Talk:Deaths in 2008/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suicide not a cause of death?

A user keeps removing this with the argument that 'suicide is not a cause of death' - maybe not, but then neither is 'gunshot' or 'homicide'. It's a method of death, and should be distinguished - e.g. suicide by hanging is completely different from an accidental strangulation, or a judicial execution. Can an admin rule on this, please? Be best (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't generally "rule" on such matters; outcomes are best decided by discussion and, hopefully, consensus. I tend to think that suicide IS a legitimate cause of death, but I'm not prepared to revert others until there is some debate. I guess that makes the tally 2 – 0 at present. WWGB (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay - but I don't know what the procedure is if two users both hold legitimate views on such matters. I don't want to get into an edit war with someone over this, but I do feel strongly it should be noted. Be best (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have occasionally made the point that suicide isn't a cause of death; there was one recent case, but that's the only recent one from memory. It's certainly valid information biographically speaking, but strictly speaking it isn't a "cause of death" in the medical sense that we use in this list. If the person hanged himself, then the cause of death is strangulation, and whether it's self-inflicted, externally inflicted or accidental is not really the essential point but secondary information; if they shot themselves, the cause of death is gunshot wound to the head, heart or wherever, leading to exsanguination ... . "Homicide", equally, isn't a cause of death - it recognises the fact that another person wilfully cause the subject's death, but doesn't specify what the method was. The cause is poisoning, gunshot wound, suffocation, strangulation, massive injury caused by being pushed out of a plane onto Death Valley, drowning, or whatever the method of choice was. I'm not arguing that we should excise all mention of suicide, or homicide for that matter; but as I say it's secondary to the actual physical cause. If all we know is the person committed suicide, but not how they did it, we should not just say "suicide", because this tells us nothing about how the death occurred. The fact that they killed themselves, which is all it tells us, is not what killed them. Once we learn more about the method of suicide, then it would be appropriate to say that whatever it was was self-inflicted, or use the word "suicide". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the most recent reversion, the method of death was jumping under a train. 'Suicide by train impact' was edited to 'train impact' which is, IMO, daft and uninformative. If we know for certain it's a suicide, then the method will be announced too, and both should be given. If all we know is from some report saying 'suicide' as recently we had with Heath Ledger, that's a sign that the report is unconfirmed and shouldn't be relied on. Very few of the 'causes of death' we list on this page would be found on a medical certificate so it's a distinction without a value.The pertinent thing we want to record for a notable death is how they died - and if the person dies by suicide (as opposed to accident or murder), that's as important to the reader as to the method they used. Be best (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By the same argument, Cancer's a method of death too...you don't see people editing "cancer" to put "heart failure", "liver failure", "lung failure" or whatever part of the body actually failed because of the cancer's hold on the body and it's damage. Same goes with AIDS, although most of the time I've seen "AIDS-related" as the cause, so maybe "Suicide-related" and "Cancer-related" should be the result from this. For those of you *for* this suicide argument (who want "suicide" seen as a cause) you should point this one out and let the antis try to wheedle their way out of *that* argument :-) 87.194.44.145 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, let's use a bit of sense. People come to the Wikipedia Deaths page for information, not a debate on whether suicide can strictly be termed a 'cause' of death. If someone asked you how Kurt Cobain died, would you say 'through the impact of a bullet' or 'he shot himself'? Smurfmeister (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• "I'm not arguing that we should excise all mention of suicide, or homicide for that matter; but as I say it's secondary to the actual physical cause." in my opinion, it's precisly the other way round. Everyone has a physical cause of death, but not everyone has such comparatively unusual methods of death, making the latter more notable in these cases. tomasz. 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, Smurfmeister, there is dispute over how Kurt Cobain died. But if the official story is true, yes, he shot himself. Actually, according to a paramedic friend of mine, the only cause of death ever is cardiac arrest. DandyDan2007 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide is a "general" cause of death, just as is homicide, accident, or "natural causes". Typically, the more "specific" cause might be given - gunshot, falling off a house, heart attack, whatever. To say suicide is not a cause of death is silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Having read the above, then maybe our practice should be not to just say "suicide", as if that tells readers everything they want to know. Just saying "suicide" raises more questions than it answers, because there are countless ways in which a person can do away with themself. It needs to be accompanied with some more specific information about the method. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

none of the reversions I've seen stating 'suicide is not a cause of death' have in fact just said 'suicide' - in every case I've seen, the cause given has been 'suicide by xxxx', and the change has been to 'xxxx' which I find nonsensical. I agree, 'suicide' on its own is not a good CoD but if that's all we know from the sources, better to put that, than unknown - but when there's a reputable source, I've never seen 'suicide' alone as the cause. The objection from the people doing these edits is to 'suicide' itself, and from what people have said above, there seems broad agreement that 'suicide by xxxx' is a valid CoD for entries on the Deaths pages.Be best (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with that. The last time I made an edit on this issue was where the original post just said "suicide" - [1]. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that... if it says "Suicide by XXX" it's good to go... if just "suicide" then it needs further explanation.Tom M. (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on "Suicide by..." as a descriptive alternative...suicide alone isn't enough 87.194.44.145 (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think suicide is a cause of death though suicide by [whatever] is clearly better. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to reopen a debate, but the one and only cause of death, for all animals (non-human or otherwise), is birth. Being born kills you, sooner or later. I feel strongly about this, but I'll wait five minutes for consensus before editing all the entries on the page to state “birth” as cause of death. :-P David Olivier (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Duh. Don't conflate proximate and distant causes of death to make a point, and please take a look here. --Rodhullandemu 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Duh. Wikipedians have a great sense of humor. David Olivier (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Plaintext is just perfect for conveying irony and humour. --Rodhullandemu 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

because that person attempted Suicide, It Caused the person to die. therefore it is a cause of death isn't it? --Casket56 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In a general sense, yes; but it's vague information, like "he died in his sleep" or "he was murdered". "Suicide" tells you about the agent of death, as does "murder", but it doesn't specify the physical cause. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

-If You Want To Get Technical...- Suicide is one of the four basic MANNERS of death. They appear on every death cerificate. In case you were wondering. The only four manners of death are HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, NATURAL, and DEATH BY MISADVENTURE. They have been on D.Cert's for many decades, possibly longer. One thing I came to comment about, is that you do have a cause of death that is not satisfactory, on several deaths. CARDIAC ARREST, and HEART FAILURE happen in every case of death..it's redundant to tell us that, all it means is your heart has ceased to beat. If that had not happened, they would not be on the list of deaths at all (I hope). It's a useless thing to put up, if you do not know any more than that, leave it blank, as I am sure we all know their hearts are no longer pumping blood, what we'd like to know, is WHY that happened. Was it a myocardial infarction? Congestive heart failure, or a blood clot? Please, for the love and sanity of all Forensic Pathologists everywhere, stop telling us the obvious. Thank you. Gotohellandcry (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Euthanasia

See also J J Voskuil on 1 May. The same arguments apply to euthanasia. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals?

Is there agreement that famous animals, such as that Kentucky Derby horse, qualify for this list? Or did someone merely slip that one in? I do think it's reasonable to list famous animals, given that major news sources would be likely to list them, and often right next to famous humans. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some previous discussions at Talk:Deaths in 2007#Animals and Talk:Deaths in January 2007#Barbaro. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rogereeny. And let's not forget that Sports Illustrated awarded its 1973 "Sportsman of the Year" to Secretariat, and ESPN regards Secretariat as among the top 100 athletes of the 20th century. And Secretariat is listed in the 1989 deaths. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable animals are always listed here, I would say a general rule of thumb is that if they have an article they need to be included, there was a discussion about Best Mate that preceded Barbaro. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Animals do not belong on this list. Precedent be damned. It is an offense to those who've passed away and their family and friends that they are listed alongside mere animals. There should be a separate category for them elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.127.63 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

i disagree that it is or that there should. A notable death is a notable death. tomasz. 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is not a book of condolence and should not be concerned with anyone who might be offended because their loved ones are listed alongside animals, some of whom are infinitely more notable in cold, hard encyclopedic terms than some of the humans listed here. If someone or something dies that was previously alive, and is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then he, she or it should be listed here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Far from animals being here being offensive to grieving people it is your comments that are offensive, 209. Mere animals? As if we are not animals and as if we could live without them. Your anti-animal stance breaks our neutrality policy. This issue goes way back on this page, it was Best Mate in 2006. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are including all notable animals then it is fair that they are listed here. For example if a famous Giant Panda died I would agree with it's inclusion in the list. However if only Racehorses are listed then it makes a bit of a mockery of the list. But let's be honest about this, some animals have more of an impact on the world than a human being (more people will remember Shergar than will remember me!). --Duckmanuk (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All notable animals are included, it's just that most of them tend to be racehorses. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

<- Which should not be that surprising. Horseracing is "The Sport of Kings" and gets wide coverage; I'd say that in notability terms, horses are thus top of the list. Not many other animals tend to hit headlines, but I'd put dogs maybe a close second, but after that, it's a free-for-all. Pandas tend to be newsworthy because of their rarity of breeding, giraffes when they die in captivity (Victor), but otherwise, there would be very little of note about the death of Mrs McGuffty's "Eric the Vole" unless it hit major headlines for some reason. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Are you people serious, a baby whale that tried to suckle a boat for 3 weeks? I can understand a famous race horse but this has to be a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.29.65 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree animals do not belong on this list. Come on.. my cat died last week should I add him too? I say no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GerritSXM (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm sorry to hear about your rhetorical cat, but unless i'm much mistaken, he wasn't a famous animal. There's a distinction to be made between a pet and, say Desert Orchid or Harriet. tomasz. 20:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The point I wanted to bring across was lost. Animals (famous or not) do not belong on a list where people are mentioned. Create a special list for the animals if you will. Let's get real here it was a 3 week old whale. It doesn't belong on a list with politicians, doctors, poets, scientists, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GerritSXM (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This notion that animals don't belong on a list with people - where exactly does that come from? Why on earth not? It's a list of notable deaths, not a list of people who have died. This idea that animals are somehow not fit to be sharing a page with politicians and doctors is distasteful. Your cat doesn't belong on the list any more than my uncle - neither is notable. Notable animals / notable people = notable deaths. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That should really end this discussion. This is a list of notable deaths and not notable human deaths. Just as long as all are treated the same. Duckmanuk (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm irked to see a mention of this in the article's lead. The average reader doesn't give a monkey's (pun intended) what the consensus is. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's there to try to discourage editors from removing notable animals from the list. If it achieves that, then it's worth it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things; first, it alerts editors to current consensus and thus avoids edit-wars; it's always open to those editors to open a debate here if they wish to change consensus. Second, although there have been few notable animal deaths since I added it, those that have been added have not been edit-warred over. Result! --Rodhullandemu 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with removing the fact that including notable animals is consensus, but I'm not attached enough to do anything other than mention it here. Tan | 39 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that racehorses aren't very noteworthy in general, but there are cases where animals have gotten front page coverage for their lifetime achievements, as well as their deaths. Some animals are brought in occasionally to be posted in the OCME now and then, which helps solve a human murder. When Lassie, or Benji dies, we all want to know, so sure, on occasion, I don't see why not, as long as it's a news worthy obituary. Keep in mind, the first astronaut we sent into space was not a man, that chimp should have had a place here if we were around back then.Gotohellandcry (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

dailynews365

One or more editors using anonymous IP addresses in the range 59.94.xxx.xxx are replacing suitable citations with alternative references to dailynews365 or topnews365. In most cases, these alternative references are inferior to the original. This seems like some kind of weird spam situation to promote the website. Some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Other editors may wish to check that future edits from this source are made in the best interest of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to revert unless it's the only reference available. But these people are amazingly persistent. I see they reverted you, and there are numerous reversions and re-reversions in the history. Does the '3-edit' rule thing apply in this situation? Be best (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consult with an admin to be sure, but reverting junk is exempt from 3RR limits, as far as I know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's an argument for putting a temporary block on the IP address 59.94.242.200 at the very least? Look at the page history just for the last few hours. Be best (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consult an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Report on WP:AIAV in the future, and yes, spam reverts are exempt from 3RR. -- Y not be working? 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These sites are now blacklisted. Good riddance. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Because reverting and reporting their crap was getting very old.Be best (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like their website pushers went feral on 3 March when they discovered the site was blacklisted. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Love the innocent act.I notice that latest IP address wasn't blocked, only warned. What does a group of IP addresses have to do to get banned around here? Be best (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Military Times: Obituaries (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

• Anyone have anyone opinions as to whether this is appropriate for the external links? To me it seems like memorializing, especially since we don't tend to list military deaths in action. tomasz. 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems harsh not to link to a site honouring soldiers who actually die serving their country, when we seem to list every two-bit politician however minor, but I agree. It's a memorial site. One I wish there was no need for. Maybe there should be a separate memorial page listing or something. I can understand why people would want to list this here and it sucks to be all officious over the grieving.Be best (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of the deaths reported there do not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. It's a memorial, not a list of notable deaths. I'm for reverting. WWGB (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates

The new day should always be added as soon after midnight east of the international dateline as possible and removing it looks to me like simple vandalism. Please don't. We are an interantional encyclopedia, which people seem to forget all too easily. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've been doing the removing, because it really doesn't make much of a difference to me, but I thought that they were being removed because there was no one listed under them. A few months back there was a day when no one notable (ie. with a Wikipedia article) died, so the page just skips over that date (I think? I can't find what month that was anymore). Cheers, CP 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Deaths in September 2007#17 and, yes, the lonely 17 still appears. WWGB (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... well in that case, they should remain. Cheers, CP 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Welsh/British

Wales isn't like a state in America or Australia. It's a separate country and nation. It's entirely appropriate for someone to be identified as 'Welsh' rather than 'British' or simply from the United Kingdom. It's akin to Canadians not really caring for being called Americans, despite the fact they're all on the same continent. Be best (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see British Government website which refers to British nationality, and to British nationality law#Classes of British nationality. I look forward to references that support the alternative point of view! Cheers, WWGB (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's either 'Welsh' linking back to Wales or he's British. But to call him Welsh and link back to United Kingdom is illogical. The BBC article on his death calls him Welsh, he worked for the National Orchestra of Wales, therefore it's reasonable to assume he identified as 'Welsh' primarily, and the 'Welsh' bit is important for a recognition of his notability. I wasn't aware Wikipedia asked what passports people hold before assigning a nationality. From my understanding from my long residence in the UK, that government website is wrong. People identify as 'English', 'Welsh' or 'Scots' for nationality, or 'British' if they don't feel a particular tie to one country or the other. They all hold British passports as citizens of the United Kingdom. But you wouldn't link a Scottish subject back to 'United Kingdom' would you? That would be nonsensical. Be best (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of droning on, I will just make the following points:

1. The amended entry was British linking back to United Kingdom, not Welsh linking back to United Kingdom.

2. The heading at Deaths in 2008 asks for country of citizenship.

3. The government website is wrong? Yikes!!

4. I can't agree that one's nationality is determined by how you feel. Surely it has a legal basis?

5. I identify as a New South Welshman, but I'm still Australian. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're the boss. Do what you like. NSW isn't a *country* though, is it. Be best (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll keep it mind for your entry, WWGB. Just make sure you meet notability by the time you die, k? One good way is to sleep with the Governor of New York. -- Y not be working? 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As an Englishman I'll endorse WWGB on this one. As the opening says, state country of citizenship. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As another Brit, I'll try to clarify this. Our nationality is British, as citizens of the United Kingdom. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries within the UK, but without full powers. These are held by the British government in Westminster. People may refer to themselves as Welsh, Irish, English etc. but their actual nationality as stated on their passport is British. It is a confusing issue, existing as countries within a country and admittedly I'm even confused as to the nationality of citizens of The Isle of Man and Channel Islands though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.148.195 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe people from the crown dependancies are technically Manx, or jerseymen ect, because they aren't part of the british nationstate (UK). On the subject of the above, British should always come before English, welsh, scottish, Irish(For people from NI before anyone adds anything about the republic) because a, that is the legal Nationality. b, The UK is a unity state and as such the UK only opperates as a whole in world affairs (UN, EU ect) and C. there is no real deffinition for the other types, If you put Scottish for example, does that mean they lived in scotland or were born there or ethnically scottish. Its even more a problem in Northern Ireland where many people define there nationality as British if they are Unionists and Irish if they are republicans. Welsh, scottish and English are all purely self determined after 1707 so shouldn't be used, otherwise other people who through self determination decided to have other (Possibly made up) nationalities that are equally unverafiable should be listed as such.(Morcus (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Archiving proposal

I propose that instead of archiving a whole month at the end of a month we archive on a regualr basis but keep deaths here for more or less a month. People are in such hurry to archive that at the beginning of a month this page is blanked and those notables unfortunate enough to die at the end of a month literally never get to see the light of day on this page which drastically reduces its effectiveness at the beginning of the month. I ma happy to do the extra work, what do others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "rollover" that occurs at the end of each month is actually "archiving". The Contents box at Deaths in 2008 lists every date in the current month, but also every month in the current year, so any death this year is at most two clicks away. The only deceased who get a raw deal are those who die on 31 December - they certainly disappear from the current view very quickly. I'm inclined to vote for the present system, but interested to hear what others think. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the red linked ones should appear on an archive page, if anyone wants to create an article on them in the future. Many notables get deleted from the list simply because they are from a non-English speaking country. For example see Herman Le Compte, whose article would still probably not be in existance had I not started it. Editorofthewiki 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the deaths that happen at the end of a month remain on the "main" recent deaths page (and by that I mean the one you get to from the very top English Wikipedia page). It can sometimes take several days for a death to make it onto the page, or for me to get around to looking at the recent deaths page (which is how I find out about a lot of deaths). If somebody dies in the last days of the month, I'm likely to miss them because they've been filed away at the stroke of midnight. Five days would be enough. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I had the same notion. The problem is that deaths don't always get reported the same day, but often trickle in over a period of time. That's okay (for the most part) once the month is under way, as the earlier days are still there. But what's been happening is that the previous month has been split off to its own article very early in the month. Deaths in October 2008 was first populated at exactly midnight on November 1, then reverted, then repopulated at 10:30 that morning. Deaths in September 2008 was populated on the night of September 30. Even if my wikitimes are skewed, this is way too soon to split off the previous month. I would suggest that we wait a week or tow to allow late reported deaths to come in while there is still some overlap and erroneous entries can be shifted across month boundaries without going between articles. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New Zealander

I believe that it sounds cumbersome as a nationality. New Zealand is a proper demonym, and it has been used since the deaths pages' beginnings. Any thoughts? Star Garnet (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion between the demonyn and the adjectival form of place names. In the case of Deaths in 2008 the adjectival form is used. Hence, Colin Murdoch is a New Zealand inventor, not a New Zealander inventor. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've looked through the List of adjectival forms of place names and see what you mean. This possibly explains it best of anything I could find. I note all 'Blahblah Island's work the same as New Zealand, but where 'land' is part of a longer word other than Island (as with Zealand) - Greenland and Iceland for example, they work differently from New Zealand. In this respect, New Zealand seems to be out there on its own. I'm still not 100% convinced, especially when a quick internet search throws up [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11], many of these written by seemingly clever people from seemingly notable institutions. However, I agree that the evidence points to my initial edits as being wrong, and that the tide of opinion seems to be away from Zealandic. I'll revert my changes. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealandic - that's a new one to me. Maybe it's acceptable in some contexts (whales, hockey teams, botanical terms), but I doubt anyone uses it in reference to individual humans. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Real names of entertainers

• Do we routinely remove entertainers' real names from these pages? i only ask cuz i added Tero "Camu Tao" Smith the other day and noticed it has been since changed to have his real name removed (which also messed up the alphabetical order). Even though his article is namespaced at his stage name, this is surely the opposite of what is sensible. Not to mention inconsistent even with the page it's on (cf. Utah Phillips' entry two days before, which is piped to Bruce "Utah" Phillips). Thoughts? tomasz. 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting topic for consideration. When an individual is known by a nickname (and has a relatively obscure first name) do we include both in the death notice? For example if Babe Ruth died recently, wouild we use that name or report him as George "Babe" Ruth? Moreover, would we report John Wayne or Marion "John Wayne" Morrison? My personal preference is to use the same name as the title of the corresponding Wikipedia article as it is consistent, and does not introduce relatively obscure information into the death notice. So, I guess I'm "voting" for Camu Tao and not Tero "Camu Tao" Smith. WWGB (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, you have raised some points i had not considered. i think hearing it expressed in that way i don't have any problem listing it as the most-popularly-known-as, or corresponding Wiki article ifyouwill, method. Ta, tomasz. 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer

Does this site give a user access to the county clerk/public records for Bastrop, Morehouse Parish, La.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkimdennis (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, i don't think so. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Looking back over recent months (and reading WP:OVERLINK), I wonder if we are going too far with the amount of linking that is being shown? It seems like almost every word must be blue rather than black. I'm not referring so much to the nationality and cause of death, but rather to common words like "author", "drummer" etc. I have no doubt that every reader understands the meaning of these words and doesn't need the option of a link. With terms like "footballer" there is some point, because at least the word is piped to the appopriate type of football (association, American, rugby etc). I also hasten to add that I have been guilty of overlinking in the past. Perhaps we need a "list of common words that don't need linking". Thoughts? Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we're going down that road, why does the nationality need to be linked either? - fchd (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Football

Use of the term "football" is not the exclusive domain of association football. See, for example, Rugby Football League, Rugby Football Union, Australian football. A participant in any of these codes is therefore legitimately a "footballer". WWGB (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Official job titles

There appears to be a dispute over whether the approach outlined in the Manual of Style for capital letters applies on Deaths in 2008. Specifically the issue arises when, in giving the reason why a decedent is notable, the entry specifies a position they held. The Manual of Style states that, if a title is used generically, it is in lower case, but "the correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun". This means they are capitalised.

This issue arose over Eric Varley who died on 29 July and whose entry can therefore be seen in Deaths in July 2008. To establish notability his office of Secretary of State for Industry is identified. This is an official title and if the Manual of Style is followed then it should be capitalised as I have done. It appears some editors dispute this, but I can't see how this opposition can be justified in established policy.

The opinions of editors on whether capital letters should be used for official job titles on Deaths in 2008 are therefore sought. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy on the list is to use a capital for a title as part of a name King Farouk, but lower case otherwise Farouk, king of Egypt; it makes the page look better. "Official title" - the problem is that includes almost every position. Tom Thumb, Manager of Real Madrid, Coach of Barcelona, Captain of AC Milan, Head Boy at school. The important thing is to have consistency in the list otherwise it becomes a dog's dinner. There are differing Usages in Newspapers in different States and Countries. This rule is Simple and it stops there being a Horrible rash of Capitals all over the place. It is quiet, modest, and never causes any confusion. Jagdfeld (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is policy on the list then it has never been discussed as such; I have asked many times to be directed to this discussion and have never received an answer nor discovered it myself after an exhaustive search. The fact is that the use of all minuscule letters in a phrase which is clearly an official title looks horrendously dismissive and e. e. cummings-like in its flouting of usual orthography. Note that this is not prose but a list consisting of clipped, curt and pithy mentions confined to name, age, notability, cause of death. I dispute that there is a danger of over-use because those people included here are normally referred to in generic terms; only when they are specifically known for having held a particular post is that post mentioned. Your example would here probably be rendered as 'Tom Thumb, footballer and football manager'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we comply with: 'Capital letters are sometimes a matter of regional differences; for example, British writers and editors are more inclined to use them than their North American counterparts. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context.', or shouldn't we? Star Garnet (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should; that consideration would support the capitalised 'Secretary of State for Industry' version, which is how the job title is rendered practically universally in a British political context. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It would also be capitalized if it were an American title. Assistant Secretary of State normally is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bare references

Hi Rodhullandemu. I don't see any reason why the bare links shouldn't be references. Is there one? It aligns more closely with how all other articles are written, and in-text external links are generally deprecated by MOS as far as I know. [ roux ] [x] 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but as long as I've been on this page and it's predecessors, refs have been bare, so I guess there's a consensus for it somewhere. Doubtless more experienced editors will know where this is. Otherwise, changing format in midstream implies that all such pages should conform to as not to have a mixed standard, and that's a lot of work. --Rodhullandemu 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd already done October as well by the time I saw you'd reverted, so I'm not really worried about the hard work. And AFAIK, local consensus is trumped by MOS issues, isn't it? [ roux ] [x] 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see it's been reverted again. As long as all the vandals have packed up shop and gone home, and all articles are fully sourced, and there are no BLP or copyright problems lurking about, feel free to go through the whole lot. I have better things to do. --Rodhullandemu 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2007#References. There is no consensus to make such a sweeping change to a format that has existed for many years. WWGB (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did read it. Consensus changes. An argument that largely states "Adding refs will make it hard for people to add new things because they don't know how to add refs" isn't very persuasive, to me. MOS concerns are. As well, converting these links to refs has already pointed out quite a few that are dead links, which is a good thing to know. And yes, I know that checklinks can do the same thing. [ roux ] [x] 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if consensus changes, there is no evidence of that here. Let's wait and see what the contributors think? WWGB (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was that consensus can change, and hopefully will. I was bold, it was reverted, am discussing. Inline links are very specifically deprecated at EL and MOS, and I'm not seeing any good reason for ignoring that. [ roux ] [x] 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, Roux. Formatted references match the Wikipedia standard, and there's no reason for this page to stand out from the crowd. - fchd (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Before Cite.php was added a couple of years ago, inline referencing was rare but now it's the standard. I can see no overwhelming reason that they shouldn't be done that way and several why they should. Neither the 2007 nor 2006 discussions looked like consensus was developed. The argument against seems to be that it's complicated and the current month page is too fast moving to have refs. How is <ref>url</ref> any more difficult than [url]? The need for references on these pages is weak in the first place; all items should already have the reference at the wikilinked article already. However, it does permit a quick check for editors following these pages to verify the item and provides an external link for readers. That is not only accomplished just as well with footnotes system, it also better allows the details of the source to be added and to add comments, quotes, or archival urls. It's the standard for all other classes of articles and there is no good argument why these should be excepted. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the wikilinked articles exist. Many articles begin from an initially redlinked entry here. --Rodhullandemu 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Refs here are more important then. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise to handle currentmonth: leave current month as bare links, and I can batch-convert all once the current month is moved to its own page. I don't like it, but it would address speed issues. Thoughts? [ roux ] [x] 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In my yearlong experience at formatting this page, I have found that most of the people adding to this page do not format initial entries correctly. Why should we add an extra step for citing for something that we already the subject of? Besides, it would be more beneficial to go through all sources already on the pages, remove deadlinks, and replace them with sources still in existance. And so, I am not in favor of using this, while it is more common on other pages, it is not applicable to the deaths pages. Star Garnet (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Most articles period are not formatted correctly in their initial stages, and so while I understand where you're coming from, it's not an argument that I find compelling. MOS/EL are quite clear on the use of inline links: not allowed. [ roux ] [x] 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "not allowed" is a bit strong, when there are statements like "the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended (emphasis added) as a method of best practice" (Wikipedia:Embedded citations). WWGB (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why the "deaths page" or any list should be different than any other page in article space on Wikipedia - this series of pages isn't its own fief. Formatted refs are better for a host of reasons - they include more information, they are standardized, they look more professional and they correspond to how citations are done in academics and, incidentally, encyclopedias. I understand it hasn't always been the way such things have been done - but that isn't a strong argument against instituting a correction. The argument that it includes an extra step is also not convincing - many elements of improving articles can be considered "extra steps" but they ultimately get done anyway. You're not being asked to personal convert the refs - for this page anyway, that was already done. Having to do extra work seems like a strange way of arguing against work already done. Avruch ^T 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This class of article is not unique in attracting new editors unfamiliar with the MOS and methods. It is not very difficult for someone to correct a barelink or bracketed link with ref and /ref and it just might teach said newbs the correct method. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how adding ref and /ref to citations achieves anything other than moving the citation further away from the entry. It doesn't convey any further information about the reference source. WWGB (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But the same holds true for any given article. Sure, having an inline link puts the reference closer to the entry but it's not the consensus on Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time this was discussed I see that User:Thelb4/Deaths2007 was used as a test page. Now I have no idea if anyone does print the current death page out but if they did I suspect that the test page would be what they would prefer. Take a look at the current page and the test page using print preview in your browser, FF or IE. The current version is much more difficult to read.

As to editors not formatting the entries correctly, so what? That's pretty much a given at any Wikipedia article and the reason WikiGnomes and WikiFairies exist. This page should comply with the MOS. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to basically double the size of a page for a reference list for which we already know what each source centers on? Star Garnet (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on this issue.
1. Recent deaths is a high traffic and constantly-evolving page. It has many more contributors than most articles, including new and inexperienced editors who make numerous errors. A small number of Wikignomes currently tend the page. Their task will be that much harder if more-complex footnote citations are mandated with a resultant increase in errors.
2. The page attracts many frivolous or malevolent entries. In accordance with WP:BLP it is important to check references quickly and remove vandalism. This process is assisted if the reference is adjacent, rather than at the foot of the page.
3. As pointed out by Star Garnet, the size and appearance of the page will double from [12] to [13], making the page longer, unwieldy and slower to load. (Go ahead, time it yourself.)
4. WP:MOS provides for exceptions under certain circumstances. I have read the above arguments and do not see that footnote citations will improve the functionality of this page. WWGB (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. New and inexperienced editors contribute everywhere, and make mistakes everywhere.
2. Many pages attract vandalism, and it's relatively easily dealt with. Copying a URL isn't difficult.
3. Yes, the size will increase--having proper footnotes also ensures that should anyone wish to print the page, it'll actually be useful to a greater extent than currently.
4. I completely disagree, per above. [ roux ] [x] 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Recent deaths is one of the most-edited pages in Wikipedia. This page is not the same as "everywhere".

3. Wikipedia is not paper. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do any of those other pages say that refs don't need to be used because it's too hard for new or inexperienced editors? I'm aware that WP isn't paper, it was simply an extra point, and we do keep an eye on formatting for printing--references contained in a scrollbox, for example, are deprecated for precisely that reason. [ roux ] [x] 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, one by one - 1. how are the footnote citations "more complex"? Is <ref>url</ref> much harder to use than [url title]? 2. Can't see how this is true. At least with the footnote citation you get to see target details of the reference on the same page, whereas with inline citations all you get initially is an irrelevant number. 3. Yes, this is true. It took me 4 seconds to load the version with formatted references, and 2.5 seconds to load the other one. I'm not going to lose any sleep over a second and a half. 4. Very much a personal issue, I happen to disagree with you but your point of view is equally valid. However, you are very keen to enforce absolute uniformity of style on this particular page (and do an excellent job in generally maintaining it), I can't see why you wouldn't want move towards uniformity of style with the rest of the encyclopaedia. - fchd (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I have nothing against footnote citations, in fact, I always use them in other articles I edit. I believe they should be used effectively, however, by including at least author/title/URL/source//date/retrieval. Many Deaths editors are not capable of this so it will fall to the "gnomes" to fix it. As shown above, Deaths is one of the most active pages, so we are not talking about occasional lapses. Just bunging in <ref>url</ref> is ineffective footnote citing and I don't see that it adds much more than embedded citations.

2. If you want to see target details of the reference on the same page you just have to roll over the embedded citation. WWGB (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Many editors period are not capable of including proper citation information. That's why we have scripts like webreflinks.py to batch-process and add the relevant information. I am perfectly happy to do this, so I don't see how that's a problem. [ roux ] [x] 07:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I doubt that you would like to check back on many pages every half hour 24/7. It would take a large increase in correcting time to add this feature. Star Garnet (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not; that would be ridiculous. Once a day, however? Not a problem. Or indeed a bot could do this. [ roux ] [x] 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm just putting this here to gauge attitudes without all the verbiage on both sides, not to railroad consensus (whether for or against!) [ roux ] [x] 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the proposal use neutral language rather than words like "conform" and "proper" which assume fault. Why not "references on this page (and related pages) should use footnote references and not embedded references"? WWGB (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Amended. [ roux ] [x] 02:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...and, of course, if a proper consensus is to be achieved, due weight should be given to the opinions of regular and committed editors of this page, who fix things up daily by finding proper sources, etc. in the face of multiple inexperienced editors who think their auntie's dog is notable. A naked poll is singularly inappropriate for gauging the value and force of that opinion. --Rodhullandemu 01:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:C that says 'regular and committed editors' get any greater weight than anyone else. [ roux ] [x] 02:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Auntie's dog is notable? Rodhullandemu, I'm afraid I don't understand why your tone on this page has been combative. Editors advocating for using formatted refs are not all "inexperienced editors who think their auntie's dog is notable" - plus, the change we're trying to make has project consensus in the form of MOS. You could just as easily say that opinions which conform to MOS should have extra weight. Avruch ^T 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not intended to be combative. But I don't see any of the proponents of change actually working this very busy page, and therefore being familiar with its culture. My comments in relation to a "straw poll" were intended to highlight that such a poll is of necessity a blunt instrument, and is anathema to an practical consensus, in which, one might imagine, those who contribute to this page on a daily, and voluntary, basis, might have input to offer which would be stultified by a mere "straw poll". It's a little like walking into Fred's Downtown Bar and saying, OK, Joe's Uptown Bar makes more money, although they are both licensed by the same authority, so let's make this bar like that one - before actually asking whether Fred is actually successful. There's far too much railroading here of things that do not require change now, while more pressing issues get ignored. Please come back when you've blocked 1300 vandals or reverted 15000 lousy edits. This is minor detail, and can wait. --Rodhullandemu 00:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Nobody has to satisfy conditions before they can render an opinion, much less impossible conditions that you're setting on non-admins. As I made perfectly clear, I just threw this poll in to gauge attitudes without all the verbiage and back-and-forth. That's all. There's no railroading whatsoever and I resent the implication. More to the point, if the detail is so minor why are you objecting to it so strenuously? [ roux ] [x] 00:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But an informed and experienced opinion should arguably count for for than that of an inexperienced outsider. You may very well be correct on the structural issues, but that still does not mean that a straw poll per se is likely to be helpful in solving the cultural issues. This is a project based on cooperation and collaboration. It helps, therefore to (a) ask its contributors why this page and its siblings don't conform to the norm and (b) suggest that it should, but (c) negotiate. Meanwhile, although I watchlisted this page to fill in spare time between vandals, my Wikignoming goodwill is limited, and I could be doing other things, which I now propose to do. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I did offer a compromise; it was ignored, which isn't particularly cooperative. I have offered to do all the work involved in this. Likewise ignored. I have read the opinions on why this page shouldn't conform to MOS, and none of them are compelling; no other high-traffic page ignores MOS, adding <ref></ref> tags is no more difficult than a pair of square brackets (and indeed helps to train new users to do things properly elsewhere), page size is similarly not compelling as an argument. Multiple users have agreed with this, I proposed a compromise, and the only response is "No," no attempt at collaboration or compromise. So I'm not really sure why you are implying that I'm not negotiating, cooperating, or collaborating, but I would request that you stop accusing me of such things. [ roux ] [x] 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re the compromise, Recent Deaths is still very active in the month following its "closure", that is, October is still fairly busy now. I would have no great problem if a month was "footnoted" one month after the passing of that month. Now, for example, would be an appropriate time to change Deaths in September 2008 to footnote references, (as roux did here before I abruptly reverted him) if that reflects consensus. I didn't "ignore" the compromise as I thought all issues were meant to be canvassed before reaching any conclusion. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. We're doing fine as long as we discuss what we disagree with and come to a consensus/compromise. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: references on this page (and related pages) should follow MOS in terms of citations, not inline references. If consensus develops in favour, specific methods & timing to be determined whenever we reach a consensus on the issue.

Support

1. [ roux ] [x] 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
2. - Strong support from me. - fchd (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Allows for more fully informative refs, doesn't require an enormous amount of work on the part of participants, makes it easier to print pages, follows standard Wikipedia manual of style requirements, etc. etc. Avruch ^T 14:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
4. count me here. My rationale is above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support based on DoubleBlue's exposition. Ka'Jong (PM) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC).
6. After reading all the arguments, I think that this is the correct choice.Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. It's not a huge issue, but realistically, it matches the style of how Wikipedia articles should look. Yes, it works the way it is - but this doesn't mean things can't be improved. Great idea! Tan | 39 05:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. There is no extra work on contributors who are still free to add new entries in any format that they want. As to the correction duties, it's only done by those who want to do the work. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Imposing more conditions on posters & more correction duties on editors, where the payoffs are so minuscule makes no sense to me. "fully informative refs", "easier to print pages", "conforms with MOS", Are visitors to this particular page really crying out for these things?. This is no ordinary wiki article, it demands a certain level of pragmatism. I think it's fine as it is. Kiwipat (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - it's much more intuitive to hit the link to the right of the report to see the source than have to go down to a huge list of refs and pick out the correct one (Yes it's highlighted, but it's still a smaller font and can take a few seconds to pick out) Exxolon (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I agree with both the above arguments. This proposal seems to be change for its own sake. There's no issue, so let's let sleeping dogs lie. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Will merely make the page harder to edit, and force an extra level of indirection on people wanting to follow the links. (And make the page longer and more ungainly). Better to keep the current tight terse format. Jheald (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Until the make references actually intelligible to use, I'm going to oppose. What we have works just fine. Williamb (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Kiwipat, what additional conditions and correction duties are imposed by changing the requirement for square brackets around a url with a requirement for ref tags around a url? Further info that can be provided within the ref tag is quite optional. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And, more to the point, I have offered to handle all the heavy lifting! [ roux ] [x] 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Exxolon's point; You can click on the reference number which will take you to the relevant page.Fol de rol troll (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To Exxolon, that comment could be true of almost any page that has a reference. With references all you do is click on a number an the page jumps to the corresponding number in the reference section. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease not a cause of death

People can die of complications exascerbated by Parkinson's, but the condition itself is not fatal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.216.24 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If the references state Parkinson's as the cause of death, that's what we roll with. tomasz. 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is rarely regarded as a direct cause of death, so it is unlikely to have actually killed Brooks Mileson, although it appears to make brain tumours and other illnesses more likely. We really need a source directly attribtuing his death to CFS if we are to state it as the cause.--MartinUK (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When a person dies of complications of a disease, the the disease is the underlying cause of death and will be on the death certificate. Qzm (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give your references in the English language

The trainer of the bear-cub Knut was found dead today the 22 of September.Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages. Changed news reference to an English translation of a German language magazine called Der Spiegel. [[14]]217.83.169.27 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, this is already the policy. tomasz. 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)