Talk:Deaths in 2015

Excuse me, sir...

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wow, I never knew that. Here it is applied in practice. [2] WWGB (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

I have no idea where Amortias got this from, but let me assure other editors that it is utter and complete drivel. What do we call the long-dead Sir Winston Churchill? We call him Sir Winston Churchill! Of course you cease being a knight when you die. You cease being anything when you die, except dead! But the title is most certainly still used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

RfC: Mention some titles?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
• Comment responding to bot summons. I would exclude, unless the title is in the article name. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• MENTION - Sirs and Dames are honorary (and relatively rare) titles. I don't see why it's up for question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Because other titles (honorary or earned) aren't mentioned, despite their similar use in reliable sources. Giving special treatment to one group only is of questionable neutrality. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe they should be included. If someone has a title of some significance (and not the ordinary Mr/Mrs), whether the title is Brigadier General, the Sultan of Brunei, the Duke of Devonshire or the Dalai Lama, there is a good chance that is likely what makes them significant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Stoker Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire and 14th Dalai Lama, to be precise. When they go, no pipes needed. But the Sultan is just plain Hassanal Bolkiah. Definitely exclude Mister and Miss. Riffraff. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact: The Duke doesn't think being a Duke counts for much anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude - For a non-British person, including titles makes no sense.

Your argument doesn't make sense. What does citizenship have to do with it? I'm American and I fully support using titles. You don't have to be of that country to have a competent knowledge of titles, whether it's the Earl of Carlisle or the Shah of Iran. Additionally, other Commonwealth nations (Australia/Canada/etc) also have honorary titles and use post-nominals as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Use titles. They are used. Simple as that. Whether people from other countries don't understand them is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether we use them. Once a title is granted to a British or Commonwealth person it is almost invariably then used for the rest of their lives and (despite some of the ill-informed drivel being spouted above) also when referring to them after their deaths. It is used officially, it is used by the person and it is used by the media. It is true that a few people so honoured choose not to use the title, but it is very few (since such a person would usually have refused the title in the first place). Since we have always used them in the lists of deaths, I really fail to see why some individuals are trying to change a long-established rule, apparently for the sake of it or for some ludicrous ideas of "elitism". For the record, as a Briton I think it's pretty bloody stupid when Americans append "Jr" or "III" to their names too, but hey, it's what they do! And to those who are saying we should list the article title as they appear, do you also agree with not piping to get rid of disambiguators? No, thought not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Use titles A person's full description includes any title. By convention WP does not usually include Sir (or Dame) in the article title, but the full form will appear in the first line of the article, and by convention that is usually the form that it piped. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Consistency

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cynthia Lennon ridiculousness

What is she known for? Being married to John Lennon. What did she write about? Being married to John Lennon. What can you absolutely not say on this page? That she was married to John Lennon. Being married to John Lennon is her only claim to fame. It's about time we acknowledge that being married/related to the right individual sometimes makes you notable. It's just silly listing her as an author. Nukualofa (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes we need to make exceptions. This isn't some redlink grasping at straws, she has a large, long-standing article, based solely on her inherited notability. An unavoidable part of The Beatles being bigger than Jesus, and John Lennon being bigger than The Beatles. About 99% of their songs have articles. Had most of those songs been recorded and released by anyone else, they'd be black or red. That's just the world we live in, and these are the hands we're given. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:20, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that's just the way that page works. Recently, I added Buddy Elias to the list with the remark "cousin of Anne Frank", and that part was removed with a similar summary (notability can't be inherited). Now, Buddy Elias was an actor in his own right, and of course he was president of the Anne Frank Fonds (though that part got removed later too), but virtually every headline about his death wrote he had been AF's last surviving close relative, and every interview I found with Buddy Elias also talked about his relationship with and memories of his cousin Anne. I too don't think this rule regarding notability needs to be enforced that rigidly in every single case on this page, but I'm assuming this was defined somewhere. Maybe more experienced editors of this page can explain. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that WP:Notability is not inherited is not a policy, or even a guideline - it is just the opinion of some editors which appears in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is not a deletion discussion - Cynthia Lennon has her own article, and no-one is suggesting deleting it - in fact it is a GA. As the opinion only relates to deletion discussions, it has no standing, or relevance, about the words used to describe people on this list. - Arjayay (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to raise a stink about this. Just call Lennon's wife, not an "author" which is really stretching it Nohomersryan (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, April 1

Zdravko-Ćiro Kovačić [3]. 81.191.127.242 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Nukualofa (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Films

Is there a policy for what films should be listed when actors die? Tom Towles recently passed away. Should he be listed with minor roles in well-known pictures (The Rock, Halloween, Miami Vice), or bigger roles in lesser known pictures (Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Night of the Living Dead)?Nukualofa (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy. Some editors like to enforce their personal criteria, but IMO only award-winning roles (Oscar, Golden Globe, ...) should be listed. WWGB (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd expect to see biggest roles listed. More work, more personally relevant. Some small roles can be magnified by being replayed enough in cult classics. As long as they're exactly three, whichever they are is usually fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

One is good, too, but not applicable here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should be an award-winning film, unless they are known for a particular role in one. TBH, I didn't even know Mr. Towles' name, but I do remember Henry. — Wyliepedia 01:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

Please add actor James Best, who passed away on April 6, 2015. He was 88. [4]

194.69.14.83 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Added. — Wyliepedia 07:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

List Format

This is my first visit to this page via the "recent deaths" link on the front page. I have some suggestions for the format.

My intent in coming to the page was to check up on recent unfortunate losses of notable persons. Whilst meaning no disrespect to those listed, I feel that the list is overburdened with persons of note in highly specialized fields.

Whilst I do not advise removing them, and it would be a cause of unending friction to attempt to list them in order of the noteworthiness of their contributions, I do feel that it would be a good idea to be able to have deceased persons arbitrarily listed in order of relative fame (or infamy).

I therefore suggest that it would be a worthwhile effort to reformat the page, so that these kinds of lists can be reordered by last name, age, etc. and also to add to the criteria for each entry, the number of visits to the entrant's page within a given time frame.

Whilst this would not be a perfect or fair method of ordering the entrants to the list, it would give the reader the chance to filter the list in order of recent media coverage, (Wikipedia page visits being a fairly good gauge of a person's level of public attention).

Thanks for taking the time to read my suggestion.

Elliott Shanghai, China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.173.86.61 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not our place not duty to research every entry added or attempts to add them to check their page visits and list them here accordingly in that order. That falls under bias. A politician, actor, and athlete in one country is still a politician, actor, and athlete. — Wyliepedia 17:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is not our place - that is why I suggested that the process be automated (perhaps I wasn't clear about that). It's hard to find an entrant (specific or not) based on the current fields if they cannot be reordered according to an entrant's corresponding meta-data. If it were possible, then the information contained in the list would be more useful, more easily retrievable, of greater interest to readers and therefore make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

The entry format should simply include a piece of information, automatically derived from the number of visits an entrant received within a recent time frame. If the page visitor choses to click to order the list according to those data values, then that is their option. If for reasons of etiquette, it seems vulgar to include a number value, then the ordering can be done by default when reordering within each field.

It really is very hard to find persons on the list who are of wider fame in the current format, so if my solution is not the preferred one, then the issue still needs to be addressed in order to make the information contained on the deaths pages of the greatest possible value.

Noteworthiness based on page visit volume if possible should be automatically derived so that when ordering by any of the fields for an entrant, more note worthy entrants appear above less well recognized entrants.

e.g. I just reordered this list according to the "profession" category

Sir Terry Pratchett / 28 April 1948 / Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, England / Writer / etc

Joe Atkinson / 28 April 1948 / somewhere else / Writer / etc

and despite their sharing similar data in some fields, Terry Pratchett was listed at the top because he gets more visits to his WP entry. I think this would speed things up for most visitors who are not looking for a specific entrant, and also make it easier for people with specific interests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.173.86.61 (talk • contribs)

You say: "I think this would speed things up for most visitors who are not looking for a specific entrant, and also make it easier for people with specific interests". Therein lies the potential problem(s). By listing the "most visited" entries here as such, "most visitors" would then have to search for the particular entry they are looking for. By leaving it as is and alphabetized by date, this allows a quicker non-search-function scan to properly find whom visitors are looking for. For example, I come here daily (sometimes several times a day) just to see if anyone I might have heard of died, before I set to correcting edits. I'm a visitor first, editor second. A quick recent scan and I'm good to go. I personally think mixing all that up by "Most Popular Entrant" creates more work that most caretakers care to do. THEN, we would have to have non-frequent editors who randomly add their "specific entrant" to follow suit and figger out where their not-so-popular entry will lie. This isn't the Most Popular Deaths in 2015 page. Personally, I think your idea would create more headaches, but I appreciate and understand your input. — Wyliepedia 00:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not alone in clicking the links I find here specifically to learn about those I don't recognize. Popularity counts for many views, but do does curiousity, routine maintenance and clickbaiting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

again, it seems like we are in agreement in that the idea of doing this manually would be a headache. The information for each entrant should just be entered as a field in a database, which can be reordered (like many of the lists in wikipedia). The inclusion of a field which can give an indication of a persons likely popularity is an idea, which on reflection is dubious, which is why I think it should occur automatically within fields such as "month" for example, when that value is used to order the list.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015

June Foray needs to be added under APRIL 4. Source

BGreene9 (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done see en.mediamass.net/people/june-foray/deathhoax.html (can't link as site is blacklisted) it seems that was a hoax - Arjayay (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dick Dearden

Could some-one check the death references on Dick Dearden as I can't get them to work. --Racklever (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Still alive until proven otherwise. — Wyliepedia 02:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Crémieux-Brilhac

de, a french resistant, civil servant and historian, died on April, 8. --Pro patria semper (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

cc Racklever, Nukualofa. --Pro patria semper (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on being bold! — Wyliepedia 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)