Talk:Deaths in 2007

This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[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]

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. --Thelb⁴ 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.--Thelb⁴ 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. --Thelb⁴ 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. W guice 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? --Thelb⁴ 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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]

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)[reply]

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)[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 W guice 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]

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.

U;Nee

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