Talk:Deaths in 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This page is organized as part of a group with the other Contents pages (category). Please direct feedback on the pages as a group to Wikipedia talk:Contents. Thank you.

For earlier discussions of this topic, see the talk archives at Talk:Deaths in 2006 and Talk:Deaths in 2005.

Contents 1 Khamenei 2 Causes of death 3 References 4 Magnus Magnusson 5 Preemptive correction 6 Kim Jung-eun 7 Easter Bunny 8 Notable death citations in languages other than English 9 Fidel Castro 10 U;Nee 11 Kylie Minogue 12 Self-references 13 Barbaro 14 José D'Elía 15 Filippo Raciti 16 Masao Takemoto 17 Anna Nicole Smith 18 Specialized Sites 19 What is "standard length"? 20 Remove Andrew McAuley? 21 Nationalities 22 Very different person 23 Removal of Oliver Tomlinson 24 Gregg Petrocelli 25 Alex Henshaw 26 Lack of template 27 Henri Troyat 28 "Bad News Brown" 29 Wikilinks 30 ? and Circas 31 Rounded-up/Overstated Ages 32 Asian age counting 33 Trevor Moss 34 Hockey 35 Richard Jeni 36 Cliff Richard 37 Betty Hutton 38 Notability - Rameses 39 Martha Sosman 40 Bob Clark - 65 or 67? 41 Maria Gonzalvo

[edit] Khamenei

Removed his death notice as the cited source was a blog, which are usually not considered reliable sources. I haven't seen anything on AP / CNN / BBC as of yet, and am happy to see it restored pending a source. Syrthiss 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however good Pajamas Media is, it's not reliable. The only source which has followed up so far is this which concludes with the observation "The reliability of this information is unknown" which speaks for itself. Sam Blacketer 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. He's obviously a large enough figure that his death should attract reliable sources aplenty. Canadian Paul 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed also. Let's not rush into this until confirmed. This site is also unsure. WWGB 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 W guice 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] References

I have previously stated this in Talk:Deaths in 2006, but I think that instead of external links, we should have references. --Thelb⁴ 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

See my test page. It won't end up that long (much shorter than the page itself will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

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)

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.--Thelb⁴ 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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. --Thelb⁴ 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. W guice 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, should I go and work on some old ones, then? --Thelb⁴ 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Magnus Magnusson

Not sure about the wording of his death. It say Icelandic born British Television presenter or some like that. He was born in Iceland yes, but he never took British citizenship, so is technically still Icelandic. Jimmmmmmmmm 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But "Icelandic British Television presenter" is slightly confusing, and we can't say "Icelandic television presenter" if he presented in Britain and never Iceland. Syrthiss 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He may have been Icelandic by citizenship, but he was British by association, which matters more. JackofOz 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Kim Jung-eun

Kim Hyung-eun not Kim Jung-eun was the Korean actress who died on January 9th. If you check the resources, they all say Kim Hyung-eun. They're two different people. I tried to edit the page, but somehow i couldn't.~~ 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the difference. I was guilty of an earlier reversal, as I wrongly assumed that the difference was just down to alternate Western spellings of the same Korean name. I have corrected the Deaths in 2007 entry, and will work on the entry of Kim Jung-eun to remove premature death mentions! WWGB 05:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Bunny

“

Easter Bunny, popular rabbit who drops egg for kids to find to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Also former spokes-rabbit for Cabury Cream Eggs., road accident caused by a gale force winds from Howard Stern's anus.

”

the user who removed the above used the edit summary "revert probable vandalism". just wanted to admire the open-mindedness and optimism, not to mention hilarity, of that "probable". W guice 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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 W guice 14:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 "en.wikipedia.org-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)

[edit] Fidel Castro

I'm writing this on the 20th of January - and Fidel Castro is supposed to have died in three days time (listed as the 23rd)??!?!?!??!!!!

I'm deleting it now.

[edit] U;Nee

U;Nee ??? Where the heck does that go in alphabetical order? Under "U" I guess ... WWGB 01:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but wasn't she Korean, not Japanese? 125.128.47.99 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kylie Minogue

Can't find anything to back up this report of her death, so removed for now. WillE 09:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Barbaro

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth here. Is there a standard or precedent? Chronologically he was 3, but all references state he was a four year-old, following the thoroughbred convention of deeming all horse's 'birthdays' to be January 1st. Any thoughts? Daddylight 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the horse's exact date of birth is known from stud records, he has to be recorded as 3 years old. Having a common anniversary is a convenience of the racing industry but does not alter nature. WWGB 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So no explination needed for the casual browser who is wondering why the info on this page does not match the citation to which it is linked? Daddylight 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are precedents for listing a notable racehorse in Deaths. See, for example, Desert Orchid on 13 November 2006 in Deaths in November 2006. WWGB 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, we even listed Harriet when she died. (See Deaths in June 2006.) There's certainly precedent to list a better-known racehorse. Spicy 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we listed Desert Orchid, Harriet, the Thames Whale, etc. etc. And all for good reason: such are the oft-invoked definition of "notable deaths" as opposed to "deaths of notable people" and should be kept as such. W guice 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A horse should not be listed alongside people. Wikipedians should create a page for notable animal deaths of 2007, 2006, and so forth. The precedent argument is bunk, because I and others find it offensive that hundreds of thousands of people die without a single mention, while a horse somehow deserves recognition. Intolerable and sickening, in my opinion. (Unsigned comment from 216.57.82.133)

The "offensive" argument is even more bunk, because the page is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of deaths, it's a selective list of notable deaths. Deaths of animals can be notable, and when they are, they are listed; when they're not, they're not. The same criterion, in fact, that we apply to humans. So, you seem to be arguing either that there's no such thing as a notable animal, or that even the most significant animal death is somehow less significant than, or on a par with, the death of any given human, regardless of their achievements or lack of. This strikes me as "bunk" much more than listing animals beside humans does.

And who are these "others"? Weasel words. And sign your damn comments. W guice 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So, "hundreds of thousands of people die without a single mention, while a horse somehow deserves recognition". Well, that would be because the horse brought more joy, excitement or interest into people's lives than any one of those "hundreds of thousands of people". (Anyway, why am I responding to a banned editor?) WWGB 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a precedent in Best Mate who is in Deaths in 2005. I strongly support the inclusion of Barbaro as well, good work, SqueakBox 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] José D'Elía

He is in fact dead today. If you wait some hours, you will can to check that. And Wikipedia will obtain beat Internet to it. You only must to be patient.

And what if he wasn't dead and it was just a hoax? That would be very embarrassing. What is the rush to post the death without a verifiable source? Patience is indeed a virtue ... WWGB 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have check he was really dead. I was sure of that. But you are right, sometimes we can be victims of a hoax. We must be careful. I thank you for to take the trouble to look for a reference. I could have add that, but I can´t operate the mechanism for to make that. Excuse me and see you later. Andez.

[edit] Filippo Raciti

My contribution about this death was deleted because not notable, my fault was not to add any reference. However I still think is a notable fact since is gonna cause -hopefully- a lot of consequences [1] [2] I understand that the event is near the borderline to be not noteworthy.. so take a look to reference and let me know. Marra 09:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it in again, with the references Marra gave. Raciti may not be notable enough to deserve an article about him in Wikipedia, but his death definitely is. --Goochelaar 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people "become" notable only when they die, as a result of how they died. (See Jennifer Strange who died on January 12, 2007.) If the cause of death is highly unusual, we often see the person listed as a notable death. Que-Can 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masao Takemoto

Why has Masao Takemoto been listed as dying on the 2nd Feb and the 4th Feb? which is the actual date of death? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennifer45 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

He died 2 Feb; duplicate has been removed. WWGB 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I created the article about him and my Dutch source said he died in the weekend, so it had to be either 3 or 4 and I did not see his name in one of these days yet. As the source published it on monday I assumed he most likely died the 4th, which I should have checked, in fact his name was already mentioned in the article. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Nicole Smith

8 Feb Unknown cause at this moment. Reported on Eonline.com [3]

Who says she died of a sleeping pill overdose? Its not even been half a day. I don't think anyone knows exactly what she died of yet. --tess 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Remove Andrew McAuley?

On the 9th someone added this "Andrew McAuley, 39, Australian ocean kayak adventurer, missing at sea." I think it should be removed for two reasons. One, he's not famous in any way or shape, and two, he has not been confirmed dead nor has the search for him been fully called off. So I am going to remove him, if anyone has a problem with this, just revert my edit.--Azslande 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people only become famous because of the way they died. I suspect Mr. McAuley may be (or become) one of these. Sometimes these people stay listed with the Deaths article, and sometimes their listings are deleted. Que-Can 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nobody should ever turn up on this list until they're either confirmed dead, or legally declared dead. But whether Andrew McAuley is notable or not is a different issue. Some people become notable by undertaking record-breaking (or, as in this case, record-creating) feats that are inherently risky ventures that could end in their death - and this is looking like one such case. If he had got to NZ safe, becoming the first person to kayak across the Tasman, then of course he would have been notable. Is he any less notable if he died in the attempt? As far as I know he was the first person to ever even try. I think he's notable for that alone. JackofOz 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Removal of Oliver Tomlinson

I've removed Oliver Tomlinson from the list because he does not seem to be notable. His son LaDainian Tomlinson is notable but that does not transfer to the father; the link provided (this one) says nothing about him save his name and age. Sam Blacketer 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg Petrocelli

Is this guy really notable? Bobo. 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that he should be removed. Such a minor thing as a high school basketball oach shouldn't be recognized on an encyclopedic obituary. --Austinsimcox 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Henshaw

poor Alex has seemed to have died twice - listed as dying on 26/2/07 but linked article states died 23/2/07 -- user:Jennifer45 1/3/07

• Poor Alex... :) --Austinsimcox 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit, but I found the "poor Alex" comment by Jennifer45 to be in extremely bad taste...really not Wikipedia-worthy. You're right: Jennifer45 is the one who should edit her/his comment. Que-Can 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

extremely bad? how?? even if it was meant sarcastically it wouldn't be particularly bad taste. as it stands presently, it's pretty much completely innocuous. W guice 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment "poor Alex has seemed to have died twice" is an attempt at a joke about someone who has just died. That, to most people, is considered bad taste, and not needed in Wikipedia. It's up to Jennifer45 to fix it. Que-Can 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

you perceive it as an attempt at a joke. that doesn't mean it is. it's not "up to anyone" to fix it. it's up to you to get over it W guice 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the hostility? Why should I "get over" my POV re the Jennifer45 comment? I have my opinion, you have yours.Que-Can 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, but i'm not telling people what they should "fix" and not. W guice 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

it wasn't meant as a joke - just a comment - and not really in bad taste either - it's really up to the people who add death reports to check their facts - i'm only making a comment re the error

user:Jennifer45

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Henri Troyat

Before we keep on shuffling him backwards and forwards between 2 March and 4 March, we need to find an authoritative and credible reference. See his talk page where I've raised the issue and given the conflicting citations. The article currently says he died on 2 March, which is supported by the Academie francaise. But there's a note that other sources give 4 March. Wikipedia should speak with a single voice, so at the very least we should be consistent (even if consistently wrong), but at the moment Deaths in 2007 says he died 4 March but his article says he died 2 March. Anyone have a view about to proceed? JackofOz 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The majority of sites support 2 March as the d.o.d.; the Academie would seem to be the most authoritative in this situation. I'll try another reversion. WWGB 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am Henri Troyat's grandson and can shed light on your question. He died on Friday March 2nd of natural causes.

Thank you, sir. I still keep on seeing obituaries alleging he died on various other days. But we know better. JackofOz 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bad News Brown"

Can someone think of a way to rephrase the sentence about Allen Coage? Referring to him as 'American-born' needs to be followed up by what he was at the time of death (i.e. American-born Canadian). If someone can think of a way of phrasing it where it retains that he was an Olympic athlete for the States but was a resident of Canada at the time of his death, it would be appreciated (because I just can't get my mind to work today). SailorAlphaCentauri 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that it appears the Mr. Mike Mooney's death is listed twice once on March 7th and once on March 2nd. Thanks

Thank you for pointing that out. I have fixed it as it appears he died on the 2nd according to this source. [4] -- No Guru 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

surely if he was born in America he is American not Canadian - if he is an American who was residing in Canada then surely that still doesn't make him Canadian - therefore it should rightly say American born Athlete - i don't think the fact that he lived in Canada during his life has any bearing on his nationality status - you could add in brackets a Canadian resident User:Jennifer45

The problem I have/had with the entry is that by saying American-born athelete, as opposed to American athele, it implied that he was no longer a citizen of the United States [of that I am not sure]. It also made it seem as if he were a citizen of another country at the time of his Olympic participation which, as far as the evidence goes, was not the case. I was in search of someone to find evidence of his citizenship of Canada at the time of his death (instead of just residency) and to state it in his description on the death page. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

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. W guice 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ? 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Trevor Moss

I removed the reference to him (11 March 2007) because it was not cited and he didn't appear to be a notable person. I searched for his name on Google and I didn't see any links to an actor, and certainly no reports of a death. In fact, the only "Trevor Moss... of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma" I found was a web programmer. AndrewAllen 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey

With regards to Cec Anstey, there should be a differentiation to what type of hockey he played, since Australia participates both in field hockey and ice hockey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.202.248.11 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see a problem with it. In Australia, "field hockey" is simply called "hockey"; "ice hockey" is called "ice hockey". AndrewAllen 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

it says "hockey" for concision but is pipe-linked to field hockey to make this easily apparent. W guice 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Jeni

The reference to his death as "apparent" suicide should be removed because the cited article states that the suicide has not yet been officially confirmed. SailorAlphaCentauri 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

that's surely a reason to keep the word "apparent". W guice 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something on the word "apparent". Before looking it up just this second, I saw the use of "apparent" as "apparently" (i.e. that it was obvious as to what happened with no need to investigate further) and not as if it's what the evidence presents until confirmed or proven otherwise. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

ah, i see your point... i was taking "apparent suicide" to mean "all signs point to suicide but we've not confirmed it yet", sort of thing. W guice 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His family have said even though the autopsy will take 3 weeks, they are sure he committed suicide [5] Ade1982 15:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While that may be the case, it would not have altered my perception of his listing at the time this thread began. This was a misunderstanding of a term, not a dispute of the facts per se. But thank you anyway. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ^talk

[edit] Cliff Richard

Because of only one unreliable source and no other references to his death that I can find. I have removed this one. If it's true then please accept my apologies, but I personally couldn't see it staying there if it's not true, and it needs to be referenced to a proper source surely? Like a news article or something, I will continue to look around for verification but for now it ought not to be there. SGGH 12:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

His death has been posted and removed a couple of times now, once with a link to a bbc news article which didn't work, I'm still searching for verification... unless provided I will keep removing it, I'm sure everyone understands why. SGGH 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I am removing it too. I have searched all available news and I can't see any evidence of it being true. Will (aka Wimt) 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I will check again, but most likely vandalism. Thanks for backing me up! SGGH 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betty Hutton

Just noting that we don't have a date or cause of death at this stage. All we know for sure is that she has died. The citation makes it clear these details will be released at a later time, in accordance with her wishes. It might not be 12 March at all. Perhaps we should annotate the entry on the main page accordingly. JackofOz 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but those additional notes just look unconventional and ugly. All will be revealed in the next days: if the present date is unacceptable then the entry should be deleted until d.o.d. is confirmed. WWGB 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

When Barry Cowsill died, we didn't know when exactly he died, just when the body was found. Didn't we put something like (body recovered) next to it? (I can't seem to find the entry anymore...) Same with the cat that used to live in the British parliament. Couldn't we have just (death announced) next to it? Canadian Paul 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability - Rameses

Important enough to have an article, and listed in deaths? The article about Rameses (mascot) is actually only about the death. Ade1982 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable on Wikipedia means media coverage in this case... which he's getting. Especially given the timing (NCAA tournament) his death has gotten relatively wide coverage. Doubt he'll ever get an actual Wikipedia article but who knows? --W.marsh 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Sosman

Martha Sosman is listed as dying on both the 10th and 11th of March, with two different causes of death listed. I could not assertain from the linked articles what the actual date of death was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.175.152 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bob Clark - 65 or 67?

The AP reports his age as 67, our article says 65. Our article seems to match the birthdate shown at IMDb and AllMovieGuide. But should the AP get more clout? I left a note on that article's talk page as well. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Gonzalvo

• Removed this Barcelona/Spain footballer from April 8 - no news hits of his death, his Wiki article makes no reference to cause of death, and the death dates clash between it and here (it lists him as dead March 8, 2007). What's more, the same user updated both pages just before to note his death. i'm reverting both until there are sources, if he has died. W guice 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He's dead alright [6]. No death date but very recent, i have updated the article, SqueakBox 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

sound, fair enough then. was hoping to err on the side of caution. W guice 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have a death date, the 7th, and have put it on this page, SqueakBox 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)