Talk:Deaths in 2015: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2015 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 Wikipedia? 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2015 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 Wikipedia? 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 articles Death This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. 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 articles Years Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. 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 articles 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles

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 Wikipedia. The article Deaths in 2014 received more than 21 million views [1]. 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 Wikipedia article) listed in the article? A: Many notable people die before a Wikipedia 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.

Ok, there seems to be an issue here. There are two Abdul Rauf's on Wikipedia: Abdul Rauf (Taliban governor) and Abdul Rauf Aliza. Both are listed as dying on February 9. Now, there are a few possible explanations:

• There were two Abdul Rauf's that happened to die the same day, the same way.

• One of them died, and the other is still alive and well.

• The two articles are for the same guy, and one needs redirecting into the other.

If anyone can help with this, that'd be great.

RAP (talk) 12:35 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going with C, same guy. Both were held at Gitmo Bay and given the same number, 108? Coincidence, I think not. — Wyliepedia 01:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Now it needs to be decided which article should be redirected to the other. I'm just amazed this even happened. I'm on a mobile device that crashes whenever I overuse it, so I can't move it myself. Could you or User:WWGB take care of it? RAP (talk) 23:33 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Abdul Rauf (Taliban governor)#Wrong person there were previously FOUR articles about the same person. Now it remains to merge the last two into one. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four? Jesus, how the hell did that ever happen? RAP (talk) 1:15 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:OWN issue. I suspect each originator of each article knew darn well another (three?) existed. But would not let their 'baby' be over-shadowed by ?inferior? efforts. Seen that so many times. 86.112.58.46 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Death of Vasilios Magginas. 46.198.232.112 (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Added Also corrected a mistake on his page. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed twice, on 25 February and 4 March 99.226.18.73 (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Racklever (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Wilson, 78, former Cdn and American football player. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Added to March 5. — Wyliepedia 04:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also - Al McCann (sportscaster) - sorry - my current typing ability is limited due to an injury... thanks. Connormah (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Added also. Take care. — Wyliepedia 08:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 9 bore witness to an accident that claimed the lives of 10 people. 3 of which have Wikipedia articles, and are therefore listed in that area. The chosen format is one i don't find to be necessary due to the amount of notable casualties. User:WWGB argues that it's been the way of doing it in the event of a multiple casualty event. This is true, but looking back, similar incidents saw a more significant casualty rate.

April 10, 2010 saw the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash happen. 96 casualties total, with 50 with Wiki articles, therefore justifying their inclusion.

September 7, 2011, 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster occurs. 44 casualties, with 28 having Wikipedia articles, therefore justify being included on the list.

The point I'm making is that there is a drastic difference in the amount of names listed in each section. There is of course the 8 who were killed in the Charlie Hebdo shooting, but there were 8, so i can understand. I don't really see the three people with articles who were killed in the helicopter collision really necessitate the format used in the aforementioned other cases.

Similar incidents occurred with three or fewer passing away and yet they aren't divided off in their own section:

• April 20, 2011, Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros are killed in the same mortar attack.
• February 4, 2012, Andrew Wight and Mike deGruy perish in the same helicopter crash.

It's just my personal opinion, giving the amount of names in that section, that the format isn't necessary for this particular incident. Thoughts? RAP (talk) 4:29 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a simpler format that avoids repetition of the nationality, event and citation. I think it's appropriate where multiple deaths occur in an event which is itself notable. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It groups together those who died, saving readers from having to look for any others who died in the same instant they are possibly not aware of. While this runs risk of someone adding separately before seeing the grouping, we should risk it. (That randomly happens anyway, especially in "date reported" cases.) It also reduces X amount of sources to just one, if they all are accounted for in that source. This also saves load times around the end of the month with 600-ish references to load. — Wyliepedia 04:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest adding Daevid Allen to the list of recent deaths on Wikipedia's home page. He is co-founder of both Soft Machine and Gong, and in my opinion he is more than notable enough for inclusion in this small list. I wouldn't know how to do it, though. Thanks in advance! Mark in wiki (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you figured it out. — Wyliepedia 12:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. Sorry for not saying so on this page. It's not a page I visit daily, still, it's good to have learned something new again. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inger Sitter [2]. 81.191.124.143 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Added. — Wyliepedia 21:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there seems to be some disagreement on whether we should give fancy titles to British Lords and Ladies, and common names for everyone else. So, BRD.

I can't really explain the NPOV problem of it beyond what that last sentence said. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies does say to use them, but in the first sentence and infobox of that article. Whether it's fair to single them out there or not, it doesn't apply here.

Or does it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give a toss about elitist knighthoods or damehoods, but we have always included them here so we need consensus to exclude them in the future. Some relevant information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorific titles WWGB (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to those deserving of their titles, nor the countries that bestow them, but most of outside of their respective countries (and some possibly within) don't know them with or without the added honorific. I would be okay with piping these, unless their piped name becomes "Friedrich August Maximilian Wilhelm Carl Fürst zu Wied". — Sir Wyliepedia 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I implied as much, but count me in toward excluding them in the future. Or including the rest. Lost a Minister, Deacon, General and Vice-Chairman today. I think those are all more prominent positions than this "most junior and most populous order of chivalry". Just mentioning "Knight of Whatever Order" in their description would be best. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

As for whether the listing here is an "initial reference", the wording suggests the guideline is only talking about the bio articles themselves. We don't have infoboxes here, and we don't bold the name, as the guideline asks. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Support exclusion. Just the common name please. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Knighthoods etc confered by the British Isles the title ceases on death anyway so their no longer known by the honorific with respect to their inclusion here anyway. Amortias (T)(C) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I never knew that. Here it is applied in practice. [3] WWGB (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that settles that easier than voting would. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Well knowing is half the battle isnt it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I disagree with this pretty strongly. It's all very well to talk about elitism and fancy titles, but gee, check your POV there. (For the record, I fervently wish my own country would abolish the knight/damehoods we recently reinstated, but that's neither here nor there.) Our job is to reflect the sources. And the sources overwhelmingly refer to people as "Sir" or "Dame" in their obituaries, especially in the UK (in fact, I believe it's prescribed in almost all British style guides, and most Australian ones too going by the usage since the reinstatement). A quick search through the Google News results for Pratchett (hardly definitive, but worth a look) showed that formal obituaries in the UK almost all used "Sir Terry", at least at the first occurrence. This would seem to be a WP:NATIONALTIES kind of situation.

That's exactly right. There was a pretties serious muddle going on here yesterday. Indeed the titles cease to exist on death, or move on to those that inherit them but that does NOT mean that the holder of the title ceases to be known by that title. I'm sure people will agree that describing the Queen as "Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor" once she dies would simply look ridiculous and pedantic although she would have ceased to be Queen. Likewise, to call, for instance, The Duke of Wellington "Arthur Wellesley" is simply to invite confusion and to damage the page's credibility. I can't be bothered to revert Terry Pratchett again, partly for the reason that Nohomersryan mentions below, but I contend that it's utterly absurd to strip all UK titles from this page in future. (talk) 07.22 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Introducing hereditary titles like Queen and Duke into this discussion is a red herring. We are discussing only awards like Knight Bachelor and OBE, granted to individuals like Paul McCartney and Elton John for service to country. It is clear that such gongs expire at death. WWGB (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We won't call her Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, we'll call her Elizabeth II, and note she was the Queen. And Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Whatever the article's called, for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I respectfully but categorically disagree that because the title has expired, so should any reference to it. That has no legal basis or precedent whatever, and is contrary to fundamental logic. It merely invites ridicule, and possibly confusion, to suggest that for instance Sir Winston Churchill should only have been so described by while he was alive. It's disrespectful too. The longstanding policy of this page is almost universally followed elsewhere, and there is an utter fallacy at the heart of much of this debate. There is no sensible case for this change as a matter of policy, but I accept that in the case of Terry Pratchett it is reasonable to omit the honour. rcb1 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know who doesn't lose their rank when they die? Soldiers, doctors and priests. Why should it be disrespectful to omit "Sir", but not "Captain", "Dr." or "Father"? The old way was paying too much respect to a particular group. We're the English Wikipedia, not the English aristocracy. It's fair to translate and transliterate, but not to hold an exclusive group to certain higher standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

It's a respect that almost all sources pay, and it seems perverse for us set our stall out contrary to almost universal practice. And I don't know where you got the idea that those with knighthoods are "aristocracy,". The great majority are nothing of the kind.

As for "ceasing to hold the title on death", that's a silly argument. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ceased to hold all of those titles when she died too, but here we are. Frickeg (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well my argument is just that it should be the common name. Terry isn't best known as Sir Terry Pratchett. I checked a few articles that link to his article and all the ones I saw said "Terry Pratchett". It just seems silly to have everyone else as Stevie Lastname and then suddenly Sir Norm Surnamicus because he was knighted (which I don't think a casual reader will notice). But maybe that's just because I'm a silly Canadian who hasn't touched a Discworld book since high school. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PMJI but I was the first person to add Terry Pratchett to the page. I did so without the title because he was notable as an author, and the title pages of his books have never described him as 'Sir Terry Pratchett'. But it's certainly a borderline case, at least as far as my reasoning in the RfC below goes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition at the monthly necrology has been to include certain titles, including "Sir" or "Dame". It has been this way for years. If we are going to change the policy then get a consensus and let everyone else know. I apologise that I did not comment here earlier. I was unaware of this discussion thread. Quis separabit? 03:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to previous discussions of this topic:
  • July 2014: Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 3#Are all titles equal?
  • January 2014: Talk:Deaths in 2014/Archive 1#Use of 'Sir' for Knights and Baronets
  • October 2012: Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 4#Knights
  • September 2007: Talk:Deaths in 2007#Titles are not names
• It may be as well to note the outcome of the RfC in the FAQ section, as this topic seems to come up quite often. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally forgotten I'd already had this conversation. Thanks for the reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should some titles, such as "Sir" or "Dame", be mentioned on "Deaths in..." pages, and pipelinked, or should everyone be listed by their article title? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

• Article titles only To hold those in the peerage whatever it is to a different standard from other titled people (medical, military, religious) is unfair. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
• Mention "Sir" and "Dame" These are actually a different situation to medical, military and religious titles (except for "Pope", obviously). Almost all texts, especially those concerned with history, will refer to these titles as part of the person's name. This has been a long-standing distinction. (Note: knights and dames are not part of the peerage.) Frickeg (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very different situation. David Petraeus is almost always called General, Sanjay Gupta is almost always Dr. and Richard Rodgers (not to be confused with Richard Rogers) is a Father. Some still call Anthony Weiner Congressman Anthony Weiner. Google Newsing titles with occupations finds many more examples. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Well, to deal with the Weiner example, they're clearly wrong since that is a job title not an honorific. Regarding Sir and Dame, have a look at the Australian Dictionary of Biography to see how they've always been used differently: Sir/Dame appears in the article title, whereas Dr, General and Father (and even Saint) do not. I can understand how non-Commonwealth people may not come across this distinction much, but it really is different for knights and dames. Frickeg (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the sole occupant of the "Commonwealth Wikipedians" category, I don't see how it's different, in general. I totally understand that the Australian Dictionary of Biography sees a difference, but I think we write for a more general audience. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

• Mention "Sir" and "Dame", unless the individual does not use the title (for instance, many Baronets do not). They are part of someone's name. For Peers, use the article title as the naming guidance already states that article names should not use the title if the subject does not ordinarily use it. (There may a small number of exceptions where a title is used in the article name for disambiguation only.) InedibleHulk is incidentally in error in implying that Knighthoods etc are in the peerage - they are not peerage titles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Sam Blacketer that the titles are part of someone's name, and think this is a central point. I think that the movement to exclude is as wholly misconceived at anything I've ever read on this page. (talk) 07.12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude. It's not what they are widely known as. It's also not their article title. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Include: I totally disagree that that it's not what they are known as. In the UK, at least, it's exactly what they are known as - to the point that it's actually misleading, if not downright confusing, to leave the titles off. Much of this debate seems muddled to me.176.26.74.108 (talk)hhtc130176.26.74.108 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • This and other comments are proceeding from a mistaken factual basis. Knights and Dames are almost always commonly known with their title, but under article titling rules the title should never be used in the article name even if the subject is invariably known with it. It's a clear case where applying the usual rule on this page "use article name only" conflicts with the general rule "use common names". Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if it's there common name why not change the article title per WP:COMMONNAME? I just disagree with listing "Sir" regardless of how factual it is. It's not like we call him "Sir Terry Pratchett" whenever he's mentioned in an article on here. Why bother exclusively for this one? Nohomersryan (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Terry Pratchett is an exceptional case, in that he was mainly known without his title. This is a general debate and the point is that most knights use their titles (some are famously insistent on it), but WP article titles never use them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what's the reasoning as to why Kingsley isn't referred to as "Sir Ben Kingsley" whenever he's mentioned on Wikipedia? If we're going to call him SIR TERRY here, then we have to call him SIR TERRY everywhere, imo. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Movies and other popular culture are kind of an exception here. It's not as though anyone is ever billed with a title (Dame May Whitty excepted), or publish their books with an honorific before their name, or release albums with "Sir" on the cover. Almost everyone else, however, would be referred to with the title whenever they're discussed, and I would say we should refer to, say, Sir Robert Menzies with the title whenever we mention him (provided it's in a post-knighthood context). That is certainly fairly standard practice in historical and political articles, from what I've seen. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment responding to bot summons. I would exclude, unless the title is in the article name. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Patton, who died on March 9, is listed as "Gene Gene the Dancing Machine" in the title of his article but as "Eugene Patton" here. Aren't the names listed here supposed to match the name for their article, or have the rules changed? BurienBomber (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Matthew Wuest doesn't have a page here at Wikipedia, but he was a pioneer in the advanced ice hockey metrics and analysis. Additionally, he was a journalist from Halifax, NS. He was the founder and creator of capgeek.com, a website that used to be the place to go for salary cap analysis for NHL fans. He passed away from cancer on March 19, 2015. Reference: http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/1318169/matthew-wuest-metro-halifax-sports-reporter-and-capgeek-founder-dies-of-cancer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.208.106 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes those without articles can be redlinked here, as it may influence someone to write an article. But that source notes how little was written about him, making a potential article unlikely. Googling confirms the source was right. I couldn't even find his age. I know of CapGeek, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. All in all, I decided against it, but if someone finds more than I did, it could work. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add him earlier Friday but, since CapGeek didn't have an article, decided against it. "A place to go" but not notable for WP. — Wyliepedia 04:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Sakirkin [4]. 81.191.124.143 (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Added. — Wyliepedia 06:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Perris died 17th March. [5]. [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.31.107 (talk • contribs) 08:08, March 22, 2015‎ (UTC−4)

 Added with a more substantial source. — Wyliepedia 02:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed here as dying on March 1, but his article states February 28. BurienBomber (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Rusted AutoParts 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lajos Molnár, 68, Hungarian physician, Minister of Health (2006–2007) died on 23 March 2015 --188.143.22.43 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Added on March 26. — Wyliepedia 08:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the French crash said "notable French people" but the German crash says "notable people". There should be consistency. I get that the first crash had only French nationals as notables but that shouldn't mean people get to be lazy.Correctron (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wtf are you talking about? One had French-only deaths, one did not. WWGB (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are both crashes. Both should say "notable people" and nationality should be attached to the individual.Correctron (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So on this day we are supposed to write "French" eight times for the Charlie Hebdo victims? That would be pointless repetition. Wikipedia prefers concision. WWGB (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Writing "notable French people" literally means one should also expect at least a second list of another nationality.Correctron (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I read it, I just expect everyone after the colon to be notable and French. I think we could go with "notable German people", too, in this case. Even the Kazakh was technically a German. Changing his entry to "Kazakh-born opera singer" would help with conciseness. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, March 29, 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please correct the entry for Victor Sánchez to anything other than "...complications from boat collision" - one does not suffer complications from a boat collision - one sustains injuries from a boat collision! One can also succumb to said injuries or one can succumb to complications from the surgery undertaken to treat said injuries - and it is also possible for one to die of complications from such a surgery - anything is better than the current state of the description, so please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.240.75 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please remove Andreas Lubitz, 27, co-pilot from the list of those who died in the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash. He was not a notable German prior to causing the crash.

Danedame (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: He might not have been noteable prior to the incident but he has an article so appears to be so now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently the topic of a merge discussion, in which you can voice your opinion. Should he ever be merged, his link here, or in the concurrent monthly page, will be removed, even if his article gets re-directed. — Wyliepedia 05:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just notifying the staff that the notice is currently linked to Jeremy Brown the baseball player, who is still very much alive. Jeremy Brown the guitarist, who passed away, does not currently have a page.

208.49.45.226 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "musician" as a qualifier. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]