Talk:Deaths in 2011

Red link removals

Has the guideline of waiting 30 days to remove the redlink entries changed? I noticed that the December 2010 names are being deleted much faster and wonder if this a new policy or an over eager editor making their own rules? BurienBomber (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIR, the understanding since 2007 has been that redlinks remain for one calendar month. So today, 8 January, we should be deleting redlinks for 8 December. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

People who are not notable are often added; they should be removed immediately. Jim Michael (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Been tried before, just causes edit wars. Look how many times Elizabeth Turgeon was added and removed last month. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

While on the subject of red links, I remember that some one last calendar year (i.e. 2010) suggested that there should be a policy of no article, no entry here. I remember that I very strongly opposed this plea. I pointed out at the time that Rose Gray was originally down here as a red link - and yet, some one who was notable enough to have her death mentioned on the Radio Four news. I began an article on this co-founder of the River Cafe - and there were soon many conscientious Wikipedians who were improving the article. I just wish to conclude by saying again that I would oppose any policy of no article means no entry, and I for one am happy to see red links here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have found that the regular contributors to Recent deaths achieve consensus by collaboration and co-operation. This applies also to the keeping of redlinks for one month. It is only a matter of time before a newbie rides in and says "no redlinks" or "redlinks must remain forever" and we start the debate all over again. I guess that is an expectation of working on a wiki. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem may be that the initial part of this article says that this is a list of "notable" people who have died in 2011. It is only a matter of time before some one looks at this page and says that people with red links are not notable - overlooking that this is not always the case (may I cite Rose Gray again to make my point. I agree with what WWGB (and yes, I do know that stands for Wrong Way Go Back!) about consensus, and I share what you take to be aversions to both the red links must remain forever argument, and the red links get removed argument. You are right WWGB - that is just what one finds when working on a wiki. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that being "Deaths in 2011" the previous debates are archived under "Deaths in (some previous year)", so new editors look at this talk page and do not see the debates leading to the current "ground rules". Can the regular topic debates be "brought forward"? or linked back to? to save reinventing the wheel? Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the redlinks after 30 days can be moved into a redlink archive section? Lots of notable people who die have very useful press links added here, and it can be hard to find those links later (esp. for non-UK/US citizens). I'd be happy to help with this. Lugnuts (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some editors are getting over-keen. The red-links for 6 April were removed on 4 May. Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Criminals

Following on from my previous post I would like to suggest that the simple term 'criminal' be removed from all posts. Almost everyone who logs on to Wiki is in some sense or another a 'criminal'. Who hasn't taken money out their mother's purse to buy sweets, downloaded P2P videos or albums, driven the car when we knew we had had a little bit too much to drink or broken the speed limit. Whether we like it or not they are all crimes so we're all basically criminals. Just like calling someone a 'sportsperson' (I played for my school football team when I was 11 so I am technically a 'sportsperson') the word 'criminal is totally meaningless. Charles Zwolsman is described as a 'Dutch criminal'. He was a Drugbaron and will probably be remembered for being such, though he is also described as a 'racing driver', so why reduce him to the simple rank of criminal? Hitler was a criminal, Stalin was a criminal, I am a criminal because I got a speeding fine a few weeks ago!Williamgeorgefraser 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

• You're talking nonsense. Criminal is a term reserved for those who have been convicted of breaking the law, rather than someone who has broken the law and remains unconvicted, for starters. Equally, sportsperson is generally reserved for someone for whom that was a career. The terms are used here to describe why someone is notable. While you have been convicted of a traffic offence and so could, legitimately, be described as a criminal, you are not notable for it so no-one would use it as the major adjective to describe you. Equally, you're not a notable sportsperson, so no-one would apply this to you. It would be preferable if it was listed for what specific form of criminality people excelled in, but if you're just a general multiple-crime offender, then criminal is acceptable. Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm afraid you're talking nonsense. "Criminal is a term reserved for those who have been convicted of breaking the law" - you're confusing 'criminal' and 'convict'. By your definition Jack the Ripper was not a criminal.180.130.212.111 (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether "Jack the Ripper" is or is not a criminal is moot, because "Jack the Ripper" is a nickname for a person or persons unknown, and therefore he, she, or they cannot be "notable." Arcanicus (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, on some level we're all "criminals". But that logic would remove a lot of the professions given here. Who hasn't ever been a "singer" or a "writer"? But it's clear when those terms are used here that the person referred to was notable in that field. More specifics are fine, but there's nothing wrong with using "criminal" when that's the most accurate term for why that person is notable. Brettalan (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On the note of criminals, Johnnie Baton was not the first to be executed in the U.S by Pentobarbital alone, and I would like to refer whoever posted it to "John David Duty" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.173.126 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For all these words, add "notable" before them. If the person is a "notable criminal", label them a criminal. If you stealing money from your mother's purse made you notable among more than just your family, you're a criminal...if it was 10p for some sweets, all you will get is a slap, if it's £5000 that she just happened to have for some reason, you're possibly going to the police station and will become a notable criminal in the papers. Just as if you were a sportsman as a child you won't be notable until people take note of you abilities and you get known outside of your own circle for the aforementioned. Until you're a notable sportsman, you're not a sportsman as defined here. Brettalan said it long before me, I just noticed, but will keep on posting as I think I might have gone into a bit more detail :-P Also, Jack the Ripper was no criminal, he was a suspected criminal and there is no definite proof that such a person even existed. 87.194.86.204 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally...You are a criminal if you got a speeding fine, but only if you refuse to pay it. Until you refuse to pay up and the deadline passes, it is a civil matter and not considered criminal. Feel free to not pay it to make a point, we'll see if and when you become criminal in the eyes of the law :-P 87.194.86.204 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, not all people who read this would be criminals - some of the "crimes" you mention would technically be civil offences, not criminal offences. However, I think that perhaps what you would like to see is that a a more specific term (or set of terms) could be used, such as murderers, rapists, burglar, thieves, insurance swindlers and other people who are known for notorious reasons. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to be included, a person has to be notable. No-one is notable for being a petty offender, whether the offences are criminal or civil. A sportperson has to have a successful career to be included; a person who was the best athlete at his high school but never went on to anything greater whould not be included. An actor who was merely an extra or acted at their local amateur dramatic society would not be included, whereas someone with major parts in successful films would be. Therefore, 'notable' does not need to be part of the description. No notablilty, no inclusion in the list. People are listed here as what they were notable for. When a person who is notable for their successful career, but was once convicted of a minor offence, dies, they are listed under their profession, not as a criminal. Their bio may mention their conviction, but it should not be included in their listing on this article. If a person is notable for more than one profession, they are both / all included, but a person who is only notable for one thing would only be listed as that. A successful actor may have been a salesperson, cleaner, office clerk etc before they became succesful, but only their notable career is included in their description here. Jim Michael (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gender

Of the 36 deaths in 2011 since 20 January, is it really possible that only 2 women of note died? one the wife of an Israeli politician and the other a German porn star...oh and also one horse of note died!...all three were among the 21 deaths noted on 20 January. Might Wikipedia make an effort to strike a gender balance in its reporting? T'would be refreshing as we move along in the 21st centurySunestep (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As Deaths in 2011 only allows for entries supported by independent sources, it is more of a reflection of what mainstream media is reporting as opposed to a specific Wikipedia bias. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The large majority of notable people are men. Many of the biographies that we have are of people in male-dominated professions: sportspeople, film directors, politicians, inventors, CEOs of major companies etc. Jim Michael (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically what you want is for more notable women to die... Williamb (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, whether a person is a man or a woman is a matter of their sex, not their gender. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be language prudes. Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate: gender: 2 a : SEX *the feminine gender* b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. Arcanicus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list notable women and we could 'take them out' to even the list up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.41.223 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Recent death

The discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 28#Template:Recent death may of interest to editors frequenting this page. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the recent deaths tag?

What happened to the recent deaths tag? Did it get deleted? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was only ever meant to be used when an article was being heavily edited, per the advice at Template:Recent death. There is a discussion on the template underway at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Recent death. WWGB (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at several recent deaths yesterday (Tuesday March 1 2011) and it seems that this tag is here to stay. In fact, it seemed to have received more liberal usage! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Redlinked Greek deaths

I see that we often have redlinked Greek deaths that are inevitably deleted after one month [1]. Seems a waste of effort to add them. WWGB (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the Greek deaths, but the addition of redlinks gives those who are interested in the deaths an opportunity to express grief or at least note the passing of significant (if not notable) people. More importantly it gives us the opportunity to to create articles about the deceased. Since obituaries are often the best biographies, that's a reasonable expectation. Quickly removing entries as "non-notable" would be pointlessly hurtful.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Facebook considered a reliable source for death announcements?

Since Facebook operates with personal acconts, announcement of death on Facebook can hardly be considered reliable information, since an individual almost certainly does not announce their own death on their personal Facebook account. Hence, the account must be compromised and considered unreliable. An example of this can be found at the article on Scott Columbus, which is currently also linked to from this article. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 08:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A facebook page to confirm a death? I would say no. I can't imagine a reliable news outlet such as the BBC or the CBC printing a story based on a single facebook page referencing a death without strong corroborating evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and claiming the subject of a BLP has died would fall under that requirement. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the person does not announce his or her own death. Confirmed FB friends may post it on the person's Wall. Tenorlove (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Tenorlove

Age discrepancies

I've noticed a couple of these on this page in the past few days: Josephine Hart is given by our source ([2]) as being 69, and her article - which uses the same source - agrees. But other sources, such as [3] and [4] give her as 67. Similarly, Donald Hewlett is listed on our page as 88, in agreement with his article. But the source we're using ([5]) conflicts with our own stated age, and makes him 90. Do we have any defined policy for this sort of thing? EJBH (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We can only rely on the most credible source. Sometimes a subject has been known to vary their age for professional or vanity reasons. The best source is one with a reputation for fact-checking, eg New York Times. If satisfied with a source, and varying the death notice, the main article should be similarly adjusted to be consistent. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Athlete team listings

I'm starting to see several athletes for organizations like the NHL or NFL get team listings. But i think we should keep the team names full, like Baltimore Ravens rather then Ravens. It would be confusing to readers for they might not know what team they mean. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:43 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If a reader does not know who the Orioles are, is it any more meaningful to them to know that the team comes from Baltimore? I have no problem with listing the city, but I notice some journeyman players have played for four or more teams during their lifetime. Adding cities might blow the length of the entry? WWGB (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's where a limit will be placed. Like two or three should suffice. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:02 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-fans won't know who the Ravens are (I didn't), but what better way to improve their knowledge? I agree that just posting team nicknames is confusing for those of us who don't follow those sports. And frankly there shouldn't be listings for more than a couple of teams. In the case of journeyman players, it should only be necessary to list either the most notable team(s) that person played for, or the team(s) they made most appearances for. I'm pretty sure that's how it works for British "soccer" footballers, who get added at least as much. A simple "Smith, John, xx, (Team 1, Team 2)" should be easy enough. EJBH (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly how it works for British football teams - we add the names of a couple of teams (full names, not nicknames), choosing the teams that player was most associated with. Some British players might have played for ten or more clubs, but two is probably enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be easier if an agreed consensus could be formulated to determine whether, for example Baltimore Ravens should be Baltimore, Baltimore Ravens, or Ravens - and many others of that ilk. Frankly, we seem to have a continuing minor edit war over this issue, which seems somewhat counter productive. I propose no more than two team names listed for any individual, but with full team names (rather than full or partial abbreviations). Of course, others will have differing opinions which is quite right (as above); possibly this has been discussed at length before. Hopefully a brief debate (haha - this is Wikpedia) but whatever happens - please no straw polls, votes, bust-ups etc. To give you an idea of my proficiency/knowledge of US sports teams, I initially typed in 'Baltimore Rams'.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor RowdyCat is constantly reverting the edit i made, even though when i undo him, i leave note telling him to read talk page, but he refuses. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:47 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rowdycat has a history of repeatedly reverting edits and not engaging with other editors. WWGB (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty unhelpful - so if the guy played for ten teams, he'd list them all? Marvellous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, i hope that's not the case. I'm in favor of adding cities to the team names because it clarifies a little more where the club is, becuase if i recall there are two teams that use Bears in it's name, the Hershey Bears (AHL) and Chicago Bears (NFL). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:14 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Song credits for musical artists / credits for actors

I have noticed that one editor, RowdyCat, is constantly removing any song credit included in listings for musical artists. Recent examples include Clarence Clemons, Andrew Gold and Mel McDaniel. Only after edit warring do the song credits seem to eventually be retained. This only seems to be happening with musicians and not credits for actors, writers, etc. Am I missing something? Are there different rules for including credits for musicians?

On a related note the same editor has a habit of trying to force in minor acting roles over more established or award nominated roles for certain actors such as what is currently happening with Peter Falk. It would seem that the most universally recognized role should be listed and then ones that an Oscar/Emmy/Tony nomination should have more weight than any minor billed roles. In any case, if some kind of guide could be established, it would sure help with the edit warring that is going on. BurienBomber (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully support your comments. You have already started a very good "eligibility" list for film and theatre. For songs, I would add #1 hits, Grammy Awards etc. There has been a similar issue with sportspeople, with some editors wanting to list every team for which the deceased played. Then there are politicians, bishops ..... always plenty of work for the wikignomes! WWGB (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A great idea, but the limit for films is normally three. I find that it should consist of (Columbo, Pocketful of Miracles, The Princess Bride). Columbo, for his most noted role, POM, for one of his two Oscar nominations, and TPB for universally known role. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:13 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead paragraph in Falk's article here mentions "Columbo", "Murder, Inc." and "A Pocketful of Miracles". No mention of "The Princess Bride" in the lead. The ABC News obituary used as the refereence also refers to thos three roles and does not mention "The Princess Bride", "The Great Race" or "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". Checking the NYTimes obituary, it also first lists Columbo and the Oscar roles and details each of those roles. It only mentions "The Princess Bride" in a list of other roles at the end of the long article.

Anyway, I don't see where the only 3 films limit is set and stone. In Falks's case the four now listed, Columbo, MI, POM, and TPB are all short titles and take up about as much room in the entry as the one long title "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" would. BurienBomber (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding NYT links

New York Times lets you read 20 articles per month. And if you want to read more, you have to pay. So, are we supposed to keep using it, or we should avoid it? Hours ago, I changed it on someone's death, but I see there are more.--Andres arg (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, I use the New York Times extensively and have never run in to a request for pay. Sources needs only be verifiable, not necessarily free. If there is an alternative source that is as highly reliable as the NYT, I see no issue in using it in lieu of the NY Times, but there is no imperative to replace any entries that have already been sourced to them. That's only my opinion though, other's may vary of course! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

I'm sure this has been answered for previous years but just to clarify here are we going by local time of the location of death or a standardised timezone such as GMT to establish the date of passing? I ask this because if the former is the case then surely by law of averages there will be cases where people who physically died before somebody else are listed the day after them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.70.175 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deaths are always listed according to the date at the place of death. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It would make no sense to do it any other way. If someone died in Mongolia at a certain moment on a certain date, why would it be relevant that it happened to be a different date at that precise moment in time in Greenwich? or Uruguay or Iceland or anywhere else? This also means that daylight saving changes can affect a person's date of death. If daylight saving happened to be in force in the country at the time of the death, that's very relevant to determining the date of death, because it's only the local and current time zone that counts, not any other time zone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Footballer or football player

Is there a standard here for the term for what Americans and Canadians refer to as soccer? I was using the term "football player" as that seem to be what the established editors were using, but now the term "footballer" is being used frequently. (Personally, I don't find it confusing to use the term "football player" for both sports since the gridiron sport is always preceded by "American" or "Canadian".) Can we decide on one or the other for the sake of consistency? BurienBomber (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The best solution is probably to specify the code of football in all cases (so association football player). If the player was from the US, Canada, or Australia, it is probably reasonable to call him/her a soccer player. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(There is a bit of an issue with the locution American football player — what if the player happens not to be American, but played American football? I suppose something like German player of American football would work.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would read "German-born American football player". Also, I realize an American would be called soccer player. I just trying for consistency on what someone who plays (for example) for Manchester United F.C. is referred to in this article. BurienBomber (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily just German-born. They do play American football in Germany. Of course it's a terribly minor sport there, but it does exist. --Trovatore

(talk) 04:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. But I don't think that a person who played American football in Germany that would pass notability here. BurienBomber (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would go with association football player. --Trovatore (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. How would I list Salvador Bernárdez? How/where is the code of football found on a player's article? Thanks. BurienBomber (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we have to be so specific when it comes to footballers. If we say "actor" it could be film actor, stage actor, television actor, comedy actor etc. But instead of "footballer" we are somehow impelled to add the football code. Given the existence of American football, Canadian football, Australian football, Association football and the addition of nationalities, we just end up in a mess. For example, should we describe Charles Goldenberg as a Russian-born American Jewish American football player? We should just stick to "football player" or "footballer". If anyone wants to know which game they played, just click on the article or reference. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that as long as American football and association football are treated equally. I object to footballer used for association football player, if American football players are specified as having played American football. --Trovatore (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you go by this logic, you may as well just list everyone as "sportsman". American football and Association football (and the rest) are as much distinct sports as baseball and cricket, or for that matter cricket and rugby. If we identify individual sports at all on here, we should be consistent, even if it does result in some ugly constructions. How about German American-football player? As for the original discussion of footballer vs football player, I don't see that it matters in the slightest, I'm not aware of any sport having a particular preference for one over the other. Just pick one and stick with it. EJBH (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't read this and I changed soccer player to footballer. I believe soccer is a word that we don't have to use. So, I would agree with using footballer linking to Association football, as australian footballer may be confusing with australian football.--Andres arg (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Prefer Australian association football player, spelled out. Information should not be hidden in piped links. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's association football, then the correct English term is footballer, not football player. If it's Gridiron, then the latter would be correct. Wish you North Americans could get used to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.239.101 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not worry about this. I would have most people who speak English as a fist language, whether American English or English as it used in the United Kingdom, could understand both the terms "footballer" and "football player". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Suspected cause of deaths

I suspect that the "suspected cause of death" phenomenon is biased. Amy Winehouse's cause of death isn't being allowed to be displayed until at least October, and yet Hideki Irabu's cause of death hasn't been confirmed yet but speculation has been left in! Is bias against celebrities at work here? --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The cause of death for Irabu is not "suspect", only whether or not it was a suicide. BurienBomber (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The only reason I have for adding "suspected alcohol withdrawal" for Winehouse is because I heard about it in passing on IMDb, and since I didn't read the preview paragraph I don't know which site it leads to, but IMDb tends to link to reliable news sources judging from the preview paragraphs I have read in the past. You might want to go into July's IMDb news archives to search for it, though--look for mention of "alcohol withdrawal" and "Amy Winehouse" in the same headline. That should be a sufficient clue as to the article you're looking for. Not that I know whether you want to go on this errand, but hey, it was worth a try. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Language icon templates

What do editors think about using the relevant template from Category:Language icon templates when a reference is in a language other than English? At present we use (Greek) rather than {{gr icon}}, which produces (in Greek). An editor recently introduced this style, but I reverted it in the absence of any discussion/consensus. I am against the idea as any editor can add, for example, (Japanese) without any knowledge of Wikipedia markup. Using the template seems like a complication without any real benefit. Opinions? WWGB (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As this article is only for autoconfirmed users I'd think the icons would be fine, because rarely an autoconfirmed wikipedist won't know how to make them. But I don't know how long this article (and next ones) will be protected, so in my opinion, if these pages will be unprotected we should keep it the way it is now.--Andres arg (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

American executions

Why are American death penalties so often listed and not those of the other 23+ countries that actively use capital punishment? --Aaron Walden 14:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If the individual in question has a corresponding Wikipedia article (or is currently redlinked but a corresponding article establishing notability may feasibly be created), then they can be added regardless of their nationality. The cases in America tend to receive a lot of coverage thereby increasing visibility and access to the reliable sources required to create an article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deaths and accolades

Unless they were awarded a Nobel Prize, please don't incclude "Oscar winning" or awrd winning anything in their submissions. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:32 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CREATIVE, reasons for notability include "The person's work ... has won significant critical attention." Winning an Academy, Emmy or other award may well demonstrate notability. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Red link removal (again)

Hi. I've asked if a bot could be setup to add redlinks to an archive so the useful info is retained. Please add comments/questions at the Bot Request page. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Animal Deaths in recent deaths list.

Just wondering. In the recent deaths of november 6th 2011, a horse is mentioned; Hickstead. Are ANIMALS, no matter how famous, to be listed among deceased PEOPLE? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to create a list of "Animal Deaths" to indicate a certain difference between people and animal? Vliegert (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked this once, but this is not a list of PEOPLE, it is a list of NOTABLE deaths. as these animals were notable, they should be included. He's Gone Mental 10:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"After long/short illness"

Is it really worth putting this as a cause of death? It doesn't tell us anything much beyond that we don't know the actual cause of death. Its use in obituaries is just filler and it's doing the same thing here... if we know the full CoD then put it in, and if we don't, then don't bother. EJBH (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, I would only put it once we know what illness it was. He's Gone Mental 16:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The rubric states that the entries should state cause of death if known. 'Long/short illness' is not a cause of death and it has no place on the page. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Heart failure repeatedly confused with heart attack

90.206.49.94 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

myocardial infarction = heart attack Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 13:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so correct it. 90.206.49.94 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove protection?

Every other month in 2011 is unprotected and so is January 2012. The only month protected is December 2011, which I find utterly ridiculous. When are you going to remove the protection?

Page of links

From a user point of view, having a page of links to other articles is frustrating. The entire list should be included on this page for convenience and easy reading. However this is entirely my own conjecture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.96.59 (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)