Talk:Jim Gray (computer scientist)

Death

The article lists him as "lost at sea January 28, 2007" It's been 8 months, with no sign of him, noe of his boat, and no life rafts. Can't we assume that he's dead now, and update the bio block with jan 28 2007 as his presumed date of death, or should we wait a whole a year? 70.106.211.31 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(It's been a year now.) I imagine that "lost at sea" translates into "dead" for many people anyway. Until he's declared legally dead by an appropriate court, I see no reason to change it. (BTW, has piracy ever been mentioned? It would explain why no wreckage was ever found.) Eriksiers (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wednesday when a court in San Francisco granted a petition by Donna Carnes, Dr. Gray’s widow, to establish her husband’s death under California law, which allows for such a determination when a missing person has not been heard from for five continuous years. Dr. Gray is now considered missing but presumed dead." from [Closure in Disappearance of Computer Scientist By NICK WINGFIELD | May 18, 2012 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/closure-in-disappearance-of-computer-scientist-jim-gray/ NYTimes blog] Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I made revisions consistent with Amelia Earhart's Wikipedia page. When specifying birth and death dates, if a month and day is known it is typically listed. Gray's birth date and month is recently being stripped away in the edits. While EEng makes the compelling argument that the official death date implies Grey has survived this long, specifying the missing date in the leading (year-year) format is also misleading in assuming Grey has passed away the moment of being missing. I propose we maintain consistently with Amelia Earhart's format. Let's reach consensus on this, thanks. - DanChoe(talk) 14:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• MOS:OPENPARABIO allows simple year-year parentheticals in the opening sentences of bios.
• Editorial decisions are made independently for each article, and what you happen to see in the Earhart article doesn't control here.
• I don't mind adding the word disappeared, as I've done here [1], but otherwise stop trying to force in your preferred format without consensus.
• Pinging computer scientist David Eppstein. EEng 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am not forcing my preferred format, I am following convention by statistics. In terms of the frequency of use on Wikipedia articles, if the month and day is known it is usually listed. Reviewing the history of revisions here EEng, you are the only editor preferring to use the simple year-year parentheticals.
• The purpose of citing Earhart is reference an article featuring one of the more prominent disappearance biographies. If you feel the convention in her article is incorrect, I would recommend you revise her format and see if you can reach consensus there.
• You keep citing MOS:OPENPARABIO but you are not conveying in simple terms why the summarized format is the preferred method. There is definitely no "consensus" with your preference for the abbreviated parentheticals when analyzing Wikipedia as a whole. DanChoe(talk) 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Decisions on individual articles aren't made by statistics or by "analyzing Wikipedia as a whole". EEng 14:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But only you get to decide? DanChoe(talk) 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No, but the change was made months ago without objection and is now the established version. You want to change it back, and there is objection, so the burden's on you. EEng 20:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Information to add

Should current information about his current situation at sea be added?

Link to add

Please add this web link to your Wikipedia page.

Interview with Jim Gray on MSDN Channel 9, "Behind the Code":

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=168181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistifer (talk • contribs)

Done (but remember to sign your posts with ~~~~). Matteo 10:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Amazon HIT is now done, I believe. Nascheme 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that his family follows up on important leads. So, who do you contact if you have one?

Contact the police or the coast guard - SimonLyall (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to Gray's final interview

Unless someone can confirm this interview took place, it's title is morbid and could be viewed in poor taste. Several people have tried to insert it today. Ronbo76

The interview, on Microsoft internal TV, was given away on DVD at his Berkeley memorial. (No prior insertion attempt by this user, but can confirm it having recently watched my copy.) One of the field searchers. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Two naked assertions, linkage merely implied

Gray contributed to several major database and transaction processing systems. IBM's System R was the precursor of the SQL relational databases that have become a standard throughout the world.

I suppose he contributed somehow? — MaxEnt 02:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jim Gray (computer scientist). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F02%2F16%2Fstate%2Fn181516S21.DTL&hw=jim+gray&sn=001&sc=1000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150703024036/http://www.openphi.net/tenacious/ to http://www.openphi.net/tenacious/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724051051/http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~yelick/294-f00/papers/Gray85.txt to http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~yelick/294-f00/papers/Gray85.txt

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) 13:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links

There are eleven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• WP:ELCITE: {{tq|...and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section.

Trim excessive links (and those with "cite web" and access dates) and remove 2013 maintenance tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)