Talk:Ozzy Osbourne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not dead

Apparently this was just a rumour, so please don't update the article to say he's died without a credible source. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes dead Jamestowndweller (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is from May. There was a rumor months ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Sky News has confirmed it, as well as The Mirror 2A0A:EF40:122:C101:1CD8:3DB:2EB9:6809 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Just gonna archive this because of the confusion, but this was a rumor in May. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2025

"Prince of Darkness" in the opening paragraph should link to Honorific nicknames in popular music. 2601:41:C400:2B4:6C41:7BEC:FD84:C9E8 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that the article you want to link to doesn't provide any further details about the name prince of darkness, that doesn't really seem appropriate. meamemg (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Ozzy Played Harmonica, the page should be changed to reflect that.

I tried to put in an edit request, but I was not allowed to.

Ozzy has been recorded playing Harmonica on Black Sabbath's self-titled album, specifically on the track "The Wizard". This ability was also showcased on the album 13, on the track "Damaged Soul".

He even has a signature model harmonica with the company Hohner: https://hohner.de/en/instruments/harmonicas/signature/ozzy-osbourne-signature

There is video evidence of Ozzy playing Harmonica, but I am not allowed to link that here, which is ridiculous. Zigmeister01 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zigmeister01: Nobody is saying he didn't play Harmonica, what's your issue? I'm sure you've read the infobox guidelines about secondary instruments, at Infobox musical artist. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's mentioned here. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with FlightTime Phone. Just because he had played a harmonica, does not make it suitable for inclusion in the artist's Infobox, as it should only list his primary instrument, which is "Vocals". If he has used any other instruments, they should instead be listed in the Personnel section of the song(s) or album(s) it was used on. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Children

This wiki shows Ozzy has 7 children, when he really only has 6. 2600:1700:8150:CBA0:B0F2:69CA:608D:5338 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that supports your claim. HorrorLover555 (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2025

Change: "John Michael 'Ozzy' Osbourne (born 3 December 1948) is an English singer, songwriter, and television personality." To: "John Michael 'Ozzy' Osbourne (born 3 December 1948) is a retired English singer, songwriter, and television personality."

Add the following sentence to the end of the lead or relevant section: "He performed his final live show with Black Sabbath on July 5, 2025." 2603:7000:DB00:6992:81EA:2A9C:64CF:1D14 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Can you provide a reliable source for this? Just because it's his last live show or his last show with the band (I don't know), doesn't mean he's retired from singing and songwriting entirely. SI09 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The year should be added though, viz 5 July 2025. 92.31.105.197 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Though, there is a source that Ozzy has retired from touring, it does not mean he is retiring from recording music. He is still currently active after his last show.

Take this source for example, which he says he will still record if it interest him: HereIGoAgain (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

If he's explicitly said he isn't fully retiring from singing, I'd be cautious even about mentioning that this was his final live show with Black Sabbath, as 92.31.105.197 suggested. Mostly because of how common it is for bands to say they're doing "their last ever live show" and then end up having a reunion tour barely a few years later. At best, we could maybe say that "they have said this will be their last show"? SI09 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

He's not even retired. If he is no longer recording or touring, then you can put "retired". But he is currently only retired from touring. I would put in two dates. One active date of "1967-present" for recording and 1967-2025" for touring. Tkgaynor (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2025

The entry incorrectly states that he suffers from Parkin syndrome. There's no such thing as "Parkin syndrome". He suffers from Parkinsons disease. 95.199.136.196 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The article clarifies that a sentence later. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 22:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Not actually in the video for Coal Chamber's "Loco".

Including source for this - "MoM: In the video loco, who plays the ice cream guy? D: Oh, that's a friend of our's. He's a crazy guy who's name is Aljandro, he's got real fangs, and he's into the vampire society and he's really a trip and he's an artist as well." - https://web.archive.org/web/19981205090317/http://www.metalonmag.com/Interviews/Issue2/Coal_Chamber.html 149.88.123.163 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2025

Ozzy Osborne has 6 kids (5 bio, 1 adopted), NOT 7 kids as stated here. 64.7.42.136 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

please change 7 kids (5 bio, 2 adopted) to 6 kids (5 bio, 1 adopted) 64.7.42.136 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/many-kids-does-ozzy-osbourne-161011891.html

states in article, he is a father “6 times over.” 64.7.42.136 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Dahawk04 Talk 💬 16:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Art and Chimps

Ozzy Osbourne has made some art with some chimps

https://www.creativebloq.com/art/ozzy-osbournes-chimp-artwork-proves-hes-a-master-of-self-promo

166.196.79.1 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Death

according to sky news, he has just died. NotRinmpa (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

He’s dead 46.15.100.142 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's the source article: https://news.sky.com/story/ozzy-osbourne-dies-just-weeks-after-farewell-show-13400248 Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say that he died "due" to years of Parkinson's. It should be edited to say he died "after" years of struggling with Parkinson's. 108.51.239.174 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That has also been resolved. If it re-appears without a citation, please note it here again for removal. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025

Ozzy Osborne dead 22nd july 2025 38.242.171.176 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025 (2)

Death_date = 22 July, 2025 213.216.210.30 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025 (3)

Death: July 22, 2025 Glasspane (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

death

Ozzy ozbourne died on the 22nd of july 2025 at the age of 76 2A02:C7E:2047:6300:6398:FF6A:9DF8:4840 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

yep https://news.sky.com/story/ozzy-osbourne-dies-just-weeks-after-farewell-show-13400248 136.37.235.2 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025 (4)

Currently is in the category "Deaths from Parkinson's Disease" however it has not yet been stated what his death was due to. Khaerli (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done McDutchie (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025 (5)

say he died from parkinsons disease Pipp345 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025 (6)

I was just browsing and saw that this sentence in the Controversies section has no source: "Osbourne admitted to shooting wild birds and cats in his garden during lockdown."

Here is a source that I found, but I cannot add it due to the page lock: https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ozzy-osbourne-blasted-after-admitting-23858447 Nickjaybird (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Surely he was joking? I haven't found a recording of the interview to listen to his tone. I don't think it's wise to rely on the WP:DAILYMIRROR or any other tabloids for this. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence in question is no longer in the article. Day Creature (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2025

In para 6 of Ozzy Osbourne#Controversies pls add wl for Daisley & Kerslake. Specifically, pls change

"...former band members Bob Daisley, Lee Kerslake"

to

"...former band members Bob Daisley, Lee Kerslake"

Thank you 220.235.78.155 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The notable musicians are already linked, at the first mention, earlier in the article.

Augmented Seventh🎱 03:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That is true but those links occur substantially earlier - 40 paragraphs in fact. It presupposes that a reader of the Controversies section will have read the 'Blizzard of Ozz' sub-sub-section (and, presumably, followed the wl then) rather than skipping through such a long article (as I did).

I think that it would be both reasonable and helpful to wl these two people again, given the context of their being mentioned again in this part of the article, and the amount of words and differing subject matter since they were last linked. I don't think that this would be a case of overlinking.

Please reconsider. Thank you. 220.235.78.155 (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done — Augmented Seventh🎱 04:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thx! 220.235.78.155 (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Should we change the image of Ozzy Osbourne?

Since Ozzy just past away, can we change the picture to show him in it's prime? CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

See ongoing consensus debate in earlier thread. Augmented Seventh🎱 03:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2025 (2)

Pls change the last sentence of para 3 in Ozzy Osbourne#Relationships from

Osbourne had multiple grandchildren.

to

Osbourne has multiple grandchildren.

Thank you 220.235.78.155 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 04:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2025 (3)

Ozzy died in LA not Birmingham 2A02:C7C:5968:3400:EC5E:C972:2D32:BF19 (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 07:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2025

Osbournes place of death was Birmingham UK, Please change it from Jordans, United Kingdom to Birmingham, United Kingdom 2601:402:C380:1020:14DC:CA4E:B337:E488 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ozzy didn't die in Birmingham. He died in Jordans, Buckinghamshire, near Chalfont St Giles, England. ThatNurseLuca (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Art and Chimps

Ozzy Osbourne has made some art with some chimps

https://www.creativebloq.com/art/ozzy-osbournes-chimp-artwork-proves-hes-a-master-of-self-promo

166.196.79.1 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

A case of: 'Art' for art sake, money for...? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:11AF:3CAA:C580:E047 (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Criteria for moving death to its own section?

More of a general question but what determines whether or not Death is listed separately from Illness? While I can't name any off the top of my head I know I've seen articles where illness and death are separate despite illness playing a significant role in the subjects death. Scoutstheman (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Likely there was the issue of trying to fit new information into an article that was mostly static at the time. In this article, there was already an existing section about the subject's health that ended up spun out and merged with the information on his death, presumably to make the section fuller. Given that there are only two sentences about his passing, having a standalone section would be overdoing it. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair Scoutstheman (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2025 (2)

Change spelling of Buchkinghamshire to Buckinghamshire (see: resting place) AAFF89 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done PeachyBum07 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Place of death

I see we have a citation from the Daily Mirror for his death place as in Buckinghamshire. However, per WP:DAILYMIRROR there is no consensus regarding the source's reliability. Conversely, NPR, which is regarded as reliable, per WP:RSPNPR, says he died in Birmingham.

• @Helper201: There has been something about this that strikes me as a bit strange. Perhaps it should not be, but I may as well say it here. The thing is that USA Today also alleges there is confirmation he died in Birmingham, citing the sole original PR blast that every publication seems to have gotten and used. However, The New York Times seems to say the statement "did not say where he died". Privately, if I had to guess (and this is just a guess), I think the statement is probably a press release that has a dateline of Birmingham, indicating where it was issued from, but the actual text of the statement does not indicate where he died. Since it seems the entire text of the statement has been reported enough times enough places, it's hard to imagine there's anything else in it that hasn't already been posted. That said, this is not something I can say on high confidence, so I'm not going to suggest that this has any weight, and using the NPR/USA Today reportage of Birmingham does not really have cause for challenge right now. That said (again), the only report with regard to his place of death that does not point to the original press release is the BBC quoting his agent, but that only says that he "died in the UK". --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• • As a side note, while The Sun says Buckinghamshire as his death place, we can't use this article as a reliable source per WP:THESUN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

    The Telegraph and local Buckinghamshire papers are reporting he died in Buckinghamshire. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

    That'll work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ozzy and family did moved back to England recently, I don't know where or when though, but I do know it was pretty recent. RayKVega (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Filmography

STOP REMOVING THE FILMOGRAPHY SECTION Jhartman087 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Howdy fellow collaborator,

The list was removed, as it isn't sourced.

The content will find its way back to the article as a sourced prose section.

This is being removed, again.

Thanks in advance for your help keeping the project accurate.

And, no need to shout. Augmented Seventh🎱 22:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean it isnt sourced? Its a list of his filmography. Its no different then his discography. Lets just delete that also in that case Jhartman087 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding.

I also think there needs to be a separate, sourced section detailing his entry into reality television, how it evolved over the decades, the other personalities involved.

On that section heading would be the hatnote link to complete videography of Ozzy Osborne , which is where you would put this tabled list.

You seem to have significant interest in this aspect of his life: write it up, in sourced paragraphs, include it in his career.

The project has been actively trying to de-listify, slowly.

Thanks, Augmented Seventh🎱 02:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

WAIT for official cause

Yes, he had P.D. But this could have been a heart-attack, drug O.D.(despite claims of sobriety), or any number of causes. Wiki can wait. And that means more than 48 hours. Be patient.2603:6080:21F0:6260:6417:2B3A:B86C:2079 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It can be noted that in his death, he had been suffering from that condition, because when the ultimate health event for someone happens, it is good to have context, thus WP:RS point it out clearly. I have no idea why you are speculating and took it so far as to doubt his claim of personal sobriety for no good encyclopedic reason. WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOOR. BarntToust 19:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@BarntToust: The user isn't speculating. We were. Someone added to the article Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease and the line ... died at the age of 76, after years of battling Parkinson's disease. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

User could've said "the article is speculative, don't do that" but instead ran on for longer than was due, speculating beyond the one user who added the bad content's speculation. We also don't need the IP to be casting doubts on someone's sobriety in their poorly-executed example-list. That's obviously not coming from bad-faith, but still, no speculating that a guy OD'd, especially making an inplicit suggestion his claim of sobriety was broken. BarntToust 20:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Also, I quoted from the wrong revision, but that doesn't matter now.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

and you could whine a little less - stop wiki-lawyering and stay on point 2603:6080:21F0:6260:6417:2B3A:B86C:2079 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay string-of-numbers, I could say the same of you. "Unconfirmed information needs to go" versus what you spun out above, one is helpful and the other is verbose. BarntToust 22:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

childish reply - just actually READ what my original post said and swallow your pride 2603:6080:21F0:6260:E1AB:DA7:179:5780 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

will you give it a rest? in the time it took you to show back up again we got three or something more dead celebrities. Trust me, this article will stay factually accurate without one random IP editor to keep it all together. BarntToust 11:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Potential posthumous album?

In September 2023, he revealed that he was working on a new album with a planned 2024 release while also preparing to go on the road following a successful spinal surgery earlier that month.[152] AxhtonCole (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That may very well be the case, but nothing can be mentioned in the article to reflect this without a reliable source. Otherwise, it is purely hearsay. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Just an observation to be mindful of. AxhtonCole (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there something clickable to read about this "robbery"?

Not just ISBN numbers but something to read right now, on my PC, without a purchase. I'm finding sources on the internet that make it doubtful there was a robbery, although I can't find any that say outright "he never committed a robbery". I find it unlikely that a person committing a robbery could avoid a prison-sentence by paying a fine.2600:1700:6759:B000:15E7:AD19:9FFB:3402 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Daily Mirror, quoting the Big Issue. I don't know the specifics for 1960s law (especially concerning a juvenile offender) but I don't find it outrageous to suggest he was given a six week jail sentence for not paying a £40 fine, which would have been very high especially for a teenager then.

As this was something that happened before he was famous, there aren't going to be many secondary accounts of this. I don't think this would even have been of note to the local newspaper. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

health

stuff worth adding at: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/07/22/ozzy-osbourne-health-issues-parkinsons-disease-addiction/85329719007/ 2A02:2F05:110E:9E00:1118:5312:1A77:DB57 (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Funeral

"honored with a funeral procession" is somewhat over-egging things. It was a modestly-sized cortege, with a few police outriders for traffic reasons.

Bostin’ Brass were present in Broad Street, they did not accompany the cortege on its journey, much less were they in procession.

All of the above is clear from the BBC web page and video.

There is no need to list family members in a cortege, that's pretty standard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph on Hiroshima vs Cold War nuclear deterrence

Hi @Asarlaí

You removed the following paragraph, saying it isn't supported by the source: 'Jacob Held said that Osbourne's viewpoint was anti war in general, but he was not a pacifist, and defended what he viewed as using proportionate means in just wars. As an example, Held shows that in the song "War Pigs", Osbourne sang against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as excessive, but in the song "Thank God for the Bomb" he supports the policy of nuclear deterrence in the Cold War.'

I think that this is supported by the source. You can see it here on the top half of page 174. If you cannot see it for some reason I can provide a screenshot via e-mail.

EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 16:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

PS I think I see the source of the problem. The reference I gave in the article was by mistake to page 176 instead of 174. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 16:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2025

In 1995, Richie Kotzen was in talks to be Ozzy's new guitar player, after things not working out with Steve Vai. An arrangemement was negotiatied but it fell out due to the news leaking in AOL forum's and the backlash from fans that Posion's former guitarist was the new axeman for Ozzy.https://bravewords.com/news/richie-kotzen-on-almost-joining-ozzy-osbournes-band-there-was-this-huge-blow-back-on-an-aol-thread/ Nduenasg (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Whole article about Ozzy's passing and upcoming funeral?

Considering it really got a really huge response, I felt it's warranted to have an article dedicated to Ozzy's demise and his funeral and the reactions. RayKVega (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, the Death and funeral section takes up about 1/3 of a page. I believe that would be too small for a standalone article. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

First 3 Black Sabbath albums "critically acclaimed" in lede

I'm not sure that this is actually true, except in retrospect. Contemporaneous reviews were not good. and it conflicts with the statement in the "Musical Career" section that says "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" was the first album that was well received by critics. 98.114.142.14 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Resolved (Someone has already removed it.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Birth certificate?

This genealogy site states that he was listed in his birth certificate as simply "John Osbourne". Could anyone take a gander if we should rely on this information? Blake Gripling (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Blake Gripling: Is the issue here that it doesn't include Michael? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, or if the source is reliable. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The source is only linked to on 109 other pages at most. (Though, it seems to be more common on the article for the company and on articles related to the Bee Gees.) Doesn't seem to have had a discussion at RSN (or if it did, nothing from the site was linked to.) Given the "originally registered as" wording, it seems like there was an updated birth certificate and only the initial one lacked Michael. It might be includable, but I am unsure as it is cited rarely and there hasn't been a known discussion at RSN. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Welders House

Welders House includes sourced material on its purchase and modernisation by the Osbournes. Surely that should be mentioned here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There's more here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Due to recent edits, we now have "Osbourne was interred on the grounds of Welders House." in the "Death and funeral" section, with no prior explanation of where or what that is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I made an adjustment with this edit. While I don't like my comma usage, is that enough to explain in your opinion? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Comma usage is fine. It certainly improves the mention in that section, but I still think more detail could be included, elsewhere in this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the only sections where I can think of including anything would be in the beginning of the Personal life section and in the Drug use sub-section. Here are my suggestions for each: "In the 1990s, the Osbournes purchased Welders House near Buckinghamshire, England." & "During the 1990s, the Osbournes purchased what would become their family estate near Buckinghamshire in England. The Welders House near the village of Jordans was picked by Sharon in part as its distance from other houses was ideal due to Ozzy's past alcohol abuse." Does either one work for you? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Ozzy was a (John) Junior

His father's first name was also John, thus making Ozzy John Michael Osbourne Jr. (similar case: his bandmate Anthony Frank "Tony" Iommi Jr.).

Why is "Jr." omitted in "born" section? Please somebody explain, because I see inconsistency here. 37.30.16.20 (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think he technically a junior since his father's middle name was Thomas not Michael. Ric36 (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

H. Combining the two rounds of voting and allowing multiple votes, for people's top choices I get 14 for H, 8 for D, 8 for E, and 4 for C. This is an editorial judgement call, so I see no reason to exclude any opinions because they didn't give a reason. H is already in the article, so nothing to do. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

---

it shouldnt use a photo from the 70s, he was alive for 50 years after that

it should use the same photo it used before he died or one from his lat show Unlikethesun (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the tradition on Wikipedia is to use an older photo (typically from the artist/actor/public figure's prime career years) after they have recently died.

For a few other examples, see Katharine Hepburn, Marlon Brando, Greta Garbo, Louis Armstrong, etc. Afddiary (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That is true, though I think it would be better if we can fish out a colourful image instead of a black-and-white one. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

a black & white one fit the perspective that the artist is dead. Prodioctive (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't change the color of the infobox photo to show that the person is deceased. We use an appropriate photo, whether that is one in color, in black & white, painted, drawn, or otherwise depicted. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That perspective does not matter, although a lack of colour is not an excluding factor if it still aptly shows the subject in their most recognisable form. MB2437 05:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

michael jackson too Prodioctive (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It is a tradition I personally dislike, but yes. There is usually a push to use a photo for the person 'at the height of their notability', whatever that might be defined as. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That explains why a recently deceased notable person's page has their recent photo replaced by an older one. I was wondering why it happens whenever someone notable died. RayKVega (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I actually think an old photo of him from his prime years should be used. Prodioctive (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's been the S.O.P. since I've been around. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, per tradition we should use from his prime years, especially in the 70s. The one of him used on the Black Sabbage main page appears the best quality. EmilePersaud (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Amakuru, FlightTime, Eastwood Park and strabane, Helper201, RTSthestardust, I find V to be V, Sullay, and Kline1992: Whether intentional or accidental, each of you has adjusted the infobox image and have therefore expressed interest in this discussion, hence this ping. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've merged this with a similar discussion which was taking place below. Please everyone above vote below and/or add any further options. Helper201 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apparently a new discussion was created while I was going through the edit history and finding users who changed the image. I did leave off one or two that seemed to not be interested in the image, but were instead involved with edit conflicts. (As an aside, I am confused by your claim that you merged these.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There was a very similar discussion below this one about the lead image, so when I say I merged them, those discussions are now subsections of this one, with subtitles of "Image discussion", where discussion of the pro's and con's of each image can be discussed and the subtitle of "Options", where editors can add photo options and vote. Helper201 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I was confused because I had merged them together, but it does seem that you were making a similar change. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Image discussion

Collapsing because this part of the discussion is no longer active. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm nominating the 1982 one. Prodioctive (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not a good quality image in terms of not being able to clearly see his face or even the whole of it. Helper201 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Options

• 
  A.
• 
  B.
• 
  C.
• 
  D.
• 
  E.
• 
  F.
• 
  G.
• 
  H.
• 
  I.
• 
  J.
• 
  K.

Are we going to editwar over this? Let's get some consensus, please. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@FlightTime and Helper201: you're both edit warring at the moment. I reinstated the 2000 one because I thought there was consensus, but I have no opinion at all myself. You need to settle your differences here though, not via warring. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

the 1982 one is the best in my opinion Prodioctive (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added some options above. Others are welcome to add more. Also, we should restore to the image before all the back and forth edits over the infobox image (which was option D). Helper201 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru the very long-term consensus before today was option D. That is what it should be maintained as until there is a new consensus. Helper201 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D, given that Osborne is recognizable and not having an exaggerated expression, as well as the photo being in full colour. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 20:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Option E/H Shows Osbourne at his most recognisable with Black Sabbath. MB2437 03:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option E as action-shots of musicians are usually the best kind of vanity. BarntToust 20:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: why is vanity seen as a positive/benefit? Helper201 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

by "vanity", I mean when you have pics of musicians, it's always the neatest thing to provide a main image them doing "musician-ing". No reason to do that except for vanity, we have to worry about letting a reader know what the subject looks like, and there are plenty of images here that achieve that—however, this one is adequate in that regard and also provides a complementary visage considering his career. Ozzy looks recognizable in any of these but the shot of him performing provides an aesthetic benefit outside of visual identification. BarntToust 04:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option C Good balance of capturing Ozzy when he was younger and is not in bad quality. The current infobox image seems a bit off regarding quality like it's borderline out of focus. Wish we had a decent one of Ozzy in the 80s/90s. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, I prefer Option D as it is the most recognizable to me. Given that usually these are more focused on notability, I will refrain from bolding my opinion as I plan to somewhat stay out of this. However, I will note that there were additional images that users changed the infobox to, so I will be adding those in a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The SOP is to have a image of the famous person in their early prime, therefore option H is the best choice. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Option C would be my second choice. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

And again, I prefer a more recognizable image, but I plan to somewhat stay out of this, hence why I used Comment rather than vote. I am just trying to keep this discussion tidy. Carry on. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Option C, its the most recent recognizable in my opinion Unlikethesun (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added another image - Option I, which is probably my preference as it's the oldest colour image and clear quality with neutral expression. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure why we need to change it just because he died. The long-term consensus was option D before now and no one was raising any problems with that before today. Helper201 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

To quote someone else, The SOP is to have a image of the famous person in their early prime. Personally, I dislike it as there has been multiple times where an image has been used for being when the person was most notable, but that image isn't recognizable as being that person. Currently, though, I am trying to stay out of the way as I believe my opinion on the subject is in the minority. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say Option E because Ozzy's trademark glasses, check + photo from a live performance, check. – Sullay (Let's talk about it) 00:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D, as it's a high-quality color photo with a neutral expression which is instantly recognizable. Day Creature (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option C for me. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The choices are artificially narrow, given his apparent time being newsworthy. Good-willed fans might disagree; he would choose H. Augmented Seventh🎱 03:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to propose a new option, then feel free to review Commons:Category:Ozzy Osbourne by year and Commons:Category:Ozzy Osbourne to see if there is an option that you believe is better. I have added a few options to this discussion already because others tried to change the infobox to them. (Though, it appears I missed Option I when doing so.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, these are definitely the best in commons, suitable for an infobox. Augmented Seventh🎱 05:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option H would be my second choice for that reason. It represents a younger Osbourne during his days with Black Sabbath. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option C. Though I would much prefer a better pic from the early 70s, Option C looks like the most appropriate one, it's the closest to a professional portrait photo, and is of overall better visual quality than the one currently standing (which is only "the most recognizable" within Wikipedia, not really anywhere else). NJ (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D. A good quality colour photo in which his face is clearly visible with a neutral tone. Also has the benefit of achieving a prior consensus on this page before the day of his death, of which no editor has justified why it needs changing after his death when this was not disputed prior to then. Helper201 (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D as it is a high quality photo of his whole face with a neutral expression. I also think it's the most recognisable. Spiderpig662 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Option D as the most recognizable, with Option E as a close second. I explicitly oppose Option F because you can barely see his face, making it a poor lead image. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option E or Option H; it is customary that following a high profile death, the infobox image is changed to reflect the individual during the peak of their career (i.e when they were at their most notable both visually and commercially, see Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Prince for examples. With that in mind, I would sway more towards Option H but only a cropped version focusing primarily on upper body and face. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
• Considering some people disliked the crop of Option H, I added Option J as a more tightly cropped version of that photo, focusing on Ozzy's face. I'm personally neutral to any of the options, though. I do agree that it's normal for the infobox image to change upon the subject's death, as it shifts from a decent up-to-date picture to one taken in the subject's prime. It would be ideal to have a color picture, but this seems to be unnecessary; see John Lennon for instance. Mirabile (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Results of initial voting

I am keen to move this debate on, as, inevitably, in the days following his death and as the hype fades away, the debate seems to have hit a stalemate and not going anywhere. With this in mind, I would like to narrow it down to four images, and would appreciate if users could state their preferences so we can come to a decision by the weekend. The results are as follows, and the images with the highest votes will be narrowed down to 4 contenders. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• • Option A - No Votes
  • Option B - No votes
  • Option C - 4 votes
  • Option D - 7 votes
  • Option E - 4 votes
  • Option F - No votes
  • Option G - No votes
  • Option H - 3 votes
  • Option I - 1 vote
  • Option J - No votes
  • Option K - No votes

• 
  C. (received 4 votes)
• 
  D. (received 7 votes)
• 
  E. (received 4 votes)
• 
  H. (received 3 votes)

Please state your preference below for the four shortlisted images identified above. Thank you! Goodreg3 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Option H for me. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ditto with Option H. Blake Gripling (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I vote for Option H as well RTSthestardust (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait, what if H could be replaced by J because some didn't like the crop of the H version, so a smaller (J) version was made, because it would make sense when it's not excluded for the infobox votes. RTSthestardust (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree, J is better than H - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I concur with J as well. HorrorLover555 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D is by far the best image. PeachyBum07 (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• Like I said before, either D or E. I have a slight preference towards E, but D is a very close second and I would gladly take it over the other two. I would also strongly prefer C to F. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  As a side note, people's !votes in part 1 of the discussion should be counted, or those people should be pinged. Either way, this "phase two" thing shouldn't cause us to discount people's valid opinions. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Changed my mind, I'm going for Option H now (actually prefer it over J, but I wouldn't mind it being the new pic). NJ (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

D for me, though I wouldn't mind E either. The main issue I have with H is that given his long career, H no longer reflects the image the public associates with Ozzy. We need a focused photo that we can immediately identify as Ozzy Osbourne, and H isn't that. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} You're right on Option E. It's the best photograph out of all that depicts Ozzy Osbourne as it is high-quality and shows him performing and looking vital, while still looking like the public image that resonates today. Genuinely, the colors and value on the photograph looks great, and I initially chose Option H/J, because I wasn't too familiar with Option E, and usually, I'm more into picking photographs of deceased figures who were in their artistic and commercial prime. RTSthestardust (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@RTSthestardust: Do you prefer E or H? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Option E RTSthestardust (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

No preference, though I do have a concern that this sub-discussion was started too early. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

With 7 votes for Option H, I am going to go ahead and change the infobox image to option J (the cropped version of option H) based on popular vote. Thank you all for contributing, and we can now consider this discussion closed. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Goodreg3: I have reverted this closure. A discussion like this should last longer than a single day, you are clearly an involved closer, and there is a lot of support for E as well as H. Please let the discussion last a normal amount of time, and please let someone who wasn't part of the discussion determine consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the closure revert, if nothing else it was closed by an involved editor and as far as time open, calm down, I guarantee the article is not going anywhere. Also, please stop with the smartass knickers in a twist - FlightTime (open channel) 21:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nothing smartass about it, merely stating my opinion. As soon as Osbourne's death was announced, we had this edit war commence over which image to include in the infobox. Tell me I am wrong. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

There was an edit war, which isn't surprising. What was surprising was this sub-discussion being started less than 48 hours after the first attempt at consensus started, only for it to be "closed" 24 hours later. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has been active for well over a day. The shortlisted image debate has been active for just over 24 hours. Based on the recent round of voting, there was a clear consensus for the image which was subsequently placed on the article. The debate appears to have reached a stalemate, and unless someone, somewhere, makes a decision, it will last an unreasonable length of time. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, if we are going to get "our knickers in a twist" over an infobox image, then perhaps I don't wish to be part of it. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, having just noticed you too are a closely involved contributor to this debate, I fear you have simply reverted as you do not like the outcome of the results. Either way, feel free to take over and try and create some consensus so this can finally be determined. I would stress that, whilst involved in the debate, I have, like you, merely contributed a preference and not started the debate, so hold no real preference which has affected the outcome. As you will see, I have narrowed down the voting and merely tried to move this on. Good luck. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no rush, just give it a week or so—this should not have been "closed" after 24 hours; consensus had not been clearly established. Additionally, there was no consensus to use J, which received zero votes in the first discussion and was only briefly mentioned by three above. MB2437 17:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Option H is what I’m voting for. Sylvarien (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Option H looks very good I have to vote for it. GroovyHusky (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Going for Option H CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sylvarien and CrowbarCatalyst: Wikipedia discussions, with a few exceptions, are not votes. This is not one of those exceptions. Please provide reasoning for your votes or they might not be counted towards a consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D/E would be the most recognizable images given his long career. Yeeno (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Option E/H both show him with Black Sabbath. H is more era-appropriate but E shows him with the iconic glasses. Proportions of H are far better for an infobox than J, in my opinion. MB2437 13:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Option E or Option H, both high quality images. The former has the + of being of him in performance, latter has the + for showing his face clearly. I'm personally leaning towards the latter because of that pro. jolielover♥talk 16:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option C or H Since they depict Ozzy in a younger light/closer to his peak. For Option H, I'd support this cropped version (Option J) however. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Option D EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 08:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Option C or Option H Manvswow (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Option E is recognizable, high quality, shows enough of the face, and has the benefit of being a pretty nice action shot ^Get_Possessed! 17:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking either C or H. I really don't care for D. He looks like he's in court. I also like F, but it seems that's already been eliminated. Thethincontroller (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Why have you selected a god awful photo as the best option??? The previous choice was far better? PeachyBum07 (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

From the consensus above, it depicts the subject at his peak. Readers will primarily come here to read about his career with Black Sabbath, so it is more appropriate. MB2437 13:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'll say it again. If you have expressed an opinion in this discussion, you are involved. This discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Therefore, if you have participated in this discussion, do not close it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Closing this discussion is not contentious—it meets all the closure criteria—but I have added it to WP:CR anyway. MB2437 15:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree that an involved editor should ever close a contentious discussion like this one where the result is not blatantly obvious. I also think that this discussion should last a few more days, but I will respect the closure made by an uninvolved editor when it comes. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your view on it, no worries. MB2437 15:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  So, what is happening here then? There does not appear to have been any contributions in over three days, and the delay in acknowledging the results of this debate is just allowing it to drag on, meaning it is at risk of becoming a discussion amongst editors with no real meaning. Perhaps you could reach out to someone who has not been involved in this discussion and get this moved along finally? Goodreg3 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Per above, I listed this at WP:CR. MB2437 17:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  At least it is a step in the right direction. I fear this has dragged on long enough and the results ought to finally be acknowledged and this can be closed. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  No rush, the present image is fine enough for now. MB2437 17:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Whether there is any "rush" or not is not in doubt, but the fact that this discussion has been ongoing for several weeks now with no conclusion is a little ridiculous. Personally, whatever image is in the infobox makes little difference to me, however, I do not like the notion of engaging constructively in discussions for it to end up going nowhere and achieving very little, or in this case, at risk nothing. I hope I am wrong, but I fear this discussion is now getting dragged on only because certain editors are not liking the results of the overall consensus on what image to display in the infobox. It is relatively simple, following an individuals death, the infobox image is usually replaced with (if available) an image of the said individual during their prime and peak career (see Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Les McKeown and Prince for only a few examples). Goodreg3 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  And it will be once a neutral party closes the discussion. Please do not cast aspersions about others' intentions. MB2437 17:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Option H for me, and other than the previous other image I had previously voted for, H would be my choice. If I had to pick a second choice, it would be Option C. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we can close the discussion. it hasn't been active since the 7th of last month, and most people have claimed that H fits the most. I personally am team C actually, but that one barely got any votes. I will now proceed to change the photo to option H! Prodioctive (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

the final voting results:

H: 13 E: 5 D: 4 C: 3 Prodioctive (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about this one? Maybe a cropped version would be good. The current one is already used in the Black Sabbath page. --Generale Lee (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The public domain tag assumes the magazine was not copyrighted. MB2437 21:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Damn, I would've voted for that one. Sadly I don't think the voting process can be opened again. NJ (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You could ask the other users if they prefer one of the newer images. Currently, this discussion is still open. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This one is a good alternative to the current image. It's a lot more focused on Ozzy and is in colour. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• 
• 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep using a infobox image of Ozzy from the 70s

A modern image might confuse people that Ozzy is still a living person. Ozzy was a big personality in many of our lifetimes so it is fitting to keep using a dated image. Qellowszach (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

That has already been discussed, and a consensus was reached for the current photo in the infobox. See this discussion above. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Qellowszach (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Actor categories?

@Rodericksilly messaged me concerning the categories I tried to add for the article, which I felt are justified by both mentions of him appearing in (bit and cameo) roles both as himself and as a fictional character, as well as filmography page listing said appearances. At any rate he should be counted as such even if his participation in the films in question were nominal at least. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

As such, shall we call for a consensus over whether to reinstate said categories? Blake Gripling (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that he's not described as an actor in the lead or the infobox, and no notable acting roles are mentioned, I would think this at least comes under Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Rodericksilly (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Glam Metal Genre

Should Glam Metal be in his genres? He incorporated its stylistic influence and many songs on Bark and the Moon & Ultimate Sin are considered glam, two albums under on guitarist. I'd consider it a "glam era" Hiskad (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Place of death is incorrect

In the box and in in the first sentence of the section of his death, it says he died at Welders House, but he died in Harefield Hospital per https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/arts/music/ozzy-osbourne-cause-of-death.html ( https://archive.is/GIKgO )

That's what's listed on the death certifiacte too. Here's the clearest photo of it I could just find https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/ozzy-osbourne-death-certificate-reveals-215854501.html

There's not much information about his death other than tabloids quoting MailOnline, but what little is known from the NYT and the death cerrtificate is he was taken to the hospital by air ambulance

Thanks to whoever who can correct this. 2A00:23C7:DF17:C501:583C:AC09:A881:2E19 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Photo

Why did anyone change it to a younger photo? Where can I petition to stop Wikipedians from doing this every time a person dies?  Dakotah316 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

See this closed discussion here. That was discussed among Wikipedia users and a consensus was reached among them in the discussion to agree with using that photo for the Infobox. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2025

Ozzy Osbourne place of birth was kingstanding Birmingham not Marsden green his birth was registered at Marsden green hospital only he was born in kingstanding ~2025-40022-28 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2025

This request is to change the below extract.

"In 1984, California teenager John McCollum committed suicide while listening to Osbourne's "Suicide Solution". His parents sued Osbourne (McCollum v. CBS),[207] alleging that the song encouraged their son to kill himself. The prosecutors highlighted the lyrics "Where to hide, suicide is the only way out", and claimed that the song also contained subliminal and backmasked messages encouraging suicide."

The use of "prosecutors" in the second line of the above extract is incorrect. On conducting a reference check, the case is unambiguously a civil proceeding. This was not a private or public prosecution, meaning that "prosecution" is entirely inappropriate as a descriptor for the parents legal representation. It could potentially be misleading as these proceedings were in no way a prosecution. "The plaintiffs" or alternatively "The parents counsel" would be the correct way of putting this. Crazyfroggers (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)