Talk:Deaths in 2014

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)

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)

I can get ja 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...until now, apparently. — Wyliepedia 07:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

CAWylie - Lede or lead are fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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". [2] 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)

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)

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)

Here are more examples via Google [3][4][5][6][7]. Here is a case from 2007 involving a 1966 shooting of a police officer [8]. And there are many many more examples.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Top 10 Wikipedia pages of the week

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

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

Red link entries clarification

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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 [9] Thank you Duane steele (Redacted) Monaviejuiceboy (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 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)

• Comment/Question: What is the protocol for this situation? Should the bio redirect else where or should it remain a non article/red link? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Once a redirect page has been published it will no longer be a redlink, unless you make a case for the redirect page to be deleted. It's not possible to stop people writing redirect pages. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So, for clarification and for my understanding ... a person with simply a "redirect" page (but no article) is considered "notable" just as if he had his own page? Is that how it works? If so, that makes little sense. Having merely a redirect page is the same thing as saying "this person is not notable enough to have his own article". No? What am I missing here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Joseph. Wylie's clean up crew comes in at the end of the month and tests all the links. They are removed if they are redirects just like a normal red link. Like WWGB said, it is simply impossible to police all of the possible redirects. As far as the 2nd part, it makes it difficult to create articles when people redirect it (takes a little more than a novice user to create the page), but it is still possible to create a page for them.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation and clarification. I was not aware of that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDRED, should anyone wonder why they get created. Personally, I think some that get created from listings here at Deaths arise from editors' beliefs that, since they are listed and believed notable, they should be created with a redirect to companies, bands, spouses, etc. As stated, this is impossible to police, except to remove off the monthly pages at the appointed time. If anyone wishes to debate the creations, please go to WP:RFD and list till your heart's content. Also, there is the age-old debate of "why now?" when it comes to creating anything from this page, but why have biography books if a person's past doesn't matter after they're dead? — Wyliepedia 08:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather read about dead people. There, stories have endings. Nothing is worse than reaching the bottom of an article to read "As of 2009, Livingston resides in Bangor, Maine with his third wife, Judy." Nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Lauren Bacall

Lauren Bacall won two Tony Awards. That should be included in her entry; so, I did so. However, her credits listed are all films. Which, I assume, she is more well-known for, than her Tony-winning roles on stage. Nonetheless, perhaps someone can change the wording so that the entry does not imply that the Tony Awards were awarded for those three films listed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, isn't Key Largo one of her most well-known films? Even perhaps her "signature" film? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The first 2 Bacall-Bogart films are the more significant- To Have and Have Not for her performance and quotation ("Just put your lips together and blow"), The Big Sleep is on the AFI list and is on the US Library of Congress list for protection. The case to be made is for How to Marry a Millionaire. It was different than most of her other roles being a comedy and also featured Betty Grable and Marilyn Monroe. Her only Academy Award nomination (and Golden Globe winner) was for the Mirror has Two Faces.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

locked

How am I supposed to add someone when the article is locked? What happened to you wiki :( you used to be cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.119.49 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Several things. First if you become a registered normal user, you do have the ability to add to Wiki. Secondly the lockout was done because of repeated vandalism of the page and is an actual benefit to users. If you do not wish to join, you can start an article topic like you did on the Talk page and one of the regulars will come by and add it in for you. It is helpful if you provide a newspaper source when you make the request so that it can be verified quickly.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing of a Libertarian bent. If you become a user and use https (which Wiki supports), no one will ever know that you come from Washington. Ooops.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable death of a non-notable person

What is the policy on this page when the death itself is notable but the decedent is not? For example, see Shooting of Michael Brown. Do these types of deaths get listed on this page or not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not typically. It is one of the reasons I had a problem with the botched execution listing. As WWGB says, if they arent notable in life why so in death? Just because they are in a plane when it crashes, happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they do something stupid and get killed because of it, that shouldnt make the notability cut. Is it sad or tragic? Yes, but this is more about people (and other lifeforms) that make notable contributions. There are a couple of side death projects that track weird or otherwise untimely death.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another example I used when this came up last is the 2 Israeli and American teenager that was murdered by Palestinian militants. Look what they started. Their deaths were notable because it started the War, but does anyone remember the victims name- weeks, months or years on? I believe an article was started because of the fray, but they were not listed on this page at the time.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic that we have never fully resolved in discussion. The article heading refers to "notable deaths" rather than "deaths of notable people". In that sense, we could be justified in listing [[Shooting of Michael Brown|Michael Brown]]. This did happen from time to time in the past. Just recently an editor went back through all the old death lists and removed any of the "Death of ....." entries on the basis that the deceased was not notable. Perhaps if a "Death of X" article survives deletion, and there is no article on "X", then a death listing may be allowed? Interested in the opinion of others. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't fully decided one way or the other. There are good arguments on both sides. I would lean toward allowing on this page the listing of notable deaths of non-notable people. There are some counter-arguments to Sunnydoo's post above. First, as stated by WWGB, this is a page about "(Notable) Deaths in 2014"; it is not a page about "Deaths of Notable People in 2014". Second, clearly the purpose and tenor of the page is about deaths, and it seems a bit nit-picky (and semantic gymnastics) to say that the death was notable but the decedent not. I think most readers would expect to find notable deaths (of non-notable people) on this page. Third, there are some people who are notable only for their death; subsequently, they do become notable (even though it is because of their death). So, correct, nobody will remember the names of the Israeli and American teenagers murdered by Palestinians. But, pretty much everyone remembers the names of people such as: Trayvon Martin, Laci Peterson, Ron Goldman, the Manson Murder victims, Kitty Genovese, the Black Dahlia, etc., etc., etc. These people were not notable before death; they became notable after their death and in fact because of their death. Nonetheless, they are notable, regardless of the timing of the notability. In the list I just posted, none of those names are "forgotten" (like the Palestinian murder victims). In any event, we should have some consensus and some policy. Lord knows this page has a million other "rules" attached to it. This seems like a rather germane subject about which to have a "rule" and consensus. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the Manson murder and intended victims were already known. That is what caused the shock. Sharon Tate had already won a Golden Globe for Valley of the Dolls. The problem I have with your argument regarding people like Martin is that you have to project that it will have notable consequences going forward, which causes us to make an assumption. And you also have to make a value judgement on the Press (4th Estate) that is involved and whether or not there are other circumstances on why they are reporting such things and the angle that they are reporting. Its just not an easy thing to see in the present tense many times.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Take the present example, what exactly is the notability of the case? An unarmed teen who robbed a store, got shot by a police officer. It is a tragic event, that led to other events, but really where is the notability going forward at? What possible changes are going to happen because of it? People are still going to rob other people and police officers still have their duty to uphold the law. At what point does the rioting become notable? I would argue that only when civil resistance gets to the point where the National Guard has to go in, is where the notability would come in. Otherwise it is a local event just getting a little national coverage. It goes back to the famous and infamous and notable argument we had. One can be famous and not notable, one can be infamous and not notable and someone cant be famous or infamous and very notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as the Manson murders, I am speaking of all the other victims (the LaBianca's, etc.). (Clearly, Tate was notable prior.) Who knows how "notable" Trayvon Martin's name will be in 10, 20, 50 years? No one knows. The fact is, though, that he is notable now, today. Kitty Genovese's name is notable today from a murder back in the 1960's. That's 50+ years. Same goes for the Black Dahlia (1947). Even Ronald Goldman and Laci Peterson were – relatively speaking – many years ago, at this point. There is no denying that these are basically common house-hold well-recognized names. I just thought of another: Martha Moxley. Also, the very first line of this article (i.e., the lead) states: "This is a list of notable deaths." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just read a bit more about Moxley last night. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

If this article were only about notable deaths in the strictest sense, the page would be relatively blank. Heart attacks, pneumonia, strokes, traffic collisions, etc. are not notable and occur every day.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. You are confusing the word "death" with "cause of death". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still fine with either. I remember Jennifer Strange's name because of the strange way she died. She wasn't a notable person, but had a notable death. Michael Brown was just a regular brown kid, but those three facts made his death all the more notable. Lauren Bacall just had a mundane stroke. There's nothing much to say about that, and her name isn't a pun. But that insignificant stroke capped off a highly notable life, so it too was bigger than itself. It's the whole package that counts, not life or death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

The National Guard while we were prattling on has just been called out by Missouri's Governor and curfews have been put in place. And Michael Brown was not a "regular brown kid." The majority of African-American kids out there are not implicated in thefts. It is a stereotypical myth put forward by the nonsense on American television today.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as a regular brown kid. Or brown regular kid. Nothing like a "typical ____" comment. Three separate things gave this story widespread traction: His age, his race and his association with the 99%. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it now appears he was implicated in jaywalking, not theft. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Actually, it was robbery, not "theft". And it was all caught on video. What more do we need? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant implicated by the officer who killed him. Seems he didn't know about a robbery/theft yet. What more do we need for what? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

So, is there an consensus on this issue? That is, whether or not we are to list in this article the notable deaths of non-notable people? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If we start listing notable deaths, I will retire from this page. 600 listings a month are enough. If anyone wishes to start a "Notable deaths in XXXX" page, more power to 'em. — Wyliepedia 17:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. This is the "Notable deaths in XXXX" page. The first sentence in the lead: quote, This is a chronology of notable deaths in 2014, end quote. Which is why I brought this up for consensus at this Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the grist mills again. [10], [11], [12]. — Wyliepedia 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You typed in several links. I did not see any consensus or final decision. Did I miss it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For instance, words like complete, and notable are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to widely known or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles). If the lead needs changing, then let's discuss that. But currently the page is a list of deaths of notable people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, at a minimum, the lead needs to be more clear. I'd also suggest that the article needs a new title. But, first, we still need consensus on the issue above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

YOU still need consensus. Everyone else appears to be fine with how it is now. If you read this and you're not, speak up. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus above at all. What do you see? "Everyone" is fine with it? Where do you get that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

When I said I'm fine with either, I meant fine with either sort of notable death being included, not fine with either system. Regular Joes with notable deaths should be listed, provided they're central. We shouldn't list everyone aboard a notable plane crash, but if the stories are about a pilot who crashed on purpose, we should list him. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

Funny how Joseph A. Spadaro managed to edit the text in the main page article to "This is a chronology of deaths of notable people in 2014." without any consensus at all ! I actually totally agree and prefer this wording. However, given the editor's insistence on some sort of Wiki wide agreement to any changes, I find this unilateral alteration somewhat amusing.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amusing, how so? This thread was to seek consensus on whether or not the notable deaths of non-notable people should be included in this list. We were not seeking consensus about the wording of the lead. In fact, I thought others in the above discussion agreed that the lead's wording needed to be changed to reflect what the article contains. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are only listing notable people, your lead is much clearer about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Abel Laudonio

Hi. Just a heads-up to say that the editors of the page Abel Laudonio appear to be blaming the drug aciclovir for his death without properly sourcing that claim. The references quoted (both the same link!) mention nothing about aciclovir, and when Googled, the claim turns in on itself and self-perpetuates i.e. the only links to mention aciclovir are either wikis or 'harvester' of wikis. Try it. Basically, the editors of the article can do more or less what they like, but I don't think we should be repeating misinformation in the "Deaths" listings. It's a bogus cause of death. Truly reliable sources mention only "health complications from a stroke in 2009". Anyone with a bit of time on their hands, take a look please? Thanks. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I cannot find aciclovir in any reliable source. I have removed it from the article and the death list. WWGB (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And I declare an extra interest too. I was treated with aciclovir in the 1980s to combat a Bell's facial Palsy - and I can vouch for its safe use in the vast majority of cases. I see no reason why it should get a bad press either, through this misinformation. Best wishes for your help. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@86.112.58.46:: On a final note, the misunderstanding came about because the source gave the cause of death as complications of ACV. An editor assumed ACV was an abbreviation for aciclovir (which it is) when in fact it is also an acronym for "accidente cerebrovascular", which is the Spanish term for a stroke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

All is now clear. Thanks for that. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request August 23

Inga Juuso

http://www.nordlys.no/nyheter/article7544649.ece

(link in Norwegian)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Albert Ebossé Bodjongo

It was reported that he was hit with a rock. Source: Soccer star Albert Ebosse dies after hit by rock at Algerian game. Is there any reason we are using the generic word "projectile"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not change it? WP:BOLD 86.112.58.46 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - August 14

• Stephen Lee, 58, American actor (The Negotiator, Burlesque, WarGames).