Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Change over from Deaths in 2014

I am just annotating a link here, showing that we will continue to not include the seven-day "overlap" period for December as we do for the other months.--John Cline (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Last year

Deaths in 2014 was the most-edited page in Wikipedia last year [1]. Keep up the good work! Happy new year, WWGB (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also we were the 4th most viewed page on en-Wikipedia; pat yourself on the back too WWGB.[2]--John Cline (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, take that, Ebola! — Wyliepedia 03:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

I just tried to correct the age of Tim Roberts, who died on the 6th. According to the article here on Roberts and the link reference, he was 38. The link states that they initially got the age wrong. I tried to edit it myself, but got nothing for the effort. Thanks UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with some gruntwork?

I've spent a fair bit of time figuring out which people are missing from the 2014 lists and formatting their articles, and I have a first batch ready. I have the date, article and a source, but it could be nice if somebody else would take the time to write the prose and insert them. Perhaps deleting the entry from the list would be the best way to make sure efforts aren't being doubled. If this collaboration works, I'll post more entries as I process them. Cheers, Star Garnet (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have struck out the ones that I have done. --Racklever (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Star Garnet (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on layout

How is it determined what names migrate over into the 'Deaths' section of a year. Ie: 2014 is broken down into Months with all the notable deaths listed with info next to the name, yet on the 2014 page itself, there's an overview of 'Deaths' listed, but not every name is listed. How is it determined who makes that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.236.208 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you can get of sense of how notable someone is by the size of their Wikipedia article and the variety of sources it's built on. You don't have to know much about The Ultimate Warrior to see he was no Monte Olsen. Safe to assume more people have heard of Johnny Winter than Burkhardt Öller. If the Twitter tributes themselves feature in a mainstream news piece, they should be mentioned here for the year. Some people are reasonably debatable, some clearly famous and some undoubtedly obscure. Feel free to add the first two kinds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

On 2015#Deaths the dead must have an article in at least 10 different Wikis to be listed. On Deaths in 2015 we list anyone with (or deserving of) an article. We are not nearly as elitist as that other mob. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We're simply "gods" here. — Wyliepedia 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And inestimably modest, it seems..... 86.112.58.46 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability not inherited

I strongly disagree on the strict policy not to mention that someone is related or married to another person. When the world's tallest man died, it wasn't just mentioned that he was a farmer, also the trivia that he was quite long was included. However, when Obama's aunt died, not a single word of the real reason she was known was mentioned. Same goes for a president's widow who recently died. How come some trivial knowledge is accepted, but not relations, which is just as useful knowledge? Nukualofa (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Start here and work your way forward for Hillary. You will see that Ireland has no "First Lady" honorific, so listing her as anything but will be yanked eventually. Personally, I feel leaving her as a "doctor" could also be questionable as she was (simply) an anaesthetist. No further occupational notability can be found. However, because she was married to a man who was president for a time keeps her here. As for the tall farmer, record books and articles thereabouts have been written. Any other relatives as such can be found in their links, if they have one. While we strive to be "encyclopedic", we also must strive to be concise. — Wyliepedia 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tall people inherit the blueprint, but they do all the eating and exercising till they peak. Not exactly a job, but a daily grind. Plenty of babies are given the ball, and don't run with it. Marriage is a plunge one takes, as well as is taken on. Different sort of grind, but still willfull work. Being related isn't doing related. Happens to anyone before they're born. But if a relative becomes succesful, they may have had a hand in it.

For a lot of us, these accomplisments won't be noted. When they are, that's what makes them notable. Not whether they're important, relative to anything.

Royal babies are the exception. They can theoretically end up on this list before they're even born. I think. Hopefully, the issue never comes up. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Now there's a new example. Johan Ferner was indeed an Olympic sailor, but he's more than anything known for one thing: Being married to Princess Astrid. An encyclopedic article that fails to mention that, simply fails. Nukualofa (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ferner's article describes him first as a sailor, with his royal spouse secondary to that. If he was not notable for sailing, would he have a WP article? I think not. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Norwegian Wikipedia article says: "Johan Martin Ferner was a Norwegian business man. He was most known as Princess Astrid's husband, but was also a noted sportsman, and won silver medal in sailing in the 1952 Summer Olympics." I believe if you ask the Norwegians, maybe one of ten knows about his sailing, but nine out of ten would know about his marriage. Princess Astrid is known as Princess Astrid Mrs Ferner. It's what he's known for. I'm Norwegian, and I've heard about this man my entire life, but his sports career is hardly ever mentioned.Nukualofa (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Skreddermester" is a great word, whatever it means. Thanks, Norway! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And how do I describe Arafat Rahman Koko ? --Racklever (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangladeshi convicted money launderer? WWGB (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of specifying "convicted". That's more the court's accomplishment, and seems a given, considering our BLP rules about allegations. But yeah, he apparently didn't do much other than launder money. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 deaths needing source

Need source:

Printed source cited:

• ? Micheline Albert
• 13-Jan Robert Heetmøller
• 16-Mar Saitō Satoshi
• 05-Apr Rolv Enge
• 19-May Grethe Johnsen
• 18-Jul Sjur Olsnes
• 11-Aug Martin Erler

No publication date

• ? James LaRue (sound engineer)

Deadlink?

• 02-May Aziz Naik (perhaps Aziz Malik?)

Unknown:

• 03-Jan Robert E. Lee Chadwick
• 05-Jan Khuplam Milui Lenthang
• 14-Mar Rhona Brown
• 16-Mar Rena Stratigou
• 02-Apr Kees Kooper
• 21-May Romano Albani
• 27-Jul Nikola Mollov
• 01-Sep Liaqat Ali Bangulzai
• 05-Nov Carmen Barajas Sandoval
• 05-Nov Hemchandra Kekre

I'm not sure what the policy is for printed sources, but I'm guessing somebody does. Any input or help is appreciated. Star Garnet (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

New format for article

Hi all,

I have a suggestion: how about the information from the article gets added into a wikitable, such as

Person	Notability	Cause of death

I think this will make the article easier to read, and it will be more organized. Robert4565 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Similar proposals have been put forward before. Such a table would have six columns (name, age, nationality, notability, COD, reference) and allowing for the maximum width of each column would likely exceed page width. Also, the page is edited by many inexperienced editors and following table coding would be beyond many of them. I'm happy with the status quo. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been around since 2006, and tables still find ways to confuse me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How much more organized can alphabetically by date of death/reported death/body discovered, as it is now, get??? — Wyliepedia 07:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But that assumes that a reader knows the specific date of death. Most readers are likely to know that "Mister Famous Celebrity died recently", without knowing the exact date. (See my comment below.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a great idea. That is, speaking from an aesthetic and a practical sense. (I can't speak to the technical sense – maximum page width or loading time, etc. – since I have no idea about such matters.) But, if the table was sortable, it would be very helpful. Just one example that can be answered in a sortable table, but not answered in the current list format: (Example) "I know that such-and-such person died in January, but I have no idea on what date." Basically, I have to scan each and every entry to find the one I am looking for. I assume a typical month has, what, several hundred deaths or so. I think that's a very realistic example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't using the CTRL+F keys on the existing list achieve the same outcome? WWGB (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Computer-literate types know what "Control-F" achieves. The vast majority of our readers have no idea what "Control-F" is or does, I'd venture to guess. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate WWGB's above statement here, the "vast majority" of those who do not know how to page-search most likely will fail at following a tabular format to add entries. It's bad enough to go behind and fix things as they are now. — Wyliepedia 07:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Sorry. Is the concern here (A) what the reader visually sees when reading the article (present bullet-list versus tabular)? Or is the concern (B) editors having a hard time editing, when adding new entries? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(C) What's best for everyone. Sometimes readers edit. Sometimes editors read. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Both. As WWGB's first comment states, a table would exceed boundaries on different viewer platforms. (They certainly do on small phone screens.) And there would likely be some housekeeping to fix ill-formatted entries. — Wyliepedia 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether feasible or not, I have no idea. I do think it would be good if the data were sortable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like too much hard work. Or a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest is not a valid cause of death.

Cardiac arrest is a condition of death, or at least near-death. It is caused by all the things that we normally list as causes of death. In the case of Rana Bhagwandas, he was being treated in hospital for a "heart ailment" at the time. Reasonable to assume whatever that was caused it. Even as vague as that description is, it's far more specific than "cardiac arrest".

Even when talking about "Sudden Cardiac Arrest", that covers deaths from heart attacks, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, Brugada syndrome, long QT syndrome, Wolff Parkinson White syndrome, mitral valve prolapse, recreational drug use, electrocution and chest trauma, among others.

It is Point B between an illness and death. If someone allegedly dies "from" cardiac arrest, the thing to do would be to find out what Point A was. There isn't a single dead person here whose heart contracts effectively or at all. They are all still in cardiac arrest. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm no medical expert, neither are most journalists. That is evident when the same person can be described as having died from a heart attack, cardiac arrest or heart failure, as if all the terms are interchangeable. As is always the case, we reproduce what is reported in reliable sources, which may not necessarily be the WP:TRUTH. The Express Tribune reported that "Rana Bhagwandas died after suffering a cardiac arrest". No, it does not state "from" but the meaning is still clear to me: the cardiac arrest killed him. If it is agreed that the cause of death for Bhagwandas was not cardiac arrest, it poses a greater question of what causes are acceptable to publish, or whether we should just abandon the inclusion of COD as it may largely be incorrect anyway. Over to others ..... WWGB (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not that it's exactly untrue to say someone died of cardiac arrest, just one of those things that go without saying. Like, we don't say John Lennon was an English human musician, even though multiple sources point out his humanity. That part's implied by how he lived. If we didn't know he was English, we'd settle for saying musician/poet/whatever, but we'd never resort to the one thing he shares with everyone else.

Newspapers have to meet deadlines, though, and if "cardiac arrest" is the best they have to go on, pending an autopsy or later story, that's more understandable. Many differences between the formats of news and encyclopedias. We need to take from them, but also apply it to us. We're not just a straight mirror. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Which Abdul Rauf died on February 9?

Ok, there seems to be an issue here. There are two Abdul Rauf's on Wikipedia: Abdul Rauf (Taliban governor) and Abdul Rauf Aliza. Both are listed as dying on February 9. Now, there are a few possible explanations:

• There were two Abdul Rauf's that happened to die the same day, the same way.

• One of them died, and the other is still alive and well.

• The two articles are for the same guy, and one needs redirecting into the other.

If anyone can help with this, that'd be great.

RAP (talk) 12:35 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going with C, same guy. Both were held at Gitmo Bay and given the same number, 108? Coincidence, I think not. — Wyliepedia 01:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Now it needs to be decided which article should be redirected to the other. I'm just amazed this even happened. I'm on a mobile device that crashes whenever I overuse it, so I can't move it myself. Could you or User:WWGB take care of it? RAP (talk) 23:33 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Abdul Rauf (Taliban governor)#Wrong person there were previously FOUR articles about the same person. Now it remains to merge the last two into one. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Four? Jesus, how the hell did that ever happen? RAP (talk) 1:15 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:OWN issue. I suspect each originator of each article knew darn well another (three?) existed. But would not let their 'baby' be over-shadowed by ?inferior? efforts. Seen that so many times. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Villa Castelli helicopter collision casualty format

March 9 bore witness to an accident that claimed the lives of 10 people. 3 of which have Wikipedia articles, and are therefore listed in that area. The chosen format is one i don't find to be necessary due to the amount of notable casualties. User:WWGB argues that it's been the way of doing it in the event of a multiple casualty event. This is true, but looking back, similar incidents saw a more significant casualty rate.

April 10, 2010 saw the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash happen. 96 casualties total, with 50 with Wiki articles, therefore justifying their inclusion.

September 7, 2011, 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster occurs. 44 casualties, with 28 having Wikipedia articles, therefore justify being included on the list.

The point I'm making is that there is a drastic difference in the amount of names listed in each section. There is of course the 8 who were killed in the Charlie Hebdo shooting, but there were 8, so i can understand. I don't really see the three people with articles who were killed in the helicopter collision really necessitate the format used in the aforementioned other cases.

Similar incidents occurred with three or fewer passing away and yet they aren't divided off in their own section:

• April 20, 2011, Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros are killed in the same mortar attack.
• February 4, 2012, Andrew Wight and Mike deGruy perish in the same helicopter crash.

It's just my personal opinion, giving the amount of names in that section, that the format isn't necessary for this particular incident. Thoughts? RAP (talk) 4:29 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a simpler format that avoids repetition of the nationality, event and citation. I think it's appropriate where multiple deaths occur in an event which is itself notable. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It groups together those who died, saving readers from having to look for any others who died in the same instant they are possibly not aware of. While this runs risk of someone adding separately before seeing the grouping, we should risk it. (That randomly happens anyway, especially in "date reported" cases.) It also reduces X amount of sources to just one, if they all are accounted for in that source. This also saves load times around the end of the month with 600-ish references to load. — Wyliepedia 04:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Consistency

So the French crash said "notable French people" but the German crash says "notable people". There should be consistency. I get that the first crash had only French nationals as notables but that shouldn't mean people get to be lazy.Correctron (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

wtf are you talking about? One had French-only deaths, one did not. WWGB (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

They are both crashes. Both should say "notable people" and nationality should be attached to the individual.Correctron (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So on this day we are supposed to write "French" eight times for the Charlie Hebdo victims? That would be pointless repetition. Wikipedia prefers concision. WWGB (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Writing "notable French people" literally means one should also expect at least a second list of another nationality.Correctron (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

When I read it, I just expect everyone after the colon to be notable and French. I think we could go with "notable German people", too, in this case. Even the Kazakh was technically a German. Changing his entry to "Kazakh-born opera singer" would help with conciseness. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Films

Is there a policy for what films should be listed when actors die? Tom Towles recently passed away. Should he be listed with minor roles in well-known pictures (The Rock, Halloween, Miami Vice), or bigger roles in lesser known pictures (Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Night of the Living Dead)?Nukualofa (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy. Some editors like to enforce their personal criteria, but IMO only award-winning roles (Oscar, Golden Globe, ...) should be listed. WWGB (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd expect to see biggest roles listed. More work, more personally relevant. Some small roles can be magnified by being replayed enough in cult classics. As long as they're exactly three, whichever they are is usually fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

One is good, too, but not applicable here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should be an award-winning film, unless they are known for a particular role in one. TBH, I didn't even know Mr. Towles' name, but I do remember Henry. — Wyliepedia 01:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

List Format

This is my first visit to this page via the "recent deaths" link on the front page. I have some suggestions for the format.

My intent in coming to the page was to check up on recent unfortunate losses of notable persons. Whilst meaning no disrespect to those listed, I feel that the list is overburdened with persons of note in highly specialized fields.

Whilst I do not advise removing them, and it would be a cause of unending friction to attempt to list them in order of the noteworthiness of their contributions, I do feel that it would be a good idea to be able to have deceased persons arbitrarily listed in order of relative fame (or infamy).

I therefore suggest that it would be a worthwhile effort to reformat the page, so that these kinds of lists can be reordered by last name, age, etc. and also to add to the criteria for each entry, the number of visits to the entrant's page within a given time frame.

Whilst this would not be a perfect or fair method of ordering the entrants to the list, it would give the reader the chance to filter the list in order of recent media coverage, (Wikipedia page visits being a fairly good gauge of a person's level of public attention).

Thanks for taking the time to read my suggestion.

Elliott Shanghai, China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.173.86.61 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not our place not duty to research every entry added or attempts to add them to check their page visits and list them here accordingly in that order. That falls under bias. A politician, actor, and athlete in one country is still a politician, actor, and athlete. — Wyliepedia 17:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is not our place - that is why I suggested that the process be automated (perhaps I wasn't clear about that). It's hard to find an entrant (specific or not) based on the current fields if they cannot be reordered according to an entrant's corresponding meta-data. If it were possible, then the information contained in the list would be more useful, more easily retrievable, of greater interest to readers and therefore make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

The entry format should simply include a piece of information, automatically derived from the number of visits an entrant received within a recent time frame. If the page visitor choses to click to order the list according to those data values, then that is their option. If for reasons of etiquette, it seems vulgar to include a number value, then the ordering can be done by default when reordering within each field.

It really is very hard to find persons on the list who are of wider fame in the current format, so if my solution is not the preferred one, then the issue still needs to be addressed in order to make the information contained on the deaths pages of the greatest possible value.

Noteworthiness based on page visit volume if possible should be automatically derived so that when ordering by any of the fields for an entrant, more note worthy entrants appear above less well recognized entrants.

e.g. I just reordered this list according to the "profession" category

Sir Terry Pratchett / 28 April 1948 / Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, England / Writer / etc

Joe Atkinson / 28 April 1948 / somewhere else / Writer / etc

and despite their sharing similar data in some fields, Terry Pratchett was listed at the top because he gets more visits to his WP entry. I think this would speed things up for most visitors who are not looking for a specific entrant, and also make it easier for people with specific interests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.173.86.61 (talk • contribs)

You say: "I think this would speed things up for most visitors who are not looking for a specific entrant, and also make it easier for people with specific interests". Therein lies the potential problem(s). By listing the "most visited" entries here as such, "most visitors" would then have to search for the particular entry they are looking for. By leaving it as is and alphabetized by date, this allows a quicker non-search-function scan to properly find whom visitors are looking for. For example, I come here daily (sometimes several times a day) just to see if anyone I might have heard of died, before I set to correcting edits. I'm a visitor first, editor second. A quick recent scan and I'm good to go. I personally think mixing all that up by "Most Popular Entrant" creates more work that most caretakers care to do. THEN, we would have to have non-frequent editors who randomly add their "specific entrant" to follow suit and figger out where their not-so-popular entry will lie. This isn't the Most Popular Deaths in 2015 page. Personally, I think your idea would create more headaches, but I appreciate and understand your input. — Wyliepedia 00:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not alone in clicking the links I find here specifically to learn about those I don't recognize. Popularity counts for many views, but do does curiousity, routine maintenance and clickbaiting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

again, it seems like we are in agreement in that the idea of doing this manually would be a headache. The information for each entrant should just be entered as a field in a database, which can be reordered (like many of the lists in wikipedia). The inclusion of a field which can give an indication of a persons likely popularity is an idea, which on reflection is dubious, which is why I think it should occur automatically within fields such as "month" for example, when that value is used to order the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.155.12.49 (talk • contribs) 09:05, April 13, 2015‎ (UTC−5)

Now you're getting into previously discussed formatting. — Wyliepedia 06:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unknown dates subsection as opposed to (death announced on this date)

What would be the downside to instituting this? I don't feel it correct to stick the name of the deceased into the day their death was announced should it become inaccurate. Simply gathering them in their own subsection articulated that the month they are listed in is the right month. Once we find the correct DOD, we can move them accordingly.

There are websites inaccurate listing people who've died as passing away the day the death was announced. RAP (User talk:Rusted AutoParts|talk]]) 20:52 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The process we apply, of listing unclear death dates with "death announced" or "body found", is the next-best thing to knowing the actual date of death. It is certainly more accurate than creating an amorphous group of the deceased in a "remainders" section. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. As long as the note is clear, we're not lying. If someone hears a news report about a famous doctor dying, forgets the name, but remembers hearing it about three days ago, that dead doctor will be easiest to find, whether he died that day or not.

Not a bad idea, but the current way is slightly better, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What of those who died months ago but are listed here? Like the three who died in a drone strike in January. Would it not be more accurate to move them there? RAP (talk) 23:16 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This source makes it clear that Warren Weinstein died on January 14, so his listing should appear there. Perhaps an accurate date can be found for Adam Yahiye Gadahn? Lo Porto is a redlink so his month is over. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Gadahn seems to be January 19, per Obama. But he also seems to have died before. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The hostage is a bit of a puzzler. On one hand, his month is up. On the other, he didn't get a month. On one hand, he didn't really do anything notable, played a passive role. On the other, Kayla Mueller was a similar sort and her article passed an AfD. On the other other hand, I don't think anyone will look for potential redlink articles on a page without redlinks, so it doesn't really serve much noticeboard purpose.

I think I lean toward deleting his entry entirely, but if anyone wants to try creating an article, here's a redlink. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir...

But there seems to be some disagreement on whether we should give fancy titles to British Lords and Ladies, and common names for everyone else. So, BRD.

I can't really explain the NPOV problem of it beyond what that last sentence said. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies does say to use them, but in the first sentence and infobox of that article. Whether it's fair to single them out there or not, it doesn't apply here.

Or does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give a toss about elitist knighthoods or damehoods, but we have always included them here so we need consensus to exclude them in the future. Some relevant information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorific titles WWGB (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No offense to those deserving of their titles, nor the countries that bestow them, but most of outside of their respective countries (and some possibly within) don't know them with or without the added honorific. I would be okay with piping these, unless their piped name becomes "Friedrich August Maximilian Wilhelm Carl Fürst zu Wied". — Sir Wyliepedia 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I implied as much, but count me in toward excluding them in the future. Or including the rest. Lost a Minister, Deacon, General and Vice-Chairman today. I think those are all more prominent positions than this "most junior and most populous order of chivalry". Just mentioning "Knight of Whatever Order" in their description would be best. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As for whether the listing here is an "initial reference", the wording suggests the guideline is only talking about the bio articles themselves. We don't have infoboxes here, and we don't bold the name, as the guideline asks. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Support exclusion. Just the common name please. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For Knighthoods etc confered by the British Isles the title ceases on death anyway so their no longer known by the honorific with respect to their inclusion here anyway. Amortias (T)(C) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that. Here it is applied in practice. [3] WWGB (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that settles that easier than voting would. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well knowing is half the battle isnt it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where Amortias got this from, but let me assure other editors that it is utter and complete drivel. What do we call the long-dead Sir Winston Churchill? We call him Sir Winston Churchill! Of course you cease being a knight when you die. You cease being anything when you die, except dead! But the title is most certainly still used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree with this pretty strongly. It's all very well to talk about elitism and fancy titles, but gee, check your POV there. (For the record, I fervently wish my own country would abolish the knight/damehoods we recently reinstated, but that's neither here nor there.) Our job is to reflect the sources. And the sources overwhelmingly refer to people as "Sir" or "Dame" in their obituaries, especially in the UK (in fact, I believe it's prescribed in almost all British style guides, and most Australian ones too going by the usage since the reinstatement). A quick search through the Google News results for Pratchett (hardly definitive, but worth a look) showed that formal obituaries in the UK almost all used "Sir Terry", at least at the first occurrence. This would seem to be a WP:NATIONALTIES kind of situation.

That's exactly right. There was a pretties serious muddle going on here yesterday. Indeed the titles cease to exist on death, or move on to those that inherit them but that does NOT mean that the holder of the title ceases to be known by that title. I'm sure people will agree that describing the Queen as "Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor" once she dies would simply look ridiculous and pedantic although she would have ceased to be Queen. Likewise, to call, for instance, The Duke of Wellington "Arthur Wellesley" is simply to invite confusion and to damage the page's credibility. I can't be bothered to revert Terry Pratchett again, partly for the reason that Nohomersryan mentions below, but I contend that it's utterly absurd to strip all UK titles from this page in future. (talk) 07.22 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Introducing hereditary titles like Queen and Duke into this discussion is a red herring. We are discussing only awards like Knight Bachelor and OBE, granted to individuals like Paul McCartney and Elton John for service to country. It is clear that such gongs expire at death. WWGB (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We won't call her Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, we'll call her Elizabeth II, and note she was the Queen. And Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Whatever the article's called, for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I respectfully but categorically disagree that because the title has expired, so should any reference to it. That has no legal basis or precedent whatever, and is contrary to fundamental logic. It merely invites ridicule, and possibly confusion, to suggest that for instance Sir Winston Churchill should only have been so described by while he was alive. It's disrespectful too. The longstanding policy of this page is almost universally followed elsewhere, and there is an utter fallacy at the heart of much of this debate. There is no sensible case for this change as a matter of policy, but I accept that in the case of Terry Pratchett it is reasonable to omit the honour. rcb1 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You know who doesn't lose their rank when they die? Soldiers, doctors and priests. Why should it be disrespectful to omit "Sir", but not "Captain", "Dr." or "Father"? The old way was paying too much respect to a particular group. We're the English Wikipedia, not the English aristocracy. It's fair to translate and transliterate, but not to hold an exclusive group to certain higher standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a respect that almost all sources pay, and it seems perverse for us set our stall out contrary to almost universal practice. And I don't know where you got the idea that those with knighthoods are "aristocracy,". The great majority are nothing of the kind.

As for "ceasing to hold the title on death", that's a silly argument. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ceased to hold all of those titles when she died too, but here we are. Frickeg (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well my argument is just that it should be the common name. Terry isn't best known as Sir Terry Pratchett. I checked a few articles that link to his article and all the ones I saw said "Terry Pratchett". It just seems silly to have everyone else as Stevie Lastname and then suddenly Sir Norm Surnamicus because he was knighted (which I don't think a casual reader will notice). But maybe that's just because I'm a silly Canadian who hasn't touched a Discworld book since high school. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

PMJI but I was the first person to add Terry Pratchett to the page. I did so without the title because he was notable as an author, and the title pages of his books have never described him as 'Sir Terry Pratchett'. But it's certainly a borderline case, at least as far as my reasoning in the RfC below goes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The tradition at the monthly necrology has been to include certain titles, including "Sir" or "Dame". It has been this way for years. If we are going to change the policy then get a consensus and let everyone else know. I apologise that I did not comment here earlier. I was unaware of this discussion thread. Quis separabit? 03:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Link to previous discussions of this topic:
  • July 2014: Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 3#Are all titles equal?
  • January 2014: Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 1#Use of 'Sir' for Knights and Baronets
  • October 2012: Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 4#Knights
  • September 2007: Talk:Deaths in 2007#Titles are not names
• It may be as well to note the outcome of the RfC in the FAQ section, as this topic seems to come up quite often. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd totally forgotten I'd already had this conversation. Thanks for the reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Mention some titles?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The comments in the above section were considered in the closing of the RFC. There is consensus for mentioning "Sir" or "Dame". AlbinoFerret 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

As the tally is 6-5, arguments aside, probably better to say there's no consensus to not mention "Sir" or "Dame". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Should some titles, such as "Sir" or "Dame", be mentioned on "Deaths in..." pages, and pipelinked, or should everyone be listed by their article title? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Article titles only To hold those in the peerage whatever it is to a different standard from other titled people (medical, military, religious) is unfair. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Mention "Sir" and "Dame" These are actually a different situation to medical, military and religious titles (except for "Pope", obviously). Almost all texts, especially those concerned with history, will refer to these titles as part of the person's name. This has been a long-standing distinction. (Note: knights and dames are not part of the peerage.) Frickeg (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a very different situation. David Petraeus is almost always called General, Sanjay Gupta is almost always Dr. and Richard Rodgers (not to be confused with Richard Rogers) is a Father. Some still call Anthony Weiner Congressman Anthony Weiner. Google Newsing titles with occupations finds many more examples. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, to deal with the Weiner example, they're clearly wrong since that is a job title not an honorific. Regarding Sir and Dame, have a look at the Australian Dictionary of Biography to see how they've always been used differently: Sir/Dame appears in the article title, whereas Dr, General and Father (and even Saint) do not. I can understand how non-Commonwealth people may not come across this distinction much, but it really is different for knights and dames. Frickeg (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As the sole occupant of the "Commonwealth Wikipedians" category, I don't see how it's different, in general. I totally understand that the Australian Dictionary of Biography sees a difference, but I think we write for a more general audience. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mention "Sir" and "Dame", unless the individual does not use the title (for instance, many Baronets do not). They are part of someone's name. For Peers, use the article title as the naming guidance already states that article names should not use the title if the subject does not ordinarily use it. (There may a small number of exceptions where a title is used in the article name for disambiguation only.) InedibleHulk is incidentally in error in implying that Knighthoods etc are in the peerage - they are not peerage titles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with Sam Blacketer that the titles are part of someone's name, and think this is a central point. I think that the movement to exclude is as wholly misconceived at anything I've ever read on this page. (talk) 07.12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude. It's not what they are widely known as. It's also not their article title. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Include: I totally disagree that that it's not what they are known as. In the UK, at least, it's exactly what they are known as - to the point that it's actually misleading, if not downright confusing, to leave the titles off. Much of this debate seems muddled to me.176.26.74.108 (talk)hhtc130176.26.74.108 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• • This and other comments are proceeding from a mistaken factual basis. Knights and Dames are almost always commonly known with their title, but under article titling rules the title should never be used in the article name even if the subject is invariably known with it. It's a clear case where applying the usual rule on this page "use article name only" conflicts with the general rule "use common names". Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Well if it's there common name why not change the article title per WP:COMMONNAME? I just disagree with listing "Sir" regardless of how factual it is. It's not like we call him "Sir Terry Pratchett" whenever he's mentioned in an article on here. Why bother exclusively for this one? Nohomersryan (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Terry Pratchett is an exceptional case, in that he was mainly known without his title. This is a general debate and the point is that most knights use their titles (some are famously insistent on it), but WP article titles never use them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • So what's the reasoning as to why Kingsley isn't referred to as "Sir Ben Kingsley" whenever he's mentioned on Wikipedia? If we're going to call him SIR TERRY here, then we have to call him SIR TERRY everywhere, imo. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Movies and other popular culture are kind of an exception here. It's not as though anyone is ever billed with a title (Dame May Whitty excepted), or publish their books with an honorific before their name, or release albums with "Sir" on the cover. Almost everyone else, however, would be referred to with the title whenever they're discussed, and I would say we should refer to, say, Sir Robert Menzies with the title whenever we mention him (provided it's in a post-knighthood context). That is certainly fairly standard practice in historical and political articles, from what I've seen. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment responding to bot summons. I would exclude, unless the title is in the article name. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• MENTION - Sirs and Dames are honorary (and relatively rare) titles. I don't see why it's up for question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Because other titles (honorary or earned) aren't mentioned, despite their similar use in reliable sources. Giving special treatment to one group only is of questionable neutrality. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe they should be included. If someone has a title of some significance (and not the ordinary Mr/Mrs), whether the title is Brigadier General, the Sultan of Brunei, the Duke of Devonshire or the Dalai Lama, there is a good chance that is likely what makes them significant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Stoker Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire and 14th Dalai Lama, to be precise. When they go, no pipes needed. But the Sultan is just plain Hassanal Bolkiah. Definitely exclude Mister and Miss. Riffraff. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact: The Duke doesn't think being a Duke counts for much anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude - For a non-British person, including titles makes no sense.

Your argument doesn't make sense. What does citizenship have to do with it? I'm American and I fully support using titles. You don't have to be of that country to have a competent knowledge of titles, whether it's the Earl of Carlisle or the Shah of Iran. Additionally, other Commonwealth nations (Australia/Canada/etc) also have honorary titles and use post-nominals as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Use titles. They are used. Simple as that. Whether people from other countries don't understand them is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether we use them. Once a title is granted to a British or Commonwealth person it is almost invariably then used for the rest of their lives and (despite some of the ill-informed drivel being spouted above) also when referring to them after their deaths. It is used officially, it is used by the person and it is used by the media. It is true that a few people so honoured choose not to use the title, but it is very few (since such a person would usually have refused the title in the first place). Since we have always used them in the lists of deaths, I really fail to see why some individuals are trying to change a long-established rule, apparently for the sake of it or for some ludicrous ideas of "elitism". For the record, as a Briton I think it's pretty bloody stupid when Americans append "Jr" or "III" to their names too, but hey, it's what they do! And to those who are saying we should list the article title as they appear, do you also agree with not piping to get rid of disambiguators? No, thought not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As an American that does not have an appended name, I fail to see the analogy, when Britons have kings and queens who do so. Or did they also get called that as children as a distinction? I've known several Juniors or Thirds who are proud enough of their lineage to have the appended names. None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Just letting you know "stupidity" is an opinion. — Wyliepedia 09:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Use titles A person's full description includes any title. By convention WP does not usually include Sir (or Dame) in the article title, but the full form will appear in the first line of the article, and by convention that is usually the form that it piped. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Use article titles. A person's full description includes any title ... except that between royalty, awards, degrees, ranks, positions, and whatnot means that a non-negligible number of people would take up a paragraph or a page. The article title is generally based on WP:COMMONNAME, namely what most reliable sources call them. Sometimes that includes titles, sometimes it doesn't. But it doesn't take up a paragraph or a page. So should we. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2015 (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.

Accurate dates of death

Can I ask when names are submitted to the list with no confirmed date of death that you check their article to make sure no one has added in any unverified dates so that others will not mistake them as correct? I've run into this numerous times. Please, double check. Rusted AutoParts 00:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability not inherited (Redacted) must end

When the spouse/relative of someone considerably more famous dies, there has to be room to mention their relation. There's no point in listing Bijoya Ray as an actress, as her work as such was far between and unnotable. However, she's not completely unknown, and that is because of one specific thing in her life, her marriage to master director Satyajit Ray. We've agreed to call people Sir, we've agreed to list sports clubs and movies, but listing people's real and only claim to fame? God forbid! Nukualofa (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Blah blah blah ... Godwin's law ... yada yada yada. WWGB (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We went through this with Cynthia Lennon
WP:Notability is not inherited is not a policy, or even a guideline - it is just the opinion of some editors in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is not a deletion discussion - Bijoya Ray has her own article since 2006 and no-one has ever proposed deleting it. As the opinion only relates to deletion discussions, it has no standing, or relevance, about the words used to describe people on this list. - Arjayay (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me sensible as a guideline not to mention spouses, or other relatives; but that a degree of pragmatic common sense is needed rather a totally inflexible policy. It seems palpably absurd to me to suggest that in no case is marriage relevant to someone's profile. Kate Middleton (The Duchess of Cambridge), for instance, is one of the most famous women in the world under the age of 35, but almost no one would have heard of her but for her marriage. You could obviously say something similar about her children with regard to the principle of notability not being inherited. In a few cases the marriage/inheritance is the very essence of their notability Rcb1 (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)rcb1 User:rcb1 (talk)

I agree. I'm not in favour of listing, say, Angelina Jolie as Brad Pitt's wife, or Kirk Douglas as father of Michael Douglas, but in the case of Lennon and Ray, the undoubtly most known things about them are their relationships.Nukualofa (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you have done noteable work on your own, as in Jean Ritchie's case, there shouldn't be any reason to add spouses or relatives. WWGB, I suggest maturing a bit. This is foolish.Nukualofa (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So "I" lack maturity while "you" accuse other editors of Nazism. Interesting! WWGB (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for stating my point. Nukualofa (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Re OP: and if God were a Wikipedia editor, we wouldn't need to be. — Wyliepedia 12:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, what to do? Bijoya Ray clearly isn't notable as an actress. IMDb lists her with two acting credits, the barely ever seen Mashaal (1950) and Sesh Raksha (1944). In both she's listed at the bottom of the credits. To me there are two possibilities. Either we acknowledge that her notability comes from her marriage to a famous director, and lists her as such, or we don't list her at all and puts her article up for deletion. We need to sort this out, it's probably not the last time something like this happens. Nukualofa (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've redacted the attack in the title - comparing editors arguing a conflicting point of view from yours to a political group strongly associated with genocidal and antisemitic policies is hardly the way to present your argument.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that. It was a bit pottymouthed of me. However it's not a very unusual expression, and most should understand that I of course didn't mean to call people Nazis, but rather the expression "being nazi about..". After all, we're all (somewhat) adults here. Anyway, sorry.Nukualofa (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This case is starting to get really annoying. Aren't this site meant to be encyclopedic? Why hide the truth? Read her article, read the sources. They all say she was her famous husband's wife, and that she pursued an acting career but failed. She wasn't at all notable as an actress, she was notable for being the lifelong inspiration for Satyajit Ray, and for being his wife. As for muse not being a profession, please tell me where to apply for the job of the world's oldest cat. Some people actually are notable for other things than their job.Nukualofa (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but the major thing that you are failing to see is that no one's notability strives solely from being someone's wife. If that was the standard, then people can assume the second cousin of Neil Armstrong is notable enough to be listed. No matter how unremarkable it was, she had an acting career. So we can call her an actress. Rusted AutoParts 19:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't strive solely from being his wife. Look at her credits on IMDb. She was acknowledged in the thanks credits in 25 films, both of her husband and her son. All sourced say she was his inspiration (or "muse") during his career. I fully support that we're not to list any relative, but when a marriage or relation is indeed a person's only claim to fame, it should be listed. Appearing as an extra in two little known films doesn't make a person an actor. Listing her as an actress instead of what she was known as is totally misleading. No one knew her as an actress, she was known to the world as Satyajit's wife and inspiration.Nukualofa (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I nominated Bijoya's article for deletion. The infobox was removed by User:Dwaipayanc, and by that I take it she was a notable person. I'm going to edit her listing here into what she was known and notable for in 24 hours, unless someone can come up with a real and valid reason. The "notability not inherited" falls short now. If it can be defended having an article on her inherited notability, she can be listed her as what made her famous. Nukualofa (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, she is "famous" for being Ray's wife, no doubt about that. But she can be regarded as notable because of usual notability criteria such as coverage of death in newspapers; being the author of a pretty well known (in Bengali language) autobiography Amader Katha (later translated in English as Manik and I, ISBN 978-0143416258).--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

When lionesses attack.

RustedAutoParts is insisting we list Katherine Chappell as a death by "lioness attack", rather than "lioness bite". Claims it's because nobody calls it a bite, and every source calls it a mauling. The source beside it the whole time says "a 'lioness approached from the passenger side and bit the lady through the window,' according to Scott Simpson, the assistant operations manager at Lion Park". Doesn't mention mauling.

We don't call stabbings and shootings and bombings "attacks". It's too vague. This is no different. A single bite is not a mauling, anymore than one punch is a beating. Sourced description aside, cats generally aren't maulers. They bite necks and hold on, growling. Even when they play with their food, it's mainly tossing and swatting. None of that here. Just a bite.

Yes? No? Maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You're going by the assumption the bite was what officially killed her. That quote you're clinging to can easily be interpreted as the lioness starting her attack with a bite. And I am correct when I say every source refers to it as a mauling. An abundance of articles begin with "Game of Thrones editor mauled to death in South Africa".

She had several injuries from the attack, so simply saying the bite killed her would be incorrect. "Lioness attack" addresses she was bit and mauled. Equal compromise. RAP (talk) 16:50 6 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd say it's likely to have been more than "just a bite". If there was any tossing / swiping / further bites, then "bite" is insufficient, and I don't see any claim that there was only a single bite. The source IH has posted does say "attack" as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source [4] with an eye-witness statement describing a bite, after which the lioness came back for another go. "Attack" would be my preferred description. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right, just read an eyewitness account (the Daily Mail thing above, edit conflicted) that said she came back after the first bite (and getting punched in the face, so that half's more defense than attack), and had "half a shoulder" in her mouth when help came. While common sense says a neck bite is far deadlier than a half-shoulder bite, that's for a coroner to decide. Are you OK with bites? Because it really does seem pointless to be vague. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Also consider, from the same source, "Mr Potgieter tried desperately to stop the bleeding by applying pressure to her wound...", not "wounds". So clearly, only one was desperately bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet she still suffered other injuries, so it's not just what killed her. Anyways, I really don't see why you find "attack" as being too vague. She was attacked by a lioness, and the injuries sustained from said attack were, obviously, what killed her. "Lioness attack" accurately describes cause of death. Any other wording, be it "lioness bites" or "mauled by lion", don't accurately describe what happened to her, as they'd both be leaving one detail out. RAP (talk) 17:17 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the Injuries in 2015 page. If someone gets kicked in the nuts, then shot in the face, we'd call it a shooting, not an attack. Same deal if someone is choked, then stabbed. All scenarios are attacks, that's why it's too vague. We leave that detail out all the time. Doesn't change when the attacker is a lioness. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We normally don't even identify the attacker, but I won't argue that being a lioness isn't noteworthy here. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, if I were to be punched in the heart, and that results in me having a heart attack and die, we'd say my cause of death was a "heart punch". Am I doing it right? After all, attack is too vague a description. RAP (talk) 12:29 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're kidding, but in case not, no. That's not what I mean. We even listed Ox Baker as "heart attack".

I'm saying we say Abu Sayyaf was "shot", not killed in a "Delta Force attack". Chinx was shot, no "drive-by attack". No "bodyguard attack" for Usman. But when a lioness does it, suddenly method doesn't matter? Makes no sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's because we have sayings for those incidents you just said. Nobody ever calls drive by shootings "drive by attacks", that just throwing up random crap to try and validate your point. Sayyaf is listed as "shot" because he was shot. That's the accurate way of saying it. Since its very rare one dies after being attacked by a lion, it's perfectly correct, and not to mention clear to those who read about it, to refer to it as an attack. RAP (talk) 18:06 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sayyaf is listed as "shot" because he was shot. Chappell is listed as "lioness attack" because she was bit? It's pretty rare that someone dies after being attacked by Delta Force (at least notable people), so why is it not perfectly correct and clear to list Sayyaf as "Delta Force attack"? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just me, but I think Sayyaf is listed as shot because.....he was shot! *GASP*. Seriously, Chappell wasn't just "bit", so right off the bat it's an inaccurate statement to say she was just "bit". She was bit, mauled, scratched. One could say she was attacked. So it's not inaccurate or vague to list her COD as "lioness attack". "Lioness bite", "lioness bites" or "bit by lioness are inaccurate. But I think we've both more than expressed our points, so allow the discussion to receive outside input. So far one has, and they agree "lioness attack is the best way to put in. RAP (talk) 18:34 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can read. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Lioness attack". Clear and to the point. A "bite" could be survivable or suggest she died later from it. — Wyliepedia 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Same with "attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Then why is there a discussion? — Wyliepedia 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Because attack is somehow "too vague". It's clearly looking to be an easy consensus for attack, as the bite wasn't the only contributor to her death.

Here's another example: if a dog with rabies bit, infected and killed me, would we say I died of rabies, or "sick dog bite"? Attack, as I said before, articulates she was killed when a lioness bit and mauled her to death. Saying she was just bit is a complete and drastic mislead. RAP (talk) 14:32 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed on "the bite wasn't the only contributor to her death". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's one for "nobody ever calls drive-by shootings 'drive-by attacks'." InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Rabies is a disease. If you die from it, that is how it should be listed here. If people wish to learn how you contracted it, then a name click is all it takes. Just like those who haven't heard how Chappell got attacked can find out that way. My cat scratched me the other day while I played with it. If I die from that, would it be "Cat Scratch Fever"? — Wyliepedia 16:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's almost exactly how I feel about this. A bite is an injury. If you die from it, it's the cause of death, at least directly enough. Bleeding would be more direct, but we don't say that for shootings, stabbings, bombings or any other attack. When we say "lioness bite", an attack is inherently implied, because it's almost impossible to slip and fall into a lion's unwitting mouth. When we say "attack", that could mean claws. There is absolutely nothing in the sources suggesting scratching here was fatal or even serious. They do say the driver who was scratched didn't die or almost die.

If you die of cat scratch fever, you die of cat scratch fever. If it gives you rabies, you die of rabies. If it slits your throat, you die of a cat scratch. These are things people expect to read on the Deaths in 2015 page, not by clicking through. Wouldn't it feel stupid to list everyone as "suicide", "homicide", "natural" or "accident", just because it's technically true enough? If it's stupid for everyone, it's stupid for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, she didn't just die because she was bit. She sustained other injuries as the lioness mauled her. Therefore, "lioness bite" is inaccurate. RAP (talk) 17:24 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, when I said this isn't the Injuries in 2015 page, and again when I said "citation needed". Do you have anything saying any of these other injuries contributed to (not just happened around) her death? If not, they're irrelevant here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You didn't hear me, were not speaking face to face. And do you have a citation saying the bite was what killed her? You can prove she was bit in the attack, but anything to say it was the cause of her death? RAP (talk) 18:29 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Aside from what I already said about "Mr Potgeiter tried desperately...", there's "Paramedics could do nothing to save Chappell, who was bleeding profusely from the neck." Not just profuse, but "serious". You don't die from bleeding unless it's the serious and profuse kind. And, as is typical of lions and all cats, "A bite to the neck or throat quickly kills the animal." Not a scratch or headbutt. From the "tried desperately" source, "It was extremely fast – all over in a matter of a couple of minutes."

I don't see how you can argue with that, unless you just really want to win. That's not the spirit. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is about "winning", you're either insensitive or competitive. A woman is dead. Whatever way you put it "lioness bite" is just not an accurate way to describe her COD. RAP (talk) 20:29 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that. I said if you do, you can keep arguing with emotion. But you can't seem to provide any facts for why saying this woman is dead because a lioness bit her neck is inaccurate, or refuted any of the facts I brought up. In that sense, I win, not because I had to, but because I picked the truer side. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ben Govender, an eye witness-“It was terrifying. After the first bite, the lioness retreated from the car with blood dripping from her mouth and paw. We all thought she was done and didn’t like what she’d just bitten. But like someone in a temper that wasn’t ­satisfied in a fight, she leaped back into the car and mauled the passenger." Do I get a prize? There is no "truer side". Bit and mauled are both correct so "lioness attack" is the most suitable option. RAP (talk) 22:25 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You get a prize if you explain how that means she wasn't killed by a bite to the neck. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, do you think mauling is a specific attack, like biting is? I could see the logic in your last sentence, if so. But it's not. Biting is a specific sort of mauling. If you already knew that, sorry for presuming you didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Mauling is a form of biting". That's a new one. Lets just wait for additional comments, I can only shake my head so many times. (BTW, the word bite is not once mentioned on the definition page for maul. RAP (talk) 23:26 7 June 20-5 (UTC)

Biting is a form of mauling. Instead of shaking your head and sighing, pay attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Biting is not a form of mauling. No search result backs your claim. Instead of wasting my time, stop wasting my time. RAP (talk) 23:58 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to save you time by linking the definition. I figured you'd read it, not go searching. That's on you. "To savage; to cause serious physical wounds (usually used of an animal)." Biting is an extremely common way animals without thumbs cause serious physical wounds. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there is a "vague" COD that has sparked near-heated discussion, I believe none should be listed. — Wyliepedia 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't rank biting amongst the different ways of mauling, but whatever. At this point is be willing to have "death" listed as cause of death, as long as its not "lioness bite". RAP (talk) 00:36 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See? That's what I mean about "not the spirit". Better to have Wikipedia lose than yourself, eh? It's not losing, though, it's standing corrected. There's no shame in it. It's how we learn things. Nobody learns anything if we tell them nothing, so if it's somehow down to nothing and "lioness attack", I'll take the latter. But nobody gets a prize. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a glee club for people dying. There's no winners or losers. No one's coming out of this with a prize. No one's coming out the "winner", especially Katherine Chappell. Like User:WWGB said, there's more important things needed to be done. Let's gauge a consensus and move on. Rusted AutoParts 11:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys, it's really time to put this to rest and move on to something more important. We know the Lioness ripped off tourist’s shoulder and tore into her face and chest, so we are talking more than a single bite. Just agree on something like "bitten during lioness attack" and let it be. WWGB (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggested "lioness bites", but that was no good. Might've been had someone else suggested it. It's not like this is keeping us from other, less controversial things.

I think this is the most important issue for now. Not so much for this death, but for all the animal attacks to come. Most will bite, like most humans shoot, but there will be squeezing, stinging, trampling and goring. All entirely different in specifics, so it'd be a shame to end this with precedent for being unusually vague or wordy for non-humans, especially if it's set simply for the sake of ending a half-emotional argument. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is too vague about attack? You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Is this a last word battle now or something? We've both said our piece, yet you still feel the need to keep going. Rusted AutoParts 12:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Vague is not clearly expressed; stated in indefinite terms or not having a precise meaning. An attack is a violent, harmful, or destructive act against someone or something.

So when we say attack, we're not clearly expressing that she was precisely bitten, just that a lioness fatally harmed her, somehow. If I changed a "shot" or "stabbed" to "attack" or "human attack", or a "lung cancer" to "illness", it'd be the same kind of vague, and I doubt you'd pretend to not get it when you revert me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it is a last word battle. It's not vague, as we have the details of the attack. She was bit and mauled to death. The bite ripped off her shoulder, yet they attempted to stop the bleeding from her neck. Who's to say her throat wasn't slashed by one of the lioness's claws? You keep ignoring every other detail of the attack and transfix on this one bite. You speak as if we need to set a precedent. We already have:

October 29, 2009:

• Taylor Mitchell, 19, Canadian singer–songwriter, coyote attack. [5]

Listed as dying from a coyote attack. And hell, it's how we sort the victims into categories, just like how we'd list a lung cancer victim in the "Category:Deaths from lung cancer" category. There's no category for "Category:Deaths from lion bites". Rusted AutoParts 12:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's been done that way. Doesn't make it any less vague. Wikipedia's a work in progress, and there's definitely room for improvement beyond this page. There are plenty of guidelines and categories here today that weren't in 2009. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Like how we don't say "natural causes" anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, by your existing category logic, if a man is killed by an insect attack, we'd defer to Category:Deaths due to insect bites and stings, but "attack" for every other non-human animal? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't tell if you're just trolling at this point. There's no real thing as an insect attack. It's an exaggeration people use when a collective of flys, mosquitoes swarm towards them. They have and always been labelled stings, or bites. However, that's not always the case when it's a lioness mauling someone to death. Rusted AutoParts 13:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't (or won't) understand most of what I've been saying, so it's not surprising you're confused about trolling. I'm not even going to try to explain what's wrong with your double standard logic above about exaggeration, or your already forgetting what the dictionary says "attack" means. I'm also not going to ask for a source on your definition of "insect attack", because I'm sure you invented it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the ability to invent it, considering there's no existing definition. Rusted AutoParts 13:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's your "always been labeled stings". And another. And one for bees. And more bees. No source for fly or mosquito attack, but that's probably because those don't kill anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You invest way too much time into this. As if you're desperate for some sort of victory. Again, no one is trying to win, except you. So what if newspapers use "attack" to describe those scenarios, the stings are what killed those people. The bites and injuries incurred to Ms. Chappell as a result of her being mauled are what killed her. I've said this before, but you just don't seem to want to accept it. Rusted AutoParts 13:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So what is you were wrong again. I don't need desperation, because like I told you yesterday, I picked the truer side. If "nobody is trying to win" is like "nobody calls it a bite" or "nobody calls them drive-by attacks", coming from you, I expect you'll still revert when I correct this. Try to come up with a factual reason in that edit summary, don't just call me a troll or say I'm gleeful for a woman's death, or sigh or any of that bullshit. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

THERE IS NO TRUER SIDE. Again, As i said, we're both right in the sense she was bit AND mauled. That's why I advocate "lioness attack". Can you not comprehend that as a result of your head being so far up your ass? You want validation? "Congratulations, you filibustered me into learning the meaning of the word attack, I'll make sure to give you a cookie". All the while steering this train past the designated stop and keeping it going endlessly for no reason, despite requests that eventually evolved to pleas, to wait for outside input. But you just won't shut up. Rusted AutoParts 14:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If there's no truer side, why do I keep refuting your claims with sourced facts, while you scream your opinion and make cranky comments instead? If we were both right, this would have played out more equally. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We both equally have not shut up, though. You're right there. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting "cranky" because you are wasting my time with telling me shit I already saw you write. You say "lioness bite" is correct. I disagree. I say "lioness attack" is correct. You disagree. Now we initially had our back and forth about it, then i figured it was time to let others come in and form some sort of consensus. You weren't interested. Feeling the need to drown me with facts that are irrelevant to the current discussion. Who cares about those four bee "attacks"? All that should matter is the details of Katherine Chappell's death. Not the many definitions of attack, maul, bite, etc. I'm getting "cranky" because it seems all you want to do at this point is poke and prod and annoy and filibuster and get the last word for whatever reason and spiral this more and more into nothingness. Soon, other editors just won;t care enough to even contribute, as this whole thing's gotten way out of hand. So please, for the last time, let someone else say their piece. We've both said enough. Rusted AutoParts 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And despite this discussion being still in progress, waiting outside input, you choose to force your view. I'm done here. Rusted AutoParts 14:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're lying again about being done here, and I was right again about you not giving a reason in the edit summary. If you want other people to weigh in, actually concede. Like I said, we're both making this TLDR. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted before I replied here. Pay attention. Rusted AutoParts 14:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So now are you really done? Even if not, let's both not ruin the new section for new people. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am done. I see the new section is seemingly in the form of a poll. If it's not a problem, I'm simply going to cast my vote. Rusted AutoParts 14:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I will, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fresh section for further, cleaner discussion

I figure that mess above could look like something one would avoid stepping into. Same general question here, though. Bites or attack? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Attack: Attack to me clarifies both ways of how Ms. Chappell perished. Being bit and mauled. Simply saying "bit" to me is leaving out info, as the lioness came back and attack more. I think I speak for everyone if a coroner issued out an autopsy with an official COD description. Rusted AutoParts 14:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Bites Mauling is a catch-all term for any bloody attack. Biting is the precise sort of fatal mauling that happened here, in two goes, per sources and general cat behaviour. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Attack: The lioness was protecting her cubs, ripped out part of Chappell's shoulder, tore into her face, and wounded those helping her escape. Oh, and went for Chappell twice. — Wyliepedia 15:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Attack – per what I said above. Seems rather a long time ago now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Attack. A bite could just be a passive, put-your-hand-in-the-cage thingy. This was an aggressive, multiple-bite event, better described as an attack. Also, "lion" is a species and not just a gender. There is no need to specify "lioness" as the gender of the beast is not relevant. WWGB (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Consider The sort of "cause" we're normally concerned about accurately describing is the method, not the manner. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been 48 hours, and with no additional contributions from other editors, consensus stands at Attack: 4 and Bites: 1. Rusted AutoParts 16:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with rushing this one. Something is better than nothing, short-term. I'll hold a proper RfC sometime later, for a wider opinion. Hopefully nobody is bit, trampled, gored or clawed to death in the meantime. Just shot, stabbed, beaten and exploded. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice parting shot across the bow. — Wyliepedia 01:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Section for unknown dates of death

I know I keep bringing this issue up, but I strongly feel we should have a section where we list the names of those who don't have a confirmed DOD. I've been seeing social sites and publications cite us for people passing away and just using the date they're listed under as being their DOD, despite it possibly not being correct. I created an example in my sandbox. Thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 11:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone goes missing on 30 May and the body is found on 2 June, in which month does the "Date unknown" listing occur? The current method provides certainty. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That will lead to an ungodly mess at the bottom of each month. We used to have a simple notation no one is using anymore which was (death reported on this date) [interjection- you could use the anacronym DRD to shorten it if necessary in parenthesis]. But we cant even get people to put in CoDs, so why worry about the more advanced stuff. Sunnydoo (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Because like I said, people are using the date the unknown is listed under as affirmative. It confuses reports/announcements as being legit and therefore misinformation is spread. Missing persons bodies getting found should just be listed in the month they're found. Ungodly mess? It's a couple of names out of hundreds listed, how would that become a mess? It's no different than adding other sections to other pages. Rusted AutoParts 13:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it all comes down to housekeeping. The more separation you have on the page, the more someone else has to clean up. Putting in line on the date reported is so much better than at the bottom of the page, then it has to be moved, then the section hidden or removed till next time. Granted, if the death date changes from the reported, found, etc date, it will still have to be moved, but only up or down a few days, not a big cut and paste job. Keep in mind some of us edit on non-PC devices. — Wyliepedia 15:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont think you understand how pervasive the problem is. There are 2-5 deaths per day on busy days that would fall into the category. On a 30 day month you would have anywhere from 50 to 100 names at the bottom of the page in 1 spot clumped together. Just about every single soccer player who's death is announced by a club, a lot of the foreign references especially the more obscure ones, etc etc are the ones that I am talking about. Like I said, we used to notate it, but it was a practice that died out "because it wasnt pretty for people- especially ones that use mobile devices." If you are interested in this, I invite you to go line by line through this months list and use the (DRD) tag. See how many you find without a direct death reference. Also while you are at it, fix many of the missing CoDs. They go hand in hand while doing research. I used to do many of it, however I got sick of debating every single facet of an entry or their CoD.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems you're looking at a worst case scenario. At best only 5-10 names get listed as (daotd), not 50-100. And this "ungodly" mess you mentioned makes no sense. I'm using mobile right now, it looks perfectly fine. I look at the section as helpful, as it could be hard for some to notice those tags at the end of the entry. Then no one will try and look for their DOD, or at least try to. I find at least this way we know which people are missing their DOD. Rusted AutoParts 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC

A mess is a mess, ungodly or not. Best to do without even small ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)