Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2013/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Native Americans

Three editors have shown, by their edits, that they support the sequence of country of citizenship followed by tribe. For example,
Roddy Blackjack, 86, Canadian Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation elder.
I propose that sequence as a reasonable compromise to the current situation, rather than the alternative of tribe first. WWGB (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if the rest are handled the same way- hence British Gibraltar, American Puerto Rican, etc...Also remember WP:Majority. Wiki is not a voting based system. You guys cant have it both ways for Territories see WP:NOV. If you want to base on self identify like you did for Gibraltar then that goes for everyone- Chinese, Indians, etc. Maybe I will just walk this topic upstairs to an RFC since this is becoming a huge issue.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit button was on the far right, now up close.

Or is just my browser? Anyway, I think it looks ugly right next to the date and should be fixed, if possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Section edit links are migrating westwards. Pleasure to speak with you again after all these months ;)  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of redlinked people who have non-English Wikipedia articles

I understand that it is policy to remove redlinked people from the death list if they are still redlinked one month after their death, but I am wondering if perhaps the policy should be adjusted to allow people to continue to be listed provided that they have a Wikipedia page in any of the different language versions of Wikipedia. For example, Vietnamese actor Hồ Kiểng died on April 3, 2013. He was listed for a month and then removed because he was still only redlinked. But on April 17, 2013 a page was created for him on the Vietnamese language version of Wikipedia. So he both meets Wikipedia's notability requirement and he does have a non-English Wikipedia page. It strikes me that this is more significant an argument for continued inclusion than someone who, even a month after dying, still has no personal Wikipedia page in any language. Any thoughts on this? 99.192.48.126 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that notability is independent of language, however, I can foresee problems in the implementation of your suggestion. How would our "Resident Redlink Removalist" know whether an article existed in another Wiki? The situation may arise on the 18th of this month when Vytautas Šapranauskas is likely to be removed from Deaths in 2013#18 as a redlink despite having a Lithuanian Wikipedia article. Even if the redlink was spared, it is quite likely that another editor would think it had been overlooked and remove it anyway. Another way would be to pipe the name to the other Wiki using [[lt:Vytautas Šapranauskas|Vytautas Šapranauskas]] (which appears as Vytautas Šapranauskas) but that would forever mask an English-language article. It is always worthwhile exploring new ideas. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
You have 37 days to make an article for anyone redlinked here then the months gets moved to "Deaths in <month> 2013" where it remains until the date it was added. If an English article is created, well-sourced, and, most importantly, notable, then it can added (or re-added, in this case). This page is way too long to keep redlinks in the hopes that one day someone will make an article for them. Also, feel free to register and take up the "no redlinks" mantle by translating them somehow. Another editor's earlier suggestion was to create an archive of sorts for all redlinks not created. That also has not come to fruition. - Wyliepedia 02:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I have a few responses of my own to some of your comments. (1) WWGB, you asked how we would know if an article existed in another language. That actually is pretty easy to check. First, for any redlinked person check the language version of Wikipedia most likely to contain the article. So, as in the case of Hồ Kiểng, he was a Vietnamese actor, so checking the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia is the natural place to start. Second, just put the name of the person along with the word "wikipedia" into Google and see what pops up. For Hồ Kiểng, I get the second entry on the list as the Vietnamese page for him. Actually, in most cases just doing the second step I suggested will be enough and only takes seconds to do.
(2) WWGB, you raised the dual issue that, on the one hand, leaving a redlink could confuse other editors into thinking all redlinked people get to stay on the list even if they have no page in another language while, on the other hand, piping the name to a bluelink to the other language page would mask the English page should one subsequently be created. A solution to this would be to leave the redlink as is (to the yet uncreated English page), but also add parenthetically a bluelink to the other language page. So for Hồ Kiểng, the entry would read: "Hồ Kiểng (Vietnamese-language page: Hồ Kiểng), 87, Vietnamese actor, heart disease." There would be no masking problem and the inclusion of a link to the non-English page would signal that not just any redlinked person stays on the list
(3) Wyliepedia, you expressed the worry that the page is too long with all the redlinked people, but I disagree for three reasons. First, because the redlinked people stay on the page for a month, the current deaths page already accommodates them all. The page as it stands right now manages fine with 30 days worth of both bluelinked and redlinked people on it. What I am suggesting would not make for a bigger page. Second, my suggestion would still mean that a lot of redlinked people would be removed after 30 days - those with no Wikipedia page in another language. (I just checked, and Hồ Kiểng is the only one of the 9 names removed over the last 4 days who would remain on the list under my suggestion.) So it is not as though all the redlinked people would stay on forever. But third, since any editor could come along and decide to devote all of his time to creating pages for redlinked people who recently died, the page already in principle needs to accept the possibility that no redlinked people will be removed, that instead they would just eventually all become bluelinked. It's not likely (and I am not volunteering for that job), but if it did then the page would have to keep all the names on it, so it cannot be too long even with all the redlinks.
One last comment: despite the amount I have just written about this (Did I put anyone to sleep?), I should make it clear that this matter is not a personal crusade nor is it a suggestion that I think needs to be decided on quickly. If other editors, especially ones who spend the most time taking care of this page, still disagree, that's fine by me. I just raised the issue for consideration because it struck me as a good idea. But unless other editors come along and say that they also want to see this change made, I'll just leave the matter here. Thanks again for the replies. 99.192.48.126 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not know what browser/media you use to view this page but 600 +/- references take a long time to load. Deaths in March 2013 has 200 less than that, with the removed redlinks, and loads much quicker. The monthly articles are worked on daily by some (mainly to remove the reds). Leaving the redlinks in would cut down that need, but at what point is the cutoff for those never added/fixed? 6 months...a year? This would seem to require more attention than simply removing them. In my opinion, it's far better for those who feel someone needs a bluelink to simply add them back in, once the page is created, rather than check in every day to see/wonder if that will happen. All that said, I'm also not against stub articles being created for any non-English subject in order to fix our reds, as long as more than one line is done. - Wyliepedia 12:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The general rule in WP is that we leave in red links when we can show that the person is very clearly appropriate for an article. Looking at this page, I'm not sure how many of these would be all that clear. The obvious solution, as repeatedly mentioned, is to create a stub article. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Nationality and Territory Issue

RfC: Should all entries maintain similar format in terms of Nationality requirements?

Should all single entries maintain the same Nationality requirements in terms of Territorial distinction?

Survey

  • Support All entries are regarded the same way under the rule of law in their own countries to maintain a neutral point of view
  • Oppose Entries will be regarded on a case by case situation based on ancillary details
  • Support I obviously support this. Sunnydoo (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If it ain't obvious omit it - I've been in a whole bunch of nationality/ethnicity/race debates, and I've come to the conclusion that the only real way to deal with these issues is to exclude identifiers if the appropriateness of the identifier isn't really obvious. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Whenever I run into a question like this, I always use the "sixth grader test." If we omit the information, is a typical sixth grader going to be able to figure it out? The answer to that is "No." So we need to provide the information. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No vote. Clarification please!! I presume that this RFC is related to the long drawn-out knockdown arguments in this talk page over whether a one-size-fits-all single rule can possibly cover the variety of concepts and self-identifications of "what geographical grouping do I belong to?". There would seem to be be four options when trying to decide how to label, eg, someone from Edinburgh (UK): (a) always "British", (b) always "Scottish", (c) always "British Scottish" or (d) it depends on the individual person. Some clarification, with concrete examples, would be useful to help us understand what is being asked here. A secondary question to help the thought processes would be to ask what happens if Scotland votes for independence next year? (or to ask how some from Hong Kong would be described if they died (a) one day before, and (b) one day after the transfer of sovreignty from Britain to China?) Scarabocchio (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This isnt about which system we will use. This is more about a discussion on whether we should use the same system for everyone or allow "self-identification." A 3rd possibility has now come up where we dont use Nationality at all, which would take care of a lot of edit wars and re-edits. After a consensus is reached, another Rfc can be filed to determine the next step in the process. For instance if Support carries, the next question becomes strict Nationality or by Territory or both. If the Oppose self-identify carries then an Rfc will have to be established to put forward guidelines so that we wont have the issues we have been having. If the Oppose no nationality group carries, there really isnt the need for further discussion and we can strip the Nationality requirement from the page.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
We are having trouble defining Nationality. For instance, Puerto Rico is a US territory yet as it has been pointed out, has its own Olympic team. It has the same legal designation as Indian tribes. Along the same lines, Macau and Hong Kong have similar standings in the Chinese government, but the Nationality designation has been going back and forth. And then you have the question of people from various backgrounds that are fighting their own "Nationality" like in Northern Ireland, the Basques in Spain, Quebecois in Canada, certain activists from Tribes in North America and on and on. Another good example was a known Kurdish rebel last year that was killed that wasnt allowed to have that distinction in death. The Kurds are semi-autonomous just as Puerto Rico, the Indian tribes, Hong Kong and Macau. So that is why the question is on the table...do we treat everyone under the same system or take it case by case and risk being unfair to certain disenfranchised groups.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I understand not wanting hard and fast rules that some have objected to. However there is something to be said for neutral point of view as well. The issue that multiple editors are having on this page is that certain groups are treated different ways than other groups. For example, Puerto Ricans are listed as a Nationality on the page, while Indians are listed as American even though Commonwealth and Indian Reservations hold the same status under the US Constitution (see the right of the page here for a quick look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_territories). Furthermore, there have been similar issues involving people from Macau and Hong Kong as those are special administrative districts of China. We have had a couple issues with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (between Argentina and the UK). Also this discussion isnt so much as which we should use- Nationality, Territoriality, etc. just whether the same criteria should be used in classifying each entry.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(added later) I don't know where you got "even though Commonwealth and Indian Reservations hold the same status under the US Constitution"....it is not correct, and not in the linked article. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the input so far. I will give it 3 more days for a full week on the Rfc, but it looks like so far the consensus will be to de-list all the Nationalities. I am Ok with that and think that its a good suggestion to end the problem we are having. It will also help conserve space which I know is an issue for a few of you out there that use mobile devices.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
What? That is the opinion of one contributor. Hardly a "consensus". WWGB (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There are 2 people up there with that suggestion- and I have no problem with it as it is a fair system, so that would remove by support vote. I am only against the 2nd option, but 1 or 3 would be Ok as they are fair to everyone.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC
That is not in the least the consensus. This has been a long WP discussion on many pages and over many years, and the only conclusion from it is that we generally include the information, but do it very carefully. To overturn such a general consensus at that would take a much wider discussion,and any result is almost certain to ve challenged. Looking at the list on this page, almost everyone is totally unambiguous. Without the identifier, much of it is meaningless--knowing where in the world a politician is active is very much relevant to wether one wants to look at the article. In general, when there is ambiguity that can not be expressed in a brief phrase, it can be omitted, but in general the discussion for each individual belong on the talk page of that person's article .
Sunnydo, I may be wrong, but on the basis of experience with this problem, perhaps you are objecting to some particular designation? DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Are Prelates Worth Reporting?

So many prelates' deaths are reported, why are they relevant? What makes them noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.242.96 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Because they're public figures. The latest one, from May 2, has an article, which I assume meets notability requirements. He died and now he's listed. I have no idea what a prelate is, but it appears to be a public role. Good enough.freshacconci talktalk 19:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
A prelate is a high ranking member of clergy. Typically for the Catholic faith that would include the offices of Bishop, Archbishop and Cardinal. There are a number of faiths however that are reported here with different yet similar titles. The reason they are of note would be that they typically require (in the example of the Catholic faith) the seal of the Pope to take office and accept their office directly from him with a ring bearing his particular coat of arms. That gives them a higher legal standing in the community than ordinary parish priests. Bishops also oversee a number of parishes. It is something like judges where the ones that appointed rather than are elected hold higher ranks and are more important to the process.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for everyone's input. 24.162.242.96 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Clergy. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Missing, presumed dead"

Glad to see the two "missing, presumed dead" mountaineers (only one of which was notable) have been removed from the page. Talk about 'original research'! And of the most presumptive kind. No bodies, no death, is how it should be for this page, and I'm relieved to see sense prevail yet again in Wikipedia. Well done. Ref (chew)(do) 07:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular case, but in many countries people can be declared dead without a body being found - plane goes missing, boat sinks etc. - whilst some people are convicted of murder without a body ever being found. Presumably if a court finds that someone has been murdered, or an inquest comes up with "presumed dead" they do qualify for this page? Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it's original research, if we have numerous reliable sources. I don't think we should reject sources because we don't like the content. It would be better to accurately summarize them; being sure to include the qualifier: missing, presumed dead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Like all Wikipedia pages, this page is not a real-time news report even if people visit it for that reason. There is never any urgency to add a name to the list. In general, I would say we need a reliable source saying that someone is dead, not just presumed to be dead. If an official authority declares that a person is now legally considered dead, then that too would be a reason to add a person to the list. That has not yet happened with the climbers, so they should not be added to the list right now. 99.192.92.198 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Also with Ingrid Visser. Some still believe she is just missing, while others say dead. I'm leaving it on this page. — Wyliepedia 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd go with all that. The key (for me) is 99.192.92.198's quote: "this page is not a real-time news report". Some editors seem to think they are journalists with a deadline, so let's get it in there before anyone eles does. That's part of my problem with this blatant pre-emptiveness. I agree that, if an inquest (or even a murder trial conviction) declares a death to be so, then it's safe to include them here. On the say so of journalists or other speculators is clearly not safe. Ref (chew)(do) 18:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ibrahim González

I think this musician is notable enough for an article. FWIW, he's a friend of (at least) two friends from The Bronx, where I grew up. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your request, but feel free to create an article for him. However, you must find reliable sources for him, and not word of mouth. — Wyliepedia 05:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Make sure no people on the notable death list are redlinked?

Would this be a logical WikiProject to pursue? I assume that in order for a person to be listed on this page, he or she must meet notability standards for Wikipedia. After a person dies, if they are notable enough to mention on the deaths page, I think that an article ought to be made to explain their acheivements. If a person does not meet notability standards for Wikipedia, and it is decided that he or she should not have his or her own article, perhaps he or she should not be listed on the Notable Death page.

Just a thought – feedback welcome

  Matt Chase (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the purposes of allowing red-links on the Deaths list is, indeed, to encourage people to write an article. Policy is to remove redlinked people from the death list if they are still redlinked one month after their death. There has been much discussion of redlinks, which arrived at this consensus - see FAQ at the top of this page and lengthy discussions in the archives. Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cory Monteith

The article currently says the cause of Monteith's death was "apparent drug overdose", citing this website. But that reference states: "Reports that Cory Monteith’s cause of death was drug related have not been confirmed. (Update: Police say Cory Monteith’s cause of death was not immediately apparent, and the source of rumors of an overdose was not immediately clear.)" So until the autopsy is performed on Monday or the cause of death is confirmed by police, "apparent drug overdose" should be removed. 67.163.124.220 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources report the c.o.d. as suspected/apparent drug overdose. We are entitled to publish what is contained in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to put information on the 21st most viewed Wikipedia article that isn't verified, especially when it relates to something as sensitive as the cause of someone's death, then I guess you're entitled to do just that. 67.163.124.220 (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
User:67.163.124.220, you should visit here more often. People die of "apparent" and "suspected" things all the time. We are "entitled" to list them as such. When/if the COD is confirmed, even if weeks/months later, we change them immediately. - Wyliepedia 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. With an eye towards the spirit of sensitivity in WP:BLP, and the fact that we are not here to bring the latest timely developments, but instead to present a longer-term historical view, I don't see the point in mentioning a suspected cause of death like drug overdose unless the sources report reasonable evidence for that suspicion. "There is no time limit", "this is not a race", etc. I think the risk of damage to reputation and harm to surviving family members from an incorrect suspicion outweighs any value there is in presenting the information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
OD death removed until coroner confirms, per WP:BDP. Source changed as well. Original appears tabloidy. - Wyliepedia 09:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
BDP does not apply when a reliable source is available, and reliable sources state apparent drug overdose. This is NOT stating a confirmed cause, but a likely cause from a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Vancouver Police Department intentionally tried to get ahead of speculation by releasing early public statements. At this point, there is no clear cause of death. Any media speculation is only based on the fact that he has had some substance abuse problems. Wikipedia's function isn't to get "news scoops". Taroaldo ✉ 10:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's "function" is to report information from reliable sources, and we have that in an apparent c.o.d.. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you not read the guidelines at the top of the page where it says "Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death and reference"? (emphasis added) The cause of death will be listed when it has been established. Taroaldo ✉ 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the guidelines, I has a hand in writing them. I am NOT saying he died of a drug overdose, I am stating what is reported in numerous reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
You had a hand in writing them. Is that supposed to impress us? Your interpretation of material in reliable sources is questionable, and there is no established cause of death. You seem to think it is your right to add information as you see fit, but it is not. This is a collaborative effort. We also do not function on media speculation. I do not see a consensus here, at present, for an alleged cause of death to be included, and so it should be removed. Taroaldo ✉ 11:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
And I do not see a consensus to remove the alleged cause of death, and so it should be retained. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
When we have reliable sources (as in this case with one of the main Wire Services- UPI), we do in fact list the CoD as they have stated with the words "probable" or "suspected." Drug overdoses can take upwards of 6 weeks to find the exact cause of death. I can think of numerous cases in the past where this procedure has been followed. Off the top of my head, the Criss Cross rapper kid who just died and Ric Flair's son who recently died of a heroin overdose were both handled this way. When I see the toxicology report finally released to the public, usually me or Wiley will go back in down the line and change the confirmed OD with the drug that caused it.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia is not an organ for speculation. Including any unconfirmed causes is speculation. I cannot possibly expand on that argument further than the few words I have just used. "Numerous cases in the past" were also wrong to do so. Stick to the facts as known and not as 'suspected' or 'probable'. Ref (chew)(do) 13:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:VERIFY, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". If a reliable source states "X died of a suspected drug overdose" then that passes the guideline policy. WWGB (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It does not, according to the wording of the guideline, and the meaning of the word established. The relevant definitions from Merriam-Webster are:
3a. to make firm or stable
4a. to bring into existence : found (established a republic)
5a. to put on a firm basis : set up (establish his son in business)
5c. to gain full recognition or acceptance of (the role established her as a star)
7. to put beyond doubt : prove (established my innocence)
If we are not here to present up-to-the-minute news, what is the harm in not reporting a cause of death until it is established? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
While WWGB has made some good points, I think that the way in which info contained in reliable sources is used (or not used) depends on context and consensus. That's why we have a RS noticeboard. I think in light of the BLP concerns and the fact that WP is not a newspaper, it would be prudent to list cause of death as uncertain or TBD. On a side note, WWGB is a respected editor who is entitled to his/her opinions and all members of this discussion should please remain civil. Thanks everyone and peace out! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The harm in it is Out of Sight, out of mind. Take the case of Allison tonight. The police think he had a heart attack. His family thinks he had a heart attack. The Wire Services are saying it was a heart attack. But you would like for us to wait for 6 weeks to re-visit the matter pending his toxicology report? What are the odds that the info will find its way into the article if that occurs if we do this for every single person waiting on the exact CoD from the Coroner's report? The answer is a whole lot of deaths will fall to the way side and the info will be lost.
At issue in all of this is, I think, that the person with the original problem thinks that there is some negative stigma attached to drug use. It happens in this world. We are just providing information. The people that are using that information are the ones passing judgement. Those are the ones with the problem. From a liability standpoint, there is not an issue because it is now multiple wire services reporting the same thing. To paraphrase....dont shoot the messenger if you dont like what he has to say. At some point you have to accept that reliable sources are reliable sources until proven otherwise. Sunnydoo (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A very perceptive comment, Sunnydoo. If we add a c.o.d. as "suspected heart attack" or "apparent drowning" nobody shows any interest. But as soon as we add "suspected drug overdose" or "apparent suicide" some editors sh*t themselves and reach for the DEL key, even when it is supported by reliable sources. The reaction says more about the sensitivity of those who are morally outraged by suicide or drug taking, and think it a slur on the deceased. WWGB (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What do the preponderance of sources say? Which ones say "apparent drug overdose"?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC) The sources seem to be all over the place:

  • UPI “reportedly died of a likely drug overdose”…………..” an apparent drug overdose, Vancouver police said”…...” Police have not officially determined a cause of death.”
  • ABC News “no known cause of death”….. “possibility of drug overdose” ……”autopsy later today”.
  • Ottawa Citizen ”police and media search for answers around the cause of death for ‘Glee’ actor Cory Monteith”

It seems the autopsy is being conducted today, so we'll have our answer soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Heroin and alcohol OD off the initial Coroner's report after autopsy. I went ahead and updated. Hope that is good enough and we dont have to wait for the Final Coroner's report which will come back in 6 weeks with all of the drug levels in the body's blood system.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The press reports are now clear and uniform. [1] So your change seems OK to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It gets worse (redlinks, revisited)

I am currently looking at two examples of how Jimmy Nobody's grandmother will soon be featured in this list, just as soon as she pops off. They are: a redlinked chap who only people local to his home have heard of, and who played (we are told) football (soccer) for "Haverhill Rovers FC" from the English "Eastern Counties League"; and an American dog walker. With a blue link! Notability seems to rest on the fact that he could actually make a going business out of walking dogs. So what? If 8 year old Johnny Nobody can sell lemonade outside his home and make a tidy profit for the day, does he deserve a page? And will he be duly entered into this list 70 years later when he passes on? Although I present this argument in a somewhat sardonic manner, I am hoping that someone will see why I am so cynical about some of the entries which creep in here, day by day. If you attempt to remove, there is always someone there to defend it, or to trot out the old adage "if it's a redlink, it will be removed when it is moved to the archive for the month". Brothers and sisters, those kind of entries shouldn't be there in the FIRST place. Here's hoping this post will provoke some kind of response. Ref (chew)(do) 13:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, except to say that a name currently being a redlink, in and of itself, does not necessarily indicate non-notability, and should not be the deciding factor in being in the list or not. I do think the criterion should be the same as that used to decide whether to wikilink a name in an article – that the subject is notable enough to eventually support an article, even if they're just stubs, as in the case of many religious prelates, athletes, senior military, etc. A guy that owned the local pub for 10 years, or a rapper who gave away a couple dozen mix tapes to his friends, no, but I'm not sure I see much of that. I am worried that some good article subjects fall through the cracks when they fail to get articles and are silently removed, instead of getting put into a review list for articles wanted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
If a redlinked person listed is notable enough to meet Wikipedia's standards for having a page, but just does not happen to have a page yet, there is no good reason to object to them being listed on the deaths page. If a redlinked person listed is not notable enough to meet Wikipedia's standards for having a page, then just remove them from the list. If someone disagrees with you about that person's degree of notability, they can then follow WP:BRD and discuss it here. If a person is on the list and already has their own Wikipedia page and so is bluelinked, but you think the person is not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, take the issue to that page and nominate it for deletion. It is not a matter for this page to deal with. Finally, if a person has their own Wikipedia page and meets Wikipidia's standard for notability, but you still think that they do not deserve to have a page, lobby to change the rules about who gets pages. Again, it's not a matter for this page. 99.192.80.218 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
And I think you are getting Notable and Famous confused again. As for the Dog Walker, he was the first person in the US that had a business where he walked dogs. There are now 100s of people employed in NYC that walk pets on a daily basis and many more in other locales around the world. He would be Notable as a first of his kind pioneer as the NY Times stated and covered. Just because you may have not heard of someone, doesnt automatically exclude them from the list. There are many people who have made silent contributions to society- take the dermatologist i added last week as an example who discovered uses for Retin-A, a product that has helped 1000s of people. There are also many regional examples of people that are notable as well as many state political people from all over the World. To say that one person or another deserves to be listed while another with the same job description doesnt, is unethical and biased.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Banning red links would further strengthen the western systemic bias which is arguably wikipedia's greatest fault already, we need to counter-act the systemic bias (and this page does help) not encourage it. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, when i joined in 2006, there was just 1.1m..i'm pulling this random figure out of a hat but i believe Wikipedia should have had atleast 20m articles by now had we created articles for EVERY notable person alive (and red links)..unfortunately, wikipedia has become more bureaucratic than article driven...and thus people concentrate more on the bureaucratic side of wikipedia instead of building and creating articles..if it was up to me, i will never remove any red linked names and keep them even if they don't get created in 30 days because maybe in a year or two, some random person decides to create an article on that person and atleast he will have ONE Link to his article.--Stemoc (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
These discussions generally have elements of deletionism/inclusionism involved. The 30-day "rule" was intended to be a happy medium (consensus?) between those who want no redlinks ever and those like Stemoc who want them in perpetuity. WWGB (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: I am more inclined to tolerate entries I perceive as non-notable, like Jean Guy, knowing that they will most likely be deleted after one month without the drama of edit wars or ongoing debate. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We need less articles (especially when it comes to BLPs and companies for rather obvious reasons) though a redlink doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. Look at the recent case of Mary Thom, whose article I created after her death was announced in April and was the top headline in CNN and the front page of The New York Times. I never heard of Thom until her death, yet if she was notable for those two major accomplishments, obviously we aren't done with creating articles on valid subjects, especially those who are recently deceased. We remove redlinks after a month however as the notability wasn't clear to begin with. Secret account 04:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
But who decides on notability?, someone may be famous in ONE country but not in another, does he/she deserve an article? no offense to Americans but there are more American related articles here which most will not consider of any importance such as the death of some mascot(animal) of some football (gridiron) team and yet some of them actually HAVE an article lol...yes i believe in perpetuity cause you actually have to be NOTABLE to make the Death's list here. No one goes around removing red links on articles which have been there for over 30 days so why do it here? Even some Featured and Good articles have red links. When a link is added to the page, which is sourced and has notability, I feel it should remain, randomly people do add "non-notable" people here from time to time but they do get removed just as fast..who knows, one of those red links may become a blue link a year down the road....--Stemoc (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Notability is generally tested through processes like speedy deletion, proposed deletion or articles for deletion. None of those are available for Recent deaths. If you say Joe Bloggs is notable and should remain, and I say no he's not and should be deleted, where is the process to resolve the impasse? You throw a reference into the discussion and I say not good enough. This has the real risk of ongoing argy-bargy without resolution, and a possible edit war. As it stands now, the 30-day period provides for cooling-off from such a situation and the chance for an article to be created. I hope I never see the Recent deaths pages littered with permanent redlinks, many of them questionable. It just makes one of the most-read pages in Wikipedia look random. One more thing: you wrote "you actually have to be NOTABLE to make the Death's list here" but that is not actually the case. I am sure that numerous non-notables survive 30 days just because no-one can be bothered arguing the point. WWGB (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
One of the things I have discovered on the journey is that there are stark differences in culture even between the Australians, Americans, Canadians and British. There was a great interview Barbara Walters (I think it was her) once did with Bono where he was talking about the differences of being famous in Ireland and in the United States. And I think the animal/pet culture is something that is more ingrained in the US than elsewhere. One of the other things I wanted to comment on was the disproportion of Americans (and some would say Indians) as represented on this page. Keep in mind that this is an English Wiki. In the English speaking world there are more Americans and Indians combined than the rest of the English speaking world put together English language. There is bound to be some disproportion given those numbers. In order it is the US, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the UK then the Philippines by total numbers.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We are building an encyclopedia in English; we are absolutely NOT building an encyclopedia about the English speaking world. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
True. But most people havent figured out Google Translate, so they are more likely to write articles about things that are written in their own language. And when the vast preponderance of source material focuses on 2 cultures, you are more likely to have more articles from those cultures.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
If "most people" do not know how to translate and add info on the main page they can request it here on the talkpage or in the Feedback page. Next thing you know, the lang-Wikis will devolve into loci-Wikis. "For Australia, click here." Reminds me of trying to reach tech help on a telephone. — Wyliepedia 01:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well - I did ask for responses to my post, and, boy, did I get them! Quickly running through the various comments and standpoints above, I feel I would not win my argument against those editors who regularly visit here and indeed do sterling work on the page (I merely step in with typo corrections and improved sources), although nothing has changed my personal opinion about what this page should be doing, and, more to the point, what it should not be doing. I shall just have to put up with the plainly minor sports players of the world, and the canine entrepreneurs too, who shuffle off the mortal coil and duly get their little vanity slot on a page they don't deserve to inhabit. Please take that as a purely sardonic comment (once again), and not sour grapes or sarcasm, as neither are intended. Anyway, that's quite enough from me, and thanks for the input. Ref (chew)(do) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ref. The 30 day plan seems to be a good compromise. I just checked May and June death pages and all red links older than 30 days have been removed so the system is working. In the meantime dead folks get their 30 days of WP fame :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas is a particularly notable death. I think she should be listed on the MAIN menu next to Recent Deaths. Unclemikejb (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for discussion. — Wyliepedia 07:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

John Casablancas

In case no-one was aware: at present this redirects to Elite Model Management. As an infrequent visitor this article I do not know what the procedure should be; does the redirect get removed and an article get created, or if no article is forthcoming, does he get removed from this list? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, unless the redirect page evolves into an article within one month, then the death listing is removed from here. WWGB (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 16: Talia Castellano

...is not notable enough to add here, as described in her AFD listing. — Wyliepedia 01:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As a bluelink, I guess we have to maintain the death listing until the AfD is resolved. Like you, I have !voted to delete the article. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like SPA's (its heading towards sock puppeting) will bombard that AfD with "keeps"...maybe that why its has kind of become a bit too hard to come up with a workable NOTABLE criteria..I won't be surprised if Wikipedia decides to give that policy a 're-look' or atleast an RFC--Stemoc (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC).
I understand what both sides are saying, but I am torn both ways. On the one hand, we support articles for such things as the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month (and this is not a moral argument I am making). Most of those models (and I am not saying all) will only end up in their life as famous for that one thing that may or may not be beyond their control. And every single one of them have an article. And yet here is a person who appears on the cover of an equally famous magazine CoverGirl who instead of having looks has cancer. That is a tough double standard to enforce. My concern is that the notoriety is fleeting, but by that same standard, arent the Bunnys? I dont know. Will think about it for a bit.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
actually, not worth discussing there cause they may take it the wrong way, maybe the only "famous" thing about her was appearing on the cover on a known magazine but then that said, she had something which atleast 20m people around the world suffer from too and yes media will pick up on this because thats what media's do, they don't want to be the last person to not report this. There is no notability there but the media has just created one for her..I honestly think its time for an RFC on our notability guidelines..she was slightly famous before her death but just like anyone's death, they get more famous afterwards...well atleast for the next 2 weeks..in regards to her covergirl picture, it can either be seen as the magazine trying to portray her as a champion for cancer or just using her to sell magazines..its a shame people cannot make the right decision withholding their emotions.. --Stemoc (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Any discussion of whether or not she deserves to have her own Wikipedia page should not take place here as this page is not a discussion forum for such matters. It should take place on her article's AFD page. WWGB is right that so long as she still does have a page, she should be listed on the deaths page. If the AFD discussion results in a decision to delete her page, then that will establish that she is not notable enough to be included on the deaths list either. But an independent discussion of her notability (or lack thereof) is not relevant here. 99.192.76.124 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand the policy very well, it looks like her AfD has become a SPA and most are from facebook I assume because in 2 facebook pages, she has a combined 150,000 fans and unless you want that number of people bombarding her AfD with "keep" because they got their "feelings hurt" with LOGIC, I figured it was better posted here...all the new accounts posting there have no idea of Wikipedia's notability criteria...anyways, yes it should remain as long as the AfD runs after which it may be a good idea to follow the normal routine of removing it soon after as it doesn't merit inclusion...--Stemoc (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The AfD was a keeper. That's life in a wikidemocracy ..... WWGB (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Well i expected this from the start, and still the article is one of the worst i have seen in ages....i have made stubs with barely any sourceable information bigger than that article....all the comments about how she inspired people in the AfD and her article clearly shows how much she inspired people.......Its one of those articles that is on wikipedia for the sake of being on wikipedia.... + we all know democracy is a failure, communism is the way --Stemoc (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
No folks, the only failure is your failure of understanding of our notability criteria... and just for record, Stemoc, Castellano's article is far away longer, better referenced and more in-depth than your Virimi Vakatawa or Albert VuliVuli stubs. Just to say. Cavarrone 13:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, all about how she did "nothing"..its practically a big article about nothing..well done...easily forgotten in 6 months..I don't need to add multiple sources for something which doesn't needs that much sourcing..its like sourcing the SAME EXACT THING from a 1000 sites...a waste of time and honestly..silly...i'm reading the article and yet, i still do not see any reason why she is notable enough..none..nada. --Stemoc (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, sometimes it happens. I often wonder for which (very hidden) talents Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton became "notable", but they indeed are. There are even cases of notability for recognized lack of talent (see Rebecca Black). Cavarrone 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"Castellano's article is far away longer, better referenced and more in-depth..." If you go back to when I first brought the subject up here, it wasn't. Her page wasn't touched until the AfD debate. — Wyliepedia 14:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Toby Saks: August 1

I just did her article and came here to see that the mention of her being one of the first women to play in the New York Philharmonic has been removed? Should this not be mentioned, a la Jean Giambrone and the like? — Wyliepedia 09:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WWGB edited it out. I can understand it. At some point, the ceiling is broken. The question though should be the length of time. If the first two women started the year before, well then that makes it somewhat more notable. Someone who knows the ins and outs of the history of the Philharmonic may be able to help us out with that. The Philharmonic is one of the Big 5 US Orchestras and one of the Top 3 in the World. So that adds some notoriety to it as well.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Double entries

There must be a kind of mask how to file an entry here. I guess this plain text field is too much for some contributors. And people should be warned if an entry already exists. Not to mention the alphabet, which some do not even know.

I would understand that in Sweden / Norway / Estonia where Z is not the last letter or does not even exist.

See August 8 Royalrec (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think our MBK (monkey behind the keyboard) system works pretty well...too well sometimes. Plus it allows people to be critical on the internet which is important to some.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gia Allemand

Gia's cause of death was not suicide but as a result of life support being withdrawn after her botched suicide attempt. I feel this should be rectified in the list of recent deaths as this is misleading.

This is as opposed to Jiah Khan who was actually found dead from her suicide by hanging. Gia was still alive when released and taken to hospital where she died.

Gia Allemand's page itself states that she was alive from her attempt on Monday and died in hospital on Wednesday. [1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks900 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If Gia died as you say, and as was reported the cause of death certainly was suicide. The entry looks good as is. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Suicidal death need not be instantaneous. Suicide is defined as "the act of intentionally causing one's own death", in which Allemand succeeded. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Adjectival descriptor for a New Zealand person

I would like to point out once and for all that the adjectival descriptor for a New Zealand person is "New Zealand" and not Kiwi. This is made unequivocally clear at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. Kiwi is a slang/colloquial/nickname and not appropriate to use as a formal descriptor of one's nationality. One editor seems fascinated by the term and, despite ongoing correction by a variety of editors ([2] [3] [4]), continues to describe every deceased New Zealand person as Kiwi. There is no room for stubborn or unco-operative behaviour. We are all trying to develop a correct and consistent encyclopedia without entertaining our personal quirks. Enough is enough. No doubt we will be quoted numerous sources that use the term. That is irrelevant. Wikipedia has one clear descriptor which we are all required to use. WWGB (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The demonymic form is New Zealander. I have tried using that term as well as Kiwi, and it gets switched. My point is that Kiwi is now used in newspapers around the World (and in NZ) and it has established itself past a colloquialism (and not that should matter since we now use the term "footballer" on this site which is likewise a colloquialism). Evidence is here ([5]). Here are quite a few headlines with Kiwi being used in the title from a variety of noteworthy sources from Bloomberg to Stuff.co.nz.

Now some might argue that it is an expression like Yankee or Aussie. However doing a similar search turns up sporting teams mostly ([6]) and ([7]).

The use of Kiwi is used to describe all of NZ and not just 1 segment of the populations such as the terms for Yanks and Aussies.

And watch the personal attack. You have no idea what my motivation is or is not or even if there is a motivation there. I realize how you operate from past conversations and try not to deal with you because of your behavior towards me and other editors. Getting it right and providing the best information is 100% more important than being right.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Two points in reply:
(1) We use the adjectival form (John Key is a New Zealand politician) and not the demonynic form (John Key is a New Zealander).
(2) The media often uses colloquial expressions (Aussie PM, Canuck PM). Wikipedia does not. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I was fixing the Thomas entry above and was going to say what WWGB just said. — Wyliepedia 07:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of examples of colloquialisms being used on the Wiki- footballer, rapper, televangelist (although that term has a broad following in the US and Africa) and non-profit all off the top of my head. Secondly, words can transcend status even if they are born as colloquial. There are a variety of words that have entered the lexicon as legitimate in the past, as there will be in the future. Words and phrasing change over time. I know this because we aren't all speaking 14th Century "Old English." By showing the broad use of the term over many, many major press sources, goes to the fact that Kiwi has reached that status point (as I am sure that many will try and point out over the use of the word "footballer"). A term stops being colloquial once every language culture embraces it (and that will go against the "footballer" crowd because it is not used for any sport usage in the US currently). Sunnydoo (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Only a merkan would have the ignorance to believe that 'footballer' could be a colloquialism. If you don't like English terminology, perhaps you should start your own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.231.4 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. A colloquialism is a word that is only used in part of the world but not everywhere. It also has equal usage in print as well as spoken speech. I have never seen the word "footballer" used commonly in North America. However I have seen Kiwi used in headlines in European, Asian, African, Australian and in the American (both N and S) newspapers.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • We should be following Wiki standards for national adjectives and Kiwi is just too informal and is the equivalent to Yank, Canuck and Aussie, which we would never use in this context. Kiwi is a nickname. If this usage alters in time to something more formally acceptable, then we can start using it, but I doubt that will happen and it's not up to us to make it happen. New Zealand as an adjective is sufficient and unambiguous and there is no point in adopting something else. freshacconci talk to me 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability

In what way is Jay P. Richardson, the son of The Big Bopper, who died on 21 August, individually notable? He seems to me to have no notability outside of being his father's son, and shouldn't be listed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing since he popped up here. He only performs his daddy's tunes in the place where his daddy last performed. Fortunately, his now-wikilink links to his daddy and will be removed once the "grace period" expires. — Wyliepedia 07:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Musicians without their own articles

To the main editors of this page: It's been a few years since I've done much with the deaths page, so I'm a bit out of the loop. What is the current consensus on including/excluding musicians that redirect to a band, rather than their own article? I realize there's a wide gap in notability between different members of the same band, as well as the notability of the bands themselves, but for a general topic, would Michael Dunford (musician) qualify? (I'm working on the 2012 pages, where there's around 440 people to add.) Similarly, do criminals like Vic Turner qualify? Or similar situations? Thanks, Star Garnet (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that the list is for the death of notable individuals, the cases you have cited would not pass. A redirect to a band or crime gang indicates that the deceased is not sufficiently notable to warrant their own article, and hence do not pass our test of notability. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, are animals with articles automatically eligible? Star Garnet (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all "once living things" are included, provided they already have a Wiki article before they die, eg racehorses, famous dogs etc. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I've identified the following for possible elimination from 2012 lists, but would like a second opinion:
Criminals: Charlie Richardson, Edgardo Gabriel Storni
Family bands: Dorothy McGuire (singer), Doug Dillard, Everett Lilly, Raylene Rankin, Sheila McKinley
Duos: Eric Lowen, Rollin Sullivan, Roy Wilson (singer)
Star Garnet (talk)
This is going to sound inconsistent, but I cut a bit of slack for members of duos or family bands. Surely we would want to list the deaths of Don Everly and Phil Everly whenever they occur, even though neither singer has an article. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I figured as much, while a gang's leader and a page about an archbishop's negligence/crimes also fall in a gray area. Star Garnet (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case (no redirects from non-notable individuals to notable groups etc.), then this page needs monitoring more closely, because it's happening all the time. And cutting slack in gray areas is not following an established consensus, by the way. Ref (chew)(do) 11:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

North/South Ireland clarification

Every single person who has passed away who lived in Ireland have always been submitted as "Irish". Suddenly, there is an issue where I'm being scolded for screwing the clarification up. Is this the way it's done? Rusted AutoParts 00:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And just for the record, it was your flippant comment "north, south, it's still Irish." that I took offense to. Several 1000 people have been killed since the early 1970s and scores others have been maimed or seriously scarred for life by the conflict. It is not appreciated by anyone of Irish ancestry- regardless of the side, Catholic or Protestant.
And if you need a for instance go to March 10th with Hugh Casey or April 9 with Jim McCallister. We designate Northern Ireland differently.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


Perhaps the combatants would benefit from re-reading Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, in particular, Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Northern Ireland: dual citizenship and Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Cannot decide? This is a sensitive issue and best decided by using the label (British, Irish or Northern Irish) that the deceased and his biographers preferred to use. WWGB (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not being combative. What RAP is not getting is that there is no source info for Murphy in how he wants to be described. He is simply going off the Wiki profile and there is no corresponding evidence of that fact to corroborate that fact on the Wiki profile. There is also no such designation in either the Yorkshire or BBC article. Therefeore it should default to Northern Irish as Nationality until otherwise described. I had it listed as both British and Northern Irish as Britain is the governing Nationality and it is the Territory of Northern Ireland. However RAP is arguing the Catholic side that all of Ireland is Ireland. I just want someone to show me a biography where he designates himself Catholic or Irish or British or Northern Irish. Most of his known work was carried out in Scotland and in the West End of London, so British would be my bet, but that has obviously upset RAP (again).Sunnydoo (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Obviously Sunnydoo is making this personal as he seems I'm upset over this and making my own decisions on who he is. Religion isn't playing a role whatsoever, it's were he's from. And be it North, South, East, West, it's still fucking Ireland. It seems to me that because I made the edit that there's a problem. Sunnydoo has recently been on the warpath with accusing me of being a vandal and this seems like just another entry. All I'm saying is all entries that were from the country were listed under Irish. And now suddenly there's a problem. Rusted AutoParts 02:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Entries listed from which country? You know Ireland is two different countries, right? Saying things like "North, South, East, West, it's still fucking Ireland" is not clever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Just forget it. No matter what situation, I'm an idiot. Always considered a vandal. It's just so goddamn unfair. I fucking try. Just to get shat on. Rusted AutoParts 02:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Its not personal RAP. Its just I like things to be based on fact. I can say someone is from the Dark Side of the Moon, but that doesnt make it so, unless someone backs me up and there is ancillary evidence there. Just because Wiki says one thing in one place and not in the other doesnt mean one is right and the other is wrong. It should be an opportunity for investigation with the center balanced until the info can be synched. If you look at his profile on the right side, it clearly says he was born in County Down, Northern Ireland.
The only thing that upset me in this situation was the comment you made which i took as flippant and/or obstinate. I can see now that maybe you didnt understand that there are 2 countries in Ireland even though I provided that link for you in our discussion. The one thing I would ask you to do is a) not take things so personally (we arent out to get anyone here, just want things based on fact and in a neutral tone) and b) when you edit an entry make a summary on why you are doing what you are doing. We arent mind-readers and it helps the other editors. Also think about how your comments could be interpreted as well. This probably wouldnt have happened if I had understood you didnt realize that there are 2 countries there even though I made reference to the 6 Counties and Britain.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the notability guidelines, it is my feeling that all listings here should lead to an extant article. In other words, there should be no red links. Yet I see many red links here. What is the consensus? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Arjayay (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops. Saw that too late. Unfortunately the FAQ kind of blends in with all the other ratings boxes one always finds up there. I wonder if the template experts could make such things a little more prominent/highlighted... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the current policy on red links is that people who die who do not have Wikipedia pages only get to stay on the list if they are already notable enough to have a page, but just do not happen to have one, or if there might be some question of whether or not they are notable (leaving the question to be settled in a month by whether or not they have a page). But that this does not mean than any and every person who dies can be added to the list for a period of a month. So if, for example, my non-notable next door neighbour dies and I decide to add her to the list, her name should not be left on for a month, but removed immediately as she is clearly not notable. Do I have this right or is it the case that ALL red linked names, no matter how non-notable they are, get to stay on for a month? 99.192.72.29 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you or we need to add a reliable source for the death of anybody on this page♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
If the source is an obit, it won't stay. If it's a news blurb, it gets to stay for a month. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a generalisation of the situation. Basically, the deceased should pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) based on the information at hand. So a redlinked national politician is likely to stay for a month, while a local amateur sportsperson may not. I pretty much agree with the IP who posted the original question. WWGB (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me add some meat to the question. If Jacqueline Ann Whitehead were added to the list (it's a news story in a reliable source, not just an obit) should she stay on the list for a month or be removed? 99.192.72.29 (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, WWGB is right, there needs to be BOTH reliable sources and notability. If in your/our judgement the person has zero chances of getting an article the person should not be added and/or should be removed but if there is a good chance then they should be added and/or not removed. We should remember WP:Systemic bias means it is likely that notable people form 1st world and English speaking countries are more likely to have an article already than is the case of ppl from 3rd world and non English speaking countries♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In the Whitehead case, the subject/story fails WP:NOTNEWS and should be pulled. There is no chance the deceased would ever have a Wikipedia article, unless the case leads to a change in legislation or such. WWGB (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think if you want to remove a redlink, you should come to the talkpage first. A lot of articles created after redlink were AfDed and survived. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Even in the case of Jacqueline Ann Whitehead? If someone adds a new case like this every day they all should be brought to the talk page first? 99.192.72.29 (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say use your discretion, editorial judgement is also required on this page♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Just be WP:BOLD and delete it if it does not meet guideline. If someone strongly believes the deceased is notable, they should then engage with you under WP:BRD or bring it here. We don't need to discuss every clearly non-notable redlink on the talk page. Here's a case in point. [8] WWGB (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
WWGB, it's funny that you pick that example. I was the one who removed him from the page :-) 99.192.72.29 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Deaths in 2013 → List of Deaths in 2013 – The intro states "This is a list of notable deaths..." etc. So per WP:NCLIST which states "Standard practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___", this should have the "List of " prefix. I'm using this as a test case as I know there are dozens of other "deaths in x" articles, and if approved, then the others should be moved via the speedy request. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This article is much more than a simple "list". It does not just list dead people. Rather, it is a sequence of mini-biographies which provides additional information (age, nationality, notability, cause of death). To label this a "list" is a disservice to the deceased and to the contributing editors. WWGB (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
So the intro "This is a list" is wrong? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was, that is why it has been changed. WWGB (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
So the intro "This is a list" is wrong? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I can't remember where I read it, but a WP:FL musn't begin with "This is a list of...". If the lead is wrong, re-write it, but this move affects all these pages. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is certainly a list. Including some biographical information in the entry doesn't change that. That said, I'm not sure how important this issue is, since recent "Deaths in year" articles simply become redirects; it looks like only those from 2003 and earlier have single articles. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It's about as important as having a page title with either the – instead of a - hyphen, or any trivial page move that has ever happened (most of them, if people are honest). If it looks like a list, then it's probably a list. A simple move to the correct prefix and then a speedy move for all the other years/months should be straight forward enough. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
From your duck page, "The duck test does not apply to article content." — Wyliepedia 12:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This is about the title, not the content. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. As noted earlier on this page, Deaths in 20xx is one of the most-read pages in Wikipedia. Deaths in 2012 received over 25,000,000 views [9]. Why would we risk losing or alienating such a large number of readers to make a change of little real significance? If it ain't broke .... WWGB (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I suspect 24million+ of those page views are via the link on the main page. IE, the reader is directed here by that hyperlink rather than typing "Deaths in 2013". We won't lose or alienate anybody by moving it to the correct title. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many list articles, which doesn't contain the world "list" in their title, and I don't see why this needs it. Also if there was consensus to rename it, than "List of deaths in 2013" would be the right capitalisation. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adopted country of residence v. naturalization

Hi. It seems to me that more and more editors are making bold assumptions as to the state of naturalization of subjects being entered on this page. For instance, because the subject has, or appears to have, been long-time resident in a particular country (but was born elsewhere), there is a growing tendency for an "assumption of naturalization" to be made - and this is clearly not right, and should be supported by a source - either in the primary reference, or in an an editorial note at the time of insertion. So basically, if the primary reference either says nothing about citizenship of the adopted country having been gained, or implies, as is quite often, that the subject still retains citizenship of the former country of origin, surely we cannot then state the opposite, as this amounts to misinformation affecting an important aspect of the person's life. What are the beliefs of other editors as to the importance of maintaining a truthful report of this particular aspect? I think there is a case for putting away the "national catch-all" net, and seriously studying the source for clues before editorial. Thanks, and look forward to some points of view on this. Ref (chew)(do) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely nationality is more important than residence. Some people have dual nationality and both countries should be mentioned in these cases, as in the articles. I think if someone dies in a different country from the one they are a national of the country in which they died should be mentioned in all cases even if they are just there on holiday there but if someone simply has residence in another country but dont die there I see no reason to mention that country and even if they do die in the country they are simply resident in I see no reason to mention the residence on this page, simply that they died there♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't even get some contributors to even list causes of death that are found embedded within sources, so having them to search one for country of origin could be futile. The problem also lies within that person's wiki article, if they have one. Some descriptions come straight from that, too. Adding that American James Gandolfini died in Italy on holiday would also seem wordy and unnecessary. As for adding both, I'm fine with simply adding COF, unless source lists residency change. Good luck looking for those, as well. — Wyliepedia 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I merely meant, in my pre-amble to what I was saying, that I believed that "assumptions contrary to that indicated in the reference" should not be made, where there was not clear indication that the person had adopted the nationality of the place of their death. For example, if they died in New York, having lived there for 30 years, but were actually born in London England, surely the only assumption, in the absence of a mention in the source being used, is that this person would still be English (or British, if you prefer). There is little point in conducting pain-staking research, just for a tagline in a list. But let's try to be correct in what we put in that tagline, is all I'm saying. We can't mislead, surely. I didn't exepct this to go so in-depth - a mere "yes I agree" or "no you're wrong" - or even "don't know" - would suffice. Thanks for the input anyway. I'm none the wiser, to be frank. Ref (chew)(do) 12:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Ferrell

As of 16 September 2013, I cannot find anything really notable on the guy, except for him being shot for being mistaken for a burglar after banging on someone's door after a car accident. I've tried to find his notability with FAMU's stats for the 2009-10 season and cannot. I sure hope he doesn't get a blue link. The incident itself is reported more than his accomplishments during his short football career have been, and that is not why we list someone here. — Wyliepedia 04:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

He clearly fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and has no other identified source of notability. He should be removed from this page. 99.192.68.69 (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to note that, while we usually give a 30-day grace period here for all redlinks, we also value notability. — Wyliepedia 07:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
See the discussion in the section "What is current red link policy?" above (a section I started). The only reason that red links are usually given 30 days is because red links are usually to people who either are clearly notable and just don't happen to have a page or they are to people whose notability status is unclear. But when a clearly non-noatable person is added, they can and should be removed immediately. Ferrell was not actively playing football anymore at the time of his death and his two years on a college team clearly fails WP:NGRIDIRON. There is no other reason to think he might be notable, so he clearly is one of the unusual cases of a red link that should not be on the list for the 30 day grace period. 99.192.88.191 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.68.69)

Footballer?

This concept that the keepers of this page have where players of sports as varied as "Association football", American football", "Australian football" and "Gaelic football" are all mushed together as "footballers" while musicians are split into esoteric descriptions such as "jazz alto saxophonist" is more than a bit ridiculous and needs rethinking. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And "Australian Australian rules footballer" doesn't sound ridiculous to you? — Wyliepedia 07:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll roll with this just a little way. If it is to change, be sure that (using your example) "footballer" STAYS "footballer", and doesn't get tediously extended to differentiate between codes (a person who plays with a football, regardless of shape or rules framework, is a person who plays with a football), and preferably then reduce the description of the "jazz alto saxophonist" to "jazz saxophonist" (note: I do believe that the music genre is important. Sporting codes differ normally by country. Genres are pretty much universal, or worldwide). This is a mere list. The list consists of a set of taglines, intended to draw attention to the death of a person (or an animal!). The primary wikilink in the tagline (the subject's name) is there to enable further research into the death by going to the article. The list's work is done at that point, and it stays succinct and in precis. That's the way I would play it, using your example. No descriptive elongations/extensions if it can be helped. Ref (chew)(do) 20:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, "Australian Australian rules footballer" sounds odd, but there are a couple of simple solutions that do not require providing less information. One option is not being slavish to the "nationality before claim to fame" ordering. So someone could be listed as "an Australian rules footballer from Australia". Another option is to use an alternate name for the sport. The sport is quite commonly known as "Aussie rules" football, so saying "Australian Aussie rules footballer" seems fine. But the first solution (reversing the order) probably is the best. 99.192.75.230 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is taking the bio descrips directly from the articles, as in "nationality and what they did." It's an easy way out, yet creates discussion here. — Wyliepedia 04:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor survivor – rationale

I have just accepted a redlink on the basis that it might just be notable. Personally, I do not consider it encyclopedic, but as I have no idea as to the standing of Pearl Harbor survivors in US society, am leaving this note here for other editors' opinions and/or for them to take further action. --Technopat (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Pat Fear

All, I removed the link and reinstated the remove for Pat Fear as it seemed similar to me to the difficulty that [[10]] had;   a redirect that gives the impression that the deseased has a page in wikipedia which in this case he may well warrent but at the moment does not have, The redirect goes to the band page as does the blue link for the band. Thoughts? Edmund Patrick – confer 14:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It makes no difference here if the deceased is a redlink or a bluelinked redirect. After one month, an entry is removed if the deceased has no article. Listing a deceased without a wikilink serves no purpose; it would be the only case on these lists for about 10 years without a wikilink. WWGB (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I just thought that there was a difference between red and blue links and actually the red link "advertised" the fact that at this moment there was not an article but you (the reader)could write one, whereas a blue link gives me the impression there is one. Looking through red tinted glasses I seem to remember more red links that gradually changed but that may well be me. Thanks i will not worry again. Edmund Patrick – confer 05:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Redlinks on other pages can, and usually do, sit for some time. Someone may think they're important/notable enough to have an article. Here, the reds mean they may be notable enough for that country, but have not had an English article done for them. There are also those who create blue redirects or stubs for some reds; some of those then belong to the AfD discussions. Here, as stated, notable reds (and redirected blues) get that 30-day-ish grace period. — Wyliepedia 06:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Should the relative of a famous person be redirected to that famous person?

I am specifically talking about Patsy Swayze who (as you will find by clicking here), on her list entry, has been redirected to her son, Patrick Swayze. I suspect this may be a device to prevent her being removed as a redlink once the page is archived. But I could be wrong. I am not going ot be so bold as to revert the editor's action, as I am not completely familiar with the protocol in this instance. Perhaps a knowing editor would input on this? Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I check every entry one month after the date of death, after Rusted AutoParts has removed the redlinks. If the entry is merely a redirect, then I delete the entry, for example [11]. This will happen for Patsy Swayze also, unless she gets her own article. In the mean time, if you believe she fails WP:NOTE you could try to delete the entry immediately. WWGB (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with her being on the list, as she was a prominent choreographer in her own right, and coached a couple of famous dancing showbiz personages. The question was more generalized, perhaps not really appropriate to bring up here, but a salient question as it affects the listing here. What is the overall convention about a relative sharing a wikilink with their more notable kin? It seems a little odd to me. We know she is probably linked to Patrick, just by the surname. But there is not enough in his article about her to justify the linking. That's my opinion. And after the removal of Patsy next month, this state of affairs will continue, with her name "piggy-backing" his, if you like. That's more what I was asking. Thanks for the response anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Noted that Patsy Swayze now has her own article, and that's fine. Ref (chew)(do) 20:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gia_Allemand#Death
  2. ^ http://www.penelopejean.com/#!in-memory-of-gia-allemand/c224l
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2013/Archive_2&oldid=1136309695"