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 02:12, 12 August 2014 (→Edit request - August 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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]

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]
I put one in for the baseball player tonight. I also updated the Salvadoran football player using the model as you can tell this function exactly which page to link to in the other wiki. I dont mind using both functions for their intended purpose with 1 being the default and 1 being used in a needed case by case situation. However there are some format police out there that might be a little grumpy about it.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:11, 10 August 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]

Thanks for the explanation and the background to this. It makes sense to some degree. This is not that big of an issue to me, as I don't frequent this page much anymore. It just seems to me that the rules should be consistently applied to all entries on the list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 7 August 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)

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.[2]Sunnydoo (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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). [3]. 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. [4]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]

Don Hatwell

Actually died on July 30th 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.231.109 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See Deaths in July 2014#30. — Wyliepedia 10:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Brady

The Virginia ME has arrived at a somewhat bizarre conclusion that Brady died as a result of a homicide that was allegedly committed 33 years ago. That has to be one of the slowest deaths in history. If a COD is to be reported on this list, let it not just be "homicide" or "shot" which suggests that such an incident occurred in 2014. On the basis of the ME's finding, he did not survive the Hinckley shooting, as it eventually got him 33 years later. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A statement from the Metropolitan Police Department says "…an autopsy was conducted and revealed the cause of death to be a gunshot wound and consequences thereof, and the manner of death was ruled a homicide". [5] If that's the case, I vote we report the COD as "gunshot wound" and remove the "shot during Reagan assassination attempt (1981)" part from his entry. Any thoughts/suggestions? Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 15:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually not bizarre at all. Many MEs and Coroners will list the original cause for the cause of death as the first event. I can remember a number of cases in the US where someone has been shot, put in a wheelchair from paralysis and then later died from conditions related to the paralysis and the ME ruled it homicide from the shooting. It also happens frequently with vehicular homicide where someone who is drunk hits someone else. There have even been a couple of notable deaths around these circumstances. One of them was Darryl Stingley who the Cook Co (Chicago) ME ruled died from injuries sustained on the football field.
My vote on this is that is listed as White House Press Secretary, wounds sustained in 1981 Reagan assassination attempt.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And further, this kind of goes back to the recurring problem we have with CoDs. There is an event be it a heart attack, stroke or gunshot wound in this case. It has a beginning and an ending, which in this case was in 1981. However, complications happen from these events. The initial event didnt kill him, but the subsequent complications from that event did. This is why I am so funny in my wording sometimes on some of these CoDs trying to be exact as possible in describing the CoD.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more examples via Google [6][7][8][9][10]. Here is a case from 2007 involving a 1966 shooting of a police officer [11]. And there are many many more examples.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still more than bizarre to me. Trying to pretend that a death is the direct consequence of something that happened almost 35 years ago, is more than surreal. I am surprised that US coroners do not consistently list the cause of death as 'birth', as that surely started the rot. Not too surprising that some around the globe view the Yanks as completely barking mad. My view adds nothing to the debate about the wording for the 'Deaths in 2014' article, mainly because the American viewpoint on almost everything is all pervading on Wikipeda. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not pretending anything. The question to ask is this when filling out a death certificate- What caused the person to die? In many instances it is quite clear. In others not as much. Using the Stingley case as an example (for historical purposes), he died from an infection related to him being a quadriplegic. I understand that many would write that off as infection, but is that really the CoD? Would he have had the infection if his immune system was healthy and in many cases that is a NO. So then you have to trace back to the original event because that is what caused his immune system not to be healthy in the first place and is the underlying CoD- which is the way the Cook County ME ruled that the injury on the football field ultimately led to his death.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as your US complaint, 2 things- first, it is the country of record that lists the CoD the way it is intended for that country...ie in the US it is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, but in the Commonwealth nations we list it as Motor Neurone Disease. Assorted other cases with aneurysms and other spellings (esophageal is another), but that is the way it is listed...has nothing to do with Yanks being Barking Mad. Secondly, there are more English 1st language speakers in the US, Pakistan, Nigeria and India than the rest of the world put together. What you are seeing isnt a "taking over", it is simply the majority prevailing with deference given to neutral opinion.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As American, I'm offended. Derek R Bullamore's "pervading" comment is completely unfounded. Even if it was substantiated, it does not belong in this post. Yet another reason why the Deaths page is no longer in my watchlist. — Wyliepedia 05:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Wikipedia pages of the week

We are number 9 this week. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Facebook. — Wyliepedia 04:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - August 9

 Done Sunnydoo (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be keep for 30 days, or if they are "judged" to be non notable, should they be removed prior to 30 days? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was determined that borderline notable redlinks can stay, but if an article could obviously not be supported there's no sense in waiting. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the case you are talking about is the County Clerk one. I agree with WWGB that there is no notability there. County level officials in the US very rarely make the cut. Usually it is reserved for extremely large counties such as Cook and LA which hold several million people inside them and even then is only for the County Mayor, Sheriff and perhaps other heads of government if involved in a major disaster. (Even city mayors we hold a figure of 150k (or thereabouts) to be included on the list). Morris County, New Jersey does have close to 500k people in it- however a County Clerk just doesnt meet the case of notability. We dont even usually list the names of County Commissioners and a Clerk, while an elected official, is still well below that rank.
As for the process, if someone objects to the removal, they usually bring it to the Talk page to avoid an Edit War and state their case. The opposing person also makes their point. It is usually weighed in upon until a consensus is reached one way or the other.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for those outside the US, there are 4 levels of government- National, State and Local. Local is split into 2 categories: City and County, which is a holdover from the Commonwealth system. Depending on local laws, usually 1 or the other has jurisdiction over the other and sometimes it is hard to tell which is where. Added to this goofiness there is another system in the US which started in Nashville called Metro government which combines both branches of Local government. And in Louisiana, the French parish system is in place for local government. Got all that? Going to be a quiz later. Also link for US County populations to give you an idea of what would be notable County wise.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunnydoo, thank you for that explaination. This was more of a general question, even though there was a recent removal which I wasn't really questioning. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

9aug 14 death of hyperlinks to Tony Stewart. Someone changed the wiki link on the main Wikipedia page for Kevin Ward Jr 

 Please correct link to Kevin Ward Jr web page

http://www.kevinwardracing.com Thank you Duane steele 1excalibur@comcast.net Monaviejuiceboy (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done we don't have an article on Kevin Ward, Jr., which is why that Wikilink is a redirect, and we do not link to outside websites on this page. - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - August 11
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2014&oldid=620856376"