It was the included ? in her description that really needs to be fixed. I added the info in case you wanted to change it.

Now that I'm thinking as I type .... Iranian-British international news correspondent for CNN works. American isn't really needed in her description.

Anne Bronte's description includes her surname.

The description for Una Stubbs has the E missing from English. She's just been on tv, too, although that's totally irrelevant.

Leisel Jones apparently is in the database twice, as "Leisel Jones" and "Leisl Jones".

There's also a minor issue at the beginning for the description of Una Stubbs "nglish actress; Rita in 'Till Death Us Do Part (1966-75); Aunt Sally in 'Worzel Gummidge' (1979-81)".

I fixed Una Stubbs this morning. I'll check the double entry for Leisel Jones.

Sebastian Coe
Your answer: English former Olympic athlete & Conservative MP

Not an MP now because promoted to the House of Lords

Suggestion for Jon Lormer: American film & TV actor known for supporting roles in 'The Twilight Zone' and 'Perry Mason'; Judge Chester on 'Peyton Place'

Tatum O'Neal entry says she's Ryan's daughter.

Tatum O'Neal is Ryan O'Neal's daughter, isn't she?

yes, it is correct, but it makes the answer a bit easy

Also there's that old fashioned thing of defining an eminent woman in terms of the men in her life.

If all it says is "daughter of Ryan" one would have to know who Ryan is. As for defining a woman by men in her life, she first became known to the public because she starred in a movie with dad. "American actress" doesn't say all that much and could be several women she may be paired with. "Very young Oscar winner" would work.

I agree that this clue doesn't bother me that much. She was also married to John McEnroe at some point of her life, but you'd have to know a bit about her to know that too.

I should have quoted the question sorry - it said daughter of Ryan O'Neal.

I will definitely check that listing. I wouldn't be fussed by describing her as Ryan's daughter, although I might (if I have enough characters available) change it to a reference to starring in 'Paper Moon' with her father. I am definitely trying to remove definitions of [people that are exclusively who they were married to; family members (no surnames unless, like Warren Beatty and Shirley MacLaine, it isn't a giveaway) with whom they were associated, however, I think can work well to provide a way of distinguishing them from all the other actors, writers, painters, etc.

American silent & talkie film actor; 'Tramp, Tramp, Tramp'; initials are HL = (Harry Langdon)

Saw that in my set, too. The initials will be gone next time I update the entries.

If the initials are removed, perhaps a different and better known Langdon film can be chosen. "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" leads one to think of Chaplin's little tramp, even though it is not his film. Just a thought.

Valdemar Andersen could use a more detailed description. I'd suggest one, but it looks like he doesn't have a wikipedia page and even Danish wikipedia barely has anything on him.

As I sat waiting for a view of the current posting, I re-read looney_tunes first posting and I wondered about this part of it:

I don't see why the info on a person has to be current. Up-to-date yes, but not necessarily current. Giving a description of 'writer' does not mean that a person is currently writing a book. It just means that when we are given a set of data about a person, 'writer' can be apt as a describer from some point in their life. You wouldn't say 'former writer' or writer in year 1973'. The same would go for noting 'P.M.'. It doesn't mean that they are currently a PM but that 'PM' would show up on their CV. In this light, you would not have to say 'former PM' for Tony Blair but just PM.

If you have addressed this point in the interim 375 posts (which I did not review, sorry) then please accept my apology. If you still have troubles with the issue of current versus former, please consider my position. If it is still an open issue, perhaps this will prod some folk to weigh in on the matter?

There is a difference between something like writer or actor, which describes an ongoing facet of the person, and prime minister or president, which is by nature only true for a specific period of time. Over the years that I have followed the comments (in the previous thread for this game, when someone else was maintaining the database), I have seen many complaints when such a description is no longer true. To avoid this, it is simplest to make a specific statement that will not change over time. If they were "former" something, then saying they started doing it in a certain year is still true; for people whose temporally-limited status was well in the past, it can be useful (but not necessarily essential) to make the definition specific to them to give the dates of the tenure.

Even after leaving office, the individuals usually still carry the title. It is currently correct to refer to Hillary Clinton as Madam Secretary, Pope Benedict as Pope and other major world leaders by their former title. So, in a sense, they can be referred to by those titles as current (but not acting). Part of the Hillary situation is that all the former SecStates are still kept in the loop in case they have viable input to a current situation. Sure some are ignored regarding current issues but they still carry the title.

That's not true everywhere, Mehaul. I know that in the USA people like Tony Blair are referred to as "Prime Minister Blair" even though they're no longer in office but we don't call them by title and name even when they are in office - they're either the Prime Minister or they're not. For example, I once met (sort of, fleetingly, in a large crowd) a British Prime Minister who was in power at the time - if I'd been introduced I would have said "Prime Minister" as a form of address, in the same way you might say "Mr President". But after he left office, that Prime Minister went back to being called Mr Wilson, Tony Blair is now just Mr Blair, and David Cameron will go back to being Mr Cameron.

Actually, no it is not correct to address a former office holder by the title they held while in office. It is incorrect to refer to George Bush (father or son) as "President of the United States." There is only one President of the USA at a time. The rest are former presidents.

The same goes for Cabinet members. Once they are no longer Cabinet members, they should not be addressed as "Secretary WhateverYourNameIs". However, they can be addressed with the honorific Honorable.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/Secretary_Cabinet_Member.html

http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html

Is this thread for any errors that need amending, such as dates etc, that we may find in the daily game?

Not that I've found any. Just curious.