Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in July 2011

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

Birth country

[edit]

So is someone born in Austria-Hungary Austrian-Hungarian for life? How do we describe people born between 1933 and 1945 in Germany? Nazi-German or just German? SpeakFree (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to Otto von Habsburg, I'd say he's described as Austro-Hungarian simply in terms of being a member of the A-H royal family. Once he was given an Austrian passport, he was Austrian. There was no such country as "Nazi Germany", just Germany so citizens were/are Germans. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Dee Springbett

[edit]

It's actually a redirect to Australian Idol and it should be a red by rights. Williamb (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it will disappear in one month if an article does not eventuate. WWGB (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He now has an article in his own right - one of the hoped-for results of this page. Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googie Withers / birth country

[edit]

I thought that we always listed the birth country here when it was different from the country of citizenship. Googie Withers was born in India, but this keeps getting changed. I have reverted the edits, but do not want to get in an edit war. Is there something different in Withers' case that I am missing? Thanks. BurienBomber (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right. The reason it is being reverted is that she was not Indian by ethnicity (actually Anglo-Dutch) which "Indian-born" implies. The place of birth is given when a subject migrated from their country of nationality, say from America to Britain, and spent the remainder of their life in the second state. Withers would not have had Indian nationality, having migrated to the UK long before independence. Philip Cross (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan María Bordaberry

[edit]

He was sentenced to 30 years in prison for politic homicides and disappearance. Should we add "criminal" to his description here?--Andres arg (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "dictator" seems to cover it. Using both words would seem redundant. BurienBomber (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Norway attacks

[edit]

Is there a particular reason why only one youth politician is highlighted as dead on this page, rather than say "Victims of the 2011 Norway attacks", whilst they may not be notable people the event itself is a notable cause of many deaths. It seems like an oversight not to include this on the page, but would welcome others thoughts... Dutpar (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of deceased notable individuals, not the victims of notable events. WWGB (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's just not clear from the name "Deaths in 2011", which implies it is a list of deaths (that for Wiki standards are notable). Whilst that may predominantly include individuals, it doesn't necessarily exclude groups or mass deaths - especially from such a major event. Anyways, just my views... Dutpar (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this unfortunate individual doesn't have an article, just a redirect page, so he shouldn't be on the list anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But as a politician, wouldn't he most likely qualify for his own article? As such, I would think the 30 day rule would apply here. BurienBomber (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Freud

[edit]

"German-born British painter" - is this necessary? He lived in Britain for 78 years, and was a British citizen for 72. I'd have thought just plain "British" would do. EJBH (talk)

I believe he held multiple citizenship, that he retained his German and Austrian nationality despite gaining British citizenship after his permanent migration to the UK. What is the guideline for describing multiple citizens in the deaths list? Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main article describes him as British, so we should be consistent. WWGB (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Thomas, 10 July

[edit]

I added Kelly Thomas to the list for deaths on 10 July. I'd didn't quite know how to add notability to his entry as his cause of death is what makes him notable. Currently his entry is just "Kelly Thomas, 37, American homeless man, beaten to death." Should it be changed to something like "Kelly Thomas, 37, American homeless victim of police violence, beaten to death" or "Kelly Thomas, 37, American homeless man, beaten to death by police?" If someone could help me out and fix up the entry, if they think it needs it, please do so. Thanks. Lando242 (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Police violence" is unproven and "to death" is obvious on this list. "American homeless man, beaten" is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Recently, an editor began aggresively objecting to my method of removing redlinks two days prior to the month anniversary. He has done this in the most uncivil manner that included WP:HOUNDING. It has left me to take a survey on this. In my defense, it's been three months now that i have been doing it in this fashion, with no complaints. It saves the depressing feeling of removing dead people's redlinks each day of the month, with a two or three day break from it in between. Should we continue in the way i have or revert back to the month after the death occured? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:25 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me say up front that the ongoing work of Rusted AutoParts in maintaining this important article is appreciated. I hope he continues his efforts, whatever the outcome of this discussion. Recollections differ, but the period of amnesty for redlinks is either "one month" or "30 days". Assuming it is one month, then today (22 August) we would be removing redlinks from 22 July. There is no rule to say that it must be done on that date; redlinks could remain for longer if no-one gets around to removing them on the due date. To keep the peace around here, perhaps RAP might delay his work a tad and delete redlinks after the month is up, or even a couple of days later if that is less depressing. Really, deleting a little earlier is not critically important, but some people believe that "rules must be obeyed" so let's all keep working together. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice comments, WWGB. As on my userpage, i suffer from OCD. So the method i use has embedded into my routine, but i could give an attempt to try the monthly method. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:20 22 August 2011 (UTC)
First, I have been reverting to impose the 30 day/1 month rule on everybody who removed redlinks early, not just user Rusted AutoParts. I have not been uncivil, nor have I hounded. I have been persistent, mostly because after the first reversion, I was arrogantly dismissed by RAP as not being an "important" editor. Secondly, there have been at least 2 other editors in the past week, Alansohn & Rcb1, who have also objected to the early removal of the redlinks. Thirdly, RAP reasoning for why he removes them early does not hold water. He claims he does them in batches so he doesn't have to do them everyday, yet he has made the removals each of the last 10 days. It is my opinion the reason for the early removal is because he wants to make sure he is the one that removes them. As a test, last Wednesday I removed the redlinks a couple hours before they are usually removed by RAP. Sure enough, he came along and reversed my edit calling it "too early" and then less than 30 minutes later he made the exact same edit as I had made. It's fine if he wants to be the only one to remove the red links, all I am asking is that the 30 day/one month period be honored. As we have seen in the last week, editors are creating pages based on redlinks toward the end of the 30 day period (see Nat Allbright). Editors are expecting the redlinks to remain there for the entire 30 day period. I do not think it is asking too much that the current policy be honored. Finally, I believe this topic would be better addressed on the main Deaths in 2011 talk page as it will be seen by more editors. (I am also worried that RAP will come along and remove or edit my comments for this discussion.) Vandelack (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, i reverted your redlink removal edit because you did it around 19:00, when i do it in the final hours of the day, in between 20:00 and 0:00. That "test edit" was to try and cause grief. And you have been very uncivil with the way you perform. Alansohn reverted me because he was creating the article. I dismissed you because you absolutely refused to listen. With your edit count [1], it has mainly consisted of you reverting each edit i make to the article (who has ownership problems now?). Your refusal to act civil in this matter, plus the excessive hounding (which you HAVE been doing) and violating the WP:CIVIL code has led me to believe your only goal here is to cause distress. Until we get a solid consensus from OTHER editors, i will continue with my method. Cheers. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:02 22 August 2011 (UTC)
As long as the policy remains that redlinks stay for 30 days/1 month then I will continue to revert anyone who deletes them early. If you want to continue to delete them at day 27 or 28 then please get a consensus to change the policy. Also, I am taking this discussion to the current Deaths in 2011 talk page as to get more opinions in this matter. Vandelack (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will be violating the terms of the consensus. It has to be left the way it is until otherwise. Reverting everytime someone does the edit is not WP:CIVIL. In addition, there isn't a huge difference in the way it's done. Both ways get the job done, so couldn't we alternate between the two? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:49 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna fall down on the side of maintaining the 30 day limit here. Vandelack makes a good point about people editing early so they can be "first". I'm not suggesting RAB is editing for those reasons, but certain WP editors certainly do edit for that reason, which is why we set limits. Otherwise we end up with someone jumping in after 29 days, and then someone else pipping him at 28 days, and so on. And of course it only needs one redlink to be created on day 29 to make max-ing the limit worthwhile. I appreciate RAB's efforts, and certainly don't object to removing redlinks in clusters if it's easier, but I think for the sake of consistency it's best to stick to what we know. EJBH (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

|i

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Deaths in July 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Deaths in July 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Deaths in July 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_July_2011&oldid=1207877007"