Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

why are some names red and some blue Bro?

is that just a random thing. Its not boys and girls. I figured that out. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Red link and our FAQ above. — Wyliepedia 00:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, to be immediately helpful, try clicking on a red link, then try clicking on a blue link. Did you notice? The red link leads to a page which says "hey bro' - we don't got an article for that there subject man". And the blue link leads to articles about bro's and boys and girls and truly awesome stuff. And, as a closing observation, do I detect that someone is pulling some tails here, through a mischievous veil of pretended ignorance? Happy Wiki-ing to you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't give a detailed reply. At least they went with "boys/girls" rather than "Democrat/Republican". Yo! — Wyliepedia 20:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Mary Soames

Mary Soames died on 31 May. She was a daughter of Winston Churchill. Another editor persists in adding this fact to her death entry. In my understanding, this inclusion breaches WP:NOTINHERITED, which states "family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits". Soames is notable on account of her public service, and being a benefactor and author. We should not include parent-child relationships just because that is "nice to know". Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say her being a daughter of Churchill has probably become her main claim to fame. Most of her career as an author was about the Churchill family. Most of the obits I checked mention Winston in the title. So yes, I'd say it is probably one of her main claims to notability and deserves to be mentioned here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

They must have their own notable accomplishments to have an article, but that doesn't mean we can't mention notable relatives or coinciding events when discussing them elsewhere. Someone like Brian Christopher, who changes their name to "escape the shadow" of a famous parent on the way up, would be a different story. But like Taylor says, Soames seemed to enjoy and prosper from her shadow. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem: Unless you knew Soames's name, you wouldn't know about Churchill (or at least I didn't). So the added, um, notability might possibly warrant inclusion. Unfortunately, if this tidbit is included, we'll get future additions of relatives who will reference the Churchill inclusion for Soames. I'm on the fence, but would fall off by leaning toward no inclusion. — Wyliepedia 17:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose mentioning Churchill. There are lots of facts about people who die that might be considered interesting, but only some of those are reasons why the person is notable. The purpose of the list here is to provide a record of who died and why they are notable. People who want to know other interesting facts about them can check their individual pages to read about them. My worry isn't that including Churchill here sets a precedent for mentioning famous relatives in other cases. My worry is that if mentioning facts other than reasons for notability is allowed here, then it sets a precedent for doing that in other cases. So we could have things like "John Smith, former Governor of East Dakota and lifelong fan of Led Zeppelin". Being a fan of a notable band does not make you notable, and neither does being the daughter of a notable person, even if many people find both facts "interesting". 142 and 99 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Churchill? Oh yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

English, Scottish, British

Just scanning the list I see that some people are described as "English", some "Scottish" and some as "British". Is there any policy about when the more specific description should be used and when the more general one should be used? Personally, I would think that the default description should be "British" and that the more specific ones should only be used if the person's notability was linked to it. So someone who played international Soccer for the English team could be listed as English rather than as British, but a pop singer who was born in London should be described as "British". 142 and 99 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

We also endeavour to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide to finding UK nationality and subsequent sections. WWGB (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that reference. It is very helpful in trying to sort out these cases. 142 and 99 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Overly specific CODs

• "heart failure as a complication from cardiac surgery"
• "suspected complications from minor surgery related to diabetes"

Necessary? These take up a whole line on some devices, which equates to extra-long load times 'round this time o' the month. — Wyliepedia 02:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh for the days of heart attacks and pneumonia. Now everyone wants a designer death. We should always report accurately what is contained in a reliable source. Here's what sources had to say about these deaths:

• "heart failure as a complication from cardiac surgery" = "after first undergoing heart-valve surgery and then being diagnosed with fibrosis on his lungs, he had also been having dialysis treatments for the last couple of years" [not sure where the heart failure comes from]
• "suspected complications from minor surgery related to diabetes" = "an official cause of death has yet to be released, but reports suggest he died following minor surgery as a result of complications related to diabetes". WWGB (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I can become notable in my remaining years, so I can have a "designer death" when I go out in style. Or maybe I'll just hire a verbose publicist. — Wyliepedia 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Verbose publicist" sounds like a horrible cause of death to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a lot of crap on here about things not being specific enough. Now they are "too specific." First of all, entries are as long as they need to be. Life wasnt created for a mobile phone and I am sorry that the world doesnt fit into that neat little package. Mobile phones are turning this world into a plethora of idiots (IMO) who have to search everything before they do anything. Back in my day, if we needed to find ourselves, we went to India or some other exotic locale now apparently all we need is a phone, but alas I digress.

As for Zimmer, he had major heart surgery on April 16th and died while still in the hospital. One of the major complications of heart surgery is that sometimes the heart is beyond repair or doesnt handle the operation as well as intended. Heart failure can set in and did in this case. Now I could have just said, Complications from Heart Surgery...but then we would have millions people screaming about what complications are and why we are listing them and why we arent specific. I also specifically used Cardiac in this instance so as to not double dip the well of "Heart." You gotta have heart, but not too much.

And I can help you design a death, but my services arent cheap. Here is hoping you get that State Legislature post. Let me know, I have connections up in K-Town...they can help you vote early and often.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: totally agree, but that would help some of the redlinks we have on here. @Sunnydoo: I had to take my glasses off to read your first part more obtusely (blurrily) so's not to be offended. Firstly, if I recall, I stay(ed) out of how to phrase things on here, or try(ied) to. The only COD that people list on here that normally bothers me is the generic "illness" and it's respective length. Took me a while to get over the listing of "natural causes". Secondly, welcome to the modern age. My 92-year-old grandmother has a cell phone, knows how to use it, and is just now learning how to post "selfies" on FB. I bet if you go to "find yourself" in India, your view would be blocked by screens of people trying to take a picture of the view or themselves. Finally, I regret now posting opinions here, and anywhere on WP for that matter, but at least I'm trying to improve it for this ever-changing world of people whose CODs read longer than their notabilities. Peace out. — Wyliepedia 07:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you saw the humor in my post. It has been a tough evening. Seeing Zim's death really took the wind out of my sails. I actually turned off the Cubs game tonight because I just couldnt do it. He was a good guy and meant a lot of things to a lot of folks. He was an integral part of the Cubbies '84 and '89 runs (along with Jim Frey and Dallas Green). He is one of those guys that deserves mention for a number of things- the relationship with Boston, the Yankees and Joe Torre and his legendary fights with the Boss (George Steinbrenner), the Rays and a number of young players over the years from Girardi to Jeter to Longoria that probably wouldnt have been half as good without his tutelage. Then there was the Pedro Martinez incident. Its just a shame we cant put all of that in because he really deserved it and I get kind of cross when someone so important to something has things drop by the wayside because we cant find space for it. The Rays and Yankees both have a legitimate claim to be there too. But he served with the Red Sox the longest and won Manager of the Year/Division title as Manager of the Cubs. He was the life of the party in a sport filled with them. Probably Yogi is the only one who transcended him over the course of his long career. And from what I understand, Yogi is not in good shape either at the moment. Soon I will have my AARP card, so I can officially qualify for Cranky Old man status.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To explain my point a little further as it may seem that I am memorializing some of these people- we have had to take out a person's membership in the Roman Curia (Catholic Church) (point #2 was the first Asian to be appointed to the Curia) and a State Ministership in India that has 112 million people in it (the equivalent of California, Texas, New York and Florida (the 4 most populated US States) together, almost twice the population of the UK or 5x the population of Australia) just this week for the sake of brevity. To me it is trivializing some of the accomplishments of these people all because we dont want to be bothered with the space it takes up and that is what I find disagreeable (which makes me cranky as i am getting older).Sunnydoo (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We are editors maintaining a death list, not journalists writing obituaries. We merely need to write enough to demonstrate the deceased's notability:

• Mortimer Fortescue, 98, English archbishop

I am very confident that the vast majority of our readers are not interested in further minutiae; if they are, they simply have to click on either the article link or the reference. Take a look at where we were five years ago. The entries were lean and efficient, and did not need to go into further verbose obscurities. I, for one, will continue to prune rambling entries to ensure they do not dominate the list over the other deceased. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Its not all that different than 5 years ago and it isnt to the minimalist level you used in the example either (i see some of my handiwork there hehe). And by that same logic, we should go back to the terminology "Car accident" because that is how we used to do things. Going strictly minimalist you run the risk of it being a List. Wikipedia is not for lists of things (or so I have been told). There is a need to demonstrate notability and cause of death and just not say well this guy died on this date and so did he and so on. And I wouldnt consider the Catholic Church's Curia as "minutiae." They are the 15 Senior Cardinals who make up the Executive Council that handle the entire Church's business and assist the Pope. According to Wiki, there are 1.2 Billion Catholics on the planet or roughly 15% of the Earth's total population.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's 85% who could not give a toss! WWGB (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And who's one of them? This guy → Wyliepedia 12:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I see so we should just make a judgement on what the majority of people should care about and then toss the rest? That smacks of fascism, censorship and groupthink to me. Good to know that you think 1.2 billion people in this World dont matter. I wonder how many you think actually do?Sunnydoo (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I like how this has gone from lengthy CODs to Catholics trying to take over the world Wikipedia. — Wyliepedia 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirect only?

What do we do when the page created for a person on this list is just a redirect? Is that enough for inclusion here? E.g., Yasuo Masumoto EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is notorious for creating redirects for recent deaths. We treat them as any other redlinks and remove them at the appropriate time if no article is created, or expanded in this case. — Wyliepedia 01:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume someone has explained to the user why this is not okay? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:POFRED, it's an acceptable practice, especially if the person listed here is listed at the redded target, but is not notable enough for a standalone article, such as spouses, relatives, company executives, etc. It adds some extra research during the removal process, but is apparently acceptable here. (Note: "notorious" is a term of endearment.) — Wyliepedia 04:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I know it's fine in other cases, but on this list the person must have an article of their own, right? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, no, only animals. People, especially those who may have a non-English article are allowed to have an entry here, as long as they appear notable. Masumoto passes this condition. — Wyliepedia 04:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, my bad. Was confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Easily done on this page, where notability is more scrutinized. — Wyliepedia 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to redirect NN band members to their bands etc, NN businesspeople to their businesses etc. It's never been a problem, as far as I was aware... GiantSnowman 09:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Does sedation matter in murders?

Rohit Senthi Sethi was recently sedated, then smothered and strangled. In my eyes, that first step was crucial. Noting how someone lunges and pivots to set up a stabbing is extraneous, but this food poisoning was most of the work. Without it, the odds of a 65-year-old major surviving teens with pillows would have greatly increased, and he likely wouldn't be on this list. Hell, Rasputin might have still been alive today. Everyone's weak when they're (half) asleep.

I've been reverted twice, and that's cool. But it seems important, so I bring it up. Could be seeing more of this in the future, as teens watch more violent media, feel more entitled, find drugs online easier and become too malnourished to kill fairly. Not every country has easily accesible guns for that. That's a bit beside the point, but if Wikipedia is only saying these few things about a redlinked man, we shouldn't imply he was simply overpowered, as (I think) "strangled" does.

I'm not sure what I feel about the smothering part. It probably helped, but not as much as the drugs. Things generally work better in threes, but too many commas is never good.

Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Rohit Senthi died from strangulation. The events leading up to that are not important here. Just as if someone gets abducted, bound, and shot. The shooting is how they died. Their article can enhance that. If they don't have one, feel free to create a notable one. Otherwise, that's why we source the entry here. — Wyliepedia 02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't sedatives have a greater pharmacological effect on breathing and heartrate than rope does? A bullet will kill you (or not) just as well whether you're tied. But yes, I may get on this article. Right after I finally get the monkey out of my sandbox.

Also, it's Sethi, not Senthi. My bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be noted if it was a fatal dose that was given to him even if strangulation was what killed him. I can think of several instances quite recently with arsenic and other poisons that were administrated by wives on husbands that were taking their toll, but they ended up either shooting or doing something else to them before they died. Long term poisoning may or may not be applicable. In this case, sedatives were used and they are a whole lot more acute in effect than heavy metal poisioning. However it takes 4-6 weeks for toxicology reports to come back (if they are done) and the ME/Coroner has to decide to pursue the matter. It would be pursued in the US to find out where the drugs came from and the arrest made of the original source- however, I am not sure the same process would apply in India. Until that designation is made, probably strangulation is the way to go.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tommy Craig

I saw this one [1] and I thought I would let our Soccer crowd weigh in on whether this is notable or not. The Rangers F.C. physiotherapist (which would be the team trainer in the US) from the 1970s has died of a heart attack. During the 12-13 odd years he was working in that capacity, the Rangers won the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup in '72 over Dynamo Moscow. Also this is a different Tommy Craig, than this one Tommy Craig, even though both are Scottish.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of sport or nationality, team medical staff are almost always completely anonymous to the public. I would be surprised if there is any Wikipedia page about any person whose sole claim to fame is that he was a sports team trainer / physio. Seems to me to be an easy call to leave him off the list. 99.192.85.192 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lloyd Youngblood is WWE's top head and neck mechanic (and also just a "regular" neurosurgeon). There are some differences in "sport", "team" and "working for" between football and pro wrestling, but the meat of Youngblood's article seems to come from what he's done, not just where he was. If Craig's credited with saving a star or a season, those could be notable accomplishments. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

John Devens

This may have fallen through the cracks of the "Whatever happens to be trending on the web right now, Wikipedia is the wall you throw it up against to see if any of it sticks" approach to building the encyclopedia. While his individual accomplishments may not appear notable on the surface, the sum total certainly adds up to notability. It also can't be called a WP:1E vis-a-vis the oil spill. I found a NYT piece (here) and evidence that AP's piece propagated beyond Alaska. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Its creepy how Death works sometimes. I put in Walter Parker last week on the 25th, who had a long career in civil service both in State and Federal governments. At one time he started the DOT and was the first Commissioner for Alaska and oversaw development of the Dalton Highway system. But his biggest claim to fame was as the Chairman of the Commission that oversaw the investigation into the Valdez oil spill. It is just bizarre that we will have 2 or 3 deaths right in a row of related things...another one this month was several cricketers including the big Australian one going down from the same World Cup over the space of a few days. We had one involving Bob Dylan songs, Watergate and a prosecutor with 2 of his more notable convictions also this year. As for a direct response to your comment- I would include him (but then i am in the include Wiki faction and not the exclude one) for his notability pertaining to the Oil Spill and aftermath. Normally we dont list Mayors of towns with less than 150k population (or at least I dont) unless there are extenuating circumstances and this would be one case as it had a global impact not only on gas prices, shipping designs (oil freighters are no longer allowed to be single hulled in many places) and the environment. Dealing with a major disaster like that especially in a medium or small city is meritorious. The Mayor of Gulfport during Katrina would be another good example when it comes time. Gulfport only has 70k citizens but got leveled by Katrina moving through.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Notable deaths" or "deaths of notable people"?

I see the phrase "notable deaths" pop up as defining these types of pages. Do we actually really mean "deaths of notable people", or are we including murder victims where the event was of note but the person was not? I assume the former, but it might be better if we made this clearer.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This article reports the death of notable people and other life forms (such as animals and famous trees). There has never been a clear consensus whether to include notable deaths (such as Murder of Lee Rigby). WWGB (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We seem to get many of both. The main difference is non-notable people who died notably only stay for a month, pipelinked to something else. Notable people's vital statistics are inherently notable, since they begin and end the notable life. So even though Carla Laemmle didn't die in a spectacular explosion, June 12 was a huge day in her story. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting case could be made for the 2 Israelis and American teenager that was murdered by probably Palestinian terrorists [2]. While the kids themselves were not notable, their deaths going forward is going to have a profound impact on Israeli-Palestinian and Palestinian-American foreign relations. After 30 days, who knows? Will there be a page with the 3 young lads and a Wiki study completed on it? Will it serve enough for permanent inclusion on this list, anybodys guess. But I think it is the exact definition of trying to walk the line we walk sometimes. Not really a clear answer. We just do what we can do.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Led to the kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

And the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers is also an article itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks tool

Just a note to point out that the Reflinks tool has been discontinued. See [3]. For those, like me, who have used it to tidy up the referencing style in this article, I'm afraid it must be done manually from now on. That's progress for you. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We should take this opportunity to go back to Full Citations. It is the way it should be done.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, you do not appear to be able to do either ! Apart from the fact that we had a long discussion over this matter, and consensus was reached, only a few months ago.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I do full citations in Wiki articles when the sources merit inclusion (ie not just an obit from a paper but a full length article with name, etc) and I have no problem doing them here. Except they get changed and that is when I have a problem with plagiarism. Many of the articles we pull up are written by the wire services and carried by newspaper outlets. Simply citing the article title does not grant sufficient credit to the author or original source, just to the newspaper that carries them. Additionally using someone else's words and not directly attributing them in the citation is direct plagiarism. While I am sure opinion's vary on that subject, some of us who write, are involved in academia or have fiduciary responsibilities can not take the risk and must have the conservative approach to err on the side of caution.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Permit me to say that the main reason we went to the simpler format was to save page space and load times. Factor in the time now to manually fix bare urls/numbered ones and hopefully editors have some a lot of free time. — Wyliepedia 12:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about reinstating the tools at this page and on VPT. I can't follow most of what VTP says, but they seemed shocked others are shocked about it. Anyway, it would be a good place to voice support for the tools. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As of 3 July 2014, Reflinks is working!!! — Wyliepedia 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 7: Alfredo Di Stefano cause of death

The phrasing of the CoD sounds odd to me: "complications following cardiac arrest". Suggest changing it to "cardiac arrest" or "brain death resulting from cardiac arrest". --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source was not specific. This is the wording from the source: "The former Argentina, Colombia and Spain international suffered a cardiac arrest in the street near Real’s Bernabéu stadium on Saturday – the day after his birthday – and had been in an induced coma in intensive care."

He didnt die from the immediate effects of the cardiac arrest, but lingered 2 extra days. More than likely either heart failure or intravascular swelling took him out. But it was from the effect of the cardiac arrest on his body.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's that age-old question of whether a soccer player scores a goal, or whether the ball scores by crossing the line. I'd go with "heart attack" (or "complications of" it, if insisted). Cardiac arrest is a symptom we're all going to have one day, whether we're in a bed or a tiger. Accurate, but too vague, like "natural causes". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless though it is complications as the CoD was not immediate but lingering and without further detail. As I said, more than likely heart failure or a vascular swelling condition as no mention of a secondary infection like pneumonia or peritonitis was mentioned.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

He lingered because a machine was breathing for him, and his metabolism was slowed by the coma. It's like tourniqueting a gunshot wound, then eventually bleeding to death. Not like getting shot, falling through a dirty window, catching meningitis and dying of respiratory arrest (from the edema). Way more direct.

Cancer can linger for years before it finally kills, often in complicated ways, like a piece of a brain tumour getting clogged in a leg vein and breaking a heart, or bone cancer pinching a spinal cord. But we've no problem with simplifying there. Or with the extremely basic "traffic collision". But yeah, not a huge deal. Just odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A heart attack is a single event. It has a beginning and an ending. You cant have a heart attack and die 6 weeks later from the heart attack. You can die 6 weeks later from damage (ie complications) from the heart attack be it heart failure, secondary infection, vascular damage, etc etc. Just like in a traffic collision, there is a beginning and an ending. Or a stroke. These are all events.

Cancer, ALS, MD, MS, all of the neurological diseases (Alzheimer's, dementia, Parkinson's) are not events. They are progressive diseases. They all have different types of complications from toxic medicine to secondary infections (typical) to disruption of bodily process. However, several of them can directly kill you as you say by a tumor in the case of cancer causing a stroke or otherwise direct damage to the body.

Remember event v. progressive disease. I have used "complications with cancer" many times when the source directly attributes the cause to the complication and not the cancer. However, you are making the assumption that there is a choice there. Many times the source will simply say "cancer" with no other information. Without that info, we just use cancer as the CoD. It is not a choice but simply what we have to choose from source wise. We cant make assumptions and any decision we make should be based on facts from sourcing.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my "complaint". I agree with Hulk: simple "heart attack" is preferable to any mention of complications. Our source doesn't mention any "complications". Technology merely prolonged the inevitable. May the great footballer rest in peace. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC to re-define meaning of "recent deaths"

Interested editors may wish to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Recent_deaths. Another editor is seeking to redirect Recent deaths from Deaths in 2014 to Lists of deaths by year. The effect of that move will be to re-define "recent deaths" to include all deaths going back to 1987. I have attempted to explain to the nominator that the gnomes here will continue to increment Deaths in 20nn each year. I do not know why he is so persistent about the change. Readers interested in RECENT deaths do not need to be directed to a landing page where they need to make a further selection. The change is likely to lose readers of this page who cannot be bothered navigating here. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was closed as "keep". Thanks to all who offered an opinion. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Harry Whittaker

I've added the child actor Harry Whittaker twice but he has been removed by WWGB who claims he is not notable enough despite that the death has been reported in several major newspapers and according to the wikipedia guidelines a person is considered notable if the death has been covered by several media sites and that is enough notablity for me. What do you others think? Notable or not? DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

His life should be notable. Everybody dies. It's not an accomplishment or unique quality. And that link below me is confusing, but that's a different issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So what is the basis for his notability? Clearly not his "acting" as he fails WP:NACTOR. Is it his death? If so, would we list him as "English child"? Death of a child is always sad; it's just not notable in this case. There will never be an article Death of Harry Whittaker. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was anyone's life should be notable before we include them. I agree with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

So how come murder victims for example counts as notable? Despite that the only thing that made them notable was their death. DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Because victims of a well-documented historic event (eg Murder of James Bulger) satisfy WP:CRIME. In such cases it is the circumstance of the death, not the person, which is notable. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Interlanguage link template use

Hi folks, I recently made an edit adding an interlanguage link to Jan Wiese. The edit was subsequently reverted by CAWylie with the explanation "That's not what's done on this page". Why not? -- RobLa (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

valid point, enwiki is the UNIVERSAL wiki of wikimedia, we should allow for links to deceased people from other wikis, not everyone has an article on enwiki but everyone notable do have articles on other wikis..we may need to discuss this further and i fully support the linkage of names from other wikis provided that person doesn't have an article on this wiki..--Stemoc (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The simplest answer is because such edits are subsequently reverted. Not just not done, but undone on this page.

Is there a way to make it clearer what "(no)" or any other interlanguage link means to people used to the old way? If so, I'd support redoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, Stemoc and InedibleHulk! InedibleHulk, I'm not sure if there's an easy way to make modifications. I used Template:Ill, which has a fixed format. There is also Template:Link-interwiki, which superscripts the language code, like so: Jan Wiese. I'm new to these particular templates, so I'm not sure if there are others or any tricks that could be used with these templates. Your question might be a good one for Template talk:Ill-- RobLa (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That superscript looks better already. Anything to distinguish it from a regular English word, linked to a regular blue article. I'd click "no" to find out why not, and suddenly have more questions than answers. It'd be nice to get a mutually beneficial global harmony here, but in an orchestra, the oboists can't be reading the horn parts. Rainbows take practice. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's correct that interlanguage links have not been reported here before. The consensus here is that the deceased must have a Wikipedia article (assumed to be in English) prior to or one month after death, or the death listing is removed. This was done to stop the list being dominated by people for whom notability had not been established. RobLa has raised an interesting concept that Wiese has an article in another Wiki language (Norwegian), so his notability has been established. Of course, it would be much simpler if an English language article or stub was written for Wiese, which would remove the need for any intervention. The question for the editors here is whether the demonstrated existence of a Wikipedia article in another language satisfies the requirement to remain listed here. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well a link could allow someone to create an article on it in English on enwiki, we still do not have a global search option (apart from google search ofcourse) and I never liked the one-month rule especially for notable people who are removed from the list because no one bothers to create an article on them even though they may have an article on them on another language wiki..as mentioned above, we are the universal wiki so we have to find ways of incorporating links from our smaller language wikis as well..--Stemoc (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been times in the past where I have gone out of my way to turn a redlinked non-English listing into an article, if someone is listed more than three times when searched for (usually by clicking the "search" link) in the Create instructions. If not, I don't bother. I think this is the reason someone lists it here. Having the non-English article parenthetics after someone's name is fine with me, if other regulars don't mind and/or this becomes a standard. This just adds more to the "to-do" list, which includes removing redlinks/redirects, on that 37th day, of which I don't participate. The parenthetics look odd, might possibly get out of hand, but, if the cleanup crew doesn't mind inclusion, I don't mind either, even though it will add to the load times in the wee days of a new month. As with the full cites, it's more about this than fashionable inclusion to me. (Note: Can you imagine one-season reality show stars from X country being added because X-lang wikis think he/she is notable?)— Wyliepedia 08:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Wyliepedia. I can hold off on adding more if the cleanup crew needs time to weigh in (though I'm not sure who is on it). As for the peculiarity of parenthesis, I agree that it's a little odd, though I can't think of anything that would be better (maybe a more verbose link wrapped in a <ref></ref>, but that seems like an abuse of the tag). Regarding how this would add to load times, I'm curious what you're referring to there. -- RobLa (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can be on a cleanup crew, but it's usually one or two on the monthly page who remove redlinks and redirects. As for load times, I suppose it would not make much difference than any other redlink, except for formatting of the parenthetics after the name. I suppose I'm thinking longterm and the onus being placed on someone who speaks both languages (or has a good online translator) to translate the entries for the en-wiki. If that never happens, then it's extra work for the cleanup crew to remove it. (Example: I know it's only been a few days but Jan Wiese is still red, even without the parenthetics.) The extra tagging may not even matter in some instances. — Wyliepedia 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up

I notice that a few interlanguage links (ILL) are starting to appear against English language redlinks.

Is it reasonable to assume that:

1. The interwiki link can be removed once an English language article is written?
2. A redlink with an ILL will survive after the one-month amnesty since an article in ANY wiki language demonstrates notability? WWGB (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually went through tonight just to see how many redlinks would be affected and what would happen when an article was written. There were actually quite a few that I found with links to Espanol and Francois Wiki. I would say that it would be safe to remove the ILL designation after an article is written as long as the notation is made on the new page to the other Wiki (to help prevent the Deletion crowd from gaining sway...or the no fun police as I call them). As for your other question, I will let someone else weigh in on it- I am on the fence on that one. Funny thing is there apparently is a huge soccer contingent among the Espanol Wiki writers, so every soccer player from here on out should have already have at least an Es Wiki page. But I do have an additional question. What happens if there is more than 1 Wiki represented. Lets say we have an Austrian soccer player that dies and he has pages on Francois, Deutsche and Espanol Wiki but no English Wiki. Do we designate it with all 3 (FR, DE, ES) or do we choose 1? Dont have an answer for that one either.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

MH-17

I went ahead and added the Airplane Disaster notation to today's date in preparation. The last time we had to use it was May 17 (2 months ago to the date) for the Laotian military jet that crashed. 280 passengers and 15 crew members were aboard. Once they get the Disaster page settled and up for Wiki, we can hotlink the notation to it. But it is being worked on currently. Sunnydoo (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And I see Randor is in a snit this morning and has taken it down. Hopefully someone will rescue it later today instead of us having airplane crash listed 50x. Try to be pro-active and this is what happens. The best laid plans of mice and men...Sunnydoo (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit summary, how do you know there were notable people on the flight? The number of casualties are still not known, let alone the identities of those on board. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

280 passengers and 15 crew members = 295. It will be the largest loss of life in an Airplane Crash It will be the 2nd largest, 346 people were killed on a Turkish flight in 1974. It was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur both of which are major international hubs in addition to their own country hub. The chance that there are more than 3 notable people on board is very high because of these factors. It is not some small plane flying inter-country or even regionally. This is a major international incident and there is going to be heck to pay if it was shot down as the news services are now reporting.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Currently just another plane crash. Until we get more info about who died (and their notability) and or if it was actually shot down, it doesn't warrant inclusion on the page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Two notables listed amongst the dead so far, good (and sad) to see the disaster listing mode has been enacted. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Are all titles equal?

I changed the "Sir Nick Scheele" pipelink to plain Nick Scheele, remembering when Nelson Frazier, Jr. died and the consensus seemed solid for using the common name (article name). But apparently "Sir" is cool.

But then we have Lynda Patterson, not The Very Reverend Lynda Patterson. And there are doctors here without "Dr." attached, and Vice Admirals, too. So are only noble titles allowed, or are these oversights? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I would say the simplest and best policy would be to list their by whatever their Wikipedia page says (if they have one). Since that is usually sans title, then that would be the default standard. Any titles will be mentioned in the notability description if they truly are of significance. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Noble titles, knighthoods and royalty are a separate distinction from professional titles.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This whole area has been a sore point for many years. Some of the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2008 archive: Honorific prefixes. It seems that the current understanding is that a special case is made for Sirs/Dames to have their title attached to the first use of their name. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Skimmed through it. Still seems to me that making a special case for any one group isn't the neutral thing to do. But if anyone deserves special treatment, I guess it logically should be the privileged. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an ages old argument revolving around the Divine Right of Kings. Wiki more than likely isnt going to solve it. I understand that the more recent political philosophies (ie Communism, Socialism and Libertarianism) where all things are created equal are opposed to it (and for the record I am a Libertarian myself). However, it is what it is. There are several old tribal and kingdom based societies in this world. You cant simply tell them that their opinion on the subject is wrong, because thats not neutral either.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If omitting the "Sir" from our modern online society here can be seen as telling the upper crust they're wrong, omitting "Doctor" or "Father" or "General" should likewise be telling the medicine, religion and war societies they're wrong. If we tell everyone their acquired names aren't special, that's fair.

Wikipedia can change if we want it to. I've played a hand in decapitalizing bird names for the ornithologists, and (hopefully) helped the drive to start calling ships "it", to the chagrin of the sailors. Part of a good compromise is all sides leaving feeling like they lost. And key to neutrality is compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Doctors, Generals, etc etc are also members of the upper society which is what your rant seems to be against. Clergy have their titles in the description...Nationality, Type of Prelate, Titular office is the standard form for Clergy, so I dont know why you keep bringing that up. For the Supreme leaders of a religion, such as the Pope where their divine right comes from God itself, those titles are also used at the beginning.

As for Generals, most distinguished Generals in the British Empire have a Knighthood or Noble title in addition to their regular title of General. Their office is also listed if it is available in Wiki (and most time it is not) with the standard form Nationality, military or naval officer, General/Commander/Admiral of ---. I dont think a compromise is going to be made. There simply isnt grounds for it as it is the philosophy of several traditional types of society in the world. Professional titles simply do not equate to Noble titles. That is one reason in the Middle Ages, there were 2 different forms of upper society in Europe- Nobility and Gentry. One based on blood and service to the Royals, the other based on personal achievement and service to society in general. Sure there are many instances where 1 side may have crossed over and represented both sides, but the society as a whole was based this way.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in their description. But like I said to start, we just call her Lynda Patterson, because that's what her article's titled. Same with Admiral Charles Larson. If we were being fair, we'd list plain Nick Scheele, then say he was a manafacturing executive and knight. If you insist Wikipedia is somehow still connected to those sorts of faded societies, I'll defer to you, since you do more work here than I do and I'm more a meritocracist. But it's an odd idea, for deaths in 2014. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Air Algiers Flight 5017 down

Rumor has it Fidel Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela Castro may be onboard as it went down in Mali with 116 people on it. A lot of Western Europeans and Canadians aboard, so there is potential here for notablility.[4]Sunnydoo (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lynda Patterson

A 40-year-old white woman dies in New Zealand of "natural causes"? Do forty-year-old people in developed countries die of "natural causes"? I don't think so. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

She had an unstated long term illness- which is natural causes. The family wanted the death released this way. Until we have other info, that is the way it should be listed as it is directly from the source. Natural causes could be anything from a heart condition to diabetes to a long term disease.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "natural causes" differs from mine. It's not natural to die at age 40. Our life span is three score and ten. Heart conditions and diabetes are not "natural" – most people don't have them. If you have a source saying "undisclosed long-term illness" then that should be listed as the CoD. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it would be natural. Hell, dying of cancer should be considered natural causes. Unexpected doesn't mean it can't be natural. Correctron (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes your definition is wrong. There are several places I can point you to as far as filling out a Death Certificate and the definitions involved (the CDC is probably the best resource there), but here is an article that represents the British side of thing as your "score" terminology seems to represent (that is a term that hasnt been used in the US for 50+ years). [5]. There is actually a 5th classification in the UK and the US as well. In the UK, it has to be an inquest finding, but "Unexplained" is their term for it. In the US, it is usually termed "Unknown" causes and is usually a provisional distinction until toxicology reports are returned. A very small % end up that way.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Coroner's Handbook, if anyone is interested in it. [6]Sunnydoo (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A quicker read with no download required is Death by natural causes. 99.192.74.69 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. "Natural causes" is a catch-all phrase coroners use to categorize any death which is not a suicide, a homicide, by accident or by misadventure. A death by natural causes can occur at any age. Thank you all for setting me straight. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address, if anyone is interested. Sic semper tyrannis! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the reference, however the term is archaic in the US because it does not express exactness. One of those phrases like "2 bits" that are gone from the lexicon now.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The numbers 20 and 25 seem exact to me—your mileage may differ. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead

The lead states: "Deaths of notable animals and other organisms are also reported here if they first have their own article" (emphasis added). Everyone who works on this page knows that this statement is not true. We always have that perpetual discussion about red links, etc. In fact, I believe the red link issue is even mentioned in the FAQ of this Talk Page above. So, we need to have better wording. It looks quite silly to start an article with that statement. Then, a reader looks down at the article and sees multiple red links. That is akin to us (editors) saying (to the readers): "All of the names on this list have a Wikipedia article, so go ahead and click on any name you like to see that person's article. Oh, sorry, that person actually doesn't have an article, even though we said he did. Oh, sorry again, that other person also doesn't have an article, even though we said he did. Etc. Etc. Etc." It is quite silly to have an article's content directly contradict what the lead "promises" and explicitly states will be found in that article. Also, why does this lead prefatory statement single out "animals and organisms" (that must first have a Wikipedia article), but excludes "regular people" from the same criteria? Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I just did a very quick count. There are nearly one hundred red links, as the article now stands. (I quickly counted 92 or 93.) This is a significant number. And the month isn't even close to being finished. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly never even noticed that before. I agree that needs to be fixed. Honestly just removing seems to be fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did remove it. I was reverted by User:WWGB, who is a "regular" on this page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, you misread the passage. The page lists people who are notable or possibly notable even if they do not have their own Wikipedia page, but it only lists animals (like race horses or movie dogs) and organisms (like the tree named "Washington" or other plants) if they already have a page. You should revert the change. The text was correct as it was. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, exactly that was part of my question above. What is the distinction between people and non-people in terms of red links? We have agreed that there are some people that don't have a Wiki page (thus, a red link), yet they still may – or may not – be notable. So, they are allowed a listing on this page for 30 days. (Even though they do not have an article, that does not mean that they aren't notable. This gives us 30 days to start the article.) So, how and why are the other entries (animals, organisms, etc.) different? Why are they "singled out"? The general philosophy about allowing red links is rather well-founded. But why does that philosophy/rationale not apply to any other entity that might be placed on the list? If there is an animal that is notable, for whom an article has not (yet) been created, why are they not allowed a red link? This makes no sense. It's tantamount to saying: an animal (organism) can only be notable before they die. They can never be notable after they die. Why are they treated differently than the red-linked humans? What about the general philosophy and rationale suddenly changes when we are talking about an animal or organism, as opposed to a human? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

You started by quoting the line you wanted deleted and saying "Everyone who works on this page knows that this statement is not true". That is only a conclusion you could draw if you did not understand the passage, because the statement is true. You then went on to talk about red links for people. Then you followed up with another comment on red links for people. It was that part of your comment I was responding to. If you want to propose a change in policy to allow red links for animals and plants or to disallow red links for people, go ahead. I do not know the reasons that were used in the decision to make the policy what it is (I was not involved in any of those discussions), but I like the current policy as is. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 99.192 is right. I misread. The consensus on the page was that non-humans must first have an article to establish notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I am asking why? What's the distinction? We have concluded that all notable animals (organisms) already have an article, and no new ones will ever be added. If they are to be added, it cannot be after death; it must be before death. So, what makes the argument advocating red links different for animals than for humans? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"We have concluded that all notable animals (organisms) already have an article, and no new ones will ever be added." That makes no sense. We have made no such conclusion. The policy on this page says noting about whether or not new articles can be created for animals or plants that either are now notable but have no article, or that will become notable in the future. The policy is just saying that the article must come before their death can be listed here. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on WP:WTAF. You can make an article after the being has died, as I did with Eisenhower Tree. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. And, once again, what is the difference between humans versus animals? What about the underlying rationale and philosophy of the "red link rule" is applicable to humans, but not applicable to animals? Or is it just some random and arbitrary rule/distinction that Wiki editors created? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

All rules are obtained through consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for not being human-biased on Wikipedia, but every discussion I have about it turns into a headache. So I'll just say I think redlinks should either stay or go for all. Period. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Some background: when animals started to be listed here (I think Lonesome George was the first), some editors objected that we should not mix other species with humans. Others thought that notable animals were just as worthy of listing. Then we started to get entries for football mascots and store cats. It was agreed that, to keep the number of animals under control, that deceased fauna and flora must have an article before it can be listed here. That has been the "consensus" ever since, and seems to be working quite well. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the background to this. It makes sense to some degree. This is not that big of an issue to me, as I don't frequent this page much anymore. It just seems to me that the rules should be consistently applied to all entries on the list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

...until now, apparently. — Wyliepedia 07:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

CAWylie - Lede or lead are fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links to language with different writing system

Can anybody tell me how to interwiki link to an article in a language that does not use the alphabet? I tried, for example, to link Makoto Sakuma's entry (July 18) to the ja.wiki article. His name is written in Japanese 佐久間一. Where do I have to write the Japanese name in the template {{link-interwiki|en=Makoto Sakuma|lang=ja}}?--Mycomp (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I was fooling around with it also and couldnt get it to work. Someone may need to tinker with it to accept the Chinese, Japanese and Korean alphabet. The other issue I was working on that would be nice would be double linking to multiple Wikis. For instance ^^^^ up there is a German dude that has a De and Ru Wiki page. The current formula only accepts 1 and not the other...i tried to see if it would take lang=de|lang2=ru for instance and it would not. That would be something else on the wish list.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can get Makoto Sakuma linking correctly using {{ill|ja|Makoto Sakuma|佐久間一}} but I cannot work out how to get the language name to appear as a superscript. Maybe we are better off using this template as it caters simply for language differences. WWGB (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I put one in for the baseball player tonight. I also updated the Salvadoran football player using the model as you can tell this function exactly which page to link to in the other wiki. I dont mind using both functions for their intended purpose with 1 being the default and 1 being used in a needed case by case situation. However there are some format police out there that might be a little grumpy about it.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Red link entries clarification

Should they be keep for 30 days, or if they are "judged" to be non notable, should they be removed prior to 30 days? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it was determined that borderline notable redlinks can stay, but if an article could obviously not be supported there's no sense in waiting. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the case you are talking about is the County Clerk one. I agree with WWGB that there is no notability there. County level officials in the US very rarely make the cut. Usually it is reserved for extremely large counties such as Cook and LA which hold several million people inside them and even then is only for the County Mayor, Sheriff and perhaps other heads of government if involved in a major disaster. (Even city mayors we hold a figure of 150k (or thereabouts) to be included on the list). Morris County, New Jersey does have close to 500k people in it- however a County Clerk just doesnt meet the case of notability. We dont even usually list the names of County Commissioners and a Clerk, while an elected official, is still well below that rank.

As for the process, if someone objects to the removal, they usually bring it to the Talk page to avoid an Edit War and state their case. The opposing person also makes their point. It is usually weighed in upon until a consensus is reached one way or the other.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And for those outside the US, there are 4 levels of government- National, State and Local. Local is split into 2 categories: City and County, which is a holdover from the Commonwealth system. Depending on local laws, usually 1 or the other has jurisdiction over the other and sometimes it is hard to tell which is where. Added to this goofiness there is another system in the US which started in Nashville called Metro government which combines both branches of Local government. And in Louisiana, the French parish system is in place for local government. Got all that? Going to be a quiz later. Also link for US County populations to give you an idea of what would be notable County wise.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sunnydoo, thank you for that explaination. This was more of a general question, even though there was a recent removal which I wasn't really questioning. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

locked

How am I supposed to add someone when the article is locked? What happened to you wiki :( you used to be cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.119.49 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Several things. First if you become a registered normal user, you do have the ability to add to Wiki. Secondly the lockout was done because of repeated vandalism of the page and is an actual benefit to users. If you do not wish to join, you can start an article topic like you did on the Talk page and one of the regulars will come by and add it in for you. It is helpful if you provide a newspaper source when you make the request so that it can be verified quickly.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing of a Libertarian bent. If you become a user and use https (which Wiki supports), no one will ever know that you come from Washington. Ooops.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable death of a non-notable person

What is the policy on this page when the death itself is notable but the decedent is not? For example, see Shooting of Michael Brown. Do these types of deaths get listed on this page or not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not typically. It is one of the reasons I had a problem with the botched execution listing. As WWGB says, if they arent notable in life why so in death? Just because they are in a plane when it crashes, happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they do something stupid and get killed because of it, that shouldnt make the notability cut. Is it sad or tragic? Yes, but this is more about people (and other lifeforms) that make notable contributions. There are a couple of side death projects that track weird or otherwise untimely death.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another example I used when this came up last is the 2 Israeli and American teenager that was murdered by Palestinian militants. Look what they started. Their deaths were notable because it started the War, but does anyone remember the victims name- weeks, months or years on? I believe an article was started because of the fray, but they were not listed on this page at the time.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic that we have never fully resolved in discussion. The article heading refers to "notable deaths" rather than "deaths of notable people". In that sense, we could be justified in listing [[Shooting of Michael Brown|Michael Brown]]. This did happen from time to time in the past. Just recently an editor went back through all the old death lists and removed any of the "Death of ....." entries on the basis that the deceased was not notable. Perhaps if a "Death of X" article survives deletion, and there is no article on "X", then a death listing may be allowed? Interested in the opinion of others. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't fully decided one way or the other. There are good arguments on both sides. I would lean toward allowing on this page the listing of notable deaths of non-notable people. There are some counter-arguments to Sunnydoo's post above. First, as stated by WWGB, this is a page about "(Notable) Deaths in 2014"; it is not a page about "Deaths of Notable People in 2014". Second, clearly the purpose and tenor of the page is about deaths, and it seems a bit nit-picky (and semantic gymnastics) to say that the death was notable but the decedent not. I think most readers would expect to find notable deaths (of non-notable people) on this page. Third, there are some people who are notable only for their death; subsequently, they do become notable (even though it is because of their death). So, correct, nobody will remember the names of the Israeli and American teenagers murdered by Palestinians. But, pretty much everyone remembers the names of people such as: Trayvon Martin, Laci Peterson, Ron Goldman, the Manson Murder victims, Kitty Genovese, the Black Dahlia, etc., etc., etc. These people were not notable before death; they became notable after their death and in fact because of their death. Nonetheless, they are notable, regardless of the timing of the notability. In the list I just posted, none of those names are "forgotten" (like the Palestinian murder victims). In any event, we should have some consensus and some policy. Lord knows this page has a million other "rules" attached to it. This seems like a rather germane subject about which to have a "rule" and consensus. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the Manson murder and intended victims were already known. That is what caused the shock. Sharon Tate had already won a Golden Globe for Valley of the Dolls. The problem I have with your argument regarding people like Martin is that you have to project that it will have notable consequences going forward, which causes us to make an assumption. And you also have to make a value judgement on the Press (4th Estate) that is involved and whether or not there are other circumstances on why they are reporting such things and the angle that they are reporting. Its just not an easy thing to see in the present tense many times.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Take the present example, what exactly is the notability of the case? An unarmed teen who robbed a store, got shot by a police officer. It is a tragic event, that led to other events, but really where is the notability going forward at? What possible changes are going to happen because of it? People are still going to rob other people and police officers still have their duty to uphold the law. At what point does the rioting become notable? I would argue that only when civil resistance gets to the point where the National Guard has to go in, is where the notability would come in. Otherwise it is a local event just getting a little national coverage. It goes back to the famous and infamous and notable argument we had. One can be famous and not notable, one can be infamous and not notable and someone cant be famous or infamous and very notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as the Manson murders, I am speaking of all the other victims (the LaBianca's, etc.). (Clearly, Tate was notable prior.) Who knows how "notable" Trayvon Martin's name will be in 10, 20, 50 years? No one knows. The fact is, though, that he is notable now, today. Kitty Genovese's name is notable today from a murder back in the 1960's. That's 50+ years. Same goes for the Black Dahlia (1947). Even Ronald Goldman and Laci Peterson were – relatively speaking – many years ago, at this point. There is no denying that these are basically common house-hold well-recognized names. I just thought of another: Martha Moxley. Also, the very first line of this article (i.e., the lead) states: "This is a list of notable deaths." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just read a bit more about Moxley last night. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If this article were only about notable deaths in the strictest sense, the page would be relatively blank. Heart attacks, pneumonia, strokes, traffic collisions, etc. are not notable and occur every day.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. You are confusing the word "death" with "cause of death". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still fine with either. I remember Jennifer Strange's name because of the strange way she died. She wasn't a notable person, but had a notable death. Michael Brown was just a regular brown kid, but those three facts made his death all the more notable. Lauren Bacall just had a mundane stroke. There's nothing much to say about that, and her name isn't a pun. But that insignificant stroke capped off a highly notable life, so it too was bigger than itself. It's the whole package that counts, not life or death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The National Guard while we were prattling on has just been called out by Missouri's Governor and curfews have been put in place. And Michael Brown was not a "regular brown kid." The majority of African-American kids out there are not implicated in thefts. It is a stereotypical myth put forward by the nonsense on American television today.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as a regular brown kid. Or brown regular kid. Nothing like a "typical ____" comment. Three separate things gave this story widespread traction: His age, his race and his association with the 99%. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it now appears he was implicated in jaywalking, not theft. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Actually, it was robbery, not "theft". And it was all caught on video. What more do we need? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant implicated by the officer who killed him. Seems he didn't know about a robbery/theft yet. What more do we need for what? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So, is there an consensus on this issue? That is, whether or not we are to list in this article the notable deaths of non-notable people? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If we start listing notable deaths, I will retire from this page. 600 listings a month are enough. If anyone wishes to start a "Notable deaths in XXXX" page, more power to 'em. — Wyliepedia 17:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. This is the "Notable deaths in XXXX" page. The first sentence in the lead: quote, This is a chronology of notable deaths in 2014, end quote. Which is why I brought this up for consensus at this Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the grist mills again. [7], [8], [9]. — Wyliepedia 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You typed in several links. I did not see any consensus or final decision. Did I miss it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"For instance, words like complete, and notable are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to widely known or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles). " –WP:LIST#List naming If the lead needs changing, then let's discuss that. But currently the page is a list of deaths of notable people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, at a minimum, the lead needs to be more clear. I'd also suggest that the article needs a new title. But, first, we still need consensus on the issue above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

YOU still need consensus. Everyone else appears to be fine with how it is now. If you read this and you're not, speak up. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus above at all. What do you see? "Everyone" is fine with it? Where do you get that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

When I said I'm fine with either, I meant fine with either sort of notable death being included, not fine with either system. Regular Joes with notable deaths should be listed, provided they're central. We shouldn't list everyone aboard a notable plane crash, but if the stories are about a pilot who crashed on purpose, we should list him. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny how Joseph A. Spadaro managed to edit the text in the main page article to "This is a chronology of deaths of notable people in 2014." without any consensus at all ! I actually totally agree and prefer this wording. However, given the editor's insistence on some sort of Wiki wide agreement to any changes, I find this unilateral alteration somewhat amusing.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amusing, how so? This thread was to seek consensus on whether or not the notable deaths of non-notable people should be included in this list. We were not seeking consensus about the wording of the lead. In fact, I thought others in the above discussion agreed that the lead's wording needed to be changed to reflect what the article contains. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are only listing notable people, your lead is much clearer about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks...

...is gone again. — Wyliepedia 04:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The term of the word misleading and it's application to awards

This is an issue I've noticed, and since I was insulted by User:WWGB rather than actually given an answer, I'll bring it here: I don't find it misleading to put entires like this:

Example: *Tommy Lee Jones, 68, American Oscar-winning actor (The Fugitive, Captain America: The First Avenger, No Country for Old Men).

in. There's no implication that Jones won Oscars for all those roles. It's merely addressing he's won an Oscar. The way entries are submitted, with the insistence of adding accolades, greatly hinders the ability to add their more notable roles. Rosemary Murphy was in way more notable films and shows than Eleanor and Franklin. Rusted AutoParts 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do find it misleading. A parenthetical list refers to the preceding statement. Jones was not "Oscar-winning" for all of those roles. There are better ways of reporting notable roles, including awards, without misrepresentation. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's you. Not everyone sees things that way. Rusted AutoParts 12:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not just WWGB. I also find that your suggested wording is likely to mislead readers. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How so? The overall statement is that they're an award winning person. Take Robin Williams. He's won awards for acting and comedy. How does it deceive anyone by the films listed afterwards? Obituaries use that type,of sentence all the time. "Robin Williams was an Academy Award winning actor known for his roles in Aladdin, Dead Poets Society and Good Will Hunting". It's stating a fact. It's not stating Williams won for those three films. People are a bit smarter than you give them credit for. Rusted AutoParts 12:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it's misleading and/or inappropriate. The parenthetical statement (i.e., the list of three movies) refers back to the previous description of "Academy Award-winning". So, the way that it is listed above directly indicates (it more than merely implies) that he won Oscars in those three films. I assume there can be some better wording to espouse the fact that he is an Oscar winner and to list some of his more notable non-Oscar roles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this: American film actor (film 1, film 2, film 3) and Oscar winner (film 4). It's not the greatest, but it's better than nothing. It's unambiguous and it gets all of the points across. The only "problem" I see is that is (kinda/sorta) implies that the Oscar was not as an actor, but perhaps in some other category (e.g., director or such). Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is similar to what we had before all of this started [10]. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading? Inappropriate? It's really sad you guys think people are that dumb, I honestly don't see any deceit here, but whatever. Continue with this unnecessary long and messy way of running things. Rusted AutoParts 06:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Compromise?

• Ann B. Davis, American actress (The Bob Cummings Show, The Brady Bunch), Emmy winner (1958, 1959). Rusted AutoParts 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That compromise is not bad. I'd prefer to see which work (TV show) she won the Emmy for. But, I can live with the compromise. Aside from the case of Ann B. Davis, we need to be consistent with all other entries as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the year can be suitable to address the show in question. The link leads to the winners list, and will offer to readers the appropriate information. Rusted AutoParts 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all that. I would prefer the name of the show; but I can live with this version of a compromise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Could we please leave visitors' intelligences and presumptions out of this? As far as "length" of entries, what does it matter, if they are globally known but their awarded work isn't?— Wyliepedia 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The original post was indeed misleading. The way it was written could have easily been mistaken for winning Oscars for all three movies. That is how I would also interpret it. Correctron (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

2005 in deaths

Taking a peek through that years list, I noticed how outdated it is, format and info wise. A majority of the entries have no source. Would anyone want to help me try and spruce it up? Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Added Pez Whatley's age. Removed wrong name and "former" bit. Apparently he was confused with a Pistol Pete. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A new Reflinks tool

Here is a new Reflinks tool. Have yet to test it on this page. — Wyliepedia 23:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have used this elsewhere. I think it only provides full cites (cite web) so its output may require pruning to get back to our simple cite format. Good to see Zhaofeng provided the tool when others appear to have sabotaged the Reflinks project. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Shades of days past, when a previous version gave us full cites. I'll use it on mass edits, when and if they happen, otherwise I will simply open a cite and copy the ref title in. — Wyliepedia 01:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What specifically defines a 'Death'?

I know that this initially seems a silly question, but I have a specific reason for asking it.

Presently, a young Swedish model named Anna Maria Moström is listed upon the page here as having died on October 14th; all 'News' results for her which I have found note her as being brain dead (the cause being a tragic accident).

The crux of my thought on this is that as long as an individual still has a heartbeat and is breathing, whether through life-support or on their own, they're still (at the very least) clinically considered as being alive. There have been numerous well-known cases of people who have remained alive for years in a vegetative, brain-dead state who would not during that time have their name listed as a 'death' upon this page.

Thoughts, anyone? AtypicalMale (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

But she died on this date. It was reported on today. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Source? Just Googled her, and it seems she's braindead, but her heart's still beating. The latest story I read said she has "no realistic chance" of surviving and isn't breathing, but we typically wait till the machines are unplugged before listing someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Or wait, this translation seems to say the machines are off, and she's dead dead. In happier news, her organs will apparently save five or six people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO she should not even be listed. Reality contestants are not inherently notable. WWGB (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, I'm guessing that translating software probably isn't fine-tuned well enough to discern 'brain dead' from 'dead', though, so I think that it would be tricky to trust such as a 'source'.

For the overall premise of my question, though, I wasn't focusing upon this one specific instance; instead, I'm wondering about thoughts on the premise on the broad scale. Personally, I think that someone who's brain dead, but is still alive in the other senses of the word, shouldn't be considered as being 'dead' in the sense that this thread encapsulates. That's the main theme about which I'm hoping to see the thoughts and opinions of others, here. AtypicalMale (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the "Life support machines, shut down on Tuesday evening local time" part. Apparently, "aivokuolleeksi" means "brain dead" in Finnish, "kuollut" is plain "dead". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On this general topic there is a simple premise - you are either dead or alive - no grey areas. Daniel Defoe's, The Political History of the Devil, contained the original line of "Things as certain as Death and Taxes, can be more firmly believ’d.". Until a medical practionier describes you as dead, you are still alive. All sorts of euphemisms exist for the 'in-between', but this page needs to be certain of the sources reliability before posting. This is irrespective of the personage's supposed 'notability', as WWGB so correctly notes.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Iltalehti seems popular, but not sure of reliability. Also Finnish, not Swedish. My mistake. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also of the mind that one isn't dead until the toe is tagged. — Wyliepedia 04:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

According to War Machine's lawyer, he was "pretty much dead" earlier this week. But no, that doesn't count here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar

WWGB brought up the valid point that Anna Maria Moström et al. shouldn't be listed here. If you notice, her article redirects to her only, um, notable claim to fame. I've removed other similar "reality contestants" before, but will leave this one, as a redirect was created. Hopefully, we all know what happens if nothing further is added to those. — Wyliepedia 04:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, eternal oblivion. Even with the redirect, the link's mostly red. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)