Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.215.94.238 (talk) at 19:30, 4 August 2014 (→‎Manny Roth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Louis Zamperini

Can't we just say "subject of Unbroken"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.94.238 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could. My guess is that the editor wanted to include a link for both the book Unbroken as well as the film Unbroken (which are two different links). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I did that Joseph. The book was a #1 bestseller and won several acclaims. The movie will come out on Christmas Day this year directed by Angelina Jolie and produced by the Coen Brothers. Both are therefore notable especially in conjunction with the amazing life Mr Zamperini had.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the film isn't out yet. And with both having the same title, it makes no sense to have both linked. By simplifying it to "subject of Unbroken", it addresses both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.94.238 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. Because your "Unbroken" link is simply to a disambiguation page and, hence, the least helpful of any of the pertinent links. The wording can be re-phrased somewhat if you really object to having the title Unbroken listed twice. Both links can still be included in Zamperini's entry. We might say something like: Zamperini, subject of the book and film Unbroken. (With the appropriate links to the book and to the film.) Just an idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, even though I feel with the film not out yet it isn't yet something that reflects on his life personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.94.238 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. Point 1: Whether or not the film is out yet is irrelevant. Louis Zamperini is still the subject of the (upcoming) film. Point 2: You state that, because the film is not yet out, you feel that "it isn't yet something that reflects on his life personally". But, if the film is not yet out, how do you know whether or not it does or doesn't reflect on his life personally? Also, just as in my Point #1, the death-list entry here is merely claiming that he is the subject of this film. That claim is highly sourced and not in any dispute. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Part of keeping Wikipedia timeless is looking forward as well as back. Standing at the present and seeing the past of the film's cast and crew, the future's pretty clear. Even you probably saw it, IP 24, when you said "yet". We're writing for every reader to come, not just the few here today. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
Is the POW part really notable, though? Wasn't something he did, but something that happened to him. It's already somewhat conveyed by the "military officer" and "subject of Unbroken" parts. Removing it would fit the Rule of Three. Not a huge problem, but sort of, if anyone else sees it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is very notable as he survived one of the most notorious Japanese prison camps after being shot down and surviving 47 days on a makeshift raft in the Pacific. It is also one of the subject headings on his Wiki page. And he was repeatedly tortured by one of the biggest war criminals of the Japanese during the War. I find all of that very notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The "POW" distinction is certainly notable. And, probably, one of the more notable of the many "hats" he wore. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole shebang is notable, no doubt. Just figured it was adequately covered by "subject of Unbroken". Bombardier, rafter, hunter, prisoner, torture victim, national hero...all covered in the same article section. Not a big deal, though. Won't argue further. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

July 7: Alfredo Di Stefano cause of death

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

Unfortunately the source was not specific. This is the wording from the source: "The former Argentina, Colombia and Spain international suffered a cardiac arrest in the street near Real’s Bernabéu stadium on Saturday – the day after his birthday – and had been in an induced coma in intensive care."
He didnt die from the immediate effects of the cardiac arrest, but lingered 2 extra days. More than likely either heart failure or intravascular swelling took him out. But it was from the effect of the cardiac arrest on his body.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's that age-old question of whether a soccer player scores a goal, or whether the ball scores by crossing the line. I'd go with "heart attack" (or "complications of" it, if insisted). Cardiac arrest is a symptom we're all going to have one day, whether we're in a bed or a tiger. Accurate, but too vague, like "natural causes". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
Regardless though it is complications as the CoD was not immediate but lingering and without further detail. As I said, more than likely heart failure or a vascular swelling condition as no mention of a secondary infection like pneumonia or peritonitis was mentioned.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He lingered because a machine was breathing for him, and his metabolism was slowed by the coma. It's like tourniqueting a gunshot wound, then eventually bleeding to death. Not like getting shot, falling through a dirty window, catching meningitis and dying of respiratory arrest (from the edema). Way more direct.
Cancer can linger for years before it finally kills, often in complicated ways, like a piece of a brain tumour getting clogged in a leg vein and breaking a heart, or bone cancer pinching a spinal cord. But we've no problem with simplifying there. Or with the extremely basic "traffic collision". But yeah, not a huge deal. Just odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
A heart attack is a single event. It has a beginning and an ending. You cant have a heart attack and die 6 weeks later from the heart attack. You can die 6 weeks later from damage (ie complications) from the heart attack be it heart failure, secondary infection, vascular damage, etc etc. Just like in a traffic collision, there is a beginning and an ending. Or a stroke. These are all events.

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

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

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

RFC to re-define meaning of "recent deaths"

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

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

Interlanguage link template use

Hi folks, I recently made an edit adding an interlanguage link to no. The edit was subsequently reverted by CAWylie with the explanation "That's not what's done on this page". Why not? -- RobLa (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

valid point, enwiki is the UNIVERSAL wiki of wikimedia, we should allow for links to deceased people from other wikis, not everyone has an article on enwiki but everyone notable do have articles on other wikis..we may need to discuss this further and i fully support the linkage of names from other wikis provided that person doesn't have an article on this wiki..--Stemoc (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest answer is because such edits are subsequently reverted. Not just not done, but undone on this page.
Is there a way to make it clearer what "(no)" or any other interlanguage link means to people used to the old way? If so, I'd support redoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses, Stemoc and InedibleHulk! InedibleHulk, I'm not sure if there's an easy way to make modifications. I used Template:Ill, which has a fixed format. There is also Template:Link-interwiki, which superscripts the language code, like so: [[{{{1}}}]] []. I'm new to these particular templates, so I'm not sure if there are others or any tricks that could be used with these templates. Your question might be a good one for Template talk:Ill-- RobLa (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That superscript looks better already. Anything to distinguish it from a regular English word, linked to a regular blue article. I'd click "no" to find out why not, and suddenly have more questions than answers. It'd be nice to get a mutually beneficial global harmony here, but in an orchestra, the oboists can't be reading the horn parts. Rainbows take practice. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
It's correct that interlanguage links have not been reported here before. The consensus here is that the deceased must have a Wikipedia article (assumed to be in English) prior to or one month after death, or the death listing is removed. This was done to stop the list being dominated by people for whom notability had not been established. RobLa has raised an interesting concept that Wiese has an article in another Wiki language (Norwegian), so his notability has been established. Of course, it would be much simpler if an English language article or stub was written for Wiese, which would remove the need for any intervention. The question for the editors here is whether the demonstrated existence of a Wikipedia article in another language satisfies the requirement to remain listed here. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well a link could allow someone to create an article on it in English on enwiki, we still do not have a global search option (apart from google search ofcourse) and I never liked the one-month rule especially for notable people who are removed from the list because no one bothers to create an article on them even though they may have an article on them on another language wiki..as mentioned above, we are the universal wiki so we have to find ways of incorporating links from our smaller language wikis as well..--Stemoc (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for the response Wyliepedia. I can hold off on adding more if the cleanup crew needs time to weigh in (though I'm not sure who is on it). As for the peculiarity of parenthesis, I agree that it's a little odd, though I can't think of anything that would be better (maybe a more verbose link wrapped in a <ref></ref>, but that seems like an abuse of the tag). Regarding how this would add to load times, I'm curious what you're referring to there. -- RobLa (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can be on a cleanup crew, but it's usually one or two on the monthly page who remove redlinks and redirects. As for load times, I suppose it would not make much difference than any other redlink, except for formatting of the parenthetics after the name. I suppose I'm thinking longterm and the onus being placed on someone who speaks both languages (or has a good online translator) to translate the entries for the en-wiki. If that never happens, then it's extra work for the cleanup crew to remove it. (Example: I know it's only been a few days but Jan Wiese is still red, even without the parenthetics.) The extra tagging may not even matter in some instances. — Wyliepedia 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

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

Is it reasonable to assume that:

  1. The interwiki link can be removed once an English language article is written?
  2. A redlink with an ILL will survive after the one-month amnesty since an article in ANY wiki language demonstrates notability? WWGB (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went through tonight just to see how many redlinks would be affected and what would happen when an article was written. There were actually quite a few that I found with links to Espanol and Francois Wiki. I would say that it would be safe to remove the ILL designation after an article is written as long as the notation is made on the new page to the other Wiki (to help prevent the Deletion crowd from gaining sway...or the no fun police as I call them). As for your other question, I will let someone else weigh in on it- I am on the fence on that one. Funny thing is there apparently is a huge soccer contingent among the Espanol Wiki writers, so every soccer player from here on out should have already have at least an Es Wiki page. But I do have an additional question. What happens if there is more than 1 Wiki represented. Lets say we have an Austrian soccer player that dies and he has pages on Francois, Deutsche and Espanol Wiki but no English Wiki. Do we designate it with all 3 (FR, DE, ES) or do we choose 1? Dont have an answer for that one either.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Whittaker

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

His life should be notable. Everybody dies. It's not an accomplishment or unique quality. And that link below me is confusing, but that's a different issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
So what is the basis for his notability? Clearly not his "acting" as he fails WP:NACTOR. Is it his death? If so, would we list him as "English child"? Death of a child is always sad; it's just not notable in this case. There will never be an article Death of Harry Whittaker. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was anyone's life should be notable before we include them. I agree with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

MH-17

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

And I see Randor is in a snit this morning and has taken it down. Hopefully someone will rescue it later today instead of us having airplane crash listed 50x. Try to be pro-active and this is what happens. The best laid plans of mice and men...Sunnydoo (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my edit summary, how do you know there were notable people on the flight? The number of casualties are still not known, let alone the identities of those on board. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
280 passengers and 15 crew members = 295. It will be the largest loss of life in an Airplane Crash It will be the 2nd largest, 346 people were killed on a Turkish flight in 1974. It was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur both of which are major international hubs in addition to their own country hub. The chance that there are more than 3 notable people on board is very high because of these factors. It is not some small plane flying inter-country or even regionally. This is a major international incident and there is going to be heck to pay if it was shot down as the news services are now reporting.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently just another plane crash. Until we get more info about who died (and their notability) and or if it was actually shot down, it doesn't warrant inclusion on the page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two notables listed amongst the dead so far, good (and sad) to see the disaster listing mode has been enacted. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Stritch

The entry for Elaine Stritch refers to her as a double Emmy Award winner, but she won three Emmys. She also is a Tony Award winner for Elaine Stritch at Liberty. I recommend a rewrite that says:

Elaine Stritch, 89, American actress (September), winner of one Tony Award (Elaine Stritch at Liberty) and three Emmy Awards (Law & Order (1992), Elaine Stritch at Liberty (2004) and 30 Rock (2006)).

If it needs to be a bit shorter, you could leave off the parenthetical names of the three shows for which she won Emmys. Those can be easily found on her Wikipedia page. 67.211.119.3 (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Tony Award notation with link to the ceremony, however the "Event" does not have a native link so I didnt add it for brevity's sake.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for the Editor who keeps trying to shorten the entry...EGOT is the criteria we use for the Acting Profession. Any of those awards (Emmy-Grammy-Oscar-Tony for those uninitiated) are considered extremely notable achievements by themselves and will automatically be placed in the entry field. The awards not only are the highest professional awards but they are all voted on by the profession itself, which makes them even more noteworthy over other content.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come to this Talk Page and write about Stritch's entry, when I noticed this Discussion Thread was already started. I think that her entry is too long. I don't think we need to list all three specific Emmy titles. They are not that crucial, and they can easily be found at her Article Page. If we insist on keeping all three Emmy titles, then should we also add the Tony title? It will read:
I propose:
Thoughts? Thanks. Also: Is there no cause of death reported? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CoD was natural causes, but have not found the specific illness of yet. I am not a fan of shortening the tag line. The Tony was a dual award with the Emmy, so it is already listed and that is also why we specifically link the ceremony to the award. Someone can click on the link and go to that specific page and look at it if they need more info. Why we dont use the generic Emmy Award, Grammy Award, etc. Could you take out 30 Rock and Law & Order and leave the dates? You could, but that would probably cause some confusion and consternation with the average reader as she was not normally associated with those programs on a weekly basis.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. OK, but ... the entry is inconsistent. Why is the specific Tony award not listed, while all of the specific Emmy awards are? That is inconsistent. The average reader will have no idea about a dual award; I never even heard of such a concept until just now. Clicking the links does not address the issue I am pointing out. So, if you want to list all three Emmy Award titles, do you support or object listing the Tony title? I think it makes for an unnecessarily long entry. I mean, as far as acting ... she was not Olivier or Streep, after all. Also, when we do get the cause of death, her entry gets even longer than it already is. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its difficult to categorize is the first problem. It was a one-man show that not only qualified for Tony status as it was held in a NY Broadway theatre, but also qualified for Emmy status because it was shown on HBO (which is a premium channel in the US for those not from here). Secondly, I am all for adding additional detail if you want. The problem is we have a bunch of people who just access the page using phones or tablets and not computers and they complain most vociferously when the entry gets into the 2nd standard line on a computer generated formatting. Thirdly, dont besmirch someones acting chops. It takes years of dedication to win one of these awards. They just dont hand them out like candy. Only 12 people have ever one all 4 of the EGOT (yes there is a Wiki page). And only a few more have won 3 (also on that page), then think about how many actors are out there and it gives you an idea of the accomplishment. Fourthly, I doubt we will ever get the CoD because it was in all likelihood diabetes related and an autopsy was not conducted from what i understand (meaning her physician signed the death certificate). I am up for better wording if you can come up with it, but it is going to be tough not to duplicate using the term "Emmy" twice.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lights were dimmed this evening on Broadway. That is a rare honor that is only afforded so many.[2] Sunnydoo (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason her Tony Award should be explicit, as are the Emmy Awards. I will put it in. As it reads now, the Tony Award is relegated to "second class" and the Emmy Awards are presented as "more important". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links to language with different writing system

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

I was fooling around with it also and couldnt get it to work. Someone may need to tinker with it to accept the Chinese, Japanese and Korean alphabet. The other issue I was working on that would be nice would be double linking to multiple Wikis. For instance ^^^^ up there is a German dude that has a De and Ru Wiki page. The current formula only accepts 1 and not the other...i tried to see if it would take lang=de|lang2=ru for instance and it would not. That would be something else on the wish list.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can get ja [Makoto Sakuma] linking correctly using {{ill|ja|Makoto Sakuma|佐久間一}} but I cannot work out how to get the language name to appear as a superscript. Maybe we are better off using this template as it caters simply for language differences. WWGB (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

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

I just did a very quick count. There are nearly one hundred red links, as the article now stands. (I quickly counted 92 or 93.) This is a significant number. And the month isn't even close to being finished. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly never even noticed that before. I agree that needs to be fixed. Honestly just removing seems to be fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did remove it. I was reverted by User:WWGB, who is a "regular" on this page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, you misread the passage. The page lists people who are notable or possibly notable even if they do not have their own Wikipedia page, but it only lists animals (like race horses or movie dogs) and organisms (like the tree named "Washington" or other plants) if they already have a page. You should revert the change. The text was correct as it was. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, exactly that was part of my question above. What is the distinction between people and non-people in terms of red links? We have agreed that there are some people that don't have a Wiki page (thus, a red link), yet they still may – or may not – be notable. So, they are allowed a listing on this page for 30 days. (Even though they do not have an article, that does not mean that they aren't notable. This gives us 30 days to start the article.) So, how and why are the other entries (animals, organisms, etc.) different? Why are they "singled out"? The general philosophy about allowing red links is rather well-founded. But why does that philosophy/rationale not apply to any other entity that might be placed on the list? If there is an animal that is notable, for whom an article has not (yet) been created, why are they not allowed a red link? This makes no sense. It's tantamount to saying: an animal (organism) can only be notable before they die. They can never be notable after they die. Why are they treated differently than the red-linked humans? What about the general philosophy and rationale suddenly changes when we are talking about an animal or organism, as opposed to a human? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
You started by quoting the line you wanted deleted and saying "Everyone who works on this page knows that this statement is not true". That is only a conclusion you could draw if you did not understand the passage, because the statement is true. You then went on to talk about red links for people. Then you followed up with another comment on red links for people. It was that part of your comment I was responding to. If you want to propose a change in policy to allow red links for animals and plants or to disallow red links for people, go ahead. I do not know the reasons that were used in the decision to make the policy what it is (I was not involved in any of those discussions), but I like the current policy as is. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP 99.192 is right. I misread. The consensus on the page was that non-humans must first have an article to establish notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am asking why? What's the distinction? We have concluded that all notable animals (organisms) already have an article, and no new ones will ever be added. If they are to be added, it cannot be after death; it must be before death. So, what makes the argument advocating red links different for animals than for humans? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We have concluded that all notable animals (organisms) already have an article, and no new ones will ever be added." That makes no sense. We have made no such conclusion. The policy on this page says noting about whether or not new articles can be created for animals or plants that either are now notable but have no article, or that will become notable in the future. The policy is just saying that the article must come before their death can be listed here. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:WTAF. You can make an article after the being has died, as I did with Eisenhower Tree. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And, once again, what is the difference between humans versus animals? What about the underlying rationale and philosophy of the "red link rule" is applicable to humans, but not applicable to animals? Or is it just some random and arbitrary rule/distinction that Wiki editors created? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
All rules are obtained through consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for not being human-biased on Wikipedia, but every discussion I have about it turns into a headache. So I'll just say I think redlinks should either stay or go for all. Period. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

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

...until now, apparently. — Wyliepedia 07:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CAWylie - Lede or lead are fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are all titles equal?

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

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

Off the top of my head I would say the simplest and best policy would be to list their by whatever their Wikipedia page says (if they have one). Since that is usually sans title, then that would be the default standard. Any titles will be mentioned in the notability description if they truly are of significance. 99.192.91.52 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noble titles, knighthoods and royalty are a separate distinction from professional titles.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
This whole area has been a sore point for many years. Some of the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2008 archive: Honorific prefixes. It seems that the current understanding is that a special case is made for Sirs/Dames to have their title attached to the first use of their name. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skimmed through it. Still seems to me that making a special case for any one group isn't the neutral thing to do. But if anyone deserves special treatment, I guess it logically should be the privileged. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
This is an ages old argument revolving around the Divine Right of Kings. Wiki more than likely isnt going to solve it. I understand that the more recent political philosophies (ie Communism, Socialism and Libertarianism) where all things are created equal are opposed to it (and for the record I am a Libertarian myself). However, it is what it is. There are several old tribal and kingdom based societies in this world. You cant simply tell them that their opinion on the subject is wrong, because thats not neutral either.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If omitting the "Sir" from our modern online society here can be seen as telling the upper crust they're wrong, omitting "Doctor" or "Father" or "General" should likewise be telling the medicine, religion and war societies they're wrong. If we tell everyone their acquired names aren't special, that's fair.
Wikipedia can change if we want it to. I've played a hand in decapitalizing bird names for the ornithologists, and (hopefully) helped the drive to start calling ships "it", to the chagrin of the sailors. Part of a good compromise is all sides leaving feeling like they lost. And key to neutrality is compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
Doctors, Generals, etc etc are also members of the upper society which is what your rant seems to be against. Clergy have their titles in the description...Nationality, Type of Prelate, Titular office is the standard form for Clergy, so I dont know why you keep bringing that up. For the Supreme leaders of a religion, such as the Pope where their divine right comes from God itself, those titles are also used at the beginning.
As for Generals, most distinguished Generals in the British Empire have a Knighthood or Noble title in addition to their regular title of General. Their office is also listed if it is available in Wiki (and most time it is not) with the standard form Nationality, military or naval officer, General/Commander/Admiral of ---. I dont think a compromise is going to be made. There simply isnt grounds for it as it is the philosophy of several traditional types of society in the world. Professional titles simply do not equate to Noble titles. That is one reason in the Middle Ages, there were 2 different forms of upper society in Europe- Nobility and Gentry. One based on blood and service to the Royals, the other based on personal achievement and service to society in general. Sure there are many instances where 1 side may have crossed over and represented both sides, but the society as a whole was based this way.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's in their description. But like I said to start, we just call her Lynda Patterson, because that's what her article's titled. Same with Admiral Charles Larson. If we were being fair, we'd list plain Nick Scheele, then say he was a manafacturing executive and knight. If you insist Wikipedia is somehow still connected to those sorts of faded societies, I'll defer to you, since you do more work here than I do and I'm more a meritocracist. But it's an odd idea, for deaths in 2014. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Lucie F. Roussel

Speaking of red links ... Lucie F. Roussel, the mayor of La Prairie, Quebec died after being stung by wasps. Is she notable enough to be on the list? Probably. Lots of news reports of her death can be found by googling her name, but here are two on Canadian national news sites: [3] [4] 99.192.91.52 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a horrible way to go. I never knew that one could die from "only" 15 stings? (If you don't have allergies.) When I read the article, I was expecting it to say that she received hundreds of stings. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The town itself is too small. The usual cut off I use is 150k (or within standard error of that). There is a different Wiki sub-project that I believe a couple of our usual editors are a part of that records strange deaths. They will probably be very interested in this one.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article exists: List of unusual deaths. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Algiers Flight 5017 down

Rumor has it Fidel Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela Castro may be onboard as it went down in Mali with 116 people on it. A lot of Western Europeans and Canadians aboard, so there is potential here for notablility.[5]Sunnydoo (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Joseph Wood - "botched" execution?

"Botched" is a somewhat loaded term, isn't it? There are still investigations pending on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.124.183 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the common term being used by the media (about 150,000 times). We could instead use Senator McCain's terms of "torture" or "bollocks-upped" if you prefer. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand why this is listed at all. He did not have a Wiki page before this happened and as standard protocol for executed murderers of other non-famous people, they are usually removed. His name is also piped to an event, which also usually gets you de-listed. The only thing notable in this case is his death, and that usually isnt enough to get someone listed. (see the Mayor and the Wasps above). There are a 1000+ people executed every year between China, the US and the Middle East, so I am not really seeing anything that tells us he should be listed.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the stuff he did that set him up to be in the right place and right time to inherit some redlink notability from the "Which expensive drug combination works better than a guillotine?" shitstorm. Far more significant coverage than a typical, straightforward execution. Not enough for an article himself, but more notable than Jumber Lezhava (just for example). Good for a month.
About "botched", it's a bit silly a word. He's dead, isn't he? But the sources have spoken. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Lynda Patterson

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

She had an unstated long term illness- which is natural causes. The family wanted the death released this way. Until we have other info, that is the way it should be listed as it is directly from the source. Natural causes could be anything from a heart condition to diabetes to a long term disease.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of "natural causes" differs from mine. It's not natural to die at age 40. Our life span is three score and ten. Heart conditions and diabetes are not "natural" – most people don't have them. If you have a source saying "undisclosed long-term illness" then that should be listed as the CoD. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be natural. Hell, dying of cancer should be considered natural causes. Unexpected doesn't mean it can't be natural. Correctron (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your definition is wrong. There are several places I can point you to as far as filling out a Death Certificate and the definitions involved (the CDC is probably the best resource there), but here is an article that represents the British side of thing as your "score" terminology seems to represent (that is a term that hasnt been used in the US for 50+ years). [6]. There is actually a 5th classification in the UK and the US as well. In the UK, it has to be an inquest finding, but "Unexplained" is their term for it. In the US, it is usually termed "Unknown" causes and is usually a provisional distinction until toxicology reports are returned. A very small % end up that way.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coroner's Handbook, if anyone is interested in it. [7]Sunnydoo (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quicker read with no download required is Death by natural causes. 99.192.74.69 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. "Natural causes" is a catch-all phrase coroners use to categorize any death which is not a suicide, a homicide, by accident or by misadventure. A death by natural causes can occur at any age. Thank you all for setting me straight. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Gettysburg Address, if anyone is interested. Sic semper tyrannis! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the reference, however the term is archaic in the US because it does not express exactness. One of those phrases like "2 bits" that are gone from the lexicon now.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers 20 and 25 seem exact to me—your mileage may differ. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Schoen

Hi. There is a glaring inaccuracy, as far as the death date goes, with using the "premium" subscription source link from the Chicago Tribune (quite apart from the 'old chestnut' of having to own a subscription to that fine publication if you want to view the proof!). They have got the date wrong, by one day! This is supported mainly by an obituary at http://www.shalom2.com/in-memorial/2014/GAN%20MENUCHA/William_Schoen/ (from the website of the Funeral Home dealing with his dispatch), and, albeit less reliably I am compelled to say, from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's "Rosenthal Archives" at http://csoarchives.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/remembering-william-schoen/ (it being a 'Wordpress'-generated site). On these basis however, I have moved the subject from July 20th to July 21st, and used the obituary link as a more reliable reference. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 13:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add death of Justin Carmical?

Games reviewer Justin Carmical, aka "JewWario" committed suicide on January 23rd. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page to himself, but he used to be mentioned among the crew of Channel Awesome. Anybody think his death is notable enough to include here? Keep in mind that the circumstances of his death were somewhat exceptional in his field of work. --Serpinium (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was listed at the time, however after 30 days a red link is removed from the list per policy. If a subject is not notable himself for an article, group status does not qualify. This includes famous music band members, wrestlers, folks related to people (if they meet just a little bit of notoriety on their own merits), artists and all sorts of other folks who are parts of groups.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for the explanation. --Serpinium (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the circumstances were somewhat exceptional (however that works), it'd be a good idea to at least mention it in Channel Awesome's article. Along with what he'd done for it previously, of course. There's no notability bar to clear there, things just need relevance to a notable topic and a source that says they happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Péter Kiss

Péter Kiss was actually became MP in 1992 (see this), not 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.239.133 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - July 24

 Done. <s>Utah's HG<s> (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Roth

Listed on July 30, but his article states he died on the 25th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.94.238 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to relocate Roth?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2014&oldid=619858885"