Talk:Julian Sands

message: This is usually included in a biographical article where decent sources exist. The Times obituary- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/julian-sands-confirmed-to-have-died-in-california-mountains-7t8fxk0v7 - and the Guardian obituary- https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/27/julian-sands-obituary - give his parents as William Sands, a soil analyst, and Brenda (née Leach), a Tory councillor and leading figure in the local amateur dramatic society.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.232.146 (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Parents' names and details per standard biographical article format

message: This keeps changing. After the remains were confirmed to be his, we said he died "c. 2023". I thought that was way too vague as it could have included some time before 2023 as well as some time after 2023. We know for a fact that he was alive on 13 January, and we know for a fact that he died some time well before 24 June when the bones were found. So, I changed it to "on or after 13 January 2023". Yes, I agree that was open-ended. So we now have "c. 13 January 2023". But that has the same issue as "c. 2023" did: it includes an undefined swathe of time that extends from before 13 January (WRONG) and continues to some time after 13 January (RIGHT). 
We have to explain that he was alive on 13 January when he set out. He may well have died later that same day, or the next day, or some time after that. But he definitely died well before 24 June, otherwise his body wouldn't have had enough time to decay to the state it was found in. So, I still prefer "on or after 13 January" but with some text to indicate his death must have occurred within a few days of that date. The "c." word, short for circa, meaning "around" or "approximately", does not convey that.
There must be similar cases on Wikipedia where we've worked all this out, so that we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How would "on or soon after 13 January 2023" sound? --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds poorly written. Also please avoid changing the death date without getting a consensus. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think circa is a problem. The information in the article gives more detail that clarifies that he was alive on 13 January, and its likely that a more specific death date will be determined in the coming months. Certainly I object to "on or soon after", as that is speculative around when the death took place; while unlikely, there's no public information currently that he didn't survive for weeks or even months after disappearing. Relatedly, I favour still using the disappeared category in the infobox for now, as that can provide an exact date and more precise information, but the current form is acceptable too. U-Mos (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think circa is the best option. Adding uncertain specifiers to the opening parentheses is much too granular for my tastes. It seems unlikely to me anyone reading will actually be confused and think the c. implies he died before he disappeared. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're probably right. I tend to write - and think - from the perspective of someone who's never heard of the subject and has come across the article by chance. They read the opening words, and they're told he died "c. 13 January". Unless they read further, they could well have the impression that he died sometime around that date, which could mean a few days earlier or a few days later. That's wrong on two counts: (a) we know it wasn't earlier; (b) we don't know that it was only a few days later when he died; he may have survived for 1-2 weeks; we may never know. I don't like giving snippets of info in one place that are conditional on reading things elsewhere in the article to give them their full context and meaning. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Death date in lede

message: I feel like you should keep the disappearance: January 13, and instead mention his remains were found as the status, as most disappearances cases do when the person is found, they still keep the disappearance part 2603:8080:7D00:21C7:AD90:F5D1:CB3:64A6 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance