Talk:Deaths in 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2008 redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Is this necessary so early?

Is this necessary so early? I haven't seen anything about people that have already died on 01/01/2008. 84.193.48.9 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its already 2008. xero-7 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's to another year of death hoaxes, memorials and schoolboy rubbish! tomasz. 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's necessary. It's already 2008, there's already one death, and there'll be many, many more.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outrageous speculation! ;) Tilefish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Death" and "taxes" are apparently exempt from WP:CBALL ;-) tomasz. 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Granville - motive unclear

Until we have a source supporting the argument that he was assassinated, we should not decide on the motivation for his murder. It might have been a random, unprovoked shooting. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Benham - No Source

This death has no source attached to it and I cannot find any information via google. Please can someone either reference this death or remove it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.49.238 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's what the "citation needed" tag was for. however i have removed this entry anyway as it's been unreferenced for long enough. tomasz. 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Imiko "Imi" Okazaki Mullins

This person seems to have no notability outside her relationship to her father. Should her entry be deleted? Be best (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Can I ask if it's okay for me to delete such cases, or is it better to raise it with an admin (and if so, is this the way to do it?) Be best (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general "consensus" around here is that most "redlinks" (death notices without a corresponding Wikipedia article) remain for one month before deletion. This gives editors sufficient time to write an article about a recently-deceased person. Having said that, some death notices refer to those who appear not to be notable (like this case in point). In such cases, the notice might be deleted immediately. Remember the Wikipedia guideline: be bold. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the article was deleted in an WP:AfD vote, it can be removed before the month is up, as the community has decided de jure that the individual is not notable (I consider a month-long red link to be de facto). Cheers, CP 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Shearer

This is another one of those sensational criminal cases where CNN picks up the death of perfectly NN person at the hands of another perfectly NN person, due to vanish into utter obscurity in about ten days. I think an AfD is in order. Thoughts? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cannibalism aspect makes it notable, if gruesome, because it's incredibly rare. But whether the victim should have her own entry, or even the crime should, is highly debatable.Be best (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting debate. Food for thought. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, I don't believe that Meredith Emerson is notable, but she is a death in 2008 and she does have her own page. Rather than start a revert war, since we don't have a date of death, is there any objection to listing her under January 7 with a "body discovered" notification as we did for that one singer whose body was found a few months after Hurricane Katrina? I'm not talking about an objection regarding her notability (she's presume notable for the purposes of this list until her article disappears, and that can be debate on her page), but rather an objection based on style. Cheers, CP 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was Barry Cowsill, whose death is noted at Deaths in September 2005 on 1 September, which was the last day that he was known to be alive [1]. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: this article seems to confirm that Emerson's date of death was 4 January. WWGB (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith is off to prod-land. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and immediately declined without comment by an anon. tomasz. 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is cordially invited to take part in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Emerson. Jana is clearly next. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well wait until the AfD finishes before adding. I also that my latest addition to the list, Wei Wenhua, won't last long either. Cheers, CP 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Uemura

I read his obit via the AP recently, yet his name is conspicuously missing from this page. Surely the praise circulating his work and self-named line of cosmetics makes him notable, no? I realize he doesn't have an article yet, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone gets their first Wiki article post-mortem. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just looked it up and he passed away in late December but only now is his death being reported. Hence he doesn't belong on this page. D'oh. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 09:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Hillary

Hillary was not the first person to climb Everest. He was apparently the first person to put his foot on the summit, but he was part of a team, which included Tenzing Norgay, who also climbed the mountain. Might be nice to not maintain the idea that only white men's achievements count?.Be best (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue for the article talk page, not here. I've changed the entry to just read "mountaineer". Tevildo (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert but I strongly disagree with that edit. Some indication of notability in the deaths page is not uncommon, and in this case, it's like 'first man on the moon'. He's not just a mountaineer - he's the mountaineer for many people.Be best (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is madness! The "team" did not reach the summit, Hillary and Tenzing did. Whether Hillary was first alone, or first together with Tenzing, he was still first. And that's what the notice states. WWGB (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why are you yelling at me? I agree with you! It's simply inaccurate to say he's the first to climb the mountain, but he reached the summit first, and that's what my last edit says. I'm not doing this in the interest of 'political correctness', I'm interested in accuracy. I didn't remove the references to 'first on the summit' - I put them there.Be best (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be best, I certainly wasn't yelling at you. I was just very frustrated, like you, at editors who seek to diminish Sir Edmund's achievement and regard him as just another "mountaineer". I will adjust the indentation to make clear where my response is directed. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've moved your comment under my original one. If you want to object to Tevildo's edit, you should reply to him. You reverted his edit to the one I made, so I assume you found mine more acceptable. I am in agreement that merely stating he was a 'mountaineer' is ridiculously understating the man's notability (when I said I objected to 'that edit', I meant Tevildo's edit.) I do not agree that he should be described as the first person to climb Mt Everest, as that's palpably untrue even from the cited sources. Describing him as the first person to reach the top is a rather ethnocentric and debatable description, but it's an acceptable shorthand for what is more properly discussed, if at all, in his main article. I hope this makes my position clear. I won't be editing his deaths entry again, as it's now becoming contentious. You guys can hash it out between yourselves. Be best (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for any upset caused. The current version is accurate, and, I hope, uncontroversial; the version I replaced ([2]) wasn't, in my opinion. Tevildo (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Edmund_Hillary page it states that although initially they claimed they had reached the summit together after Norgays death he revealed that he was actually first. 194.200.145.5 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can someone explain the difference between being the first to climb a mountain and being the first to reach its summit? i feel there's a subtle distinction i'm missing somehow. tomasz. 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaineering is a team sport - Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary did it together, and who put their foot on the top first is almost irrelevant. They climbed it together. If you know the least thing about Sir Edmund, you'd know he'd be the first person to point that out. It's like - two people race hand in hand to a stile, but only one person can cross at a time. Do you claim only that person was 'first' purely because of that physical limitation? That's my feeling anyway. Others can and will disagree. Be best (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competition?

Seems we have a competitor. See Deaths in 2008/Wikinews (unless a speedy deletion occurs). WWGB (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page has been moved to Template:Wikinewshas/Deaths in 2008 and the resulting redirect deleted. Миша 13 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." The territoriality exhibited by WWGB is unbecoming of a valued editor. RichardF (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikinews update on obits is not vandalism or just plain goofy. It is part of a broader effort to more closely collaborate between the Wikinews and Wikipedia projects! See User:Wikinews Importer Bot and n:Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous#The Wikinews Importer Bot. No maintenance is involved. The Wikinews list will be updated hourly, as needed, by the User:Wikinews Importer Bot. The value of this link is it clearly shows the obituary items available at Wikinews for readers and editors, thus promoting and encouraging further inter project collaboration. This is a good thing! RichardF (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:REDUNDANT. "Before creating a new article, run a search for the topic — you may find a related one that already exists. Consider adding to existing articles before creating an entirely new one." I agree that your Wikinews update is neither vandalism nor goofy, it just promotes incorrect information (wrong dates of death). WWGB (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a candidate for speedy! I'm not totally following what the dispute/disagreement is. We want to increase the visibility of Wikinews on Wikpedia and this bot is the best tool - to date - for this. If it draws in a handful of new contributors who want to see stories on their favourite portals then it is serving its purpose. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would putting it in a sisterlinks box be more acceptable? Bawolff (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikinewshas

I'll try that. RichardF (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow indeed! You view this as competition? Wikimedia sister projects are supposed to cooperate, not compete with each other. At first glance you can notice that Wikinews items are massively linking to articles on Wikipedia. It is only fair that it gets some traffic (a.k.a. potential contributors) back as well. Миша 13 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current format with the links in this box seems to work out nicely. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

If the only purpose is transclusion this should be a template and not something in the article namespace. --W.marsh 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine with me, as long as it's not just moving the deletion sentiments to a new namespace. RichardF (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article... so I oppose it as one. Articles stand alone and thus have prose introductions and categories at the minimum, it looks like this page never will. But as a template it seems okay. --W.marsh 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, third today! Template upgraded, pages moved out of article space. Миша 13 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entries without an online reference

I've been doing this long enough, so I'm not sure why this hasn't come up sooner, but what do we do for entries whose death was published in a reliable source offline, but not online? I suppose this list doesn't need everyone on it (thought it would be nice for completeness sake), but I was just curious. I'm referring to Joan Dingley in this case, and I'm assuming good faith since I haven't seen the work myself (and probably won't, since that citation seems a bit incomplete). Just wondering. Cheers, CP 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally found that if a person is sufficiently notable to warrant a WP article, then their death is usually covered somewhere on the web, meaning that the awkward "non-web" reference is not necessary. Applying the ^{[citation needed]} tag for a couple of days usually ensures that an editor will find a reference somewhere. WWGB (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I'll give it a few days and see what turns up. Cheers, CP 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

testicles

Plz remove the picture of testicles on this page. Thank you.