Talk:Stephen Gately

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

Jan Moir & David Tennant[edit]

"David Tennant's Facebook page published a message asking outraged readers to report the Daily Mail to the Press Complaints Commission. [87]"

The citation for this statement links straight to a Facebook fan page, which I wouldn't consider to be a reliable source. Also, the only notable thing about this (that DT also 'made a statement' on the scandal) is misrepresentative, as the source clearly states that it is not run by DT and does not represent his opinions. Although not a member (yet), I'd recommend this be deleted by a moderator.

Wouldn't it be better to focus on this in the Jan Moir article? Firstly repeating it in two places means we have the difficulty of maintaining duplicates in two articles - we should pick on "main" article. Secondly I'd argue that her article is more appropriate, as this is primarily about her article, rather than about Stephen Gately directly. Mdwh (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is at this stage nearly enough information to begin [[Death of Stephen Gately]] ... but perhaps that would be controversial? It would certainly be another option to keep all this together and there have been lots of effects and cancellations, etc... --candle•wicke 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The direct result of creating a Death of Stephen Gately article would be to give more coverage to the ugly and unfounded smears. As someone mentions elsewhere on this page, that's more notable to their own shame at their own articles (for any truly notable enough to warrant their own articles, which I suspect many would not be) than it should be to use Gately to shame them at his own, and in the process be complicit in giving their trash both a broader audience, increased hits via the links, and an eternal connection to Gately's life and how he is remembered in this way. Not unlike rumors during a person's life, rumors surrounding their death are irrelevant. Abrazame (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family and early life[edit]

The article mentions nothing about his life prior to 1993. It is missing basic biographical info such as religion, parents, siblings, education. Gayness 1 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. --candle•wicke 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article would seem to be written with an intention of whitewashing the story. Result is quasi objectiveness and undermines his achievments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.59.219 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary[edit]

Is the comment about his Twitter update in the Death section really significant at all? Seems pointless to me. 86.154.209.24 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until the autopsy results are in, the Twitter comment should stay because it is apparently the last published comment from the subject. Readers want to know what happened, or at least what didn't happen, so reliably sourced information that may later be deemed unnecessary should remain until more definitive information becomes available.TVC 15 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take the initial writer's point, but agree with TVC 15 that until an autopsy confirms the cause of death as accidental/congenital, it goes to establishing his state of mind: he was gearing up for a tour, writing music for his band's album, working out, and looked forward to spending some of his time in Majorca finishing this three-year project of writing. Abrazame (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This report Daily Mail says he choked on his vomit after a drinking session. Should it be added to the article? 81.156.175.199 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait until a more formal, official report, which is due Wednesday morning. That link doesn't make it clear who thinks what and why. Policies on recentism suggest we needn't jump the gun with unofficial breaking news-speculation about something so important as the cause of a person's death when just over a day's wait will likely bring a definitive statement. Abrazame (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appalling rumours circulating throughout the British tabloids should certainly be noted on their Wiki pages to show just how useless and insensitive they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.82.233 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicology reports[edit]

Current Sentence: "A post-mortem and toxicology tests took place on 13 October and this examination showed that Gately died of natural causes due to a pulmonary oedema.[23][39]"

The BBC report that toxicology results are due later so whilst they are not complete the post-mortem shows Gately died of natural causes due to a pulmonary oedema but the toxicology are yet to be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouchiko (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions of errata[edit]

Pajamas is spelled wrong on in the Death part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.12.241 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyjamas is the way the word is spelled in the UK. Abrazame (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy[edit]

The philanthropy section doesn't contain any reference to Stephen's work as an ambassador for the Caudwell childrens charity or his families request that donations be made to this in lieu of flowers. I can't edit this article but if someone else could update I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallylalala (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief mention in the death reaction section but I have expanded it further now under this section. --candle•wicke 20:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start class?[edit]

Would someone like to check if the article is still start class? It has undergone development. --candle•wicke 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think B Class would be more fitting. If you compare then and now...  Cargoking  talk  07:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I will move it to B unless nobody objects. --candle•wicke 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to step back from some of these tabloid elements to the bio; it's inappropriate and the article is never going to make A-class or GA status with some of this stuff in it. This isn't a compendium of any story that ever included the guy's name, it's a bio of what made him notable encyclopedically. That would be his career during and after Boyzone, some material relevant to being the first boybander to admit being gay, some info on the impact of his life and death on fans and the industry, and some biographical content. Biographical content means who he was and what he did, and not whether AM radio made a joke here and there at his expense. Abrazame (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

I believe that this article should be looked at in the colder light of day now that the Moir incident, though by no means yet cool, is no longer a hugely current event.

While it should, of course, be referred to in this article, since it is a part of the period shortly after Gately's death, it is more properly in an article about the newspaper itself or the author herself. My rationale is that while it is definitely of interest in an article about Gately, it is not a fundamental attribute of the man or the article. It was neither his controversy (it was Moir's) nor was it actually about him (it was about Moir).

Do not mistake this as my approving of Moir or the newspaper or the piece she wrote, for I do not. It is simply that the article on Gateley seems to me to have extended beyond its encyclopaedic horizons and gives undue weight to the Moir farrago.

Being Bold and simply reducing the article myself is not an option. The fact that there has been a controversy means that it is "all the more" important that a consensus be reached. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely undue weight and if seen as helpful I'd be willing to wade in and see what can be sussed out going forward. Has the heat died down though? -- Banjeboi 17:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a good candidate for an article in its own right as a social networking phenomenon? It could then link back to Gately, Muir and possibly twitter.—Ash (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is worthy of an article in its own right. While it is notable and verifiable I think it is "an article too far". The controversy is an attribute of Moir and of the Daily Mail, and, unless those articles are overly long, would not be undue weight in either of them.
The heat has not yet died down and the Facebook group against Moir grows by the hour. However I think it is time to prune what is here, while transferring relevant aspects to the Daily Mail and to Moir.
This needs to be done without editorialising about the event - something that the grave offence the woman caused to many makes difficult. And I think it should be done as soon as someone feels able to start work. I don't feel up to the task as an editor here, simply because the woman upset me enough not to allow unbiased writing or editing.
The interesting element is that Twitter, while by no means a reliable source, and Facebook, which has the same challenges, were each notable as the organs of disseminating the information about More, the PCC et alia. Thus they do have to be referenced, yet cannot be referenced as sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per all other notable social networking based events they become notable by being discussed in reliable sources. In this case there are plenty of good newspaper sources that discuss and repeat the views expressed in Twitter, Facebook, etc and it is unnecessary or overly peripheral to start referencing particular tweets or Facebook messages or groups. For example: Bunz, Mercedes (16 October 2009). "Twitter and Facebook outrage over Jan Moir's Stephen Gately article: Social media users including Stephen Fry and Derren Brown angry over 'homophobic' Daily Mail article on Stephen column". The Observer.. —Ash (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly I haven't read it; I gleaned the upshot the day it was added. Tonight I read the first two paragraphs and was called away. I'm anticipating being disturbed by it and could do without that this weekend.
A phenomenon of Wikipedia is that news surrounding a person's death, when that person's notability predates Wikipedia, often vastly overshadows all other information available for source linking on the web. As a result, the more involving a story about the death, the more it dominates the bio and even, as here, some imagine it's worthy of its own article. My instinct when the additions are notable tributes is to leave them in the article temporarily, realizing that at some point someone will come along and whittle them down to something appropriate relative to the article size and/or beef up the article to the point the proper relative weight is achieved that way.
When it's a scandalous opinion, it's a different matter. Not only should the length of that mention be greatly reduced and not have its own heading, but frankly, as it doesn't actually have anything to do with Gately, the only way this deserves to be in his bio after the newsy element blows over is if there is some lingering repercussion or result, as in the woman being docked or canned on account of this, businesses pulling their advertising from the tabloid permanently because of this or with this as a last straw, the backlash pivoting on this issue by becoming a coherent and lasting advocacy group, etc. Horribly crass things are said about people all the time, and far too frequently major media outlets (this trashy tabloid notwithstanding) trumpet them, often in the guise of commenting against them. It is not, however, appropriate to indulge in acknowledging such wrinkles by elevating it to biographical inclusion at all, much less in its own section as large or larger than any other in the bio.
I was going to remove this several days ago, but thought it editorially irresponsible to do so without reading the woman's article first. I would add to the editor who has added this section that multiple references for a single statement are only required when that statement is something like "various sources have...", or "(response/reviews) were mostly (positive/negative)". Three and four refs for a single declarative statement of fact is gratuitous and seems to serve no purpose other than to declare that the subject or the story is getting lots of press, which isn't entirely the point. In any event, it's more a device to stimulate readership and to decry/support civil rights for gays than it is about Stephen Gately, his life or his death. If this woman is homophobic, judgmental, pious, etc., her first couple of sentences (referring to Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger, and someone indicated she conflated Gately with Matt Lucas' ex) show she already had these thoughts before Gately passed and that was merely the spark that got her to make it her day's work to put them into the world. Abrazame (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pick up on your point about when multiple (reliable) sources may be seen as gratuitous; I believe that there is no accepted Wikipedia consensus or guidance as to this point and the reverse may be true (in that editors are encouraged to not remove relevant reliable sources), if you know of some guidance that supports your viewpoint I'd be grateful for a link to it.—Ash (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

change -

FROM: "Gately's bandmates flew out to Majorca on 11 October 2009.[44][54] Louis Walsh is expected to join them soon."

TO: "Gately's bandmates flew to Majorca on 11 October 2009[44][54]; Walsh was expected to join them soon."

1st sentence - remove "out" - unneeded. 2nd sentence - remove "louis" (walsh has already been introduced earlier in article). change "is" to "was" (he either flew by now (october 27) or never did).

combine the 2 sentences with semicolon.

in reality, whole sentence(s) probably needs recasting (with a fresher source).

thanks. --98.113.187.11 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done! Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Though you are perfectly welcome to continue contributing anonymously, creating an account has many benefits, including being able to edit semi-protected pages. We value your contributions. Intelligentsium 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - removal of friend[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the death section, it says that Georgi Dochev was a "friend of theirs," where as a Sunday Mirror source direct form Dochev clearly shows that he met them that evening. Request removal of friend - Rgds, --81.154.32.41 (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the same article Dochev himself uses the word friend: "But it was impossible to give him first aid. His body was stiff and his jaw was rigid. I told the woman on the phone that we had been out for the night and my friend wouldn't wake up." Use of the term is subjective and one can imagine meeting someone new and becoming friends the same evening. Consequently I do not see a need to make a correction based on this source.—Ash (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources disagree as to whether Gately and Cowles first met Dochev on the night of 9 Oct 2009, or whether they already knew Dochev. I think the article should not say he was a friend unless it is established that he knew them prior to the night they were in the nightclub together. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you see in this thread, the answer already is, and remains, that there is no prerequisite for friendship. The appellation friend can be appropriate whether people have been acquainted for a day or a week or a month or a year. The subject died and it's not relevant or appropriately weighted to a bio this brief who his house guest was. Abrazame (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cole[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement about the importance of the reliably sourced "They were briefly joined by the singer Cheryl Cole who flew to Ireland in a private jet and took a taxi to the church before flying back to the UK" which has just been removed again. I would argue that it's at least as relevant as all the comments and tributes from people who didn't fly from another country, that this person is not an Irish celebrity and that her choice of transport is perhaps unusual. That there is no indication in her biography of the importance of this is not, in my opinion, an argument against inclusion and I am curious about what exactly a member of a 2000s UK girl group was doing when she hired a private jet to make a brief appearance in the church before the funeral of a member of a 1990s Irish boy band. It doesn't strike me as a regular occurrence (but then again I wouldn't know). --candle•wicke 12:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bio on Gately, not an OK magazine article on his funeral. It's an irrelevant addition. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All your questions may be worth answering, but their significance all lie with Cheryl Cole, not Stephen Gately. Many people of greater significance to Gately attended the funeral, and they are not mentioned. However, if there is something not in the article about Cole's relationship with Gately (no innuendo intended) that can be cited, then perhaps it could be shown why her efforts to attend the funeral are particularly notable. Otherwise, it appears that its inclusion is trivia that either ;
  • wishes to impress on the reader the nature of Cole's hectic, jet-setting, celebrity life. If this is notable at all it belongs on the Cheryl Cole article, not here.
  • believes that it somehow enhances Gately's importance that famous celebrity Cheryl Cole took the time to attend his funeral. I think the article manages to impart his notability adequately without this.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death section[edit]

The death section is too long and too detailed. It wasn't some murder mystery, he died of natural causes. Drcwright (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

The wikipedia article directly quotes the following lines from Jan Moir's article: "Gately came out as gay in 1999 after discovering that someone was planning to sell a story revealing his sexuality to a newspaper. Although he was effectively smoked out of the closet, he has been hailed as a champion of gay rights, albeit a reluctant one." I would think this should be rewritten (perhaps using an earlier source) or at least have an in-text attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.249.175 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Stephen Gately. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Gately. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Gately. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stephen Gately. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Gately. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discography[edit]

Why are the UK chart positions in the discography but not the Irish chart positions? I mean he is Irish. Mobile mundo (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Gately. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Stephen Gately[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stephen Gately's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "uk":

Reference named "aus":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Divorced"?[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the claim in the, uh, whatever you call it, the profile box in the top right-hand corner of the page, that Stephen Gately and Andrew Cowles divorced between their commitment ceremony and their civil partnership? 92.18.214.182 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stumbled across this. The assertion seemed to be that Gately and Cowles were married from 2003–2006, divorced, then were married from 2009 until Gately's death. This isn't reference and it's not supported in the article. My understanding, from reading the article, is that Gately and Cowles were in a relationship from 2003–2006, when they entered into a civil partnership which lasted until Gately's death. I suspect it was a misuse of {{marriage}}. MIDI (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Gately&oldid=1207231666"