Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 8 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2014 redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2014 redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Years Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: There are many "rules" associated with this page. Why? A: Recent deaths is one of the most-viewed articles in Misplaced Pages. The article Deaths in 2013 received more than 21 million views . It is important that such a high-profile article has factual information presented in a consistent format. Q: Why are there redlinks (deceased subject with no Misplaced Pages article) listed in the article? A: Many notable people die before a Misplaced Pages article is written about them. The regular editors of this page have agreed that a death notice without an article may remain for one month after the death, so that an article may develop. If there is no article after one month, then the death notice is removed from the list. Q: Why are dead animals sometimes listed in the article? A: Many animals (like Lonesome George) achieve notability similar to humans during their life. This article reports the death of any notable biological life, not just humans. Q: I read on Twitter that a notable person has just died. Can I add their death to the list? A: Material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced is removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (WP:BLP). Blogs and social media sites are generally considered to be unreliable. Every death listed must be supported by a reference from a reliable, independent source. Q: A new month started five days ago. Why are deaths in the old month still appearing here? A: It takes some time for deaths to be reported in the media and published here. Editors have agreed to keep the old month listed in the article for seven days after the new month begins. After that time, the "old" deaths are transferred to the article Deaths in <old month name>. Q: Why is there sometimes a date without entries at the top of the page? A: A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere. A relevant time clock can be found here.

Ref titles and formatting being ignored

It appears some people are ignoring the reference formatting guidelines for this page. Someone (plural?) even creates fake article titles. Is there any reason for this? Frankly, I view it as disruptive editing behavior (what I'd normally template a newer user for) and would very much like it to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for some of us that do this- We arent plagiarists. Using other people's words without directly attributing them is plagiarism in its purest form. The Name, Nationality, Age and Cause of Death are all publicly documented. The notation for notability is something that should be obvious and need not be co-opted from an article. When I edit articles outside of this one, I always fully use citations. However when I use full citations here they are reduced to only the article title- which is plagiarism even on a link. I will not be a party to it. I was asked by several people privately to put in a reference to fill in the bottom section so that they can be easily verified, which I have no problem doing. But I do have a problem with out and out plagiarism.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Reflinks tool located at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks automatically adds the article title to an otherwise bare URL reference. It converts, for example, to .

I am sure the Misplaced Pages administrators will be surprised and disappointed to learn that the tool they have approved for use throughout Misplaced Pages results in plagiarism! WWGB (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of Citation tools out there...check WP:CITETOOL. But you are using another's words without naming the author or publication in the same area. That is plagiarism.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The publication IS named. It's the first part of the URL (nationalgeographic.com.au). But it is plagiarism if you say so, even though the cite tools are approved to cite in that way. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A hotlink is not a proper citation. That only tells you where to find it. Not who wrote it or even who published it...only who is hosting it, as a portion of these obits are completed by the Wire services (AP, Reuters, etc.).Sunnydoo (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Equally, whether we personally agree or not with the referencing style utilised in this article, its use was approved by general consensus - which was a lengthy process. Editors deciding unilaterally to opt out are not doing themselves, the agreed principles of Misplaced Pages editing, nor this well used article any favours. I can accept those largely unfamiliar with this page may not always follow the agreed style, but other regular users do not have, IMHO, a valid excuse.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

For a few principled veteran editors (or just one) to go from a full detailed cite that bogged down the page to an established more common tool such as Reflinks to not listing any titles to now only listing names or parts thereof is most certainly conflicting and disruptive. It is also a major reason I myself do not contribute here much any longer. As for Reflinks not naming publications, try it. Most times, it gives them or the website. — Wyliepedia 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree Wylie. One of these days we hopefully will hit upon a system that works for everyone. I really feel for some of these guys who come over from the other language Wikis and who speak English from a 2nd or 3rd language perspective. They drop full cites in here and then they get whacked down to the nub. I am sure they dont understand the reasons why. If it helps I wont enter titles at all anymore, but like I said, I had about 3 or 4 people ask for them, so I acquiesced on their behalf.

As for my friend from South Brisbane, Queensland (hehe), one of my favorite Ayn Rand quotes just for you- "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." Rand, Ayn (1961) "For the New Intellectual," Random House (New York), pg. 165.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen many "other language"-ers drop many full cites here recently. Most, if memory serves, either follow suit (the format given either above or below their entry) or just list bare URLs. And how do you know, Sunnydoo, that they don't understand why their cites get trimmed? I have gone straight from here to some blue links to verify cross-reports and most have bare URLs there, as well. As for the "spread of evil", that is yet another personal attack on WWGB that, I, for one, won't stand for and think it needs to stop. Consensus and conformity have cleaned up this page immensely, affording most of us efficient load times, especially when it comes to fixing references. Those who are non-compliant only cause extra work for others. — Wyliepedia 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Even ProveIt only requires a URL, title, and access date. If you have an issue with the ref formatting as plagiarism, bring it up on ANI or Village Pump. The format was agreed by consensus and commonly used on Misplaced Pages. Please abide by the consensus. Otherwise, you are being disruptive and I, for one, and getting quite frustrated by it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not an attack on WWGB. It was a message to the person who logged out and then put up an IP address that locates to Brisbane that called me a Horse. As far as I know, I believe WWGB lives in Melbourne (and to be fair- I spend half my time in Colorado and half my time in Tennessee). WWGB and I do have a history, but I dont think that even he would stoop to that level. I do have a pretty good suspicion who it was however. You can check it if you like- ‎ 124.171.52.117 goes back to APNIC PO BOX 3646 Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4101. They are a domain registration service in Aussie land. **Update-You can actually look it up on their site...# goes to a suburban Perth site somewhere near Subiaco...I dont think that is WWGB. That kind of thing takes a certain level of maturity or lackthereof and I can tell that most of us arent spring chickens. The ones that are stand out. Sunnydoo (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the image, since it was a "drive-by". Anyone who thinks it belongs can revert. I also struck my comment about the evil thang. Carry on. At least it wasn't a giraffe. — Wyliepedia 17:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just happy it was the front side of the horse.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunnydoo - you're edits are disruptive. Please stop refusing to follow the consensus format for references. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits are anything but disruptive. They are respectful and made with the best of intentions.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Frankly they cause headaches for all the other editors who need to clean up after you. I admit I'm in a foul mood at the moment, but I've need trying to understand why you refuse to properly format your references for a couple weeks now. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wylie asked that I stop putting in extra words in the reference to make the tag at the bottom, so I have stopped doing that. I would assume that the little program will run correctly now. I wouldnt have started had 3 editors not asked me to to begin with. I hope your mood improves. Maybe go for a little walk...that helps me when I am in a bad mood and my dog likes it.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you stopped adding your own titles, but wonder why you don't add the real titles. But yes, Reflinks can fix your refs easy enough. It's late where I am so I'll just go to bed. Pardon the grump. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, bare URLs are far less "disruptive" than listing something other than the title. I would rather clean up after the bot than go searching for proper titles. Sunnydoo and the dog are making progress. — Wyliepedia 12:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Senator From not for in reference to Jeremiah From Alabama and many others

From my talk pageMasterknighted (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Would somebody please infirm this editir tvat a United States Senator is officially referred to as from rather than for.

From not For

John Kerry was born in Colorado. He was not the Senator from Massachusetts. He worked and was elected for the State of Massachusetts.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC) How many tomes do we have to have this conversation the senator is addressed as the senator from in the U.S always has beenMasterknighted (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No it is not. Its just of the media likes to play fast and loose with the English language. Its the use of the wrong preposition. I like to use the term House instead of the entire thing. But some on here dont like that so we have to use the entire thing. Its just a case of using the preposition the right way. Just because someone uses it wrongly doesnt justify that we do. The term automobile crash is another. If you look up the word crash, you can see how many times the media uses it incorrectly. When we talk "from" we are most often describing a person's birthplace not in this context. It is easier to say "for" as he is elected and represents the people of Massachusetts and is "for" their interests.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not the media it is the way the Senators are addressed in session, as described by themselves and there is a residency requirement so that they represen tv where the state they are fromMasterknighted (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC). Googlle the two terms with the position and a state and tell me what you find overwhelmingMasterknighted (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC) and conclusive evidence that you are wring

And this discussion belongs in the relevant arena, not this one. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The weight of numbers, and official usage, appears to support the "from" case. For example, Obama's official biographical information describes him as "a Senator from Illinois". WWGB (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. But he is also from the State of Hawaii. You are going to confuse people with this. If you want to talk Illinois, here are the 2 relevant Senator's websites...both state FOR their particular jurisdiction.. And I will look up all 50 states of the Senator's homewebsites just to make my point. Standby.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Alabama- Sessions FOR Shelby took down his webby after it was hacked.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Georgia- Chambliss FOR Isakson neitherSunnydoo (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee- Corker FOR Alexander neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Florida- Rubio FOR Nelson neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina- Scott SERVING Graham neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina- Hagan FOR Burr neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Virginia- Kaine FOR Warner FROMSunnydoo (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

West Virginia- Rockefeller FOR Manchin neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky- McConnell FOR Paul neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ohio- Portman FOR Brown FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Michigan- Stabenow FOR Levin neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Maryland- Mikulski FOR Cardin FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania- Casey FOR Toomey FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

New York- Gillibrand FOR Schumer FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delaware- Carper FOR Coons OF.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey- Menendez FOR Booker neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Connecticut- Murphy FOR Blumenthal FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rhode Island- Reed FOR Whitehouse FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Massachusetts- Warren FOR Markey FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Maine- King FOR Collins FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

New Hampshire- Ayotte FOR Shaheen FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Vermont- Leahy FOR Sanders FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiana- Coats FOR Donnelly FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi- Wicker FOR Cochran FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Missouri- Blunt FOR McCaskill neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin- Baldwin FOR Johnson FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota- Franken FOR Klobuchar OF.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Iowa- Grassley OF Harkin neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas- Boozman FOR Pryor FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana- Landrieu FOR Vitter neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Texas- Cruz FOR Cornyn FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

New Mexico- Udall FOR Heinrich FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

California- Feinstein FOR Boxer neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii- Hirono FOR Schatz FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Alaska- Begich FOR Murkowski FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Arizona- Flake neither McCain's site down.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oregon- Wyden FOR Merkley neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Washington- Cantwell FOR Murray FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Idaho- Risch FOR Crapo neither.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Montana- Baucus neither Tester FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming- Barrasso neither Enzi FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The Great State of Colorado- Udall FOR Bennet FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

North Dakota- Hoeven FOR Heitkamp FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

South Dakota- Thune FOR Johnson FROM.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nebraska- Fischer FOR Johanns FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kansas- Roberts FOR Moran FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oklahoma- Inhofe neither Coburn FROM.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Utah- Hatch FOR Lee FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevada- Heller FOR Reid FOR.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

By my count that is 72 Senators whose websites describe them FOR their particular state. It is hard for us to get 72 Senator's to agree on anything, but apparently they do on this. I will say it again- the FROM thing is a misuse of a preposition by the yokels we call the American media (like their favorite term auto crash) and you can see clearly that it is also not a term that Senators use to self-identify with...something this page uses to identify other important elements. Clearly it should be FOR and not FROM. The DEFENSE RESTS. (PS- I am an American before anyone takes that comment the wrong way. I just think that the 4th estate is responsible for a great many of our challenges).Sunnydoo (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

They are, nonetheless, the reliable sources we quote, and the style guides on which ours is supposedly based, and they do, indeed, normally use "from" for members of Congress, making "for" sound wrong in our pages. Anyone who's listened to C-SPAN has heard "the chair recognize the gentleman from Minnesota". "For" sounds correct for BrE locations, though. I think the "for" on members' web sites could be intended to mean the antonym of "against", as though it is a campaign slogan (e.g. "Bartlet for America"). Anyone who listens to media talk about Congress at all regularly should not be confused by "the senior senator from Massachusetts". I don't know if that's sufficiently large a group, though, and I can see there is an argument to be made (though not a good one IMO) for using the unambiguous "for", even if it alienates the core constituency of readers. Do we do that with any of the BrE-isms that sound odd to US-E speakers? —— 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal- Yes but several of us have tried to use the term "House" as well and have been shouted down by a vocal majority who instead want "House of Representatives" even if it is only a few cases to abbreviate in. We also use the term "for" in all MP terms (which is the foreign equivalency) and for the sake of consistency along with the evidence from the Senator's websites, I would use the term "For."Sunnydoo (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm for "for". When "from" is used, it's in the context of an assembly. We're outside. Their "here" is our "there". Johnny Pockets represents New Delaware by going to Washington "for" them. While he's there, he's no different to the guy who works for the hydro company, and comes from it to your house.

And holy crap, the sources! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Am also for "for". Am also against the proof overkill. — Wyliepedia 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Common parlance uses "from" even if they are not "from" that state. But Sunnydoo is correct that official websites say "for". Honestly I don't care one way or the other. They both make sense to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the overkill. It took longer than it had to get the functional point across, but it was an expression of passion and frustration, like other holy crap. I think we should frame it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

And this STILL belonged in the relevant arena - not this talk page. Some of you experienced editors taking part here know this, too. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is that? I'm only semi-experienced. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Try Senator, which will redirect to Senate. The talk page there is designed to thrash out, or debate, correct style issues for every aspect of the Senate or Senator. The reason being that those in the know who regularly visit that page can put "semi-experienced" (I suspect you're having a laugh calling yourself that!) editors right on established conventions. It also ensures that new issues are shared with ALL interested parties, instead of being buried here between three or four of you. On the basis that they will not necessarily come to the "Deaths" page to view this already top-heavy, overweight and, frankly, argumentative post. I AM experienced - I just can't be bothered to log in every time! Cheers. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan or Chinese?

Does Misplaced Pages have any policy or precedent for using "Chinese" to refer to Tibetans? Given the dispute there, I'd think Tibetan was the NPOV term to use. Really don't want to start a huge debate, just wondering if there's precedent for the Deaths pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A Googling ("tibetan" "deaths by month" site:en.wikipedia.org) shows we do indeed have several dead Tibetans. A lama, a physicist, various spiritual/religious leaders. It's not a state, but its non-statehood has made it a notable place. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

I see we also use Taiwanese. I'm going to change the edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The policy is you state the Nation (nationality) and Territory for disputed or large territories...so we use American (tribe of Indian) or Puerto Rico, Chinese Hong Kong, Macau or Tibet, Spain Basque, British and Overseas Territory like Bermuda, Falkland Islander, etc. This was a raging topic 2 years ago and we dont need to revisit it. It almost got several of us banned. This works for everyone as both the affiliated group and the Nation holder are both stated (which thankfully cuts down on a large number of edit wars...everyone is happy and sad, but treated equally...the best compromise available).Sunnydoo (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not very consistently enforced. I see "Taiwanese" and "Tibetan" used on other Deaths pages. Also, the page says "country of citizenship", if that differs from "nation" at all... I'll dig in the talk archives for the discussion tomorrow. Not willing to fight much over this. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I cant speak for the other pages, I can only speak on this one. Like I said it was a very hotly debated subject along 3 different lines. Some took the position of only listing the passport agency (China in this case), some wanted only the self-identifying side (Indians instead of Americans for example) and we eventually settled on both. The discussion began with Russell Means death on October 22, 2012, as some wanted him only listed as American. As you can tell it was a very memorable debate and not one that I ever want to revisit again. I am sure WWGB feels the same way.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I learned something today. The Macanese are not called Macaques. I've been calling them that, but thankfully, not to their faces. Didn't mean it in a monkey way, anymore than I think all Afghans are rugs. But thanks for the enlightenment! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

I got to put in the last living member of the Ottoman Empire last year. I am looking forward to one day getting a Danish Greenlander. We actually had a run of 3 or 4 Danish Faroe Islanders a couple of years back too.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, the Québécois are immortal here. Doing the same site search as for Tibet, Google says it has nothing, then offers Infinite Jest for top hit. Fascinating. I remember first hearing about that Ottoman here. Good job! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

Carl Epting Mundy, Jr.

Can be readded - source. Unsure of the styling when it comes to military officers, so I thought I'd leave it up to the regulars here. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up! — Wyliepedia 00:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ARTCON - American, British, or other English?

Do we have any precedence or rules for use of English spelling variants? I noticed this edit and it made me wonder. Also, is there a specific list of the rules for the "Deaths in" pages? Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the only Deaths-specific rules are at the top of the article. And some clarification in the FAQ at the top here. The whole colour vs color war is a general MoS thing. Recommends using the kind relevant to the article's nationality. So here, Canadians are "honoured" and Americans are "honored". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, April 6, 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. We use the POV of the person that died. You see it most often in CoDs such as haemorrhage v. hemorrhage, motor neuron disease v. amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, tumour v. tumor and in a couple of other places like labour v. labor usually in relation to unions. I always notate it in my notes when I add someone using one of the variant words to give the other editors a head's up on why it is the way it is. I believe there was a day last week where I put in a brain haemorrhage and a brain hemorrhage on back to back edits. That was pretty crazy.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay! So follow the WP:TIES? Works for me. Just was curious. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Irene Fernandez

This person died on March 31. B-Machine (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We have her listed here and sourced for March 25. Original source was wrong. Found four others giving the 31st. Thanks for heads up! — Wyliepedia 07:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Death of John Pinette

The "Deaths in 2014" page lists his date of death as April 5, 2014. The page for "JOHN PINETTE" lists his date of death as April 6, 2014. Which one is correct? I wonder if it has something to do with time zone differences, but I would assume that the date of someone's death given on Misplaced Pages would be whatever the date was in the time zone where he died. Tesseract12 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I see that it has been corrected by now, on the "JOHN PINETTE" page. Tesseract12 (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Usually its a work in progress and it takes care of itself. When a death occurs, there is usually an announcement followed by a window until the details come out. Most of the editors who realize the specific date was not mentioned in the announcement will put in a tag (Death announced on this date). When the details come out, the person is moved to the correct date and the tag is removed. Sometimes either the article or this page wont get updated in sync. If you find a source that goes with a death that has this tag, either update it or let us know here and one of the other editors will update it. Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney notable works

There seems to be a bit disagreement as to which works to list for Mickey Rooney. Starting a discussion here to avoid edit warring. Personally I know barely anything about his work, so I have no informed opinions on which works to list. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The three on there highlights the length of his career. With "Stallion" and "Babes" as Oscar nominations, and "Museum" as his highest grossing film. Rusted AutoParts 04:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hardy Boys seems to be cited in news sources as well as a notable work. Connormah (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

But its more common practice to enter the films that garnered him more attention, or are the highlights of his career. He was Oscar nom'd for "Babes" and "Stallion", and "Museum" is his highest grossing. Rusted AutoParts 04:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rusted Auto Parts doesn't seem to care about any of his well-known 'Andy Hardy' series that really made him into a household name. RAP also seems to be fixated on the number 3 for the number of cited film/tv work, despite no rules about '3' as some arbitrary limit on how many you can cite next to his obit. I wish I knew what RAPs problem was, and he reverted 4 times, which should be a violation of Wiki's rule. --Katydidit (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Theres alot of bad faith in your argument here. I'm not transfixed with the number three, its how many examples we put up so we don't wind up listing the whole person's filmography. And by that, when we enter the three, it must be ones that people can associate more with the actor and ones that won them acclaim. Rusted AutoParts 04:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bill is in no way a highlight of his. Rusted AutoParts 04:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very short-sighted, esp. on proclaiming yourself the "expert" on Mickey's body of work, and you do have a fixation with '3' listings. '4' is no more a problem with a short title, and Bill *was* a very acclaimed tv film work of his, no matter how you spin it. You don't own Wiki, you know, and you can't be the sole person who can demand what is listed or not on the obit page. A modern high-grossing film also reflects the higher cost of a ticket compared to 1937, not necessarily the number of people who go see it. Don't forget that important point. "In 1981, Rooney won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of a mentally challenged man in Bill. The critical acclaim continued to now for the veteran performer..." http://mickeyrooney.com --Katydidit (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Museum is either - though it may be one of the highest grossing ones, his role was relatively minor in it. Connormah (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it is, he is one of the main villains in it, and from what I gathered, he appears in the third one, so its not a one off character. Rusted AutoParts 04:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the "three" should be a notable film, TV and stage entry. — Wyliepedia 04:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We will continue to have these disputes here until the film buffs reach consensus on a guideline for the inclusion of notable roles. It should be based on the deceased's contribution to the film (eg Oscar/Emmy/Golden Globe) rather than attributes such as the film's gross take. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis instead of the nonsense on the gross amount the film earned, which doesn't say anything about the performer's notability or awards/nominations in the film or not. --Katydidit (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@WWGB:: "Film's gross take". Is that before or after inflation??? — Wyliepedia 08:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

He did win an Emmy for Bill, so it really should be listed as his notable Television work. EGOTs and nominations should be used to determine the bodys of works as those are all decided by his peers.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what WWGB is doing on the removal of the Emmy Award. We have always listed an Award and a body of work before. In February Max Schell, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Sid Ceasar all died and were EGOT winners. Each had the award and a body of work. Mitch Leigh looks like the only EGOT winner in March and also had award and body of work listed. Outside of that as Authors, we often list the book as well as whatever medal or award it is (National Book, the Akademi Award in India, etc) that they received for it. Its not an issue of space and Rooney was extremely famous (and a capital fellow I hear too boot).Sunnydoo (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but writing Emmy Award-winning actor (This, That, Something Else) CLEARLY leads the reader to believe that the actor won multiple Emmys. It is a misrepresentation of the truth. I don't have a problem with listing award(s) , but parenthetically we must only list the winning film(s). WWGB (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh for the day when "Name, Age, Nationality Actor/ress, COD" suffices. The Indian actor listings here alone cause me to SMH. — Wyliepedia 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, Rusted Autoparts is edit warring. I reported him. Beerest 2 Talk page 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Jürgen Frick (April 7), et al.

"Banker", according to the Wiktionary, could mean "a stone bench used in cutting", "a dealer in a gambling house", "a vessel employed in the cod fishery", or "a ditch drainer", which is why, in my original edit of his entry, I listed him as a bank executive, since he was none of the above and a CEO. — Wyliepedia 07:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Had this issue before as well. I started using the term "financier" which applies in this case because he was involved with wealth investments and capital funds. So I have updated it on the front for you. I wonder why the Wikitionary doesnt have the definition for "going glass." I guess no one called BANK!Sunnydoo (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

John Shirley-Quirk

... is listed as dying aged 83 but I believe from his date of birth that he was actually 82. Can anyone edit 'Death' pages please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.92.124 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Done by another editor already. Thanks for pointing it out! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class biography pages
• NA-Class Death pages
• NA-importance Death pages
• NA-Class Years pages
• Low-importance Years articles
• NA-Class Years articles of Low-importance
• Redirect-Class List pages
• NA-importance List pages
• WikiProject Lists articles