Talk:Deaths in 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Death

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007.

Untitled

For earlier discussions of this topic, see the talk archives at Talk:Deaths in 2006 and Talk:Deaths in 2005. More recent discussion, including topics involving recent deaths, may be found at Talk:Deaths in 2008.

Causes of death

Please stop linking every single cause of death, even when someone else died of the same thing two names up. There's absolutely no need, it's just difficult-to-read overlinking and most of the time it doesn't even seem to be done properly (FYI: "heart attack" redirects to myocardial infarction, as you can see from the one that's already linked). Thanks tomasz. 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is policy not to wikilink the same expression more than once in the same article. In this situation, however, I don't agree that all of the deaths occurring on one day constitute an "article" in the usual sense. Some relevant issues here:

1. Many readers would focus on only one death, and not need or want to look elsewhere for a link to explain that person's cause of death.

2. When a second death with the same cause on one date is entered, the author may not necessarily be aware that a linked cause has already been entered for that date. (Articles generally have one original author; deaths on a given date do not).

3. Which cause of death should be linked? The one that appears first in alphabetical order? The one that was entered first, even if that person's name begins with Z?

I support the notion that every cause of death should be linked, as that is more reader-friendly and easier to maintain in this situation.

Concerning heart attack, I think it is rather pompous that the main wiki article is called myocardial infarction. The term heart attack is much more widely used and understood within the general community. By way of contrast, there is a primary entry called stroke, not the medical term cerebrovascular accident. When I convert an obit into a notable death, it is not a normal reaction to read heart attack and think "oh, I must enter it as an M I ...". WWGB 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB has very good points. It's for convience as well. Tomasz, you need to realize that it takes longer to go search on something by having to use the search box and whatnot, than you have to go back sometimes multiple pages. This way it's easier for a person to either click on the link or make it a new tab in their browser. But on the basis of heart attack, I also agree with WWGB. I mean how many times do you hear a doctor, even though probably does say it, myocardial infarction? I bet most people would be like "WTF did you just say." I understand that myocardial infarction is scientific and medical term, but most just say heart attack. In all honesty, besides people in the medical profession uses myocardial infarction in their walkabout life? Mr. C.C. 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular opinion either way, but if we do decide to delink all but one cause, maybe we can do the same for things like "American," "British," "boxer" etc. Just reduce them to one instance. Canadian Paul 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have previously stated this in Talk:Deaths in 2006, but I think that instead of external links, we should have references. --Thelb ⁴ 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so big on having the references here. A good number of the people have articles, and in those is where (in my opinion) we should do the full {{cite}} ref. If we do it here then the already very long list by the end of the month will be a very very very long list. Syrthiss 13:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my test page. It won't end up that long (much shorter than the page itself will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 (talk • contribs)

You've proved my point exactly - on your test page, the references take up as much space as the death notices and thats only for the first ~week of the month. With one reference per death notice at minimum, we'll have a page that is twice as long. Syrthiss 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The test page looks impressive, but many contributors to Deaths struggle with the present structure. I can foresee very messy referencing that will need very frequent cleanups. What do you see as the benefits of referencing on this page, over the present format? WWGB 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It adds more information about a source, rather than just seeing [6], for example. Currently, you don't know what website it was on, who wrote it, etc.--Thelb ⁴ 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I've just seen Wikipedia:Citing sources, and it says that if you use the current method, you have to reference it at the bottom anyway. --Thelb ⁴ 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mouseover an embedded html link you can see the URL at least, and the WP:REF is a guideline, not policy. I don't really care either way, but WWGB has a good additional point to my argument. If we do include foot-references and people dont use the cite template and ref, are process wonks going to go yell at them on their talk pages? Syrthiss 12:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just reiterating my opposition from Talk:Deaths in 2006.

[Inline sources]: look better on this page (also in reference to Syrthiss' point about the enormity of the page under a ref system) and are easier to understand for a greater amount of editors. The page is extremely fast-moving and refs would be much harder to do logistics on (per WWGB). And we still don't need to fix what isn't broken. tomasz. 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, Thelb4. I know you're just trying to improve the quality of the page. Maybe going through old Deaths in XXX YY pages and converting them to bottom references is the way to go, as its unlikely after a month or so after-the-fact that anyone would be adding new references. Syrthiss 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should I go and work on some old ones, then? --Thelb ⁴ 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relative newby to this - but my vote would be to leave things as they are. I'm very pleased with the current look of the embedded html link versus a reference. Tom M. 14:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think inline references are the way to go, here.. for example, what if somebody wanted to print off the page? all they have are numbers.. you can't mouse-over something in a print out. and the argument that they will take up too much space isn't a good one.. haven't you seen any featured articles lately? it's better to be thourough. 131.111.8.104 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just beetter for printing, it makes it easier to find a replacement reference when a URL dies (e.g. when Yahoo kills their news articles after a week). With just the URL you sometimes can't easily find a replacement ref. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-19t18:55z

Preemptive correction

Deaths in 2007 is a list of notable people who died in 2007.

Since this page will also include notable animals which have died, this line should be modified to include that.--Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 21:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the intro considerably, so there's now no need. The introduction can't include every bit of information about WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:V, etc. It should be short; if an editor ignores these policies, they're probably going to ignore a long introduction, too. The page should place the reader first, not the editor, so shorter is better. Calbaer 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable death citations in languages other than English

The addition of a Russian-language video link for Murat Nasyrov caused me to reflect on the relevance of references in languages other than English. Should a death be reported on the English-language Wikipedia site even though there are NO English references to the death? Perhaps in such cases the reporting of the death should be limited to the Wikipedia site in the first language of the deceased? How "notable" are these people outside their own country? WWGB 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

generally in the past we've allowed non-English references for people considered notable where no English-lang ref can be found at the time. It used to be that people would delete the (French), (Russian) etc. source-language tags, which was nightmarish. we'd usually replace them with an appropriate English source as soon as one can be found tomasz. 14:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the first reporting of the death is in a language other than English, as was the case for Mr. Nasyrov. Later, however, we are often able to get an English-language reference, even though the quality may not be the best, e.g., " http://allrussiannews.com/news/20-january-2007-in-moscow-the-crooner-murat-nasyrov-was-lost.html " I think the death should be reported in the English Wikipedia site with whatever reference is available, and then upgrade (to English) the reference when available.

Que-Can 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are people who speak foreign languages, and we don't want to ignore them, do we? So where's the problem? Why a direct link to the German Wikipedia article on Gerhard Bronner was removed twice is beyond my grasp. And why was the reference to Jennifer Strange deleted? We cannot rule over life and death here, only report it. <KF> 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Strange achieved nothing notable during her lifetime. Any notability flowed from the manner of her death. Her Wikipedia entry is under consideration for deletion for the same reason. Concerning foreign languages, this is the English language section of Wikipedia. If someone is fortunate enough to speak a second language, they are always welcome to visit the Wikipedia portal for that language. WWGB 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't want to sound rude, but I consider the above statement an expression of narrow-mindedness. I can well imagine that it will find its supporters, but I don't believe that it is universally acknowledged among Wikipedians that foreign language sources should be generously ignored, the prime motivation being the reliability of information presented here. If someone is unfortunate enough never to have mastered a second language, someone else will surely be able to verify the content. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

On a sidenote, I wonder how American tourists would react if, on a visit to Vienna, Austria -- the city I'm writing from -- , they were constantly reminded when they address someone in English that "this is Austria, we speak German here".

As far as Jennifer Strange is concerned, are you going to put up Guy Goma and Arthur Winston for deletion as well? Best wishes, <KF> 09:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to WWGB) A second language? For many people actively using and editing English-language Wikipedia, English is a second language. Nevertheless, they might prefer this Wikipedia to their language one, or work on both, or whatever. But this being a Wikipedia in English has nothing to do, for what I was led to understand, with notability of people and stuff. If a Norwegian writer or a Moroccan song is notable, it is notable whether we cover it in English-language Wikipedia or any other one. Or, perhaps, there are Wikipedias with other guidelines, but one of the main policy of this wiki is WP:NPOV, and cultural and national bias is a tendency to avoid, not a policy to enforce... --Goochelaar 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the point: if the Norwegian writer is only notable to Norwegians, is that notable enough for this list? A lot more Norwegians are notable to Norwegians than to the rest of the world, so of course there is not only one standard of notability. If the death is not reported in English somewhere in the world, then probably the person isn't "wiki.riteme.site-notable". ESPECIALLY when no one has even been bothered to write an article telling the world why the person is notable! 80.225.0.12 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-references

The intro this article is a bit too self-referential... with all the instructions and all. Article text should exist for readers, not editors of the article, as for every 1 person who edits the article, hundreds of people read it and the instructions are of no interest to them. I suggest "commenting it out" so editors see it but casual readers don't. --W.marsh 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite useful. If it encourages occasional contributors to write consistently then that reduces the need for subsequent editing. As others have pointed out, this is a rapidly changing page with more than the usual number of contributors. WWGB 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This isn't so much an article as a list (a dab page if you will), and because of the nature of the page with such a broad spectrum of accounts editing it the instructions I feel are necessary. Syrthiss 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an article first, as long as it's in the article namespace. If nothing else, the instructions should be italisized, as we do with disambiguation information. I guess it sounds trivial but this is an element of style that kind of jumps out at me. --W.marsh 16:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to disagree with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I don't see why this article should be an exception. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was just looking at the article and noticed the same thing. Similar issues exist at Deaths in 2006 though the self references seem to be absent in earlier years. I agree that the instructions should be commented out, at first I thought I'd stumbled into the WP namespace since it didn't seem like an encyclopedia entry. Star dust 8212 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think commenting the section out would work very well. Only those who start to edit the page will see the inclusion criteria and the format to post it. Jon513 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Sites

I was wondering why the specialized sites that are usually listed after the obituary sites (sites such as Find a Grave), are left off of the page practically every month. In January, the Specialized Sites list was transferred but left off several sites, and there are no specialized sites listed this month. This may have happened last year as well, but I just wanted to know why this happens. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "standard length"?

Regular editors tend to keep the length of entries to a reasonably consistent standard. That can be achieved by limiting the number of achievements listed for the deceased, using conventional abbreviations and restricting the number of references to 1 or 2. While a maximum length of one line may be a desirable target, what fits on to one line will vary according to the individual's monitor size and computer settings. What overflows to a second line on one screen may fit perfectly well on one line in a different environment. WWGB 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities

Please include the deceased's nationality and link to the page on his/her country of origin between the person's age and reason for notability (like it says right at the top of the page in the instructions for formatting entries). Someone keeps insisting on placing the nationality notation in parentheses at the end of the entry (i.e. (Lithuanian), (Italian)), making more work for the others who have to rework each of these improperly formatted entries. Finduilas 09 11:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I insist on placing "Lithuanian" at the end of the entry, since that refers to the language of the citation. It is NOT a reference to the nationality of the person. WWGB 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so i suppose the Brazilian football player was supposed to be Brazilian and Portuguese, then? schoolboy error. tomasz. 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(English/British)We have an Alan Ball listed as "English", then an Arthur Milton listed as "British". Both are described as English in their respective articles. I suggest deciding on one term or the other, for the sake of consistency. "English" would be more specific, but "British" might be be more appropriate as an indicator of national rather than ethnic identity. ***Looking at past deaths, I see that "British" is the standard (correctly so, I think). One other question, then: What about Victor Kneale (April 8), listed as "Manx"? Shouldn't that be "British", or is the Isle of Man considered politically and/or geographically separate enough from Great Britain for this distinction?

British is always used here instead of English, Welsh etc. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom so Manx is appropriate. WWGB 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Isle of Mann is a part of the UK, it certainl;y is neither an independent state nor a part of any other country, SqueakBox 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first two paragraphs of the Isle of Man article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.140.146 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you make of British Islands, which contradicts your assertion? WWGB 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone advise the correct protocol if a person may have more than one perceived nationality. For example, I note one person is described as a 'Chinese born Australian' but other individuals are simply called American or Australian despite being born elsewhere. I'm not sure which is preferable, but I would expect it to be consistent. Any advice? MrsPlum (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person to whom you refer, Ken Lee, is notable partly because he was born in China and arrived penniless in Australia with his family before making his fortune. The fact that he was born overseas is significant to his story. In other cases, such as a person who migrates as a child, their place of birth is possibly less significant than the country in which they established their notability. I don't know that it has to be consistent, however, the death notice would still stand if the place of birth was removed.

Entries like this one link the person's place of birth with their research:

Fuat Deniz, 40, Swedish-Assyrian sociologist, homicide by stabbing. [1] WWGB (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very different person

I relatively new to this so forgive my ignorance. How does one cause a reference NOT to refer to someone? For Example (only) if I want to refer to Abraham Lincoln who was the conductor of the NY Philharmonic versus the President of the USA how do I do that? If I put [ [Abraham Lincoln] ] it obviously refers to the President but if I want it to refer to the other guy, who as yet may not have his own Wikipedia page, how do I do that? I know one option is to simply leave out the [[ ]]... but is there another way? Tom M. 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about duplicate names, when they exist, read like "Abraham Lincoln (conductor)": see for instance the several people called John Smith. So, even if an article does not yet exist, you can point to, say, Abraham Lincoln (conductor). For more detail, you can look up Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Hope this helps, Goochelaar 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helps a great deal! Thank you. And the Manual of Style is very helpful to bookmark. I appreciate your quick response. Tom M. 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of template

I noticed and fixed alot of recent articles (within the past five days) of people who died that were not tagged with {{recent death}}. Shouldn't there be something somewheres on the page to note contributors that when someone notable dies they should tag the articles with this? -24.92.43.153 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? For many articles, the only change necessary is noting the date of death and changing tense from present to past. Adding the "recent death" template just adds something else to be removed ... when? Will you go back and remove the templates after a suitable period? I think the template is really only necessary for high-traffic pages, such as Anna Nicole Smith. WWGB 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording of the {{recent death}} tag, it implies that there are more facts to be reported on the person's death. This is probably not the case for most of the articles for recently deceased individuals and, therefore, the tag should not be used when a one-sentence statement of the person's passing would suffice. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks

Greetings, might I ask why people use WIKILINKS when the article doesn't link to anything? People, please! Functionality! There is NO need for a link, and in fact it is inefficient to do so, if there is nothing at the other end. Worse, articles that could be written aren't because people assume that since there's a link, there must be an article.

Now, maybe I've done it too, out of habit or simply following the herd. May I suggest that everyone STOP adding Wikilinks unless there's something to link to or you plan to start the article in the next few minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i have just spotted this and have to completely disagree with it. people use wikilinks when the article doesn't link to anything because (a) it's a generally good assumption that anyone who deserves a mention on Deaths in 2007 deserves an article, as being important enough to warrant one is generally enough for the other. (b) if such an article doesn't exist, a redlink informs people that it doesn't exist while also implying that it should.

“

Worse, articles that could be written aren't because people assume that since there's a link, there must be an article.

”

yeh? who assumes that, precisely? surely since the link is red, they assume precisely the opposite.

“

May I suggest that everyone STOP adding Wikilinks unless there's something to link to or you plan to start the article in the next few minutes.

”

you may. i for one am going to disregard your suggestion. tomasz. 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? and Circas

Greetings, historically, ? are used for cases where an age claim is extremely dubious/probably exaggerated (such as 125? or 118?). "Circa" is usually used only for persons where an exact date of birth is uncertain, but the age given is considered to be a 'best guess'.

The issue is especially pertinent to "world's oldest person" claimants. If someone claims to be 132 but is really 102, and we put down c132, we are implying endorsement of a false age. But if we put 132?, we alert the reader to the possibility that the age claimed may be off by a lot.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rounded-up/Overstated Ages

Greetings,

Some sources tend to round up the ages of persons who die a few months before the birthday. If the birthdate is given as May 1901 and they died Jan 2007, the correct age is, sorry, 105 NOT 106.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian age counting

Greetings, it is traditional in some Asian countries to begin counting ages at '1.' Usually this becomes apparent if you see a claim where the person was "born in Feb 1901, died in Mar 2007" at age 107. Sorry, the correct age would be '106'.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

I just proposed the following wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Recently Deceased Biographies to help those articles about recently deseased people attain the highest quality. Let me know if anyone is interested in this. Remember 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sign me up! tomasz. 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excellent idea. I'll go too Ade1982 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest killer

What is the average way to die nowadays? -Yancyfry 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possible way to answer this without clarifying what you mean. Also, this should be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk - possibly Miscellanous, possibly Science, possibly Mathematics. JackofOz 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I mean average disease. --Yancyfry 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at List of causes of death by rate, the biggest killer is cardiovascular diseases, responsible for almost 30% of all deaths. WWGB 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any further questions on this subject, please use the link I provided above. This page is for discussing our list of people who died in 2007 (eg. whether their dates of death are correct; or whether or not they even qualify for inclusion in the list), not for discussing the causes of death among the general population. JackofOz 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Shouldn't the external links posted next to the names be changed into actual references as stated in Wikipedia:Citing sources, rather than straight external links? — The Future 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been discussed previously. See above: Talk:Deaths in 2007#References. WWGB 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see a super majority one way or the other.. personally, I think the guidelines should be followed and I wouldn't mind seeing the footnotes added for the additional information. — The Future 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

An editor has persisted in abbreviating the entry for a number of recent deaths, paring back to terms like "academic" or "television presenter". The guidelines for this section ask for a "reason for notability". These people are not notable merely for holding the above positions, but because they were the first female chancellor, first television presenter etc. Some extra wording is therefore essential. WWGB 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Comer, a murderer, is listed under this article "Deaths in 2007" because he was executed. In the USA, about 50 convicts are put to death each year, and many more individuals are similarily dispatched in other countries. When does an executed person become notable enough to be listed under Deaths in 2007? Should Robert Comer be included? He is included under List of individuals executed in Arizona, but perhaps he's not notable enough for this article and should be deleted.Que-Can 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal belief is, if any death notice is a "blue wikilink" then it stays; if a "red wikilink" (and it does not turn blue after a few days) then it should be considered for deletion. I think there are too many non-notables on the list at present. WWGB 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:WWGB that there are too many non-notable persons listed here, especially those with red Wikilinks. If a person who has just died does not already have an article written about them, perhaps it should be up to the editor who enters the death listing in this article to create an article about the deceased, immediately or within a period of time - 72 hours, for example. Just a thought... Hurrmic 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to go along with that... 72 hours to create a blue link... or consider the person not-notable. Tom M.

That's the general measure of notability on other lists. Sounds perfectly reasonable. --Monotonehell 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not yet so all-encompassing that it has an article on every single notable person in the history of the world. I've created articles on notable people who've come into my current consciousness only because they've just died, I was already aware of their place in history, and I've noticed that we didn't yet have an article on them. Seeing them on this page is often where I find out that they've died. I'm sure many others have done the same thing. Instituting a 72-hour or any other arbitrary cut-off point here would do damage to the ongoing capture of names of people we need to have articles on. There's nothing wrong with red links - they're there for a purpose. But that said, the issue remains of whether or not an executed person is notable for that reason alone. In general, I'd say no. So, I'd support the removal of names of executees who have no other claim to notability, but I would not support the removal of all red links just because they stay red for an arbitrary period of time. -- JackofOz 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz: This has come up in discussions on many lists before, where generally the weight of "spam" type redlinks was so heavy that the consensus was to remove all redlinks. The reasoning was that if someone wanted the name in the list so much they would be further motivated to create an actual article which would then be exposed to possible ProDs. I see your point here though, and it's a valid one. I guess it will come down to what I just mentioned, if the problem becomes so great that an arbitrary cut off needs to be made. --Monotonehell 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Monotonehell. I watchlist a number of lists that contain various redlinks, and nobody seems to have a problem with them. "Spam" edits are easily identified and are quickly removed, leaving only valid redlinks, just waiting for someone to create articles out of them. They serve as a reminder that an article on person X doesn't exist yet, and they may well be on various editors' "to do" lists. The reasoning you referred to above is not one that I would have supported. Creating a decent stub - by which I mean not just one short para with the person's name, dates, and occupation - involves quite some writing, and identification of citable sources, and it takes effort and time to put together. Not every editor has the skills, time or desire to do such work; but they can still be of service to Wikipedia by adding a valid name to a relevant list, which takes 5 seconds. It's then up to the "team" to do something about creating and building the article. That team may well include the editor who made the redlink, but it need not. -- JackofOz 02:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 72 hours is rather short for an article to appear. I was thinking more of, say, one month. So on 30 June, for example, it might be seen that there are still redlinks for 30 May (currently Andrej Reiner and Cacho Tirao). If no article was written within the month, then it's death to the death notice. I have cleaned up Deaths in January 2007 to see what a tidy month can look like. WWGB 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks excellent. One month seems a very reasonable time also. tomasz. 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

This could be a bad thing, because anons and new users quite likely often add new death notices. What do you think?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. There was a flurry of vandalism on 23 June, but nothing we haven't coped with before. I think PeaceNT overreacted by semi-protecting the page. The number of entries has dropped off since the block was implemented. Adding a death notice often gives new users the confidence to go on and do more. WWGB 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability questioned

Am I wrong to question the notability of "James Capozzola, 44, American blogger, brain hemorrhage"... While tragic like all deaths, I fail to see why this fellow, a political blogger, is notable and/or meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Tom M. 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tfmurphhk (Tom M). I don't think you are wrong to question the notability of James Capozzola. The fact that there is no Wikipedia article on him is a likely indication of his status. There is a good chance, unless there is some new information coming out about Mr. Capozzola, that his name will eventually be deleted from the Deaths article. In this regard, I find that WWGB has a very good sense for who's in and who's out, and why.Que-Can 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Que-Can, I'm flattered by your comment. I just try to keep these lists looking consistent and tidy, without imposing a particular mindset. A personal frustration, however, is the number of "red wikilinks" that appear (usually around 40% of all entries) that never evolve into an article. These red entries generally avoid scrutiny under WP:CSD#A7 and sit there unless someone is bold enough to delete it. And of course, since we are dealing with someone who is recently deceased, there may be added reluctance to reverse the entry! My preference would be, if you report the death you should be prepared to write the corresponding WP article (even a stub), if there isn't already one. WWGB 07:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Que-Can, a great many notable dead people don't don't have articles. Don't judge a person's notability by a lack of an article here on Wikipedia. Mr. C.C. 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Wiki member for a while but just recently have become more involved in editing of articles. I have a sincere question - and I am not disparaging the worth or contribution of the person I use as an example, simply it is a current example of something I have wondered for a while. I am confused on the criteria of whom shall be listed, as I have seen some listings of people I have never heard of, and could find no reference to through multiple internet searches. Currently, there is a woman named Betty Schenkel who is listed as an American educator, technically so am I, but if I die tomorrow I assure you my name won't be listed, nor should it be. Tonight I learned that a cameraman for American network ABC news was killed in a car crash and I considered listing him, of course no page for him and I am sure most visitors to this page will have no idea who he is. However, searching for Betty I found less information on her. Guidance please? I would rather ask now and get it right in the future than post incorrectly and learn the hard way. Thanks. OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Betty Schenkel entry only lasted for 15 minutes [2]. It was deleted because there were no Internet references to confirm the death. Concerning the death of Ralph Binder, you could certainly list his death since it has a reference. It would then remain for at least one month to give editors an opportunity to write an article about him. If that did not happen, the entry would eventually be deleted. WWGB (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, leave it to me to arrive in that 15 minute window, but I am glad for the clarification, both about Ms. Schenkel's passing and the process of other deaths with reference and the process of long term inclusion. I appreciate your taking the time to respond and will guide me in the future. Thanks OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did post the death and, believing I had 30 days, began obtaining information about Mr. Binder, his accomplishments at ABC News (a major US Network), including numerous war assignments and awards. However, before I could complete this, the listing was deleted nearly immediately with the comment "(i don't see how a cameraman for a news station in general is notable. Is this guy special somehow and did something notable?)" I had hoped I would have had a chance to establish the answers to these questions prior to deletion and exactly why I sought guidance before listing to begin with. I also felt his death responding to a prominent news event (Westroads Mall Massacre) made it timely and relevant. Unsure if I should continue working on an article.OneHappyHusky (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the trials of working on a collaborative website! If you believe that Mr Binder is worthy of a Wikipedia article, I would encourage you to complete the writing. Of course, the completed article might still be challenged on the grounds of "notability". Perhaps check Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria and scroll down to Creative professionals to check if he meets the criteria. Don't worry about the Deaths notice. That can always be restored once Binder has an article. Then it cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability. Don't be put off contributing to Wikipedia by this experience, it's a great place to share your expertise. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News feed

I've created a news feed off of this page's data. It's not perfect and occasionally picks up vandalism, but it's interesting enough to be useful to me. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. I can check the Recent Deaths page through my rss reader, since I don't come to this page as often as I used to, so I'm glad that you came up with this, Jdavidb. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad to hear somebody is using it! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myocardial infarction

OK, Ok, I can't stand it any longer. I accepted that Tomasz had a particular interest in this matter, but now it seems that Tom has caught the same bug. Why does one need to redirect "heart attack" to "myocardial infarction"? There is a redirect page in place that does exactly the same thing anyway without intervention. It's not a case of disambiguation, just a redirect that occurs automatically. Typing "myocardial infarction|heart attack" achieves only what the computer was about to do. Sorry, but I just don't get it ... Regards, WWGB 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, nothing to get... I am still on a learning curve and trying out different things. I realize that there is a built in redirect.. but thought for the few I saw, I'd make a direct link anyway. Won't do it any longer. No idea why Tomasz is also doing it. Tom M. 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should random deaths get new article pages?

Not everyone who gets listed really should get a page on Wikipedia. Band members whose only notability is being part of a band come to mind - those should redirect to band page.

Discuss. Guroadrunner 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deaths in yyyy pages are a subset of Wikipedia, and so they should be subject to the same notability requirements as the main project. Put simply, if the deceased does not warrant a Wikipedia article, then they should not be listed here either.

Concerning band members, the presence or absence of an article depends on the perception of notability and also whether a fan ever gets around to writing an article. For example, Kelly Johnson of Girlschool has both an article and a death notice; the late Alexander Brown of The Persuaders has neither. WWGB 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have concern because someone wrote

"If you report the death of someone who does not already have a Wikipedia article, please consider starting one."

and I fear this could create a lot of new NN articles. Guroadrunner 04:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But writing such an article would also leave it open to be tested for notability by the WP community, and nomd for deletion if warranted. If the article survives, then WP is all the richer for having another article. At the moment we just get a pile of death notices in red each month for a bunch of deceased non-notables. WWGB 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian last names

I think we should have standard format for all. Korean and Chinese often have their last names first and it ckinda mess up the visual of the list. Abdelkweli 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a standard. Mr. Wang Hongli (Hongli is his given name, Wang is his surname) for example (died July 26th) is listed under the W's and Mr. Bae Hyung-kyu, (Hyung-kyu is his given name, Bae is his surname) (died July 25th) is listed under the B's. What is messed up? Tom M. 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, Tom. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on such matters: here for Chinese and here for Korean. Regards, WWGB 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

If this article is for notable deaths, why the redlinks? This might also solve the references matter. Necessary references would then be found in the subject's article and needed not be repeated here. Rklawton 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors persist in posting "non-notable" deaths, that is, deceased persons without a Wikipedia article. If a death notice results in a redlink, the onus should be on the editor to start an article stub. If you object to a redlink, feel free to delete it (or start an article)! WWGB 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, how hard is it to write a short stub! If someone can't be bothered to do that then they should not bother to add another red link to the recent deaths page. --RMHED 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WWGB I object to all those red links, so I do feel free to delete them. --RMHED 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what WWGB may have meant to say was that if you object to "old red links"... meaning those over a month old ... feel free to delete. The established standard around here has always been to leave the name in for a month.. and if after a month no one has written an article, then it is OK to delete. Not everyone can write an article, or a stub, immediately. Given a month to do so however is a fair amount of time. So - anything red and older than 19 ~~August~~ July can go.. newer than that should stay as per established procedures. Tom M. 00:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 July perhaps? WWGB 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A death is not notable because the person who died has a WP article.

There are people who are notable and yet do not have a WP article. All their deaths are however notable. And that is proven by the reliable references of those deaths that people bring.

If in 2050 someone consults the WP article "Deaths in 2007", say, they will not be finding (as they would be entitled to expect) A list of all notable deaths of 2007.

They will be finding instead A list of the deaths of those people who at the time of their death happened to have a WP article about them even if they later, a month, a year or ten years after their death, gain a Wikipedia article (because people who write those articles do not normally go back to also update files such as "Deaths of 2007" or whatever).

In other words there might even be people who were notable in 2007, died in 2007, and whose death would be thus a notable event of 2007, but who happened not to have a Wikipedia article about them at the time of their death. Those deaths will forever not be in a file that pretends to list the notable deaths of 2007, and that even if they later on do gain a WP article about them.

And this silly policy seem to have been decided by exactly 4 people.

Brilliant!

As wikidiocies go this must place very near the top.

Contact Basemetal here 18:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Why do we have a "specialized" external links section that point to all manner of commercial sites and even blogs? Several of these links are not to reliable sources and look much more like spam. Rklawton 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno! I wonder if anyone ever uses them? I won't be sad if they are deleted ... WWGB 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, I'm still learning (and appreciate Rklawton's message earlier), but if Wikipedia is going to have an "External Sites" section under "Deaths in 2007" (or in any other year, for that matter), why are sites like "coffindodgers," "Celebrity Death Beeper" and "Find A Grave" considered legitimate, but a site like Legacy.com, which is the Web's largest and most authoritative obituary site, deleted as "spam"? Tipitina 05:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly couldn't tell you why Legacy.com is considered spam. Until I read this discussion, I had never even heard of the site, but the other sites that are listed are specialty sites and, while not authoritative, may give you more information about notable deaths that you may not get from a standard obituary site. Also, I'd like to point out that I am one of those people who actually uses the specialized external links a great deal (and I asked for some of the links to be returned a looong time ago), so losing them would be a problem to me, but one that I could accept with explanation for the removal.

I know this was discussed a while ago, but I haven't had time to read any of this stuff in forever. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<center> {| border="0" style="border:1px solid #aaaaaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;padding:5px;font-size: 95%;" |align=center|{{{2|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''':<br/>{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}<br/>''' [[#1|1]] [[#2|2]] [[#3|3]] [[#4|4]] [[#5|5]] [[#6|6]] [[#7|7]] [[#8|8]] [[#9|9]] [[#10|10]] [[#11|11]] [[#12|12]] [[#13|13]] [[#14|14]] [[#15|15]] [[#16|16]] [[#17|17]] [[#18|18]] [[#19|19]] [[#20|20]] [[#21|21]] [[#22|22]] [[#23|23]] [[#24|24]] [[#25|25]] [[#26|26]] [[#27|27]] [[#28|28]] [[#29|29]] [[#30|30]] ([[#31|31]])</center> |}</center>

There must be some way to only force these headings to exist and be placed when and only when they exist. Maybe by creating a Template:TOC-datenumbers as there also exists a Template:TOC, and by subst-ing and forcing a table of contents as per Template:TOC, I could probably work out myself how to do it but it's late in the day as far as my brain is concerned, some kind of parser-function to do with CURRENTDATE, by the left of it being (CURRRENTDATE-1), until we reach ((CURRENTDATE-CURRENTDATE)+1). (That is, the first of any given month). This could theoretically be easily achievable and updateable every time there is a new date heading added to the page. Thoughts? (Edit: of course, the numbers would be the other way around). Bobo . 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animals

Is it really necessary to include dead animals? Mapjc 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have this discussion every time a notable animal dies. Current practice provides that if an animal has a Wikipedia article, then the death is acknowledged here. WWGB 00:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How silly. Mapjc 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why silly? If an individual animal has its own Wikipedia article, it has obviously been significantly noted in some form of public media. Xoloz 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly because this is a list of notable deaths. People aren't scouring this list for dead animals, only notable people. By all means a noteworthy animal can have its death noted in its own article, but I seriously doubt anyone would look on a list of recent deaths to find something about a parrot. Even the setup on the list page presupposes that we're listing humans, since it specifies that the *deaths are listed under each date by FAMILY name, and that a required field of data within an entry should be citizenship. Mapjc 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very wrong about the structure of this page -- a long time ago, it was called "List of notable people who have died". The name was changed specifically to address the continuing question of animals. Any notable death belongs. It is worth noting that many pets do carry family names; my (non-notable) cat certainly does. While animals cannot be considered full legal persons in every context, many become symbols of civic pride, some notably are bequeathed property, and (occasionally) people attempt to marry them! Of course, the athletic achievements of racing horses are lauded by the sporting world. The entries for Harriet (long-lived pet turtle of Charles Darwin) and Barbaro have most recently raised this issue. As always, WP:N is established through reliable sources, and both those deaths received much attention in the mainstream press. The River Thames whale is a recent example of an unfortunate wild animal becoming the object of popular notice and affection. Personally, I think it is "silly" to discount the importance of a famous animal's death: Barbaro is the only notable death from January, 2007 that I recall easily. Xoloz 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sillier to think only one species can possibly be important enough for a death notice. exactly who says "people aren't scouring this list for dead animals, only notable people"? surely people don't scour the list for anyone specifically (or to "find something out about..." listees) anyway, they go to there see a list of who's passed on and then get linked to the article in question if they want to know more. the setup on the list page presupposes that in the majority of cases we'll be listing humans, yes. this is logical, because most of them are; but this does not innately exclude notable animals. many of the humans who died in the same month as Harriet still don't have an article of their own. the vast majority of them can't hold a candle to her historical importance, either. so what's really silly? tomasz. 13:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, checking to see who has passed on, not what. As far as only one species being important enough, Wikipedia is written by people for people. If you are able to teach your cat to read Wikipedia, by all means let me know. As for the "importance" of the animals, exactly of what importance was Harriet? It was an old turtle. Arguably the importance is of the notable people who performed the research, not the animal with no understanding of for what it was being used. In any case, I have made my point and will let it rest, whether anyone agrees with me or not. Mapjc 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a compromise solution. Revert to "List of notable people who have died" and create a new article "List of notable birds, animials and fishes which have died." That way, the notable people wouldn't have to mix with the notables from the other species. Would that work for everyone? Que-Can 18:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply providing a link in the info at the top of the article that refers readers interested in animal deaths to the category 2007 animal deaths. Kiwipat 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this tho I firmly believe animals should be included here. Anything living dies, and there are notable animals...ergo they should be included...hell if ever any those famous giant trees out there die I'll add them. Kiwipat 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not include plants? surely there are many notable trees that have passed on recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.36 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why not indeed? if i see the death of notable tree reported in verifiable 3rd party sources, i will definitely add it. tomasz. 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles are not names

Titles of knighthood are not part of a name. The format at the top of the page asks for "Name, age, country of citizenship..." etc. I've removed the Dame and Sir from the names of several people on this page several times in accordance with the guidelines set forth on the page Wikipedia: Naming conventions (names and titles) WP:NCNT but they keep appearing (sometimes with the note that there is no consensus on this). Does there need to be consensus to follow established conventions? What am I missing here? Blake the bookbinder 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles such as Sir and Dame are part of names. They appear on passports, official forms, birth certificates, on letters addressed to those people. They are legally recognized. Titles such as "President", "Prime Minster" are offices held and not names. It is much better to have the whole name and be done with it rather than always have to look at an entry and think "is it Sir XY or someone else?" There are many Peter Parkers but only one Sir Peter Parker. If there is a policy somewhere it should be ignored on this page. It may be OK as a policy for naming articles. Perhaps it was made by people with limited acquaintance with these things. That is the problem with policy on wikipedia. Some people love to make it and others love to enforce it - but it rarely seems well considered. Much better to have things evolve in context wherever possible. 62.64.200.136 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a policy somewhere it should be ignored on this page? That's a pretty bold thing to say.

I can't speak to Peter Parker, but I see in Whitaker's Almanack that there are three Sir John Youngs, and two each of Sir David Smith, Sir John Smith and Sir Robert Smith. Krikey! Blake the bookbinder 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So any help is needed to disambiguate them here! 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the policy it seems to refer to article naming which is a different matter. Here we are referring to people in a list. (Articles should be named to make them easy to find for people who don't understand the conventions whereas references in lists can afford to be accurate.) The policy seems to be use what is natural. And if King Zog died, he wouldn't be called King Zog in this list? The people who add names know when the title is appropriate. 62.64.200.136 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.200.136 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If King Zog the Second of Zogland were to die (God forbid!) he should (if you've studied WP:NCNT) be listed here as Zog II of Zogland.Blake the bookbinder 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which just proves that listing as "King Zog of Albania" with the title is much better than "Zog I of Albania." I see "Prince Abdul Rahman Al-Sudairy" was listed as Prince. 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names:

Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (But make a redirect from the form with the title if it is well known, thus Sir Walter Raleigh redirects to Walter Raleigh.) The article itself should clarify details such as the full title, etc. "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator. Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. Thus, Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare. Knights bachelor have no suffix.

Since the death notice should be consistent with the article title, it would seem that it is not appropriate to include titles here. WWGB 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the death notice should be consistent with reality 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing titles of knighthood in this page is a disregard and disrespect for one's culture and tradition. As the Naming conventions states, these titles should not be included in the article titles, but not in the links to the article titles. Furthermore, why should the death notice be consistent with the article title? I know Who's who include titles of knighthood in its death page too, it is so "unencyclopedic" for us not to follow.--Clithering 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the library just yesterday having a good look at the 2007 Who's Who and I notice that the obituary section also includes the titles Very Reverend, His Honour, Professor, Air Vice-Marshal amongst others and even describes one very distinguished gentleman as His Honour Major-General Sir David John Huges-Morgan, 3rd Bt, CB, CBE. Shall we follow?Blake the bookbinder 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do what seems most appropriate in each case? 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have mentioned is actually the present case in the articles. According to our practice in the death page, we just simply keep a simpler form of title. It would be a interesting task to find out how did we reach such consensus. Though I guess the reason would be to keep a more tidy, unified, and clean layout.--Clithering 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to include titles here in order to avoid giving a false implication to the readers. We must be aware that the titles conferred are for life. We do not include them only when they are forfeited, conferred in a honorary status, or given up by the bearers (if possible). Including titles here is no way a violation of any naming conventions, but excluding them is definitly a violation of the honor system.--Clithering 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The titles Doctor, Professor Emeritus and the Very Reverend are conferred for life as well. Blake the bookbinder 11:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have legal force? If they do have, I agree to include them. If they don't, then I disagree. Anyway, if they are to be included in the death page (these are actually included in the articles), it will help the page be more precise and accurate.--Clithering 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case for including them too. I want to know if some is a very rev or Dr or Prof. Though the case is weaker than for Sirs and Dames.

Is Wikipedia, an international entity, bound by the Honours System (or even by the honor system) of one particular country (or kingdom)?Blake the bookbinder 09:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accepts naming conventions of all countries (including China, which creates alphabetic confusion). 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask, is an international entity cannot co-exist with a honour system, which has a hugh impact not only to a kingdom, but to a world-wide commonwealth? By the way, I do not agree the function of Wikipedia (as an international entity) is to erase regional differences. This is not a job done in an encyclopedia.--Clithering 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that titles such as "Sir", "Dame", "Lady", "Lord" etc are part of the person's name. Our article naming policies are for just that purpose - article naming - and they don't extend to other contexts. We refer to Margaret Thatcher as "Lady Thatcher" in many, many places; same for Sir Francis Drake, Sir Alec Guinness, Lord Olivier, etc etc. These change a person's name to no less an extent than Benjamin Disraeli becoming Lord Beaconsfield, or John Buchan becoming Lord Tweedsmuir. "President Clinton" is not such a case - this is merely a courtesy title that has no legal force. Knighthoods and peerages have legal force.

Titles like President and Prime Minister are ex officio. A courtesy title is what the Earl Spencer's oldest boy has.Blake the bookbinder 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the reference to Bob Geldof above is a really bad example. Geldof was given an honorary knighthood, not a substantive one, because he's not a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm. Despite what the media always calls him, he should never, ever be called "Sir Bob Geldof", but he is entitled to be referred to as "Mr Bob Geldof KBE", or "Bob Geldof KBE". And it's not "Bob Geldof KBE (hon)", either. The fact that he's Mr Geldof rather than Sir Bob is sufficient indication that his knighthood is honorary. The fact that the media ignores these rules doesn't make it ok to invent such terminology as "KBE (hon.)". -- JackofOz 05:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the discussion going, let me put forward a few questions:

Are you really confident that the people who add names will know when a title is appropriate? Will you leave, unaltered, whatever title they deem appropriate?

edits can always be corrected - but the people who add names generally have a better sense of what is appropriate than people half a world away who have never heard of the person.88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not using titles on this page a "disregard and disrespect for one's culture and tradition" while not using them in article titles goes unobjected to? To whom does the word 'one' refer?

Article titles are in the "simplest form" to make them easy to find at first search. That doesn't mean that inaccuracy for the sake of convenience has to rule everywhere 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the false implication (impression?) a reader might get if titles were not included here?

the false impression that names were correct as listed? 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "legal force" mean in the statement: "Knighthoods and peerages have legal force." In how much of the world is this "force" recognized in law?

You tell me. By the comity of nations all I'd guess. 88888 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ianal, but this is my understanding of the situation. When a person (say Peter William Smith) is knighted, it is not necessary for him to go through a separate process of having his name formally changed, eg. by deed poll, because the granting of the knighthood achieves exactly that effect. The relevant authorities will officially record his change of name by the addition of "Sir". Sir Peter has the legal right (and indeed, in some cases, legal responsibility) in British law to have his full official name shown as "Sir Peter William Smith". This would also apply anywhere else in the world where he happened to be, and was required by the laws of that jurisdiction to provide his full legal name. "Sir Peter" would certainly appear on his passport, and while it may be described there as his "title", analagous to "Mr", Dr", "Professor" etc, this is just a bureaucratic sleight of hand to avoid a lot of confusion. The same applies for peerages where the new name is different from the original surname. Benjamin Disraeli became Lord Beaconsfield because Queen Victoria said so (effectively). And even where Mr Jones becomes Lord Jones, these are still, in law, two different names. Knighthoods are granted by the monarch, the fount of honour. Some of these are within the Queen's personal gift; that is, she thinks it's a good idea to reward some service, and decides on her own volition to make an award; the others are made on the advice of the relevant government (which includes not only the British government, but those of the 15 other Commonwealth Realms, and even those of individual states/provinces, eg. when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was knighted in 1984, this was on the advice of the Queensland Government (which he just happened to lead), and not of the Australian Government). The governments of some realms and states sometimes have a policy of not recommending to the Queen that she make awards; but policies can and do change. While the monarchy has been around for a very long time, it currently exists in law only because Parliament (well, to be precise, 16 separate Parliaments) says it does, and the powers of the monarch are limited by statute. So it's within the Parliament's powers to deprive the Queen of her capacity to award knighthoods within her personal gift. To the extent that they have that power, whether or not they choose to exert it, the Queen is subject to the Parliament and therefore her official actions have the force of law. -- JackofOz 08:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz, I know that this is only a discussion page so it's not being held to the same high standards as the rest of Wikipedia which, as we all know is based on published source material, and I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but in light of your introductory remark, I ask the philosophical question - is your understanding of the situation the same thing as the situation? It may very well be.

I respond with the even more philosophical answer: "Is anyone's understanding of any situation the same as the situation?". -- JackofOz 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for some authorative (indeed official) information about the question of titles being part of a name, but, it being the weekend, I've had no reply. In the meantime, does anybody know the published sources to which we should be turning for answers to these burning questions?Blake the bookbinder 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference in a fact and an opinion you believe to be true?

Is there consensus on this issue?

Blake the bookbinder 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some titles, for instance 'The Right Honourable', should not be on this page. However the idea that (for example) Sir Tasker Watkins may not be referred to as 'Sir' when reporting his death is, to my mind, ludicrous. Non-honorary Knighthoods and Baronetcies are almost invariably used, as are Peerage honours. Also, to have reported in 2004 the death of Andrew Cavendish is to deliberately deceive the readership. Sam Blacketer 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, what I'm trying to work out is which titles are permitted and which are not. You've given your opinion (that some titles, ie. The Right Honourable, should not be used on this page, but that others, ie. Sir, should) but how did you arrive at that decision? I'm interested to know not only where you draw the line but how you came to draw it where you did. Otherwise we'll have to ring you up everytime someone dies and ask you if their title is suitable for this page. It would be a lot easier if you were against the use of all titles or for the use of all titles (the Very Reverend, Doctor, post nominals, etc.) or if you followed the guidelines already laid out on the Naming conventions (names and titles) WP:NCNT page.

Regarding Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire, if the guidelines on the Naming conventions (names and titles) WP:NCNT page had been followed, he would have been listed as Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire and there would have been no false impression (nor deliberate deception).Blake the bookbinder 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Having the title is not only accurate and unambiguous but also the most natural way to refer to someone Sir Harry Secombe was always called "Sir Harry" to his face - to have called him Harry would have sounded unfriendly and odd. Let's be accurate and refer to people in the way that is most natural to those who knew who they were. And it is a general convention that people are given their honors in death. 88888 08:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither inaccurate nor ambiguous to call Harry Secombe, Harry Secombe - it was his name. I'm not sure where in the world you are writing from, but, in most places, to refer to or call someone by their name is not unfriendly or odd in the least and is the most natural way to refer to someone. In my experience calling someone Sir (or whatever) isn't the kind of thing friends or close aquaintences do to each other. But that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion page, I guess.Blake the bookbinder 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krikey! Why didn't somebody point me in the direction of WP:MOSBIO days ago? I've just found it, all by myself. Sorry, everybody; I didin't know honourific prefixes was a settled issue within en.Wikipedia. I still believe every point I've made here is valid and am adamant that honourific prefixes are not part of a name (in the vast majority of the world, anyway) but I hearby surrender my attempt to convince anybody to do without them on this page. However, what I would like to know next is, why isn't Anita Roddick's name followed with a rousing DBE since the example on page WP:MOSBIO is?Blake the bookbinder 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you would "surrender". I am not convinced that WP:MOSBIO necessarily applies here. Death notices are neither title nor article about an individual, therefore conventions for single-person articles may not be relevant here. WWGB 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender, as in to give up, resign, abandon. Why would I do it? Because after these many attempts to change some minds, I don't seem to be getting anywhere. I'll leave the determination about the applicabitliy of WP:MOSBIO to you too. Good luck to you all.Blake the bookbinder 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is good that views were exchanged in a spirit of genuine openness to a change of mind. 88888 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I didn't see any evidence of that going on here, but I'll take your word for it. Blake the bookbinder 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not looking to effect a change in Wikipedia style, but I thought you all might be interested in this e-mail I recieved today:

Mr Smith,

Thank you for your e-mail of 14 September.

It is our understanding that titles, be they Peerages (hereditary or lifetime only) or Knighthoods, do not form part of a person’s legal name. Such titles may well appear (quite lawfully) in a recipient’s Passport, but a person’s legal name is that which appears on his (or her) Birth Certificate (or, if the original name has been changed by Deed Poll, on the appropriate document).

I hope that this is helpful.

Alan Tuomey, Ceremonial Secretariat, Cabinet Office, 020-7276 2778

Of course, this is only the view of the government of the United Kingdom; other jurisdictions around the world, of which there are many, may hold a different view (or none whatsoever).

have a great weekend!

Blake the bookbinder 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cabinet office is hardly trustworthy. Especially with information from someone called "Alan". What does legal name in this context mean anyway? He is very vague using undefined terms. 88888 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the bit about legal names... tell us more about the especially untrustworthtyness of guys named "Alan". Sounds like you might know something about it that the rest of don't. Be as specific (or, un-vague) as you can. Blake the bookbinder 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complications - keep it simple

Does complications add anything significant to cause of death? If you are shot, you die of the "complications of gunshot wound". Sometimes it used as an admission that the "cause" wasn't the "real cause" - "complications of diabetes". "Complications of intestinal blockage": does that mean "we don't know which organ gave in catastrophically but we don't feel that saying he died of an intestinal blockage is vague enough"? The feeling is that the cause of death cannot be the cause of the death if you can quite often survive with it without a 'critical' medical intervention? But then if "brain death is death" then the only "immediate" cause of death in all cases is cessation of brain activity, unless "immediate" taken to mean whatever immediately stopped brain activity (which is generally lack of oxygen). There may be a case for calling cause of death which ever organ was messed up enough to kill the brain (other organs being OK) but then cancer is not a cause of death in that case (why don't people put complications of cancer?). It is possible to on forever with causes and complications. Better not to use the word where possible. Keep it simple. Avoid complications. Type less. Take up less space. 88888 14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reference states that the cause of death was "complications of X", then who are we to dissent? Presumably, that is what the attending physician wrote on the death certificate. WWGB 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if the reference states "spontaneous combustion", who are we to dissent? I don't see any reference to a physician and don't presume one. Dying of an "intestinal blockage" is no less clear than "complications of an intestinal blockage". "Complications of" just tries to sound a little more in the know. But perhaps "complications of" is a medics term of art and says something in particular. I'd be happy if someone told me. Then I can stop people abusing it in other cases! 88888 00:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can get a bit murky if we try to stick to strict technicalities. A person who is shot dead, or a person who commits suicide by slashing their wrists, might, technically, die from exsanguination - as distinct from whatever caused the wounds that in turn caused the exsanguination. Not all gunshot wounds or slashed wrists result in death. We have to state whatever's been published, using whatever form of words they use. -- JackofOz 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are editors not copytypists. 88888 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

Has any one noticed that going to the category of 2007_deaths will often give one a more up-to-date reference for the latest famous people to have passed away than if one goes to:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2007_deaths?

What should we do to ensure the latter is also up-to-date? ACEOREVIVED 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm confused: Can you give the link to the category of 2007_deaths? I might be able to help you, but I don't know how you found that category. SailorAlphaCentauri 20:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Category:2007 deaths—Twigboy 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Twigboy. I am little puzzled by the first comment in response to my query, as surely, any one who is here would already have found that link to this category, which, if I am not mistaken, is the one you refer to there, Twigboy. ACEOREVIVED 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I wasn't sure about was the category that Twigboy gave the link to because, quite frankly, the only way I have ever accessed the recent deaths page is through the link on the main page. I didn't know that there was another category listing the dead by name. Now, if you are done trying to humiliate someone who honestly didn't know something, maybe we can get to the root of what was being asked in the first place.^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now to answer your question, ACEOREVIVED, the category is more up-to-date because there is someone who adds the category to the person's wikipedia article but doesn't come to the recent deaths listing to post the same information. Short of trolling the category to look for people to add to the recent deaths listing, I'm not sure what can be done (but I hope that others will come along with better ideas).^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has occurred to me that Category:2007 deaths is a useful source for the Deaths in 2007 article, especially since every deceased there has a WP article and doesn't have the annoying redlinks that appear here. WWGB 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa, please be assured that I was not trying to humiliate any one. It is my fault if the way I had phrased my above concerns had confused any one (mea maxima culpa) because, although I had given the website http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2007_deaths, I had not actually given the website of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category: Deaths in 2007, which, until recently, was different to the article. They appear to have been merged now, which is good. Again, apologies, no humiliation was meant, and I wish to clarify here that I myself, not being the most computer literate person in the world, am sure that I still have much to learn about Wikipedia categorisation and lists! ACEOREVIVED 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay; as long as the issue at hand is resolved, it is all that matters. I don't always speak up when I don't understand something, so I kind of bit back when you made your comment. If linking these two categories will improve listings, I'm all for it. And it never hurts to learn something new (as I appear to every time I return to Wikipedia). ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Strip Deaths

Even though this has been deleted, I think it should be mentioned for future reference: Someone listed the death of a comic strip character from Funky Winkerbean today and, while it was deleted, I think it should not have been listed in the first place [because it was written like a line that should have been in the article to begin with]. I hope it doesn't happen again. It was sad that she died of breast cancer, but...she's a fictional character. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 20:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to List of Deaths in 2007

moving article to List of deaths in 2007 would be appropriate, since this is a "list", not an "article". Also, leaving older lists as it is, and making it a list in future would be good idea. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i for one think it's fine as it is, tbh. tomasz. 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd want to move it, either. This list is unique as it is more of a reference source (with citations) than a mere list. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. It says in the beginning of the article that it's a list. It's no more unique than List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize for Fiction or lists of Nobel prize winners. What part of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) does this article NOT comply with, other than the title? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medal(l)ist revert wars

I notice the ongoing debate concerning the "correct" spelling of the word medalist / medallist. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary either is acceptable. According to Cambridge dictionary medallist is British spelling, medalist is American spelling. The article Doubled consonants also throws some light on the subject. WWGB 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is a continual 'war' with american and british spelling (no idea why the americans have to be different, but hey!) i think if the article is about anything american, then american spelling should be used. same with anything british. if an american makes a page/edit regarding a british topic, they should stick to british spelling (or don't bother at all...) and vice versa. for anything out with britain/america, british spelling should be used, as most english teachers in foreign countries are british and i do believe the british english was there first, ie it was the americans who changed the spellings!! just my opinion, of course... 77.101.18.129 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that people should just ignore bastardised english spellings of words...and should also take a look at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28spelling%29 which gives extra information about acceptable spellings 87.194.44.145 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone but not forgotten ...

Here are some of the more notable deaths of 2007, as recorded by our editors. It's just a personal observation, based on perceived international recognition. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and media

Art Buchwald, 81, American humorist and columnist, kidney failure. [3] [4]
Sri Chinmoy, 76, Indian-born philosopher and guru, heart attack. [5]
Nigel Dempster, 65, British journalist, progressive supranuclear palsy. [6]
Ira Levin, 78, American author (Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives) and playwright (Deathtrap), heart attack. [7]
Norman Mailer, 84, American Pulitzer Prize–winning author (The Naked and the Dead, The Executioner's Song), renal failure. [8]
Marcel Marceau, 84, French mime artist. [9]
Kurt Vonnegut, 84, American novelist and social critic, brain injury from a fall. [10]

Business

Leona Helmsley, 87, American hotelier, heart failure. [11]
Lim Goh Tong, 90, Malaysian Chinese billionaire, founder of the Genting Group. [12]

Film and television

Michelangelo Antonioni, 94, Italian film director (L'avventura, Blowup, Zabriskie Point). [13]
Ingmar Bergman, 89, Swedish stage and film director (The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, Fanny and Alexander). [14]
Joey Bishop, 89, American entertainer, last surviving member of the Rat Pack. [15] [16]
Yvonne De Carlo, 84, Canadian-born American actress (The Ten Commandments, The Munsters), natural causes. [17]
Alice Ghostley, 81, American Tony Award-winning actress, colon cancer. [18]
Dabbs Greer, 90, American actor. [19]
Merv Griffin, 82, American talk show host, real estate tycoon, creator of Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune, prostate cancer. [20]
John Inman, 71, British actor (Are You Being Served?), liver disease. [21] [22]
Deborah Kerr, 86, British actress (From Here to Eternity, Black Narcissus, The King and I), complications of Parkinson's disease. [23]
Charles Lane, 102, American character actor (It's a Wonderful Life, I Love Lucy), founding member of SAG. [24]
Kieron Moore, 82, Irish actor (The League of Gentlemen, The Day of the Triffids). [25]
Carlo Ponti, 94, Italian film producer, pulmonary complications. [26]
Tom Poston, 85, American actor (Newhart). [27]
Mala Powers, 75, American film actress (Cyrano de Bergerac, Outrage), leukemia. [28]
Ian Richardson, 72, British actor (House of Cards, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) and member of the RSC, in his sleep. [29] [30]
Gail Sheridan, 92, American actress, stroke. [31]
Jane Wyman, 90, American Academy Award-winning actress and first wife of Ronald Reagan. [32] [33]

Music

Teresa Brewer, 76, American pop and jazz singer, supranuclear palsy. [34]
Denny Doherty, 66, Canadian singer with The Mamas & the Papas, abdominal aneurysm. [35] [36] [37]
Lucky Dube, 43, South African reggae musician, shot during carjacking. [38]
Ray Evans, 92, American songwriter, partner of Jay Livingston for hits such as "Buttons and Bows", heart attack. [39] [40]
Dan Fogelberg, 56, American singer-songwriter ("Same Old Lang Syne"), prostate cancer. [41]
Robert Goulet, 73, American singer and actor, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. [42] [43]
Don Ho, 76, American Hawaiian musician and entertainer, heart failure. [44]
Lee Hazlewood, 78, American country music singer and songwriter ("These Boots Are Made for Walkin'"), renal cancer. [45]
Frankie Laine, 93, American singer ("Mule Train"), complications of hip replacement surgery. [46] [47]
Luciano Pavarotti, 71, Italian operatic tenor, pancreatic cancer. [48]
Bobby "Boris" Pickett, 69, American one-hit wonder singer ("Monster Mash"), leukemia. [49]
Ike Turner, 76, American R&B musician and record producer, ex-husband of Tina Turner, emphysema. [50]

Personalities

Robert "Evel" Knievel, Jr., 69, American stunt performer. [51] [52]
Anna Nicole Smith, 39, American 1993 Playmate of the Year, widow of J. Howard Marshall, accidental drug overdose. [53] [54]

Politics

Benazir Bhutto, 54, Pakistani Opposition Leader and former Prime Minister (1988–1990, 1993–1996), assassinated. [55]
E. Howard Hunt, 88, American Watergate scandal principal, pneumonia. [56]
Lady Bird Johnson, 94, First Lady of the United States (1963–1969), natural causes. [57]
Kurt Waldheim, 88, Austrian President (1986–1992), UN Sec-General (1972–1981), WWII Wehrmacht officer, heart failure. [58] [59]
Soe Win, 59, Burmese Prime Minister (2004–2007), leukemia. [60]
Boris Yeltsin, 76, first President of the Russian Federation (1991–1999), heart failure. [61] [62]

Religion

Chrysostomos I, 80, Archbishop of Cyprus (1977–2006). [63]
Jerry Falwell, 73, American pastor, television evangelist and founder of the Moral Majority, cardiac arrhythmia. [64] [65]
Rex Humbard, 88, American televangelist, congestive heart failure. [66]
Tammy Faye Messner, 65, American evangelist, metastatic colon cancer. [67]

Science and technology

Wally Schirra, 84, American Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronaut, heart attack. [68]
Paul Tibbets, 92, American pilot of the Enola Gay which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, heart failure. [69] [70]

Sport

Alan Ball, 61, British footballer, youngest member of England's 1966 World Cup-winning team, heart attack. [71] [72]
Scott "Bam Bam" Bigelow, 45, American professional wrestler, drug overdose. [73] [74]
Hugh Johns, 83, British football commentator with ITV. [75]
Colin McRae, 39, British World Rally champion, helicopter crash. [76] [77]
Bob Woolmer, 58, British cricketer for England (1975–1981) and Pakistan cricket team coach, heart failure. [78]

Time to revise the referencing style

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Discussion has migrated to Talk:Deaths in 2012#Citation style for ''older'' "Deaths in XXXX" articles

I think it's time to revise the referencing style, as more or less agreed upon further up, at least for pre-2008 lists. These pages aren't high-traffic anymore, so the maintenance shouldn't become unmanageable. Good raise 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see agreement, more or less. Why does it need to be changed anyway? WWGB (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be changed; it has worked until now. It should be changed, because it won't work forever. "Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation" is the start of what WP:CITE has to say about the matter. Are you suggesting an exception should be made here? If so, why? Good raise 12:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a style change that would affect many pages, not just this one, I think further discussion would be better at Talk:Deaths in 2012 where most interested editors hang out. WWGB (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should get more eyes on this. How to do that (e.g. placing a link, moving this discussion, or starting a new one) I'll leave to your preference. Good raise 13:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you don't have a preference. I'll place a link to here at Talk:Deaths in 2012 then. Good raise 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]