Talk:Deaths in 2008

Suicide not a cause of death?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euthanasia

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

Animals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dailynews365

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Times: Obituaries (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

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

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

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

Dates

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

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

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

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

Welsh/British

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The government website is wrong? Yikes!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving proposal

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

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

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

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

Red links

Maybe we do need to keep a list of redlinks that have been removed from this page. Here is a list of redlinks that have appeared on this page and various archive pages as per revisions on the first of the following month - the earliest threshold at which the names would be deleted:

Similarly, all the undeleted redlinks from January's page are accessible via this link. Anyone fancy doing any of those? Bobo. 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

Similarly to the red links of February i am creating one for January & March. I will delete of if they get created. I have added what they are notable for. I have also added notability for February. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs)

Deaths

February 2008 Hans Roth - Entrepreneur | Robert Luly - Guitarist | Joan Eikelboom - Equestrian | Ralph White - Cinematographer | Boris Nebieridze - Director Deiter Noll - Author | George Hekkers - NFL Player | Kunal Singh - Actor | Helen Mayer - Politician | Sławomir Kulpowicz - Pianist John Dillenberger - Hartford Seminary President | Frank Dixon - Biologist | Gene Knutson - NFL Player | Vumile Dladla - Football Player | Stephane Peru - Colorist Edward McDonough - Healing Priest | Sergio Angeletti - Cartoonist | Mark Stenberg - Rapper | Rick Selvin - Editor | Alexander Samarskiy - Mathematician Raúl Salinas - Poet | Neville Holt - Sport Shooter | S. M. Aslam Talukder - Actor | Miguel Zanetti - Musician | Yelena Sabitova - Boxer Raymond Kennedy - Novelist | Thawa - Photographer | Arakem Peixoto - Musician | Souheil Idriss - Writer | Dorothy Wood Felton - Politician Giuseppe Bicocchi - Politician | Basavarajeshwari - Politician | Arun Kale - Poet | Piet Dam - Rallycross Driver | Billy Jack Murphy - College Football Coach | Johnny Vadnal - Polka Bandleader Vladimir Troshin - Actor | Artur Eizen - Opera Singer | Mira Alečković - Poet | Gary Rowe - Tennessee Representative | Lloyd Mumba - Footballer Barry Galton - Journalist | Maria Adelaide Aboim Inglez - Anti-Fascist Resistant

Deaths

March 2008 Stella Bruce - Writer | William Brice - Artist | Enrico Job - Scenographer | Erwin Ballabio - Footballer | Joel Serrão - Historian Jimmy Faulkner - Guitarist | John Callaghan - Sportscaster | Erica Jesselson - Benefactor | Cliff Thomas - Songwriter | Miguel Lemos - Journalist Al-Bandari bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud - Saudi Sister | Bill Hayward - Producer | Harriet Casdin-Silver - Artist | Rogério Ribeiro - Painter | Lee Ho-seong - Baseball Player Marianne Gullestad - Social Anthropologist | Richard Burke - Bicycle Maker | Zakaria Md Deros - Politician | David Mwenje - Politician | Scarlet Garcia - Model Bill Bolick - Music Performer | Gary Binfield - Swimmer | Kjell Swanberg - Columnist | Rodrigues Maximiano - Magistrate | Živojin Žika Milenković - Actor Aaron Asher - Editor | Miguel Cidras - Maestro | Robert Dyk - Reporter | Georgy Gachev - Philosopher | Hugo Correa - Sci Fi Writer Rune Borg - Entrepreneur | Rajbir Singh - Police Commissioner | Ivan Toms - Physician | Sérgio de Souza - Journalist | Sergey Kramarenko - Goalkeeper William Hyland - National Security Advisor | Jean Davies - Judge | Erwin Wickert - Writer | Jayci Yaeger - Cancer Patient | Beverly Broadman - Broadcaster Bill Sterner - CEO | Myint Thein - Spokesman | Raul Donazar Calvet - Footballer | Chris "Punch" Andrews - Broadcaster

Can someone please explain the significance of this information? None of these people have Wikipedia articles, hence their notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a repository of "stuff". I also believe that this material breaches Wikipedia guidelines as it introduces article content inappropriately into a talk page. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Joel Serrão has an article in the PT wikipedia, I'm sure there's more. Al-Bandari bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud wasn't just any Saudi sister, she was a princess. Just because someone doesn't have an article in Wikipedia does not mean they are not notable; rather, no one has given a damn to start one. Editorofthewiki 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is, or was, notable enough to rate a Wikipedia article, a Wikipedia article will eventually be created about them without this goading. Why are we being urged to create an article about Al-Bandari bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud (or anybody else) at this precise point? If she is, or was, notable, why wasn't an article created about her in her lifetime? Her death has not propelled her to notability. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise (or, apologize) for using the word 'goading' in my last comment; there was a touch of the pejorative about it, without which we could all do. 'Encouragement' would have been a better choice. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to remove the red links from the Deaths in 2008 article and have these links ( maybe they are not always to be red links, but can become blue and ckickable links) placed here in template boxes. This way we can check out people who have died but have not yet being given an article in Wikipedia, and then anybody who is prepared to do reseach can create an article about a person who is recently deceased .No harm then in having such red link reference boyes here in the talk page 217.83.163.172 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather a good idea to have a list of red links for this article, simply so that it shows at a glance how many entries are still article-less after a given period of time, and can be deleted from the main list. Several of the red links in the boxes above have gone blue, so they were deemed notable enough to have articles written about them. Just because someone doesn't have an article written about them, it does not necessarily mean they are not notable. I think some of the comments made about the boxes above are rather negative and mealy-mouthed. Inappropriate use of a talk page? Wow... the guy was only trying to help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealander

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

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

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

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

Real names of entertainers

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

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

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

Newcomer

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

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

Overlinking

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

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

Football

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

Gerard McDonnell

I removed Gerard McDonnell from the list as the death has not been confrimed, as shown by this source [12]. I believe the same thing happened around the time of the suicide of Mark Speight. Just making a note in cause anybody questioned the removale of his name. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Official job titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital letters

This obsessional hatred that some editors display for capital letters is very grating. Firstly, please note that no-one has disputed the correct application of the Manual of Style on this issue. Secondly, this page is part of a wider encyclopaedia and should be in line with usage on other pages which does not have such a detestation. Thirdly, as a matter of common sense, usage should be in line with what is used in the outside world; if the Chancellor of Austria is given capital letters within Austria, then he should have capital letters here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had several strong debates with Jagdfeld concerning this matter. While I may not agree with his position, I acknowledge his consistency and persistence. As editors, we should be guided on this matter by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles, which states in part that the correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. So far so good.

It goes on to state "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. This I find quite bizarre. Surely the King is the King regardless of the structure of a particular sentence.

As examples of what I believe should be correct use of capitals, I list the following selected deaths from late July 2008 as they currently appear:

• Falani Aukuso, Tokelauan politician, deputy director general of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. [13]
• Anne Armstrong, 80, American diplomat and politician, ambassador to the United Kingdom (1976–1977), cancer. [14]
• Eric Varley, Baron Varley, 75, British politician, secretary of state for Industry (1975–1979), cancer. [15]
• Anatoliy Tyazhlov, 66, Russian politician, governor of Moscow Oblast (1991–2000). [16] (Russian)
• Julius B. Richmond, 91, American vice admiral, surgeon general (1977–1981), cancer. [17]

which I believe should be written as follows, being titles or ranks:

• Falani Aukuso, Tokelauan politician, Deputy Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. [18]
• Anne Armstrong, 80, American diplomat and politician, Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1976–1977), cancer. [19]
• Eric Varley, Baron Varley, 75, British politician, Secretary of State for Industry (1975–1979), cancer. [20]
• Anatoliy Tyazhlov, 66, Russian politician, Governor of Moscow Oblast (1991–2000). [21] (Russian)
• Julius B. Richmond, 91, American Vice Admiral, Surgeon General (1977–1981), cancer. [22]

WWGB (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Finn

I take several sources to mean that he is dead. On [23], I think that "The family of producer Jerry Finn decided to take him off life support after a brain hemorrhage left him in a coma for a month. He was 38.", means that it killed him. Any other opinions? Star Garnet (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of life support is not necessarily a precursor of immediate death. A particular example is Karen Ann Quinlan who was removed from life support in 1976 but survived for almost ten years. Some media are now realising this distinction in Jerry Finn's case [24]. WWGB (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Paula Newman

Is that woman meant [[25]] or maybe she she [[26]]? 84.134.60.20 (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Starr

I think this page links to the wrong Paul Starr. Either that or there is no mention of the make-up artist stuff on it. Boris The Hedgehog (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct; link fixed. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)