Talk:Deaths in 2005/Archive 1

message: "and oldest person ever born in New York" I know what is meant but... Rich Farmbrough 15:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er... 

message: ----
Albus Dumbledore died 16 July 2005
Now while the inclusion of the death of Dumbledore from the Harry Potter Saga is humourous, I have the nagging suspicion that he was not a real person...
Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts, Order of Merlin, First Class and Grand Sorcerer; , Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot.
 
--lars 09:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumbledore

message: I think it's better to mention occupation of, rather than illness that caused the death of a person.
As one is remembered of his/her works rather than his/her sickness (or may be that way also, if the sickness greatly characterized that person and his/her life).
*The standard format is:
Name, age, notable occupation, cause of death (if known)
Ideally, we include both. Xoloz 04:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilnesses vs. Life works 

message: This was a major change carried out with little discussion to a long-standing page, which is often a Bad Thing, and copy-and-paste-moved, which is, always, a very Bad Thing. See Talk:Recent deaths#Is_this_better_to_be_a_redirected_page.3F.
James F. (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly, erm, "moved" 

message: The year of birth of the late Saudi leader is uncertain. According to Al-Jazeera Arabic article English translation and other sources, it was 1921, making the age of death 84. Others show the year as 1923, making the age 82. LudwigVan 17:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The birth year of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia 

message: :This page and the article page never login to the most recent postings, and we all have to go to the "history" tab in order to get to the page that should be on top.
:How do you report a bug?
:WB2 02:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS PAGE'S LOGIN 

message: Why is Hunter Kelly listed here? It's sad when any 8-year old dies, but that's not the point of this page.  Unless the son (or wife, father, brother, cousin etc) of a celebrity was already well known in their own right, they really have no business being here.  The fact that Kelly's son died at such a young age, might rate a mention on Kelly's own page, if it's of encyclopedic value. 
Do you actually know why Kelly (and his son's death) is even worth mentioning? It's not because of his quarterback past or his "celebrity" status (who cares about American football, anyway?). I suggest you visit and check the article on him to be illuminated on the issue. dalegrett 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Members of Celebrities

message: I dont think Rekha is really dead...there would be something about it in the Indian papers....there's nothing...just one site links to the story...--165.123.99.217 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rekha 

message: Why is Ashley Burns, a "14-year old cheerleader", listed on this page?  Surely we have some criteria for who is listed, eg. celebrity, fame, achievement.  This person does not have her own Wiki page.  How's that for fame?  Cheers
JackofOz 06:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an IMPOSTER in our midst.  I, JackofOz, did NOT write the above paragraph to which my name has been appended in such a cavalier fashion.  I am grievously, perhaps even mortally, offended.  Oh, it's not that someone thinks my name is worthy of misappropriating is so bad.  I actually take that as a kind of perverse compliment.  What has awoken the sleeping giant (more like the hibernating bear, actually) within me, is the attribution to my name of such repulsive grammar and punctuation.  The real JackofOz would NEVER have been guilty of such crimes against our beloved language as "the person THAT wrote this", using lower-case "I", and "cant" for "can't".  By their works shall ye know them.  I now return to the task of running my nation and liberating my people.  Cheers JackofOz 23:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: All right, then.  That makes sense now that I'm up to speed.  On the Recent Deaths page, the normal format is date, name, age, and occupation etc.  That works most of of the time because it's normally what the person achieved in their lifetime that makes them famous.  In this case, that format doesn't work because being a cheerleader is not the thing for which Ashley will be remembered.  What has set her apart from the millions of other cheerleaders was the circumstances of her death, but there was no mention of that.  No wonder I was confused.  Cheers JackofOz 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous edits from the IP were all in April -this edit was the only one for August 2005.  You may be right about the flaming but perhaps we should assume good faith.  Moreover, the comment generally applies about being sensitive to people's feelings when considering inclusion or otherwise in wikipedia--AYArktos 01:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I doubt whether it was the removal of the entry that caused offence but I would suggest that the comment: "This person does not have her own Wiki page.  How's that for fame?" is not in the best of taste.  Any experienced editor should have been able to easily detect that no one was appending a user's name intentionally in the paragraph that followed the initial comment, and thus the rant that follows is perhaps at best rather overblown.  One does not need to check if anyone's feelings would be offended before removing someone's name, but each editor should attempt to effect removal with comments in a way as not to cause offence but still be clear as to the reasons for the edit.  The obvious sensitivities have already been noted - observing them shouldn't be too hard!  A simple google search shows today 464 hits which would have answered your original question although Xoloz posted a reply.  It isn't actually asking the question that is at issue, it is the way it was asked. --AYArktos 09:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, given the foregoing, including Jack's reply to me, is there now consensus that Burns should be here?  As before, I remain at equipose. Xoloz 17:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think she is sufficiently notable to be included and I think a description of cheerleader is appropriate given the circumstances of her death. --AYArktos 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have no objection to her being added again.  For future reference, remember to alphabetize new entries. :)  Xoloz 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashley Burns 

message: Plenty of people on Recent Deaths have PhD.'s or MD.'s, such as John Norris Bahcall, as a recent example.  The standard practice is not to include such common titles, either in article titles or entries here. Rarer nobility (kings and princes) are the only exception that springs to mind. Xoloz 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Moog