works I don't think matters if it winds up being what people know them from. Rusted AutoParts 18:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pretty much agree with everything that you said. In my original post, I said I was "no expert" on the topic. If I felt that strongly, I would have made an edit, replacing Hulk with another film. Rather, I came here to seek input / insights. I never heard of these Incredible Hulk movies ... and I had no idea that Hurt participated in them. I remember him more from his "hey-day" in the 1980's ... when I was a kid ... and he was a prominent, well-renowned actor. After that, I lost touch (which is to say: I stopped watching the garbage films that Hollywood kept churning out). So, I am pretty much "out of the loop". Thus, all of this Incredible Hulk / Marvel Universe information -- no less, including Hurt -- was news to me. Also: Thanks for your long-standing attention to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the proper phrasing for an entry, but here's a source. Wyliepedia @ 18:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but description may need improvement. Ref(chew)(do) 22:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "American man who awoke (awakened?) from a coma after 19 years" ... or similar? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make the change - anyone can. But that seems a little anecdotal, rather than the cold factual way I've put it. The main thing was for a deceased person who already had an article to be included in the list, whatever the niceties, so I'm not worried either way as long as it's accurate and not frivolous. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do) 06:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a "difficult" description to summarize in just a few words. Yours is (technically) accurate; to me, it just seems like stilted, stiff, unusual, "forced" language. I never heard of a "recoverer" before, but it can obviously be deduced from the context. This is not really an "issue" for me. I just wanted to add my two cents in the form of the above suggestion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a point of consulting a few online dictionaries to make sure that the term "recoverer" was correct for someone coming out of a coma. But, like I say, feel free to tweak. Cheers. Ref(chew)(do) 21:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was possibly "Terry Wallis, 57, American medical patient (awoke from coma after 19 years), pneumonia and heart problems." (cause of death per NYTimes obit [1]). Connormah (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
