Wikipedia

Talk:Deaths in April 2009

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Laurent Poisson (1 April) edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Who? And link is to a journal paper they wrote. Seriously. 123.136.64.13 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) [1]Reply

Don't worry; W guice got it. Susan Gleason (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw this this morning, too. Made me smile, as well <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Raul Alfonsin edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

why isn't Raul Alfonsin on the list? 195.188.23.230 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Look here ---> Deaths in 2009#31. WWGB (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

oh..... ok then :P 195.188.23.230 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tam Paton edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

His description on this article originally included criminal, which was replaced with sex offender, which was then removed. Although he was first notable as a music manager; in later life he was known more for being a sex offender and a drug dealer. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nick Adenhart edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is car accident an appropriate cause of death, or should it be vehicular homicide? While tragic on all counts, it still was criminal activity (albeit under the influence) that cause the death of Adenhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vehicular homicide is a charge that can only be proved in court, which has not yet happened. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

True enough... hopefully that will happen. Such a shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Clement Freud Debacle edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Can we come to some agreement (or can someone point us to standing policy) on listing titled people with their titles? Secondarily, can we also decide whether to list peoples ancestors, spouses or siblings as associated people?

My personal stance is that if a person is a Sir/Dame/Lord they should be listed with their title as they would 'always' be listed in this manner in published media. On the second issue, I think it's quite ridiculous to list associates of deceased people. As we all should know, notability is 'not' inherited, so why does it matter if someone is somebody else's relation? If someone is intrigued, surely they would look at the persons article.

Anyhoo, what's the Consensus? Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage, "titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame usually need not be included in the article title: use personal name instead". This suggests that we need not refer to Sir Clement Freud, however, if an editor is then going to insert that elsewhere in the entry [eg Knighted (1987)] then it is shorter and quicker to leave it as Sir instead. And I agree we don't need mention of famous relatives (WP:NOTINHERITED). WWGB (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also agree we should not list famous relatives. I would therefore ask User:StarGarnet who keeps adding it back that he doesn't. Notablity is not inherited.--UpDown (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also agreed on this. Moreover, Sir Clement himself disliked being referred to in respect to his relatives, if memory serves. That and he was an politician, comedian and writer. That's notability enough, surely? --86.112.190.38 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Whilst I agree that notability is not inherited, and Clement Freud does not need a link to his grandfather to assert his own notability, there is another consideration here. Recent deaths is a link on the Main Page. It is also the most edited article in Wikipedia, so it is certainly a high-traffic page. It could be argued that including "interesting" facts in an entry serves as a "hook" to draw the reader in to reading more about the individual, thereby expanding readers' experience (which is surely a good thing for Wikipedia). For example, becoming aware that marine biologist Nicholas Hughes committed suicide may not impact on many readers; knowing that he was also the son of Sylvia Plath adds to the understanding of his life and death. In summary, having a famous relative does not enhance an individual's notability, but it does go towards explaining who they are. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just a quick rejoinder to your former point about the Wiki protocol given above, that is for 'Article' titles, 'not' name listing. So I agree that Clement Freud's article should be under his name, but when written about, convention states he would be Sir Clement Freud. I can't quite believe I'm arguing about this as I'm personally quite against the peerage and honours system, but I'm trying to point out that this is how virtually all written media would write these peoples names. For example see this about Sir Alex Ferguson and this about Princess Anne and Sir Fred Goodwin, although strangly not about Zara Phillips. Anyway, my point is, that where a person has a title, it should be used if there name is written although not for the article title; cf President Barack Obama. I certainly acknowledge your salient point about relatives with reference to Hughes/Plath. Perhaps listing people who have notable relatives with different surnames? Fol de rol troll (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maxime de la Falaise edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

She never was an American citizen, so her nationality should be British. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in April 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Deaths in April 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Deaths in April 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_April_2009&oldid=1204916909"