Talk:Deaths in June 2015

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

Reliable enough for Davitashvili?[edit]

I see we're citing Lenta.ru, citing a blog by Stanislav Sadalskiy, who doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Neither his nor her article mentions connections between the two, and a Google News search for her name only turns up this 2013 Vietnamese piece.

Good enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Nicol Gaylor: June 14[edit]

She was first listed as an athiest, with a wikilink to atheism. While I'm sure she and others are proud of that, I changed it to athiesm as an adjective for her advocacy. This prevents future editors from listing any and all religions with entries, so's not to offend others and their affiliations. Myself, I care not, but this is a precaution. — Wyliepedia 21:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why any Wikilinks at all? We typically don't for generic things, only specific works and organizations. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've unlinked them, but not set against it, if there's a good reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: linking. I think it's a classic case of copypasting from her lead, links and all. This happens a lot here, either from their pages or the source's lead, it seems. Still, my original point holds. — Wyliepedia 01:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Van Patten[edit]

Dick Van Patten starred in the early television series Mama from 1949-1956. I have added it to his entry as it is a better indication of t he span of his long acting career rather than including two movies (Freaky Friday, Spaceballs) which he had smaller, supporting roles. BurienBomber (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show that ran for seven years 60 years ago And isn't mentioned in a prominent capacity in obituaries doesn't scream as one of his more notable roles. Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that you will keep reverting (4 times now you have changed the credits for Van Pattten!) until you get your way as you think you are the Czar of the "Deaths in" page. An example of this is your unilateral decision to revert my edit without even waiting for anyone else to weigh in on the matter.
Van Pattens's most memorable role is "Eight Is Enough" not "Spaceballs". "Freaky Friday" was a smaller supporting role and in no way as relevant as a television series that he starred on for 7 years that also shows that his career spanned many decades. Furthermore, he is primarily known as a television actor, not a film actor, which makes it a joke to list two films and one TV series. BurienBomber (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baby need a bottle? Calm down. Only you view it this way. Of all the obituaries for him, Eight is Enough and Spaceballs come up most frequently, as does Robin Hood: Men in Tights, which is probably what should also be put there. Mama is merely just a footnote. "BTW, he started off on this Mama show". That's it. Satisfied, you goddamn hypocrite? Rusted AutoParts 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me calm down? You are the one spurting out the profanities. You pull this one every single actor/actress who passes away. This has been going on for at least 5 years now. Someone will add credits and you unilaterally decide to change them to fit your narrow-minded idea of what credit should be listed. If anyone challenges you, you revert until they give up and you get your way. (You did it four times and to two different editors on Van Patten alone!) BurienBomber (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one throwing a hissy fit everytime. I go by what their most noted works are, not obscure crap you think "highlights" their career. Rusted AutoParts 18:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I go by what their most noted works are, not obscure crap you think "highlights" their career." --- Now you are just flat out lying. BurienBomber (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He starred on Mama from 1949-1957, which is a better example of the span of his career". Nice try. Rusted AutoParts 18:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife[edit]

I question this edit, which reverted my move to resort him under F for Fife rather than C for Carnegie.

The rationale given was "C for Carnegie. Fife wasn't his last name".

The fact is that any list worth anything will give pride of place to his ducal title rather than to his family name. He would have signed his name "Fife", not "James Carnegie". He is never referred to or thought of as Mr Carnegie, and as if being a duke was just some irrelevancy. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But his last name's Carnegie. Fife is just part of his title. We go by alphabetical in terms of last name. Rusted AutoParts 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on inspection I see that we've been consistent about that protocol. However, to say that Fife is "just" part of his title sort of ignores the reality that titles matter. When referring to this guy, it would be "The Duke of Fife" and not "Mr Carnegie". Many people who know of his existence wouldn't have the faintest idea of his family name. The family names of peers almost become irrelevant, because they hardly ever use them anymore, except in some abstruse legal contexts. Most life peers use their family name as their baronial name, so it's not an issue. But for those who take a different name, I think it's time we recognised that fact and sorted them according to their title, exactly as Who's Who etc does.
Maybe royalty is a different category, but if Anne, Princess Royal were to die, would we sort her under her married surname? I kinda doubt that. She currently Defaultsorts to A for Anne, not L for Laurence.
Similarly, the 3rd Duke of Fife defaultsorts as: Fife, James Carnegie, 3rd Duke Of. It seems to make little sense to have him appear under F in all the Wikipedia categories he's in, but under C in this list. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get too worked up about this, and in the past I've happily followed the convention and listed peers under the surname not their title. But I tend to agree with JackofOz that it's better under Fife, and Carnegie feels a bit pedantic. As JackofOz says, he was known to all that came into contact with him as "Jamie Fife" - to the point that some people may not even have known that what his surname was. I accept that Carnegie may be technically correct but, as with other peers, he used that name so rarely that common sense suggests that we should file him under the name he was known by. Rcb1 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)rcb1Rcb1 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie came to be known as Lord Fife [1]. It is entirely appropriate to recognise and list him under this name, just as we listed Karol Józef Wojtyła under his adopted name and not under W. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I played by the rules in this situation. This is something stated in the message preceding the names listed. If we're holding this standard for Fife, then we should hold it for everyone. Is the next step to alter the statement by family name or pseudonym to by family name or pseudonym or title? Rusted AutoParts 17:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Carnegie/Fife situation is already covered by pseudonym: "a name that a person assumes for a particular purpose, which differs from his or her original or true name". The message works in its present form. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Rusted AutoParts 16:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we've reached this agreement, but the pseudonym thing only half works. It works for the cases where a person is appointed a life peer and chooses their own title, but it does not cover the cases of peerages that are inherited, in which case the new peer has no say about the title, as it's set in stone by Letters Patent. The heir to the Nth Baron Whatever cannot avoid becoming the N+1th Baron Whatever, short of disclaiming the peerage entirely. Also, some peers really did have pseudonyms, such as Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton, who wrote literary works as "Owen Meredith". When there's any reference to this person's pseudonym, it's always Owen Meredith, never Lord Lytton, that they're talking about. Our rule would seem to require him to be listed under Meredith rather than Lytton, or Bulwer-Lytton. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Scheib Death Date[edit]

There are still no sources that are verifying the actual death date for Scheib. If the area he was hiking in was prone to flash flooding, then he could have been lost/stranded for a day or two before being caught in a flood. We do not know. The editor moving his death date to the 13th is just guessing. It seems better to list him on the date his body was discovered until the death date has been officially released. BurienBomber (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so even though it's been more than clarified the weather pattern in question that caused his drowning occurred on the 13th, User:SugarRat and User:BurienBomber (who I can only assume is just reverting me because of some grudge he has against me) disagree. I checked over the weather for the area that day. Thunderstorms happened. The area is known to flood. Add two and two together. Every other day was not like that and he had his phone, so if he was injured as some claimed, he could've called. It's called reading the facts. Try it sometime. Rusted AutoParts 15:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is original research and speculation, rather than referenced material about the deceased. WWGB (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's just WP:SYNTH and guesswork.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. "What seems most likely to me" is not the same as "what sources say". All we know for sure is when he was found. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do recent discussions have to be veiled in personal attacks? — Wyliepedia 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attack? There's none on this thread. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assumption of grudges and angry suggestions because of reversions. — Wyliepedia 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look to the above thread "Dick Van Patten". He gets so worked up every time I add examples of actors roles to their entries. But his incessant bitching and moaning is irrelevant. I just don't care anymore. No one else gives a shit about being accurate here, just going by the (frankly) shitty reporting, so fuck it. Ill just ignore the obvious as well. Went hiking the 13th, thunderstorms and flashflooding afflicted the area on the 13th, went missing on the 13th and was declared as having died from drowning, but oh well. Keep saying "original research" or "guesswork", ill be sitting pretty knowing I actually read the details of what was provided and drew my conclusions from that. RAP (talk) 2:33 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no grudge. I reverted the Scheib entry because your change was based on guesswork. I keep a database of notable deaths and use this page as my primary source. It needs to 100 percent accurate and based on facts, not on an overzealous editor playing "Encyclopedia Brown". Once again, you are resulting to vulgarities when you are challenged. That is a very poor way to act. BurienBomber (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. You go ahead, think you've taken the mature route. I know full well the degree of how mature you really are. And again, wasn't using guesswork, I was actually using the info provided. RAP (talk) 11:28 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deaths in June 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Deaths in June 2015. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Deaths in June 2015. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in June 2015. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deaths in June 2015. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_June_2015&oldid=1207879126"