Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question

I recall that deaths from the previous month remain on the subsequent month's page for a number of days. Shouldn't December 2013 be listed here until that day? Or am I mistaken entirely? I am going totally on memory right now.—John Cline (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed it above as an FAQ; seven days is standard.—John Cline (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Deaths in 2013#Change over to Deaths in 2014 --Racklever (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I did expect you would bring good insight to the table. Thank you!—John Cline (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's official! We came second ...

Deaths in 2013 was visited more than 21 million times last year. That makes it the second-most popular article in the English Wikipedia. (See Most viewed articles on Wikipedia 2013). Congratulations to all contributors and WikiGnomes. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Interesting to see what's on there. And did you notice the German list? The equivalent to this article was #1 there. Something for us to shoot for. :-P --Alexbook (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Something for us to shoot for" - are you suggesting we should try to bump up the deaths ourselves in 2014? Normally that is specifically excluded in dead pool competitions ;-) Edwardx (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I'm interested to know what makes a death significant enough to be mentioned in the 2014 article? Pass a Method talk 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQs at the top of this page? Edwardx (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The poster appears to be asking about 2014 rather than Deaths in 2014. The criteria for 2014 are listed at Wikipedia:Recent years. In particular, for deaths, "only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question". WWGB (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ten languages? Wowzers. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It gets better! The ten language articles have to be written before death (Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Death inclusion criteria). On that criterion, a famous-for-death person like Mohamed Atta would not get listed now. WWGB (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Kim Kyong-hui

At this point, it seems more a rumor than fact. Some sources are using the term "rumored" in their reporting (1). Not sure we should include in the list until it's confirmed per WP:BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Korean news website The Cosun Ilbo said Pyongyang intelligence services believe she is dead but have not been able to confirm it." from Express. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Source from today saying she's in a coma: [1] EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Jottar

Could someone add "Olympic" to his profession of "skeet shooter"? I feel that this better reflects his notability and will increase the likelihood that he will receive an article by the end of the month. Thanks. 70.179.5.27 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Added cause of death as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

January 4 - Frank Slaten, 61, American actor (Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!) and set producer (The Carrie Diaries, Spider-Man 3). IMDB page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.212.68 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I can't find his name on any of those pages you linked. Those works aren't mentioned in the obit either. Not sure if notable enough. If you can make a page for him anything, that would help. Note, though, that IMDB is not considered a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm also struggling to see notability, notwithstanding an ongoing bit role as Corpsman Frank in M*A*S*H. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of 'Sir' for Knights and Baronets

There seems to be a persistent attempt to remove the prefix 'Sir' which is used in the British honours system for people who have a Knighthood or Baronetcy. Although not forming part of an article title, it is customarily used on the subject's name. Newspapers will use it to head the obituary, or use it in any list of famous people who were born/died on this day in history, unless the person concerned made it clear that they did not use the title (this is very rare for knights but more common for baronets). Previous discussion (eg Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 4#Knights) has therefore supported its continued use on this page where the subject used the title, and the page archives show that it is usually included. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCROY says we should use them. I see no reason to remove them. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughbred horse age

Several people wish to change ages of racehorses listed here to match their foal dates. However, MOS standards and horse rules start horses on January 1 of the year foaled, no matter the month born. See here, Section III, and here for rules. (Note: Southern Hemisphere horses start on August 1.) Thank you. — Wyliepedia 09:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What/where is the MOS position on horse age? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked at the horse racing WP for MOS confirmation. But most who list them here and mention it in the separate articles usually treat it as such, while still adding the foal dates. If there is no proven MOS standard, I'll alter my above statement. — Wyliepedia 10:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to me that there is a "prescribed convenience age" and a "natural age" for racehorses. While it may suit the industry to have a universal birthday, I lean towards reporting the horse's "real" age. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of this convention... very nonsensical. I support real age as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. Age should be per DOB, but some of my additions here in the past were changed because of the "rule". — Wyliepedia 17:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to make an edit to the entry that reflects a hardcore reality. i suggest that a MOS discussion be brought jointly to WikiProject Horse racing and WikiProject Equine. All horses in the Northern Hemisphere are "legally" considered one year older on January 1. (And I believe it's August 1 in the southern hemisphere). So for competition purposes, they run (and do horse show competition too) with their age cohort, even if they are months and months younger than other horses. In theory, a foal that is born on December 31 is a "yearling" the next day. (and I suspect this has accidentally happened more than a few times, as breeders like to have horses born as close to Jan 1 as possible... for obvious reasons) The only exception I know of from this rule is endurance riding where horses have to be a full 60 calendar months old to compete in the bigger races, but that's a one-time standard. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's hard enough convincing many that notable horses belong here, so adding expanded explanations in the list plus footnotes is over the top. I have instead referred to the biological/racing age difference in a hidden comment. That should suffice. WWGB (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB. While racers may prefer to have their horses turn one year older on Jan 1 - regardless of their real age - on this page, we are more concerned with the actual biological age of whatever being is listed on this page (whether it be human or animal). Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 00:37, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

The problem is it's an industry standard and not a preference. I agree it's probably OK to go by the DOB on this page, but there might be a discrepancy in RS about his death when clicking through to the article and seeing it (and the sources) listing him as a 7 instead of 6-year-old. As mentioned at WP Horse racing, this weird rule for Thoroughbreds goes back about 200 years. But I guess if East Asian aging traditions are also not followed here either, DOB should be used. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 05:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. It isn't an option, and there could be sourcing issues, but whatever works. Montanabw^(talk) 09:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Flavio Testi

The source used (http://www.giornaledellamusica.it/news/?num=115604) in this article for the death of Flavio Testi appears to be the only reliable source, and it clearly states, in translation, that Testi died on January 14, 2014, and not on January 15, 2014. The Flavio Testi article gives no source whatsoever for his death date, and repeats the error. Blogs are now copying the info from his Wikipedia article, stating that Testi died on January 15, 2014. Misinformation abounds, and so I am moving Testi's entry to the 14th. If anyone can find a bang-on reference which contradicts my assertion, please feel free to revert. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hal Sutherland

Cannot see this added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Sutherland

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.22.160 (talk • contribs)

Not sure what to do with it. No date or anything. I found this, but still not much. What do others think? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If it can be established when the death was first announced, it could be listed under that date together with "(death announced on this date)". WWGB (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Added on the 16th, as that is when the Filmation Facebook page reported it. I know some don't consider FB reliable, but once the newsweek starts and the global news sources get wind of this, it will all be verified in detail, like his age and DOD. — Wyliepedia 08:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014

Please add british actor Jerome Willis. He passed away on January 11, 2014. No obituary online yet, but a notice of death was published in The Guardian on January 17, 2014; page 41.

194.69.14.179 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Most of the Guardian's stuff is online. Nothing on the Guardian's obit page or their obit twitter account. I cannot find any reliable source announcing his death. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of it, yes, but not absolutely everything! Contrary to some people's belief, everything can't be found online. Is there a written rule somewhere that states that a source has to be online to be reliable? To me a source is never less reliable because it is on paper. Anyway, here is an obituary that I hope is reliable enough:

Obituary

Could you please add actor Jerome Willis now? The obituary doesn't say 11 january, but he did die that day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.14.179 (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

Could you please add actor Jerome Willis? The obituary doesn't say January 11, 2014, but he did die that day!

Obituary

194.69.14.179 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Racklever (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Horsbrugh

On my pet subject once again: the entry for Patrick Horsbrugh's death, on 12th January 2014, stated that he was a "British-born American". Nothing of the kind - his article leads in by telling us he is/was still British, despite his US residency, and the source used goes into detail about how US state legislature forced him from a job, all because he was, or is/was, a "foreign national". The source fails to claim that he later naturalized, so I have changed his entry to tell the likely truth. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014

Please add french singer François Deguelt. --78.243.1.150 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Only source I can find is this. I'll add it though. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Luis Aragonés

Luis Aragonés died less than four hours ago, and I believe that he should be already remembered as one of the best coaches in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milarqui (talk • contribs) 08:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He's already listed. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's that discussion?

Can someone point me to where on WP it was determined that redlinks on this page are removed after 30 days? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 11:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths in 2007 and most talkpages since. Check any archives linked on some of them. — Wyliepedia 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Contact Basemetal here 17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actors and their awards

I have not been to this page in quite some time. I thought that we had a policy that we did not list awards beside the names of deceased actors. Was that the case, or did I imagine that? I thought I remembered a lot of discussion about that, the gist of which was "which awards are notable to list and which are not?". Rather than nit-picking over the "notability" of which awards should or should not be listed (and how many to list), I thought it was decided to list none at all. Am I remembering correctly? If that is the case, did that policy subsequently change? Just now, I noticed that both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Maximilian Schell are cited as Best Actor Oscar winners. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall such a decision being made. On the contrary, winning a notable award such as an Emmy, Grammy or Oscar is a criterion for notability. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not remembering correctly. I know that those awards are criteria for notability. I thought that the issue was which, if any, to list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion you were referring to was the one between me and Mr Twilight Zone. It was a discussion over whether a person who wins an Oscar such as a Producer/Director for a group win like Best Picture deserves to have that added to his description- not as an individual honor however. That status has never been in doubt as WWGB stated- that is it indeed meets the criteria for notability here by itself. Typically each famous person falls into one of the award categories. It is only for certain special people that can cross over into 2, 3 or even 4 of the general awards like a Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby. Usually those profiles write themselves or can be ironed out with discussion. Of the ones that you normally do see from the same category (Oscars and Tonys), usually the Oscar takes precedence unless it was for a more minor role.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So special in fact are these individuals, that Wiki has a page for them. To date, there have only been 11 people who have ever won all 4 major awards (Oscar, Tony, Grammy and Emmy). And only 71 in the lifetime of each of the awards have won 3 (and roughly 27 of that 71 are already deceased, so the likelihood is pretty small that they can pick up the 4th award. Sunnydoo (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I "thought" that I was remembering a discussion from quite awhile back, maybe one or two years ago. Perhaps I was mistaken. I am aware of that Oscar, Tony, Grammy, Emmy Wikipedia page. In fact, I contributed a great deal to it and helped to set up its design. However, back to this "Deaths" page. We can't assume that those four awards are the only "important" ones. Do we also list other awards, those more obscure? I assume we would list the Nobel or the Pulitzer. But what do we do with other awards, those not as "highly esteemed" as the ones already mentioned? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We link a number of important awards from both the professional, art, military, sport and scientific arenas. Newberrys, Caldecotts, the Israel Prize, Medals of Honor, various sport awards and even a research award I can remember having seen in the last few months. We also should be linking major Hall of Fame and Olympic participation. My rule of thumb when I add to the list is if the Award has a page on the Wiki with all of the winners or membership on it, I usually link it.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks for the info. I clearly was mis-remembering the discussion from way back when. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

'American'

In the header I read;

A typical entry reports information in the following sequence:

Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death...

Then under e.g.

February 2014

5

I see

• Suzanne Basso, ... American ...
• Carlos Borges, ... Uruguayan ...

Why is Suzanne Basso called 'American' even though that is not a country of citizenship, and Carlos Borges is called Uruguayan (which is a country of citizenship)? Why is not 'USA' mentioned as country of citizenship for Suzanne Basso or 'American' for Carlos Borges, because Uruguay is in America? 145.53.180.22 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So you would rather see Name, Actual Name of Country, position/title/job, etc. rather than Name, Country Demonym, etc. every time? — Wyliepedia 22:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Its called an Adjective, and specifically an Origin adjective which is exactly what a demonym is (which Wylie pointed out). Having 2 nouns in a row would not make sense- i.e. United States of America politician. Not to mention that if you did that, you would open another whole can of worms about which is the official name for a state like the Republic of France, France or the French Republic. And another thing, we already have people complaining about the length of some of the entries because they happen to use mobile devices. Having the entire name for a country would make it a lot more wordier without really adding anything of substance.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunnydoo said: "it would make it a lot more wordier". Some of us even edit with their mobiles. If you haven't tried that in the current state, you should do so while imagining it with the actual country names. — Wyliepedia 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) The header implies that the nationality should be stated as a noun, not as an adjective. The header should probably be changed to say "citizenship" instead of "country of citizenship".

(2) Some people in other countries object to the adjective "American" being used exclusively to apply to citizens of the United States. I'm guessing that that's 145.53.180.22's real objection here. In Spanish, the preferred demonym is "estadounidenses"; unfortunately, the equivalent English term, "United-Statesian", has never really caught on. See the article Names for United States citizens for a discussion of the matter. --Alexbook (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

More accurately probably Demonym (linked) for Country of Citizenship. We need the "Country" part left in because of the ongoing problems we have with people trying to sneak in territories as nationalities (had another case with Puerto Rico last week). And yes that has been a continual problem. We also had a "Chinese-born" Hong Kong fellow last week, which I didnt raise a fuss about. The -born part was probably not necessary and could have just been just as accurate as Chinese Hong Kong as HK is now a Chinese territory.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Plus, "United-Statesian" is such awful 'cod English', please please consider NEVER using it! Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Awards

The articles with award monikers are unnecessarily lengthy. I compromised with Sid Caesar by shorthanding it (he's won 11, by the way, linking only one award show is false), but that was stripped. If it is to go down that route, I feel it should be written like this:

• Philip Seymour Hoffman, 46, American Oscar-winning actor (Capote, Doubt, The Savages). It gets the point across. Writing like "BTW he won in 2005" is unnecessary. Rusted AutoParts 00:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding why they are linked. We are not saying that is the only one he or she won. We are saying that it is more than likely the most important one that they won. Caesar for instance won several Emmy's, but this was not only his first, but it was the most important as top Male actor on television. Yes you are correct that we dont need to link every one they won as that is what someone could open the profile and find out. It is akin to why we link the most important roles over their career.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Tuprue, but films are put up as examples of the person's filmography. It's fine to establish they won an Oscar, but the entry "Winner of the Academy Award for Best Actor (insert year)" is lengthy and unnecessary. Rusted AutoParts 01:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as it fits on 1 line there really is nothing wrong with it. The Caesar notation wouldnt have fit and that is why the awards show from 1954 is hotlinked the way it is. Hoffman and many of the others however have the space to put the full notation out there. If the space is there for it, why not use it. I realize some people like there mobile phones, but this is an encyclopedia of knowledge and some notation is necessary even in brevity. I have tried to notate it differently such as Academy Award Best Actor (2005) as an example in this case, but WWGB among others have a problem with just putting that out there and not using winner/recipient. (As a side note if you want to know how many characters fit on a line at standard resolution, Shirley Temple's entry is at the max number of characters right now. I have never counted it out personally, but it looks close to the amount of characters that can go into a twitter feed.)Sunnydoo (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Academy Award-winning actor (Capote, Doubt, The Savages)" implies he won three Academy Awards, which he did not. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Tad hypocritical, as we're suggesting Caesar won Emmys for all three credits on his docket. Why not do the same as what you're doing with him: link to that year's award show. And I honestly don't see that affecting how people view it. We're not suggesting he won for those three films at all. Rusted AutoParts 02:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-Image

Listing the deaths of trees and race horses together with the deaths of human beings just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous in the eyes of the casual user, and provides ammunition to Wikipedia's critics. We might as well be including in the list "the day the music died" and the presumptive fatality at the "end of an era". And what about when Ford Mustangs go out of production? What about when the sun falls out of the sky every night? We should have humans on one list, everything else on another, or the Wikipedia just looks silly. Arcanicus (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I can definitely see the reasoning behind including a racehorse (or any other animal) provided that the animal is sufficiently notable, but seeing as trees etc tend to only attract local notoriety if anything, It's highly doubtful that they'd meet the criteria for inclusion. The inclusion of Eisenhower Tree seems very silly to me, and really out of place, but Marius (giraffe) is fine imo. --Connelly90 10:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism (to an extent) both believe in reincarnation even as animal and plant form and that all life is precious. Are you being racist against Eastern Religions and Philosphy? Just because you may live in the West does not give you the right to criticize the belief system of the Eastern cultures. I would invite you to go to the wiki page located here. The 2 religions together probably comprise about 10-20% of the entire World population. Even Dante had people who committed suicide living in the 7th level of Hades as trees. [2] Sunnydoo (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit for some facts. The CIA factbook lists the combined populations of Hinduism and Buddhism at 22.1% of the World's population or around 1.55 billion.[3] Sunnydoo (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. It's unhelpful to make such accusations to further a point. I made no mention of "eastern cultures". A person has the right to believe what they like; but regardless of a person's belief system, if the article about the tree (or any other person) was only created following it's death, then the tree was not notable enough in life to merit inclusion on this list. That's my opinion. --Connelly90 11:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you Connelly. I was not making an accusation, I was asking a question of the original OP (and the constant Western bias that Wiki exhibits mostly unintenionally). And there is another reference to said tree on the Augusta National Club page before its death, besides the aforementioned CNN/ESPN references. Just because your own personal belief system doesnt make you think highly of trees, there are many others that may do like the Buddhists, Hindus or even some of the natural religions like Druidism. This is an all inclusive page and some people need to get off their collective high-horses and let people live like they want to, not how they are dictated to.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. I can see your point and it might make for a good news story on ESPN/CNN or among golf fans, but even they thought it wasn't big enough on it's own to justify a dedicated article prior to it's death. If it was a person who had an article created only on the day of his/her death, then the same would apply. --Connelly90 11:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar:Regarding this whole "not notable in life, so no article in death" nonsense, I submit most of my DYKs as evidence as a moot and silly argument. Most of those were also created post-mortem and from, wait for it, red links here. — Wyliepedia 12:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record; I'm not saying we shouldn't maintain an article about the tree itself, if there's enough to write, then I'm all for it! What I'm saying is that the article only sprouted (pun-intended) after the tree had died, suggesting that this tree wasn't even notable enough for an article till it's death; and even now it's under dispute. Sure, there's a lot of people on this page without their own articles, but I think animals and plant life have a greater deal more to prove in terms of being relevant enough. --Connelly90 14:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Two different topics discussed here—one has been discussed for years and only mentioned, ad nauseam, when a non-human dies; the other is ET's article, which does not belong here. I wonder how many international golfers would not think ET is not notable? — Wyliepedia 15:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is probably straying towards territory where it is in danger of becoming one of the most pointless debates of all time. Is a tree notable? is it not? should it be included in "recent deaths" or not? on further reflection, I've concluded at least one certainty; that it matters not to me. I'm bowing out. plot-twist: I'm actually a tree. --Connelly90 16:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A tree is not a person, even if it used to be a person, or if it might become a person at some point in the future. The same goes for rocks, cows, elephants, Schrödinger's cat, Occam's Razor, Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus, The Jetsons, and Cabbage Patch Dolls. So if I'm advocating for a bias it's a bias favoring homo sapiens sapiens against all other classes of entities, biological or not. Arcanicus (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in Wikipedia, does it make a sound?" Apparently so. — Wyliepedia 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats a good one Wylie. Thanks for the laugh.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Eisenhower Tree

Ok, things were different with The Senator (tree) as it had its own article, but this time Eisenhower is barely a footnote on a completely different article. It should not be here. Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes notable plants and animals are covered on this page. The Eisenhower Tree is probably the most famous tree in all of golf. It has an iconic history involving a President and one of the greatest American generals of the 20th Century (see D-Day). Several other golfers have threatened to sneak on the course during the Masters and chop it down. It sits just to the left on the 17th making it a very difficult drive off of the tee. Many golfers have gone into the tree costing them a shot at the Masters. It is also the Tree that hurt Tiger Woods and probably stopped his domination of golf in 2011. It was also responsible for the 1973 Masters "Lost Ball Incident" which gave Tommy Aaron the Masters title, costing JC Snead and Jack Nicklaus a shot at a Major tournament victory. [4] The tree is front page news on ESPN and CNN at the moment. Several other major media outlets have also generated articles. [5][6][7] Sunnydoo (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This tree being listed in the obituaries is an abomination. Remove it. 98.201.240.250 (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good god, you've edit conflicted me three times just to add trivial things. As I said, it doesn't have it's own article, doesn't have enough information to sustain one and its just a footnote on Augusta's article, therefore it doesn't meet the requirements to be listed. Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am making case for its inclusion. Some of the things I have said require notation and I am making sure it is backed up. I dont simply remove things from the page without notation like other people do or not use the required notation in discussion because of how I feel.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Those things are very trivial. And I don't know why you feel the need to make a dig at me, but it doesn't change the fact it's not a notable thing to be out in the Deaths section. Pray to god I can add this without being conflicted. Rusted AutoParts 03:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not taking a "dig" at you and am sorry you feel that way. I am making a comment on the community as a whole. The major reason I stopped contributing to this page last year was because of the process. In my opinion, there are far too many people in the Wiki community who simply want to "red pen" and not work on articles. If people would get off the Red Pen and work on writing articles instead for 30 minutes a day, the whole project would be the better for it. I dont do this for pay or for accolades or for any reason other than to help the free flow of information through out the World and to contribute to a project as a whole. It is a hobby. I understand I make mistakes and this is a collaborative effort and edits happen. But there are many in the community who simply just come in and erase whole bodies of info without merit because they either want to or for personal reasons or just to cause turmoil or just to shorten things up b/c of the device they happen to be working on at the time. I was not aiming that shot at you, although I will admit you do it quite a bit including earlier this evening. If you must erase things, at least do the original editor a courtesy and tell them why so they can fix it. Just dont send stuff out there because you want to. Sunnydoo (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page rules are that we wait a month for an article to be created if there is a potential for notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop the presses. Reading the tidbit on the article, it doesn't even state it fell, or "died" if that's what you want to say. It was "removed". Therefore, it's not a death. Resort officials dug it up. Rusted AutoParts 03:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No different than euthanasia. Go contest the page when it's created if you feel so passionately about a tree. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're honestly comparing digging up a tree to the life ending process of being euthanized? Really? Rusted AutoParts 03:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Cutting down a tree is what you do to euthanize it. This horse is thoroughly dead. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should only be added when article is created. That said, it wouldn't surprise if someone created its redirect to Augusta, just to give it a blue link here till March 7. — Wyliepedia 04:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Honest question: We let redlinks for others and give them a month to create the page, so why not in this case? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Damn, I'm psychic. Also created by the OP. Huh. — Wyliepedia 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem in making a redirect, but its all its ever probably going to be. There's just not enough about it to sustain an article. Rusted AutoParts 04:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I just killed a fly. Can it please have a Wikipedia article? Seriously, if the thing did not have an article while living, it's not entitled to one in "death". WWGB (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@WWGB: Can you point to where it says non-humans need their own page to even be listed? There's at least a sense of notability here. To compare it to a fly is a false comparison. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it makes it too easy to add any animal, or any tree, even if they don't have their own articles. I can add my cat and say "oh yeah, he's notable because he once jumped off my piano and fell down into the basement. Rusted AutoParts 04:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but I'd like to know where this rule was agreed upon. Working on an article now. We lots of trees in Category:Individual trees, many with very short articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless your cat is Grumpy Cat or the Minister for Mice Control, its not notable...though I do wonder if Catasaurus Rex deserves its own article or mention on wikipedia?....regarding Eisenhower Tree, I believe its notable--Stemoc (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some past discussions: Talk:Deaths in 2008#Animals?, Talk:Deaths in 2007#Animals, Talk:Deaths in January 2007#Barbaro. I agree with RAP's comment above: it's too easy to add a random animal or plant without a standard for inclusion. In this case, it's an existing article. Having an article means we have tests of notability, either speedy, prod or AfD. Without an article, it is impossible to apply any of these tests. It quickly becomes an edit war according to whether individual editors perceive it is notable or not. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you WWGB. I created and article and RAP has nominated it for deletion. We'll see how it turns out. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your stance WWGB, I still disagree with it. If someone or something makes the Front Page on ESPN and CNN in the same day, then it probably is notable. There was a subsection listed in the Augusta National Page but like many things (see my earlier comments) it was extremely poorly written and needed to be expanded. My stance remains the same that if anything- person, horse, tree or planet suddenly and with finality gets taken out of the cosmos and it has at least a dedicated section in Wiki, then it needs to be included on the Notable Death page. I honestly dont understand the Grumps out there who dont want a great online Encyclopedia/database of information updated to the fullest extent possible.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Evergreen for starting the article. I will update it with a few of the details I mentioned earlier regarding '73 and Tiger Woods and lend my support along the way.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For my money, if the Eisenhower Tree article only appeared following the death of the tree, then it's not notable. --Connelly90 10:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Often that's the case, but not always. Liviu Librescu was a major scholar with an international reputation by the 1970s (he would have warranted an article then, if we'd been around), but he didn't get an article until he was murdered. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrestlers' character names

Another editor seeks to add a range of character names used by a deceased professional wrestler. As a precedent and for consistency, we have always applied WP:COMMONNAME and used only the same name as the deceased's article. To me, this is no different to listing the characters played by an actor, of which there may be many in a career. If an interested reader wants character names or further info, they need only click through to the main article. Where the wrestler was best known by a ring name (eg Hulk Hogan) then that should be the name of the article, and not the wrestler's birth name. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Even though I didn't know who Nelson Frazier, Jr. was, one click solved that. There has been no consensus in previous discussions about his article title being one of his many "stage names". Common name is best. — Wyliepedia 13:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let me first establish that in pro wrestling, if you just watch the television shows produced by the company, you're not going to know the wrestlers' real names. There are no on-screen credits at the end of the show. This is why we have wrestler's articles at their ring names, like Hulk Hogan mentioned above, instead of at their real name (Terry Bollea). However, it is not always obvious which is the most notable ring name the wrestler has used in his career. As with Frazier and other wrestlers like Fred Ottman (Tugboat, Typhoon and Shockmaster) and Mark LoMonaco (Brother Ray / Bubba Ray / Bully Ray), these guys have had a few ring names, and even the most notable ring names end up in a two or three way tie. So to not prioritize any "most notable" ring name over another "most notable" ring name, we name the article the real name. Even pro wrestling fans may not be able to recognize "Fred Ottman" and "Mark LoMonaco". That's why in this case, apart from stating the real name, you also state the ring names. It's not because his real name is the best known name at all! If you read Talk:Nelson Frazier, Jr.#Requested move and Talk:Nelson Frazier, Jr.#Above discussion, this quote best sums it up: he is definitely not primarily known by his given name, but he's been well known by a variety of names.

Imagine it from this POV. I am a wrestling fan, and I heard "Viscera is dead". If you're not a wrestling fan, would you know or care? Somehow I end up on the "deaths in 2014" page. I have never heard of the real name "Nelson Frazier". If I ctrl-F "Viscera", it doesn't show. Or I try "Mabel". Turns up nothing too. Ah, he's not dead then?

Look at the reliable source coverage, they all also mention his ring names. LA Times, Intl Business Times, Baltimore Sun, Edmonton Journal, Digital Spy. Some sources don't even mention "Nelson Frazier" in the title! Memphisport, TMZ, Sportsmole starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If most wrestling fans would not recognise a wrestler's article under his birth name, then the wrestling editors are not following WP:COMMONNAME. It can't be that difficult to decide on a best-known name, whether it be the name under which he won most titles, or used the longest, or has the most Google hits. The issue here seems to lie with a lack of agreement among those editors, rather than the need to report multiple names here. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem is there is an argument. As Mabel, he had success as "King of the Ring" and a Tag Team Champion from 1993-1996. As Viscera, he had lesser success as only one-time Hardcore Champion, but he was Viscera for a longer time from 1999-2000 and then from 2004-2007. Then he spent one year as "Big Daddy V" before leaving WWE. So for "Mabel" you have success, and Viscera you have longevity... and people last remember him as "Big Daddy V". A headache. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This drum needs beating on his talkpage. The consensus there, again, should be what his article should be called. Here, we list/go by whatever article name there is. Very rarely do we use alternate names anywhere, i.e. comedians, actors, deejays, etc. — Wyliepedia 13:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the wrestler should be listed by his/her most common ring name (CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Goldust, Triple H, The Undertaker etc) unless he/she is either known by multiple ring names that are equally notable (such as the case with Nelson Frazier, Jr.) to avoid the inevitable unwinnable debate, or he/she has become notable for something else using their real name (as in the case of Dwayne Johnson and his movie career). Then we should list them here by whatever their article is called. --Connelly90 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, wrestlers are called by their common name. However, we can't decide (sometimes) what name is the common. Adam Birch is the same, we discussed about a change and the same problem and we talked about wrestlers with legal names, not ring names. Also, sources call him Nelson Frazier (AKA, mabel, viscera and big daddy) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides, when said wrestler dies, it's more appropriate to list them by their name. So when the day comes say, The Undertaker dies, we'll probably list him as Mark Callaway. But in this case, since Frazier was known as "Mabel", "Viscera" and "Big Daddy V", it would be wrong to list Nima "Big Daddy V" because others will probably know him better as Mabel. Rusted AutoParts 15:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

^ This. ^ Too many "characters" for one person to satisfy everyone. Hence, common given birthname. (But, 'Taker is invincible!) — Wyliepedia 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would we list him as Mark Calaway? We use the WP:COMMONNAME, like the Shirley Temple discussion above says. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

THat's true, but wouldn't be more appropriate? His family wouldn't put "The Undertaker" on his gravestone. Rusted AutoParts 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Aslan's family will have that name on his gravestone either... Anyway, I think we should go with stage name unless consensus says otherwise. Right now I think using the stage name would be best, but that's for a later time. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Undertaker and Paul Bearer long ago reached consensus on which name to use for Mabel's casket. I vaguely recall vignettes with a similarly-named tombstone. Of course, it was The Undertaker who later kidnapped and (ostensibly) renamed him "Viscera", so even there, mixed messages. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see alternate names/roles normally listed here, and don't think King Mabel should be an exception. But we do list most notable work. Maybe add a (WWE 1993-2008), like how we list notable movies or books. Then, someone unfamiliar with the birthname glancing through may be alerted to "Hey, I remember that show, who's this?" InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken my my own advice, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want the name changed here, change the article name. If an article move can pass scrutiny of WP:COMMONNAME, then there should be no problem. This process was recently used in a category I wanted to rename. I proposed Category:Chairmen of the Federal Reserve be moved to Category:Chairs of the Federal Reserve because of Janet Yellen's appointment and use of the gender neutral term "chair". We decided that is Chairman of the Federal Reserve was moved to Chair of the Federal Reserve, so too would be the category. In the case of Frazier, he has too many stage names and I doubt anyone would be convinced to move his article. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait up. I don't want the name changed. I just want the ring names to be listed after the real name. Like Nelson Frazier, Jr., 43, American professional wrestler (Mabel, Viscera, Big Daddy V); heart attack. That's it. Isn't this what Frazier is notable for? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is far more convoluted than I had imagined it would be. Essentially I agree with Hulk, we could list his years in WWE, perhaps a mention to his notable ring names. Frazier should be listed under his real name since that's his article name.LM2000 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've readded his tenure. It was removed by Rusted Auto Parts earlier, but with no apparent reason. If there's a reason, that's cool. It'd just be nice to know it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Article naming for wrestlers' articles

But anyway, I want to ask WP:PW editors, really, can we stop having articles with wrestlers' real names? They're just not as recognizable. Other editors can weigh in as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of them go under their common ring names already. Frazier is an exception for reasons detailed extensively in the discussion above. As someone suggested this could be hammered out on the article talk page, and it has, even a RM in 2009. The last discussion really went in all directions (as one with knowledge of the subject would expect it to) but it fizzled out without any resolution. Perhaps we should discuss this again there while there's interest.LM2000 (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that most go under their common ring names already. But for the exceptions, they're still at a name which is definitely not going to be recognized compared to any of their most notable ring names.

Here are more exceptions, which Hulk and HHH found. Adam Birch, Allen Coage, Sid Eudy, Mike Jones (wrestler), Mark LoMonaco, Devon Hughes, Bill Eadie, Barry Darsow, John Tenta, Fred Ottman, Butch Miller (wrestler) and Luke Williams (wrestler). Who the heck are all these guys?

Joey Mercury, Bad News Brown, Sid Vicious/Sycho Sid, Virgil, Bubba Ray Dudley/Bully Ray, D-Von Dudley, Ax and Smash of Demolition, Earthquake, Typhoon/Shockmaster, Bushwhacker Butch and Luke. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As the talk header says, this page is for discussion of Deaths in 2014. Like I said before, go beat the drums somewhere else, please! — Wyliepedia 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay okay. Please go to WT:PW#Article naming for wrestlers' articles. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Countries" of the United Kingdom

Seems like we're not very consistent about the nationalities of citizens of the United Kingdom. On the current page, we've got 9 British, 6 English, 2 Scottish, 2 Welsh, and 1 Northern Irish. Shouldn't they all be British? I'm guessing this has been debated before. What's the policy? --Alexbook (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:UKNATIONALS. It's a complicated issue that is usually dealt with case-by-case, but one of the main points is that we do not try and force any uniformity with this. It would certainly be wrong to call all of them "British" imo and that seems to be the consensus. Personally, I prefer to refer to the country they are from (i.e. Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales) rather than "British". And they are all countries in their own right. I would definitely avoid referring to anyone from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland as "British" unless there is strong evidence of personal preference. --Connelly90 11:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Second what Connelly90 said. Honestly I'd avoid "British" altogether if possible. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

How about "United-Kingdominian", à la "United-Statesian" (see above)? Haha. — Wyliepedia 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were some sort of note in the header of the article mentioning some of this. Perhaps a footnote after "country of citizenship"? Something as simple as "country of citizenship<ref|group=nb>For citizens of the United Kingdom, see WP:UKNATIONALS.</ref>" would help.

And I hope that people from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will assume good faith and not take offense if the rest of us get it wrong sometimes. I think the average reader or editor from most of the rest of the world can be forgiven for assuming that someone's "country of citizenship" is what's listed his or her passport.

Anyway, I have now read WP:UKNATIONALS and I'll try to follow the rules, if I can figure them out. (Honestly, I'm not trying to be dense here, but this is all very confusing.) --Alexbook (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely an issue, but I'll always assume good faith when I see someone described as "British" when it might be better to use something else (e.g. Billy Connolly). It's understandable that it's an issue often confused by non-UK folks. --Connelly90 10:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As a further indication of the occasions when English/Northern Irish/Scottish/Welsh might be used instead of British, it would surely depend on what they are notable for, and perhaps where they operated. For example, if they are a notable player of the bagpipes called 'Hamish Grogan', it might not be crucial that they are labelled "Scottish", as this seems pretty obvious, barring a bizarre quirk. So "British" would suffice in that instance. However, if the 'Hamish Grogan' claim to fame was climbing the mountains of Wales during his lifetime, it might be prudent to indicate that he was indeed Scottish, and not assumed to be Welsh by dint of where he operated his notable activity. So a thorough assessment of the possibilities of wrong assumptions being made by the reader would be handy in deciding the final edit, I think. Just putting these thoughts in. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Further to that, particularly with regard to sportspeople – often someone will represent England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland at rugby or football etc, and to then describe them as "a British footballer" is unhelpful. On the other hand, simply describing someone as English or Scottish, for example, solely based on where they were born, is equally unhelpful. You do have to know which constituent country they associate with before ascribing one to them. Best to stick with British unless there's a clear indicator of the subject's preference. "British" is basically guaranteed to be accurate, if not fully precise, but sometimes "English" or "Scottish" risks being plain wrong.

Something worth pointing out to some of you is that since the note says "country of citizenship", that means British. All British passports display British citizenship, strictly not English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. There is no such thing as English or Scottish citizenship. If flexibility is to be exercised in this list, it would be worth adding a note as Alexbook has said. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cardiac Arrest (or SCA) is a CoD

Cardiac Arrest is a cause of death. It may be an event, but it is listed regularly on Death Certificates around the world as the Cause of Death. Cardiac Arrest is the sudden cessation of blood circulating. It leads to brain death. While there may be underlying causes of Cardiac Arrest, many times the direct problem can not be found or is not looked for in certain areas. You can check out the Epidemiology section on the SCA/Cardiac Arrest page for verification. If it helps at all, think of Cardiac Arrest like a Stroke in your brain (which is blood loss to your brain), only instead of your brain, it is on the circulatory system. And its not a "heart" problem exclusively. 35% of SCA come from a condition outside of the heart area such as aneurysms, bleeding disorders, embolisms and overdoses. All of those are easily identifiable for a trained coroner/me, but its the other 65% where there is an issue. Remember there can also be several different causes for the Stroke, but Stroke is listed on the Death Certificate.

I think where you may be headed with this is the 2nd section under a natural cause death. In the United States and British territories, a 2nd section is listed for Natural Cause deaths. This is the place where the coroner/me lists contributing causes to the cause of death. So for instance in the above stroke, a hypertensive disease would be listed in the 2nd section. We had a discussion like this several years ago, but for many readers it got too technical and confusing and was only available in certain well publicized cases. The agreement was made that we wouldnt break down Natural Cause deaths any further than what was listed in the main articles and would only use "Natural Causes" itself when it was directly mentioned in the linked article. Mr. Lu who died this week is a good example. The English source I found for his death lists natural causes. He could have died from a heart attack, an aneurysm, seizure, diabetic or asthma attack, but none was listed in the source. If the source would have said something like aneurysm related cardiac arrest, we would typically put either aneurysm or complications from an aneurysm depending on who was editing. But if the source simply said cardiac arrest without explanation, then cardiac arrest it is until further evidence shows otherwise. I hope this helps a bit and WWGB feel free to weigh in, as I recall like usual we were both arguing opposite sides at the times. Thanks. Sunnydoo (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically it's hypoxia that is the cause of death in cardiac arrest. ;) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest has long been cited as a cause of death, including Jimmy Stewart and Walt Disney. WWGB (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of specificity. When anyone dies, there are a few signs. The heart stops beating, the lungs stop working, they get cold, stiff and pale, then decompose. We could note it for everyone, since if their heart was beating, they wouldn't be listed here. In cases with no clearly sourced proximate cause (like Stewart's pulmonary embolism and whatever that says for Disney), it can be better than nothing. But in this guy's case, the source is clear about the spinal injury, which are known causes of arrest.

As for the suicide, that's a non-natural "manner of death" (like accident or homicide). No competent coroner would write it in a cause field. The cause would be gunshot, acute intoxication or whatever happened there. Once we know that, it'd be fine to say "suicide by x" for context, but just "suicide" is wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Suicide is recognised by various government agencies as a cause of death [8], [9], [10]. There is nothing incorrect in listing suicide as cause of death in the absence of more specific detail. WWGB (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd give coroners' standards more weight regarding death issues than a government's. But if you insist, you can have this one. We've got other fish to fry. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are more cardiac arrests here than I'd thought. I didn't mean to single out the snowboarder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is giving as much information as possible while being accurate and avoiding being misleading. The term "cardiac arrest" may go in certain slots in certain forms in certain government systems. However, pathology customs vary. Every human who dies undergoes cardiac arrest (eventually.) Using the term cardiac arrest is giving the minimum information that you possibly can, which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It also very likely confuses the less-educated about the actual nature of the death. Is this ischemic myocardial dysfunction causing dysrhythmia and then arrest? Is it sepsis, followed by SIRS, followed by MODS, followed by arrest? Is it arrest while submerged in water for too long? Is it arrest following exsanguination from a knife wound to the renal artery? Certainly it's unhelpful if not facile to simply refer to all of those deaths as "cardiac arrest" instead of "heart attack (or SCD)", "infection" or "sepsis," "drowning," and "stabbing," respectfully.

I would argue that the standard here is not what a pathologist writes on a form, but, rather, what the average, reasonable person would say caused the death. By all accounts this young man died after a critical CNS injury. While we can't ever be sure because of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy problems, unless there is reasonable doubt about a CoD, stating the apparent actual cause as would be stated by the vast majority of people is the most helpful and most reasonable course.

Hiobazard (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Verbs for gunshots?

Yay, more controversy.

I think we should say "gunshot(s)" instead of "shot". It'd be consistent with all the other nouns, and could distinguish between multiple shots and single shots.

I also think "shot" for the giraffe implies use of what most people would call a gun, a ballistic weapon. A bolt gun is more of a spear with a trigger. Have to be up close. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't we saying "euthanized"? That's what the reference uses. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Marius was fit, young and healthy. He was killed/culled/shot, but definitely not euthanized. WWGB (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. When it's done for the (alleged) well-being of a group, it's culling. But he wasn't culled with a gun. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Cermeño was kidnapped and murdered on Feb. 25, but it's simpler to say "shot", in my opinion. Let those who wish to know more click the source or their name for info, which I just added. — Wyliepedia 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, either. Those are verbs and wordy. And yeah, clicking isn't so hard, but neither is imparting some at-a-glance info with an extra "s". Clicking gets people reading, though, so that's cool. "Shot" can be a noun, too, and I suppose it's rare to have two truly fatal shots (if you slow time down enough). So I fold. Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Shot makes me think of bullets, not bolt guns... EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just changed it back from "controversially culled due to inferior genetic composition, shot." That's wrong on at least four levels and also made me think gun, even though I already knew. Still not folding on that one, just the verb thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Re "wrong on at least four levels". I would like to know what those four levels are, so that each one can be addressed. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The adverb adds a POV, "inferior" alone is vague (by what standard?), the comma makes it seem like two causes, it's too wordy and it uses verbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Really the appropriate word here is "electrocuted" but "culling by bolt gun" works well. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's like the bolt on a door, not a thunderbolt. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed on my watchlist that I took out 45 bytes there and added 357 here. Trippy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Was Marius notable for being a giraffe? No. A reason for notability needs to be included. Also, the weapon used was a rifle (see reference). WWGB (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable for being a killed giraffe. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@WWGB: - The zoo's webpage says it was a bolt gun, as does the giraffe's wiki page: http://www.zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why%20Copenhagen%20Zoo%20euthanized%20a%20giraffe.aspx EvergreenFir (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As do various news outlets (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Others say shot as in a bullet (1). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you read this article in a leading Danish newspaper, the vet who shot him says "Da han stod roligt og kiggede op, så tog jeg min riffel og skød ham lige igennem hjernen" (Translation: "When he stood quietly and looked up, I took my rifle and shot him right through the brain"). The weapon used is also reported on CNN [11]. The zoo pages were written before the giraffe was killed. Perhaps they changed their mind about the weapon. I accept there is some confusion about the weapon used, so the best we can say is "shot". WWGB (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Marius's wiki article makes no mention of a rifle. Discussion on its talk page indicates that the bolt gun would have caused brain trauma (it uses pressurized air apparently). I've started a section on Marius's talk page to try to get some definitive answers (Talk:Marius_(giraffe)#Rifle_or_bolt_gun). Something tells me we need someone who knows Danish (Marius's talk page mentions translations issues). Personally I think saying "bolt gun" would be most prudent at this point as there are more sources using that than rifle. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And I equally think that saying "shot" would be most prudent as nobody disputes he died from a projectile in the head. WWGB (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Still not a fan of "shot" as I think "culled" is more descriptive of the action, but if we link to captive bolt pistol the article will explain how it uses a projectile rod. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It projects, but also comes back. More like a knife or ball-peen hammer than a gun, that way. But yeah, if it was a rifle, shot is fine (though gunshot is finer). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Traffic collisions

While I'm here, I had a problem with this a while back, but didn't bring it up. We overuse the vague "traffic collision", whether it's a head-on, a car hitting a tree, a truck rolling, a pileup, or someone flying off a bike. These sources almost always give some distinguishing detail, and I think we should reflect that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We use that term for a reason. Last year there was a traffic fatality that killed a key Cuban dissident and another case where an American journalist may have been whacked by the CIA in Los Angeles using a hack of his onboard car computer system. Rather than assuming every accident is an accident, we just use "traffic collision" to cover all motor vehicle collisions that take place on the roadways. That way everything is covered from suicide to government action to homicide to medical conditions to true accidents. Traffic collisions are one of the only manners of death that can cover all 5 major categories of Death. If you look up what the definition is of an accident/crash, it is a traffic collision that involves a number of factors such as loud noise and fire/explosion. We can't assume these things occur and therefore use the narrower traffic collision. Too many times the Western media has a tendency to over use the term. The one time we do use the term "crash" or "accident" is for plane problems because they almost always meet both of the criteria for crashes.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The expression "traffic collision" (see article) applies to all the above scenarios and then some.

It is clear, correct and consistent. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And can we please stop having topic collisions in posts? One per heading, please. — Wyliepedia 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we call anything an accident (or a murder). Just that we get a tad more specific in cases where the vehicle doesn't collide with an object. Rollovers, for instance. I guess you could say the ground is a stationary object, but it seems weird to me. Would it hurt to at least say what collided with what? No extensive detail, just something like "car-bike collision" or "truck-tree collision"?

I meant to section this off, just miscounted equal signs. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have a yay or nay for the x-y collision idea? Part of me wants to get cracking on it (Deaths in 2014, anyway) for lack of objection, but part of me thinks getting permission is the polite thing. An edit conflict, if you will. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't add anything to the process what is crashed into be it a tree, another person, a vehicle, etc. If someone is looking for more detail, that is what the article is there for. It will also lead to more edit wars because of the different descriptions for the same type of vehicles found around the world- such as lorry vs. semi, etc etc.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see two objections above already. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but not specifically objecting to that aspect. Sometimes one can get an "at least" concession from an argument. All good now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Vague" as it may be, it is concise and consistent with the COD article. If we have to link it everytime, fine, but we strive for simplicity here, as evidenced by the "culled, shot with a bolt gun" experience. If visitors want to know more about the specific COD or the person's death, they can check off-page for that. 600 monthly entries on this page do not need expressive CODs. — Wyliepedia 01:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. "Permission Denied" honestly sounds better than "Permission Pending". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, one more. If a person is hit by a bus after falling from a bicycle, is that a traffic collision, or "hit by a bus"? That happened this month. He wasn't even a pedestrian at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Still a traffic collision. If you read the Wiki article WWGB put up on it, traffic collisions cover hitting a pedestrian or another vehicle. It doesn't matter if the deceased is the hitee or the hitter.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I mean, though. He wasn't a pedestrian, because he wasn't walking. Nor riding. Like The Peasant's Wise Daughter. It's fine, though. Just wondering. Case closed. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of, I think I need a sleeping draught. — Wyliepedia 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Marius the Giraffe

Starting fresh discussion about wording on Marius (giraffe)'s entry.

Main issue is the wording and method of how he was killed. In #Verbs for gunshots? above, it seems "shot" is the word that we are agree upon. The problem is that "shot", in its common usage, means with a ballistic gun. However, there is confusion on how Marius was killed. Most news outlets seem to say a bolt gun was used (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), as does the official zoo page (1). Some claim it was a rifle used 1, 2), but don't specify if that was a ballistic gun. In my opinion, if we are to say he was "shot", we must mention the bolt gun or else if gives what is apparently a false impression that a bullet was used.

I have also asked for more information on Marius's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Shooting is "the act or process of firing firearms or other projectile weapons". It applies equally to a bolt gun. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the most common understanding is bullets, not bolt gun. If a human were to have been killed with a bolt gun or even an arrow, would we still just say "shot"? (Wonder if there's precedence for death by arrow...) EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We probably would just say "shot" to be honest. --Connelly90 12:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think "shot" should suffice. I would also use "shot" in the instance of someone getting killed with a Taser as well, even though it is the electricity that shorts out the cardiovascular system and causes deviate fibrillation. Better and simpler than, dare I say it, cardiac arrest by Taser. ;p Sunnydoo (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Three against one.  :) "Shot" it is! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Against two. Since the bolt doesn't detach, nothing really shoots. It's a thrust, like a knife, but blunter. Not like a crossbow bolt. I'd go with "tasing" for a taser, or "tased", if verbs must be used. In a noun sense, "shot" could be a shorter way to say "execution by lethal injection", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of uses here of "SHOT with bolt gun", and pretty much none of "STABBED with bolt gun" or "THRUST with bolt gun"; it might work mechanically "like a knife" in that it doesn't detach, but the right word to use would be "shot". Using "shot" for lethal injection isn't right either, assuming you are referring to the word's meaning as in "flu shot" for example; it's too US-centric anyway. --Connelly90 09:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes English is weird. Anyway, as of now, we don't have anything for a cause, just an unusually detailed manner. It seems by now that he was shot with a rifle, so just "shot" should work better than "culled due to inferior genetic composition". We don't say why or how any humans were shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed "due to inferior genetic composition", but I hadn't seen this discussion, so feel free to restore until a resolution is found. "Inferior genetic composition" is totally inaccurate anyway, the giraffe was perfectly healthy – it was just that zoo did not want to breed using genes from that particular giraffe. We don't need a reason for the death anyway. "Shot" or "culled" is OK with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The standard format for a notable death is name, age, nationality, reason for notability, cause of death, reference. The statement "culled due to inferior genetic composition" is the reason for his notability, not a cause of death. The previous entry merely stated "giraffe". Clearly, he was not notable just for being a giraffe, but for the circumstances of his death. The "cause of death" part is missing at the moment, as editors could not agree on how it should be expressed. I have no problem with restoring "shot" after the reason for notability. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I like how you have it now. Being undesirable for breeding is what made him stand out during life, and he was shot. Straightforward stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That covers it, with no surplus info. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. Yea consensus! EvergreenFir (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)