Emo:Current events

From Encyclopedia of Media Objects
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Talk header User:MiszaBot/config Template:Auto archiving notice Template:WikiProjectBannerShell Template:FAQ

Cause of death

What is the general practice in this article, when someone is murdered? Do we use the term "murder"? Or "homicide"? Or something else? Is there some accepted practice at this page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Its by method. Shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, hung, etc. This keeps coming up, but its a good question and I will explain again. There are 5 Medical Examiner classifications of Death- Homicide, Suicide, Natural, Accidental and Unknown. That classification is then broken down into primary and secondary causes of death. So for a Natural Cause death, the primary cause could be Cancer, Heart Attack, Stroke, etc. Homicide and Suicide we do by method, with Suicides being listed to distinguish them from Homicides. Why? Well there are many more Homicides than Suicides in the world. So Suicide by defenestration, hanging, gunshot, poisoning, etc. Homicide by method as cause. Accidental we normally have the vehicle type, but most are TRAFFIC COLLISIONS...this keeps us from having to separate lingo (lorry, auto, etc) and puts it altogether. We also dont use accidents or crashes because of connotations of those words. There are other types of accidents and they are just listed by nature as they are explanatory i.e. falls, drowning, etc. Unknown are very rare and usually left blank until the Coroner/M.E. fills in a reason.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And one other thing on secondary causes...sometimes the M.E. is unable to tell which underlying condition causes a death. There was a singer this week who had both heart failure and diabetes. The M.E. then rules that both secondary causes contributed to the death and both would be listed for causes here. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In terms of Joseph's specific question, we don't report homicide/murder as that is a legal decision generally unknown at the time of death. Hence just shooting/stabbing/whatever ... WWGB (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree with that statement. Many many cases it is known that it is a homicide. Car bombs, roadside bombs, military actions including drone strikes, shootings particularly assassinations are all known within hours of the death. Typically in the US and most Western countries, a preliminary Coroner's report in such cases is completed within 24-48 hours because the apprehension of the parties responsible is imperative early on. If anything, its the accidental and underlying causes that drag out like the cancer death of Jack Klugman or toxicology reports for various singers we have had.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, all, and thanks. Maybe my question wasn't clear, so I will clarify. Let's say that we know that the person was murdered. No question, no doubt. Given that ... do we say "murder" or "murder by XYZ method" or "homicide" or "homicide by XYZ method" or what? That is what my original question was asking. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Neither. Just how the person was killed. Shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, bombing, etc. There is no mention of homicide or murder as those are Classifications, not causes of death.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. If, indeed, that is the practice here ... I am not sure that this practice makes any sense. For example, let's say that the murder is a "shooting". How would the Wikipedia reader know if the shooting were murder, homicide, or suicide ... just by seeing the word "shooting" in the one-line bio? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thats why I gave you the long explanation. Murder=Homicide (they are the same thing). Homicide only has method listed, so we would say he was 'shot', 'stabbed', 'poisoned', etc. We signify Suicides by method and title. So if he shot himself, it would be 'suicide by gunshot'. You assume its a homicide unless listed as a suicide just because there are so many more on this page than the other.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I understand what you are saying. And perhaps so do the regular editors here on this page. But my question is: how does the average Wikipedia reader know the distinction that you mention? If they (the average readers, who are not regular editors on this page) see the word "shooting" in a bio, why would – or should – they assume that it's a murder and not a suicide or homicide? They wouldn't. Also, murder and homicide are not the same things. Homicide is when one human kills another, whether legally or illegally. The illegal homicide is the "murder". A "legal" homicide might be: a cop kills a suspect; a homeowner kills an intruder in self-defense; the state of Texas executes a criminal; etc. There are instances where it is perfectly legal for one human to kill another; these are "homicides". Only when that homicide is illegal is it deemed a "murder". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Semantics. I think that is splitting hairs way too fine. If a person wants to see the details surrounding a person's death, they only need to clink the link or attached article.Sunnydoo (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, the entire issue is semantics ... i.e., how we word the one-line bio here. You state: "If a person wants to see the details surrounding a person's death, they only need to clink the link or attached article." How is that different in a murder case, homicide case, or suicide case? Why the distinction here, on this page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
What happens is you start having an issue every time someone kills someone with a drone strike or in a war or an execution. You will have one side arguing its murder and one saying its homicide. And if you take this out, why do we not list Natural Cause deaths as Natural Causes by cancer or heart attack, etc etc. Suicides are listed to distinguish between the 2 for the reasons above. Deciding what is a homicide and a murder is really beyond our scope. Putting homicide up for every entry or natural causes or whatever is just going to take up a lot of space without really adding a lot of value. This is another reason why I was pushing for an FAQ page so that we could have this all explained if someone needed to know it.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but it's not really addressing the issue. If (and I said "if") we have trouble distinguishing between homicide and murder, we can always use the word homicide. All murders are homicides. In other words, murder is a subset of the larger, more general category of homicide. My problem is that a typical reader will not / cannot distinguish between homicides and suicides when they see the death as "shooting" (or whatever). So, why are suicides specifically listed as suicides, but homicides are not? (A) There is no valid reason for this distinction. And (B) the typical reader will not understand what the death was all about if they just see the word "shooting". Perhaps, we can set up an FAQ. And, perhaps, we can address this specific issue / inconsistency. It does not serve the reader, it only confuses the reader, I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Seriously I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There have been a grand total of 6 suicides the entire month so far. I will do a count for December of Suicides v. Homicides but I dont expect it to be much better.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You are completely missing the point. The numbers are completely irrelevant to the point I am making. How does the reader know it's a suicide versus a homicide? Yes, I understand that you (a regular editor) will recognize the difference. But, how will they know? They won't. A phrase like "shooting" does not tell them that (critical) information. If it's a "mountain out of a mole hill" (i.e., an insignificant matter), then I am sure that you don't mind if we change the practice to my liking, and away from yours. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but you dont realize how infinitesimal suicides are. There is a reason we designate suicides and not homicides. Last month we have 10 current suicides (which may turn out to be 9 b/c 1 is on red link) out of 523 deaths. That is 1.9%. That means for every 100 or so deaths, 2 of them are suicides. This is also the peak time for suicides considering that the Northern Hemisphere (which has more people in it) is in Winter. I would suspect following Suicide rates that the number is actually lower in the summer time. What you are suggesting is that we take the 30-35% of homicide deaths and mark them up. That will add even more load time, take up even more space on the page (which will get our clutterites who want to graphitize the page going again) and start issues on murder, homicide, etc. We dont use classifications for Accidental deaths. We dont use classifications for Natural Cause deaths. Lets say someone throws someone down the stairs. You want to mark it up as 'homicide by throwing down the stairs.' Ok then what happens when someone falls next. If its suicide, it becomes 'suicide by fall,' which it already is. But then you have to start classifying Accidental deaths too, such as 'Accidental by falling down the stairs' to differentiate from a suicide or homicide. Then you might as well just use all 5 classifications because you are now using 3 of them. And it just keeps adding and adding.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point about not wanting to do it. Load times, suicides are low numbers, etc. But, you still keep avoiding my question. How does the reader know? They don't. And why should they not know? Please answer that question: how would the reader know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The reader knows because Suicides are listed as such when they occur. All of the other occurrences would just be homicides. If a person sees someone is shot in the newspaper, on the news, etc. that usually implies someone shot them. When you hear on the news someone shot himself that implies suicide. I dont think when there is a shooting downtown in some city outside a club, hey thats a weird place for someone to commit suicide. No, the first thing I think of is someone shot someone else. Same here no difference.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are missing my point. You keep saying this statement: "If it's a suicide, we list it that way. If it's a homicide, we don't". You say that rule as if everybody knows it exists, including the page's readers. Just because you know that this rule exists, does not mean that all the other readers know about it. So, again, how does the reader know this? How does the reader know that this "rule" exists? Let's say that I am a reader, and I see "shooting". Why would I say to myself: "Well, if it were a suicide, they would probably list the word suicide ... but if it's a homicide, they probably don't list the word homicide ... so I will just assume it's a homicide." You have this "rule" in your head ... because you edit this page a lot. So, again, how does the reader know about this "rule" or convention? They don't. That's the issue and the problem. When a reader reads one entry, they read that one entry. They don't scan the rest of the page to compare that one entry's conventions to all the other entries on the page. The one entry stands alone. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
And you keep missing my point. Lets say you listen to the radio tonight at 10 pm for the news. The headline going into the main news says, "Man shot and killed in pub on Main St." Now. Do you say to yourself....A) this is a homicide, B) this is a suicide or C) this was an accident. The answer is the most likely scenario- just as it should be on this page.Sunnydoo (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous point. Most people commit suicide in some private location (e.g., their house or a desolated park), outside of the view of many others (so that no one will interfere with their suicide plan). Similarly, most people commit murder in some private location (e.g., the victim's home or job), outside of the view of many others (so that they don't get caught and so that that no one will interfere with their crime). So, the victim of a "shooting" (whether murder or suicide) is likely found in some isolated spot, with no one else around. Your example of the rare instance where it occurs in broad daylight in a highly populated pub is simply ridiculous. Your example is also ridiculous for the following reason. If the radio announcer says, quoting you, "Man shot and killed in pub on Main Street" ... clearly, the radio announcer is announcing a homicide. If he were announcing a suicide, I am quite sure that the radio announcer would use different words, such as "Man shoots and kills himself in pub on Main Street". Your points and supporting examples are ludicrous. And, if I am making a mountain of a molehill – per your prior post – what is the big deal? Let's just change it to make it my way, instead of your way ... yes? Or perhaps, it's not really a mountain of a molehill, when you look at it that way. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Plus, you keep avoiding answering my question. How is the reader of this page supposed to know what is "common knowledge" to you? Namely, the conventions of the page when it comes to distinguishing suicide versus homicide. You cannot answer that question, other than to make the argument "Well, I, Sunnydoo – a regular editor on this page – know that ... so, geez, can't everyone else just figure that out, too ... including the average reader who does not regularly edit this page?". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody else has commented in a while, and the above is starting to get TLDR Template:Smiley... For the headline, I'd prefer the more rigid coroner's classification system. Buried in the above arguments is the problem of drone strikes (more generally, casualties of war) and executions, where calling them "murders" includes a moral judgement, and most certainly pisses off 25–75% of the readers, depending on the country. The simple categorization of either suicide or homicide, depending only on whether it was self-committed, is much "cleaner". In the case of homicide, I wouldn't mind specifying who did it, if known, and let people draw their own conclusions about the morality of it; This was, however, argued against (if not somewhat meanderingly) above in the case of Rizana Nafeek. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the above was getting wordy and lengthy. In a nutshell, I proposed that a death should be listed (for example) as "homicide by shooting" or "suicide by shooting". The other editor agreed with "suicide by shooting". For "homicide by shooting", the other editor disagreed, stating that the "homicide" word should be implied by the reader and that "shooting" was sufficient to list. I disagreed, stating that while the average editor who regularly contributes to this page might reasonably make such an assumption, the average reader of the page would not have any basis for that assumption. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Joseph, how would you propose to report these deaths, all of which are "homicide"?
I have been staying out of this discussion, but when I see "shooting" or "stabbing" I just figure "someone got him!". That's why we qualify if it was accidental or suicide. I don't see anyone (else) expressing confusion about the current method. We also have to be cautious about WP:OR. Unless the reference cites murder/homicide, we cannot assume that. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Question Werieth (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(Added below by Wyliepedia)

Not sure if this is the right place, but I have two issues.

  1. Deaths in 2012 is a redirect while Deaths in 2013 isn't. Shouldn't it just be a conglomerate article transcluding the individual months (really improves readability and centralizes things)
  2. Deaths in 2013 is listed in a very odd way (new items at the top) standard format is to add new things to the bottom of documents.

Can I get the thoughts/reasons for this particular change in structure? Werieth (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are more likely to get a response to this as Talk:Deaths in 2013. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deaths in 2013 is an evolving article, a "work in progress", so it is given room to grow month by month. It is listed top down as most readers are interested in recent deaths, so placing them at the top of the article makes them easy to find. Deaths in 2012, on the other hand, is an "archived article", so it is filed and looks somewhat different. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Also note that we only list the current month of 2013 here, which is currently January. We will leave January here for seven days into February for those who wish to include deaths learned within the last week of January. Then, January will have its own "Deaths" article. If we have a "conglomerate" article with our current setup and include all months of the year here, we would have a very unwieldy and long-load-time page. Links to the individual months can be found at the bottom of the page. The main year page (2013) has a monthly listing of deaths, but their requirements for addition are more stringent than here. — Wyliepedia 06:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Just discovered this article. The lead tells me it's "a list of notable deaths in 2013". I had noticed an awful lot of redlinks, and wondered if we have a special, local definition of notability. Clicked on Edit, and found "entries must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article". A redlink means no article. What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the red links on here, have blue links on the other language Wikipedia's. This gets people to translate.--Mjs1991 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The standard practice is that a death reference that meets notoriety is listed despite colored link. A link has 30 days from time of death to become a blue linked article. If it does not, the red link is removed from the list. There are a number of reasons for red links. Wiki has only been around a limited number of years and there are several generations who have notable members that dont have articles written about them until they die. So in 1 way it encourages article writing and Wiki completeness. Good examples are previous members of the legislatures, older actors/singers and scientists. I can recall someone last year that was instrumental in the a vaccine process that died (which probably saved millions of lives and disfigurements) that didnt have an article. She was around 103 and no one had gotten around to an article for her. The same thing can also be said about foreign language figures. Often times someone may die in Romania, Brazil, etc. and not have an English reference and still be notable.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
As for notability, we are a little more lenient than other areas. Typically if a death is covered by a Wire Service or by several newspapers in different locales, that person will usually make the list. Also certain people who participate in groups will also make the list. These can include musical band members who are regarded separately from the band, members of prestigious and notable military groups (Tuskegee Airmen, Easy Company, there was a Kiwi tribal death that I noted in October from the forces that fought Rommel) or any members of Parliament of state/foreign governments such as India, Iraq, etc. Usually a red linked name will have a description of why they are on the list. There was a Welsh inventor from this week who devised the Electronic Breathalyser. While his name may not have been a household name, the product he designed has been used by millions probably.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Sunnydoo, that all sounds terrifically reasonable, but the instructions do say "entries must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article". I do like the idea of encouraging the creation of articles. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I think "to have" suggests that an article must exist or be able to be sustained in the future. I don't read it the same way as "entries must have their own Wikipedia article". WWGB (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. That was the case I was making. By your interpretations HiLo, many members of State Legislatures (as an example) would not be admissible. There are several Wiki projects going on with these right now to create articles. We have one gentleman (RFD) who does an excellent job of going behind us that create the initial entry and makes sure each of these guys gets at least a stub article for his state and position. The same is true for an Olympic team we have (and I apologize for not remembering your names) and for a team that focuses on Catholic priests (I havent seen much of them lately, I hope they are OK). One of the really rewarding things for digging up a lot of these names is to see how many of my links go from Red to Blue in a week and in a month. I am shocked sometimes by the enthusiasm of the other editors out there to help complete the gaps in info. If you need to see what a gap might look at, pick a state and then pull up its Legislature. Depending on the State, they have from 50-200 politicians sitting in office at a time. But just about every state that I have looked at barely has 100 names in the total for the history. So I make sure I cover that when digging. And that just isnt for the Legislatures. There are many other gaps that need to be filled, so its kind of like working on a Chain gang filling pot holes. You dont think about how many there are, you just shovel the dirt and move on to the next one. Eventually we will get there.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And the other thing is that we need to be sensitive to other cultures which is an ongoing Wiki subtext. In the past we have gotten extremely critical messages left via our feedback mechanism because we 'ignored' certain cultures particularly sub-Saharan Africa. It wasnt an intentional slight but a combination of things. Many Africans do not have access to the internet. Many of the ones that do dont speak English and there are not a lot of articles out there made for/by them. There has been a conscious effort by some editors (and I am one of them) to sweep sites like AllAfrica and papers out of Zimbabwe and S. Africa daily to get some of these important Africans included. Yesterday for example I added an Ugandan industrialist. One of his companies makes most of the plastic utensils and plates for the entire Continent, yet there isnt a Wiki for him or his company. He also owned several other companies that did other things. That to me is notability and if it was a literal interpretation, he probably wouldnt have been included.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And not to beat this to death (this comes up quite often and its really not a problem as we encourage the dialogue here), see WP:Notability. Some people get Notable and Famous confused. There are stark differences between the 2- you can be one or the other or even both, but all 3 qualify. Some of the requirements are things I have mentioned: Significant Coverage (Wire Service or multi-newspapers), context (the why they are here), easily verified (why we have citations), notability isnt temporary (which we try hard to avoid and in some cases upset people over victims of plane crashes, terrorist attacks and things like Sandy Hook). Just put in WP:Notability in the box up top and it will bring up the entire policy and lists of topics.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not debating notability. I agree that it can be achieved, and should be able to justified, in many ways. But those very clear words say "entries must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article". To argue that one can interpret those words in less than obvious ways should be unnecessary. Are they really the best words that we can come up with? HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the issue. Those words are clear and straightforward. To me, they say: "to be notable, a person must warrant a Wikipedia article, which may or may not yet exist". At this exact moment in time, we can't have an article for every single notable person in the world. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Why don't we use words more like those you just used? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Only an admin can edit that page notice. Perhaps they are watching ..... WWGB (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Admin help-helped

Can an admin please make the words more clear (less ambiguous) on the page notice for this article, according to the above discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Done The wording now reads "This list includes all biological deaths (human, animal, and other living things), and entries must be notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article, whether or not that article currently exists. If you are here to remove an entry, please ensure that you apply this accepted standard." —Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird death

This does not meet notoriety requirements to be added to the article. But I have to say, this is truly an original way to go and I dont think I have ever heard of such a thing as this before.Those with weak stomachs or get grossed out easily may not want to read this. Seeing this made me think of the topic WWGB brought up last year about people dying in a notable way. I thought a few of you (especially you defenestration people) would find this interesting.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't even work. This page doesnt have references--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Wyliepedia 09:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Didnt realize that, but its good to know.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And hey, when ya gotta go... Wyliepedia 09:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's not fit for this article, but perhaps it is fit for the List of unusual deaths article. I don't frequent that page a lot. And they seem to have a lot of arguments about what is and what is not an unusual death (and, therefore, what does or does not merit inclusion in that article). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else facing this?

Everytime I am editing this article, I am facing "Wikimedia error"- only in this page, page length might be an issue! Anyone else facing this? --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Everytime I add or compare revisions. It's a Wiki-server problem. Too many people adding/checking WP and big articles like this use lots of bandwidth/space. That's why the error messages suggest donating to Wiki to increase server speed. And I don't remember errors here with the old format last year. — Wyliepedia 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Someone add this to the 22nd please:
Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am boldly implementing a simpler inline reference style, without use of the cite news template, to try and speed up loading time. The reference is in the form <ref>[url & title]</ref> which still meets the "requirement" of an inline reference. Without some kind of intervention this article is rapidly grinding to a halt. Editors will simply give up if they keep getting an error message when trying to make a reasonable post. If this change does not improve response speed, we must consider returning to "bare" URLs which never caused the sorts of problems we have now. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
WWGB is my hero, if the plan works! — Wyliepedia 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Review process

Can we please get rid of this [expletive] novelty? When the refs start stacking up, the page slows down, then we have to take time to approve someone's addition, which, by my estimate, the majority of are fine? We've survived the end of the world last year without it and can manage. — Wyliepedia 13:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree The simple protected page format worked fine and it enabled an autoconfirmed editor to check all the facts before adding the entry to the page. I've done a few pending changes review approvals, but regularly get edit conflicts and other problems, whilst I suspect the Pending Changes sytem significantly increases load time.
Wikipedia:Pending changes specifically states:-
"Intended for infrequently-edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such problematic edits from new or unregistered users, pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection and full protection"
There is no way this is an "infrequently-edited article", so why was Pending Changes protection chosen, when it is specifically not "intended" for a page like this? - Arjayay (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


What's going on with the references? Somebody is changing the references from the proper style to a simple short style--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look above at "Anyone else facing this?" — Wyliepedia 07:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Footballer Ponelle fails WP:NFOOTY

Ponelle in non- WP notable. Mayumashu (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Confirmed and deleted.–Kiwipat (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Annie Kett

This source says "second" oldest... http://www.limerickleader.ie/community/community-news/obituaries-deaths/birthday-girl-annie-is-ireland-s-second-oldest-1-4583834 Can we agree on "Irish centenarian"?

First, please sign your future comments with ~~~~. Second, yep, Mary Kate Byrne is the oldest. — Wyliepedia 00:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Fabio Frittelli, the singer of MO-DO, committed suicide but not the founders (3 DJs) of the MO-DO project.

First, please sign your future comments with ~~~~. Second, thanks we fixed it on the main page. — Wyliepedia 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
then why was the entry corrected to MO-DO? Frittelli was the voice but not the only member of the group. See German entry. Royalrec (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
To me, the article Mo-Do implies Frittelli and Mo-Do are synonymous, Mo-Do being a "performance name". Much like Snoop Dogg is a performance name of Calvin Broadus. On that basis, I have listed the death under Mo-Do as the most common name of the individual. If that is not the case, then the article Mo-Do needs to be rewritten to state that it is a group, not a person. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)