Talk:Deaths in 2005/Archive 0

For previous discussion see Talk:Deaths in 2004

Centenarians

There appear to be no centenarians in the list of people who died in 2005. Has this statement been proven wrong yet?? Georgia guy 00:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The first centenarian to be added to the list was added today. Georgia guy 23:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Does anyone have any opinions on the following style of deaths?? Write centenarian names like this and names of people who lived to be at least 110 like this?? Georgia guy 00:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • An unnecessary embellishment, in my opinion. A person's age is obvious when it's provided next to the name. Three digits should be enough to make it stand out. -- Arwel 02:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with Arwel.--BaronLarf 13:36, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No need. Gamaliel 17:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • centenarians are so common now, I'm wondering if it's even important enough to list them period. Williamb 02:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should people who are relatively unknown in the English speaking world be listed here? I'm referring mainly to the numerous Dutch adds lately. I have this vision of a huge unwieldy list of people. Williamb 02:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Why not? The only person who has appeared on this page in the last two years who was personally known to me was a prominent Norwegian science fiction fan -- well known in the Norwegian and British SF communities, but I wouldn't expect him to be well-known everywhere. These Dutch people may well have people who know/know of them in other countries too. -- Arwel 03:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem in there being a large list in this category - and I wouldn't insist on all deaths having an article yet either. Certainly I'd say if someone is very famous in one country but not that famous in the US or UK then we should consider them having an article. Olympic gold medal winners (such as Nettie Witziers-Timmer) I have no problem with either. Max Velthuijs would qualify for an article as well - his children's books were published in English, and I can easily believe over 5000 children have read them. I'd say if national newspapers report someone's death, then it is an indicator of interest, and therefore we should put them in the list. I wouldn't list them in the main 2005 article of course. Average Earthman 12:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this better to be a redirected page?

There are two ways to manage this article. 1. Reset the content every year and have the latest Deaths in 2005 redirect here. (the current approach) 2. Starts a new article "Deaths in 200?" every year and move the redirection on this page to that new page.

On the surface, the outcome is the same. However, if you want to trace the edit history, the second approach is better. i.e. if some click on Recent deaths, they would be editing the "Deaths in 200?" whatever ? is at the time.

Kowloonese 00:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Recent Deaths shouldn't be the title of the actual article, as its non-permanence seems to be unencyclopedic (I'd say it's a corollary of Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly), and, as Kowloonese says above, it makes it difficult to track the edit histories of individual articles. Furthermore, it makes linking difficult: articles that want to link to the general page Recent Deaths will still do fine with the redirect, but articles that wanted to link to the page currently shown on Recent Deaths will have to update their links to Deaths in xxxx at the end of the year (dozens of articles, such as April 2002, March 2004, June 2004 in sports, all mistakenly point to this page). I'd go for making the regularly edited articles Deaths in xxxx, and have Recent Deaths be a redirect page which is changed each year. — Asbestos | Talk 14:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai> For what it's worth, I'm in favor of this idea as well. </Jun-Dai 22:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)>

This is an... interesting move to make.

You are all aware that Recent deaths gets moved each year to Deaths in year, aren't you?

I strongly suggest merging the two pages for reasons of legal compliance with the GFDL, and also keeping it at "Recent deaths".

Will do so if no complaints in a few days' time. Thoughts?

James F. (talk)

Folks, This page is in my browser's bookmarks. If it requires regular updating in the bookmarks, it kind of loses its purpose for existence. Please leave the tag "Recent Deaths" in place!! 164.156.182.30 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcello Viotti

There seems to be a lot of confusion about his actual date of death. I've now seen the following dates:

• 12 February (German newspaper)
• 14 February (International Movie Database)
• 15 February (forget where)
• 16 February (Wikipedia).

Can anybody point me to a credible source of info about exactly when the poor guy died? JackofOz 05:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As we can change WP and IMDB to whatever is accurate and "forget where" isn't credible, I assume it would be the 12th ;)

WP now even has the 18th! Here are two sources that may agree with the 16th on this page: [1] ("Wednesday"), [2] ("Wednesday night"). Maybe Munich publishes official notices? --05 12:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Melbourne Age obit from this week has him dying on 15th Feb. I don't remember the last time I came across a case where there are so many different reported dates of death for the same person, from supposedly reputable and accurate sources. Is there something wrong cosmically?

Edward Patten description

I admit to knowing nothing about music, but it seems to me that Edward Patten (died Feb. 25) can't possibly be a "member of Gladys Knight," as she is a person, not a band. --zenohockey 02:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too know nothing about music, but it appears that Gladys Knight was a member of The Pips, so maybe they were called 'Gladys Knight & The Pips'. It's just not written very clearly. --Ben davison 03:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peter Zvi Malkin

He is shown as dying on both 1st and 2nd March. His own page says 1st March. Can anyone resolve this conflict? Cheers JackofOz 06:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) BBC, Jerusalem Post, New York Times, Washington Post and the Times (of London) all say March 1, 2005. The Jerusalem Post may have contributed to the confusion. They cited no date in their original report but mentioned that the family released the news on March 2, 2005. --Theo (Talk) 12:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: listings require citations

We've had a number of fraudulent listings recently, including Robert De Niro. Someone has added Michael Eisner, and I can't find any confirmation (CNN, BBC, Google news). I'm not suggesting it's wrong, but in general I'm uncomfortable that deaths are listed without citations. m:Instruction creep notwithstanding, I propose we institute a comparable rule to that at current events - that each death listing must be accompanied with a citation, and that listings made without one should be removed until a citation is available. I realise this will slow things down just a bit, but the potential for abuse is such that I think a few minutes wait until a web cite is available is justified. Comments? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm against it, vandalism isn't a major problem on this page and I like the way that entries get put there so quickly. Bob Palin 01:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are trying to be an encyclopedia, and whilst up to date is nice, verifiable is critical. This shouldn't be seen as instruction creep, just a standard application of Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Anybody who's a little bit suspicious about an unreferenced entry should simply move it to the talk page and question it there. Having said that, I think the reference belongs on the page of the person who died and not on this listing page. It would be difficult to keep a proper reference up to date using current proposals. A direct URL (the BBC says...) would be fine. Mozzerati 12:08, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Listing soldiers?

Are we really doing this now? Good heavens - if we are, I hope the user that listed them is willing to go back through the thousands of deaths in armies all over the world and add them to the project. If there's something that makes the deaths of these particular soldiers notable - if they were undertaking some particular action that makes them stand out against the hundreds of deaths every day in armies all over the world, then this should be cited ; none of those soldiers listed for 26th March has an article written for them - are they really sufficiently notable to merit a mention? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 08:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree and decided to be bold and remove them. Gamaliel 08:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, death is rather the occupational hazard of soldiers, so perhaps they should be listed at a later date only if they receive a significant posthumous award (e.g. Victoria Cross, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, Medal of Honor, Silver Star). Average Earthman 09:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was pretty much my thinking - yes, I have sympathy for the family of those killed ; however if you join the military you do take a certain responsibility for the risks involved. Unless their achievements merit special mention, I agree with their removal. - Zaphod Beeblebrox 10:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)