Talk:Deaths in 2007

message: :Deaths in 2007 is a list of notable people who died in 2007.
Since this page will also include notable animals which have died, this line should be modified to include that.--Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 21:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened the intro considerably, so there's now no need.  The introduction can't include every bit of information about WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:V, etc.  It should be short; if an editor ignores these policies, they're probably going to ignore a long introduction, too.  The page should place the reader first, not the editor, so shorter is better. Calbaer 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemptive correction 

message: The intro this article is a bit too self-referential... with all the instructions and all. Article text should exist for readers, not editors of the article, as for every 1 person who edits the article, hundreds of people read it and the instructions are of no interest to them. I suggest "commenting it out" so editors see it but casual readers don't. --W.marsh 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is quite useful. If it encourages occasional contributors to write consistently then that reduces the need for subsequent editing. As others have pointed out, this is a rapidly changing page with more than the usual number of contributors. WWGB 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This isn't so much an article as a list (a dab page if you will), and because of the nature of the page with such a broad spectrum of accounts editing it the instructions I feel are necessary. Syrthiss 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still an article first, as long as it's in the article namespace. If nothing else, the instructions should be italisized, as we do with disambiguation information. I guess it sounds trivial but this is an element of style that kind of jumps out at me. --W.marsh 16:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to disagree with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I don't see why this article should be an exception. --Abu badali (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Was just looking at the article and noticed the same thing. Similar issues exist at Deaths in 2006 though the self references seem to be absent in earlier years. I agree that the instructions should be commented out, at first I thought I'd stumbled into the WP namespace since it didn't seem like an encyclopedia entry. Stardust8212 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think commenting the section out would work very well.  Only those who start to edit the page will see the inclusion criteria and the format to post it.  Jon513 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-references

message: I was wondering why the specialized sites that are usually listed after the obituary sites (sites such as Find a Grave), are left off of the page practically every month.  In January, the Specialized Sites list was transferred but left off several sites, and there are no specialized sites listed this month.  This may have happened last year as well, but I just wanted to know why this happens. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specialized Sites

message: Regular editors tend to keep the length of entries to a reasonably consistent standard. That can be achieved by limiting the number of achievements listed for the deceased, using conventional abbreviations and restricting the number of references to 1 or 2. While a maximum length of one line may be a desirable target, what fits on to one line will vary according to the individual's monitor size and computer settings. What overflows to a second line on one screen may fit perfectly well on one line in a different environment. WWGB 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "standard length"? 

message: I relatively new to this so forgive my ignorance.  How does one cause a reference NOT to refer to someone?  For Example (only) if I want to refer to Abraham Lincoln who was the conductor of the NY Philharmonic versus the President of the USA how do I do that?  If I put [ [Abraham Lincoln] ] it obviously refers to the President but if I want it to refer to the other guy, who as yet may not have his own Wikipedia page, how do I do that?  I know one option is to simply leave out the   ... but is there another way?  Tom M. 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles about duplicate names, when they exist, read like "Abraham Lincoln (conductor)": see for instance the several people called John Smith. So, even if an article does not yet exist, you can point to, say, Abraham Lincoln (conductor). For more detail, you can look up Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Hope this helps, Goochelaar 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very different person 

message: I noticed and fixed alot of recent articles (within the past five days) of people who died that were not tagged with . Shouldn't there be something somewheres on the page to note contributors that when someone notable dies they should tag the articles with this? -24.92.43.153 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? For many articles, the only change necessary is noting the date of death and changing tense from present to past. Adding the "recent death" template just adds something else to be removed ... when? Will you go back and remove the templates after a suitable period? I think the template is really only necessary for high-traffic pages, such as Anna Nicole Smith. WWGB 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on the wording of the  tag, it implies that there are more facts to be reported on the person's death.  This is probably not the case for most of the articles for recently deceased individuals and, therefore, the tag should not be used when a one-sentence statement of the person's passing would suffice. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of template

message: Greetings, historically, ? are used for cases where an age claim is extremely dubious/probably exaggerated (such as 125? or 118?). "Circa" is usually used only for persons where an exact date of birth is uncertain, but the age given is considered to be a 'best guess'. 
The issue is especially pertinent to "world's oldest person" claimants. If someone claims to be 132 but is really 102, and we put down c132, we are implying endorsement of a false age. But if we put 132?, we alert the reader to the possibility that the age claimed may be off by a lot.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ? and Circas

message: Greetings,
Some sources tend to round up the ages of persons who die a few months before the birthday. If the birthdate is given as May 1901 and they died Jan 2007, the correct age is, sorry, 105 NOT 106.
→ R Young {yakłtalk} 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rounded-up/Overstated Ages

message: Greetings, it is traditional in some Asian countries to begin counting ages at '1.' Usually this becomes apparent if you see a claim where the person was "born in Feb 1901, died in Mar 2007" at age 107. Sorry, the correct age would be '106'.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian age counting

message: I just proposed the following wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Recently Deceased Biographies to help those articles about recently deseased people attain the highest quality.  Let me know if anyone is interested in this. Remember 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sign me up! tomasz. 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: excellent idea. I'll go too Ade1982 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: What is the average way to die nowadays? -Yancyfry 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no possible way to answer this without clarifying what you mean.  Also, this should be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk - possibly Miscellanous, possibly Science, possibly Mathematics.  JackofOz 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look at List of causes of death by rate, the biggest killer is cardiovascular diseases, responsible for almost 30% of all deaths. WWGB 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have any further questions on this subject, please use the link I provided above.  This page is for discussing our list of people who died in 2007 (eg. whether their dates of death are correct; or whether or not they even qualify for inclusion in the list), not for discussing the causes of death among the general population.  JackofOz 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest killer

message: Shouldn't the external links posted next to the names be changed into actual references as stated in Wikipedia:Citing sources, rather than straight external links? — The Future 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This matter has been discussed previously. See above: Talk:Deaths in 2007#References. WWGB 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't really see a super majority one way or the other.. personally, I think the guidelines should be followed and I wouldn't mind seeing the footnotes added for the additional information. — The Future 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This could be a bad thing, because anons and new users quite likely often add new death notices. What do you think?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. There was a flurry of vandalism on 23 June, but nothing we haven't coped with before. I think PeaceNT overreacted by semi-protecting the page. The number of entries has dropped off since the block was implemented. Adding a death notice often gives new users the confidence to go on and do more. WWGB 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Am I wrong to question the notability of "James Capozzola, 44, American blogger, brain hemorrhage"... While tragic like all deaths, I fail to see why this fellow, a political blogger, is notable and/or meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Tom M. 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Tfmurphhk (Tom M).  I don't think you are wrong to question the notability of James Capozzola.  The fact that there is no Wikipedia article on him is a likely indication of his status.  There is a good chance, unless there is some new information coming out about Mr. Capozzola, that his name will eventually be deleted from the Deaths article.  In this regard, I find that WWGB has a very good sense for who's in and who's out, and why.Que-Can 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Que-Can, I'm flattered by your comment. I just try to keep these lists looking consistent and tidy, without imposing a particular mindset. A personal frustration, however, is the number of "red wikilinks" that appear (usually around 40% of all entries) that never evolve into an article. These red entries generally avoid scrutiny under WP:CSD#A7 and sit there unless someone is bold enough to delete it. And of course, since we are dealing with someone who is recently deceased, there may be added reluctance to reverse the entry! My preference would be, if you report the death you should be prepared to write the corresponding WP article (even a stub), if there isn't already one. WWGB 07:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Que-Can, a great many notable dead people don't don't have articles.  Don't judge a person's notability by a lack of an article here on Wikipedia.  Mr. C.C. 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been a Wiki member for a while but just recently have become more involved in editing of articles.  I have a sincere question - and I am not disparaging the worth or contribution of the person I use as an example, simply it is a current example of something I have wondered for a while.  I am confused on the criteria of whom shall be listed, as I have seen some listings of people I have never heard of, and could find no reference to through multiple internet searches.  Currently, there is a woman named Betty Schenkel who is listed as an American educator, technically so am I, but if I die tomorrow I assure you my name won't be listed, nor should it be.  Tonight I learned that a cameraman for American network ABC news was killed in a car crash and I considered listing him, of course no page for him and I am sure most visitors to this page will have no idea who he is.  However, searching for Betty I found less information on her.  Guidance please?  I would rather ask now and get it right in the future than post incorrectly and learn the hard way.  Thanks. OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Betty Schenkel entry only lasted for 15 minutes . It was deleted because there were no Internet references to confirm the death. Concerning the death of Ralph Binder, you could certainly list his death since it has a reference. It would then remain for at least one month to give editors an opportunity to write an article about him. If that did not happen, the entry would eventually be deleted. WWGB (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, leave it to me to arrive in that 15 minute window, but I am glad for the clarification, both about Ms. Schenkel's passing and the process of other deaths with reference and the process of long term inclusion.  I appreciate your taking the time to respond and will guide me in the future. Thanks OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to the trials of working on a collaborative website! If you believe that Mr Binder is worthy of a Wikipedia article, I would encourage you to complete the writing. Of course, the completed article might still be challenged on the grounds of "notability". Perhaps check Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria and scroll down to Creative professionals to check if he meets the criteria. Don't worry about the Deaths notice. That can always be restored once Binder has an article. Then it cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability. Don't be put off contributing to Wikipedia by this experience, it's a great place to share your expertise. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability questioned 

message: I've created a news feed off of this page's data.  It's not perfect and occasionally picks up vandalism, but it's interesting enough to be useful to me. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea.  I can check the Recent Deaths page through my rss reader, since I don't come to this page as often as I used to, so I'm glad that you came up with this, Jdavidb. talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I'm glad to hear somebody is using it! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News feed 

message: OK, Ok, I can't stand it any longer. I accepted that Tomasz had a particular interest in this matter, but now it seems that Tom has caught the same bug. Why does one need to redirect "heart attack" to "myocardial infarction"? There is a redirect page in place that does exactly the same thing anyway without intervention. It's not a case of disambiguation, just a redirect that occurs automatically. Typing "myocardial infarction|heart attack" achieves only what the computer was about to do. Sorry, but I just don't get it ... Regards, WWGB 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myocardial infarction 

message: I think we should have standard format for all. Korean and Chinese often have their last names first and it ckinda mess up the visual of the list. Abdelkweli 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a standard.  Mr. Wang Hongli (Hongli is his given name, Wang is his surname) for example (died July 26th) is listed under the W's and Mr. Bae Hyung-kyu, (Hyung-kyu is his given name, Bae is his surname) (died July 25th) is listed under the B's.  What is messed up?  Tom M. 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, Tom. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on such matters: here for Chinese and here for Korean. Regards, WWGB 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian last names

message: If this article is for notable deaths, why the redlinks?  This might also solve the references matter.  Necessary references would then be found in the subject's article and needed not be repeated here.  Rklawton 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because editors persist in posting "non-notable" deaths, that is, deceased persons without a Wikipedia article. If a death notice results in a redlink, the onus should be on the editor to start an article stub. If you object to a redlink, feel free to delete it (or start an article)! WWGB 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly, how hard is it to write a short stub! If someone can't be bothered to do that then they should not bother to add another red link to the recent deaths page. --RMHED 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes WWGB I object to all those red links, so I do feel free to delete them. --RMHED 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what WWGB may have meant to say was that if you object to "old red links"... meaning those over a month old ... feel free to delete.  The established standard around here has always been to leave the name in for a month.. and if after a month no one has written an article, then it is OK to delete.  Not everyone can write an article, or a stub, immediately.  Given a month to do so however is a fair amount of time.  So - anything red and older than 19 August July can go.. newer than that should stay as per established procedures. Tom M. 00:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 19 July perhaps? WWGB 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: Why do we have a "specialized" external links section that point to all manner of commercial sites and even blogs?  Several of these links are not to reliable sources and look much more like spam.  Rklawton 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno! I wonder if anyone ever uses them? I won't be sad if they are deleted ... WWGB 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly couldn't tell you why Legacy.com is considered spam.  Until I read this discussion, I had never even heard of the site, but the other sites that are listed are specialty sites and, while not authoritative, may give you more information about notable deaths that you may not get from a standard obituary site.  Also, I'd like to point out that I am one of those people who actually uses the specialized external links a great deal (and I asked for some of the links to be returned a looong time ago), so losing them would be a problem to me, but one that I could accept with explanation for the removal.
I know this was discussed a while ago, but I haven't had time to read any of this stuff in forever. talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Is it really necessary to include dead animals? Mapjc 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have this discussion every time a notable animal dies. Current practice provides that if an animal has a Wikipedia article, then the death is acknowledged here. WWGB 00:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why silly?  If an individual animal has its own Wikipedia article, it has obviously been significantly  noted in some form of public media. Xoloz 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're very wrong about the structure of this page -- a long time ago, it was called "List of notable people who have died".  The name was changed specifically to address the continuing question of animals.  Any notable death belongs.  It is worth noting that many pets do carry family names; my (non-notable) cat certainly does.  While animals cannot be considered full legal persons in every context, many become symbols of civic pride, some notably are bequeathed property, and (occasionally) people attempt to marry them!  Of course, the athletic achievements of racing horses are lauded by the sporting world. The entries for Harriet (long-lived pet turtle of Charles Darwin) and Barbaro have most recently raised this issue.  As always, WP:N is established through reliable sources, and both those deaths received much attention in the mainstream press. The River Thames whale is a recent example of an unfortunate wild animal becoming the object of popular notice and affection.  Personally, I think it is "silly" to discount the importance of a famous animal's death:  Barbaro is the only notable death from January, 2007 that I recall easily.  Xoloz 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we need a compromise solution.  Revert to "List of notable people who have died" and create a new article "List of notable birds, animials and fishes which have died."  That way, the notable people wouldn't have to mix with the notables from the other species.  Would that work for everyone? Que-Can 18:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about simply providing a link in the info at the top of the article that refers readers interested in animal deaths to the category 2007 animal deaths. Kiwipat 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said this tho I firmly believe animals should be included here. Anything living dies, and there are notable animals...ergo they should be included...hell if ever any those famous giant trees out there die I'll add them. Kiwipat 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why not include plants? surely there are many notable trees that have passed on recently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.36 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why not indeed? if i see the death of notable tree reported in verifiable 3rd party sources, i will definitely add it. tomasz. 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals 

message: Does complications add anything significant to cause of death? If you are shot, you die of the "complications of gunshot wound". Sometimes it used as an admission that the "cause" wasn't the "real cause" - "complications of diabetes".  "Complications of intestinal blockage": does that mean "we don't know which organ gave in catastrophically but we don't feel that saying he died of an intestinal blockage is vague enough"? The feeling is that the cause of death cannot be the cause of the death if you can quite often survive with it without a 'critical' medical intervention? But then if "brain death is death" then the only "immediate" cause of death in all cases is cessation of brain activity, unless "immediate" taken to mean whatever immediately stopped brain activity (which is generally lack of oxygen). There may be a case for calling cause of death which ever organ was messed up enough to kill the brain (other organs being OK) but then cancer is not a cause of death in that case (why don't people put complications of cancer?). It is possible to on forever with causes and complications. Better not to use the word where possible. Keep it simple. Avoid complications. Type less. Take up less space. 88888 14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reference states that the cause of death was "complications of X", then who are we to dissent? Presumably, that is what the attending physician wrote on the death certificate. WWGB 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if the reference states "spontaneous combustion", who are we to dissent? I don't see any reference to a physician and don't presume one. Dying of an "intestinal blockage" is no less clear than "complications of an intestinal blockage". "Complications of" just tries to sound a little more in the know. But perhaps "complications of" is a medics term of art and says something in particular. I'd be happy if someone told me. Then I can stop people abusing it in other cases! 88888 00:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can get a bit murky if we try to stick to strict technicalities.  A person who is shot dead, or a person who commits suicide by slashing their wrists, might, technically, die from exsanguination - as distinct from whatever caused the wounds that in turn caused the exsanguination.  Not all gunshot wounds or slashed wrists result in death.  We have to state whatever's been published, using whatever form of words they use.  --  JackofOz 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We are editors not copytypists. 88888 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complications - keep it simple

message: Has any one noticed that going to the category of 2007_deaths will often give one a more up-to-date reference for the latest famous people to have passed away than if one goes to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_deaths?
What should we do to ensure the latter is also up-to-date? ACEOREVIVED 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, I'm confused: Can you give the link to the category of 2007_deaths?  I might be able to help you, but I don't know how you found that category. SailorAlphaCentauri 20:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: :Category:2007 deaths—Twigboy 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What I wasn't sure about was the category that Twigboy gave the link to because, quite frankly, the only way I have ever accessed the recent deaths page is through the link on the main page.  I didn't know that there was another category listing the dead by name.  Now, if you are done trying to humiliate someone who honestly didn't know something, maybe we can get to the root of what was being asked in the first place.talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Now to answer your question, ACEOREVIVED, the category is more up-to-date because there is someone who adds the category to the person's wikipedia article but doesn't come to the recent deaths listing to post the same information.  Short of trolling the category to look for people to add to the recent deaths listing, I'm not sure what can be done (but I hope that others will come along with better ideas).talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has occurred to me that :Category:2007 deaths is a useful source for the Deaths in 2007 article, especially since every deceased there has a WP article and doesn't have the annoying redlinks that appear here. WWGB 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's okay; as long as the issue at hand is resolved, it is all that matters.  I don't always speak up when I don't understand something, so I kind of bit back when you made your comment.  If linking these two categories will improve listings, I'm all for it.  And it never hurts to learn something new (as I appear to every time I return to Wikipedia). talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: Even though this has been deleted, I think it should be mentioned for future reference: Someone listed the death of a comic strip character from Funky Winkerbean today and, while it was deleted, I think it should not have been listed in the first place [because it was written like a line that should have been in the article to begin with].  I hope it doesn't happen again.  It was sad that she died of breast cancer, but...she's a fictional character. talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 20:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic Strip Deaths 

message: moving article to List of deaths in 2007 would be appropriate, since this is a "list", not an "article". Also, leaving older lists as it is, and making it a list in future would be good idea. Thanks. Lara_bran 06:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i for one think it's fine as it is, tbh. tomasz. 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd want to move it, either. This list is unique as it is more of a reference source (with citations) than a mere list. talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a list.  It says in the beginning of the article that it's a list.  It's no more unique than List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize for Fiction or lists of Nobel prize winners. What part of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) does this article NOT comply with, other than the title? -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to List of Deaths in 2007 

message: I notice the ongoing debate concerning the "correct" spelling of the word medalist / medallist. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary either is acceptable. According to Cambridge dictionary medallist is British spelling, medalist is American spelling. The article Doubled consonants also throws some light on the subject. WWGB 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a continual 'war' with american and british spelling (no idea why the americans have to be different, but hey!) i think if the article is about anything american, then american spelling should be used. same with anything british. if an american makes a page/edit regarding a british topic, they should stick to british spelling (or don't bother at all...) and vice versa. for anything out with britain/america, british spelling should be used, as most english teachers in foreign countries are british and i do believe the british english was there first, ie it was the americans who changed the spellings!! just my opinion, of course... 77.101.18.129 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that people should just ignore bastardised english spellings of words...and should also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28spelling%29 which gives extra information about acceptable spellings 87.194.44.145 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal(l)ist revert wars 

message: Here are some of the more notable deaths of 2007, as recorded by our editors. It's just a personal observation, based on perceived international recognition. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone but not forgotten ...