Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 11 July 2007

Biography Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

For earlier discussions of this topic, see the talk archives at Talk:Deaths in 2006 and Talk:Deaths in 2005.

Causes of death

Please stop linking every single cause of death, even when someone else died of the same thing two names up. There's absolutely no need, it's just difficult-to-read overlinking and most of the time it doesn't even seem to be done properly (FYI: "heart attack" redirects to myocardial infarction, as you can see from the one that's already linked). Thanks tomasz. 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it is policy not to wikilink the same expression more than once in the same article. In this situation, however, I don't agree that all of the deaths occurring on one day constitute an "article" in the usual sense. Some relevant issues here:

1. Many readers would focus on only one death, and not need or want to look elsewhere for a link to explain that person's cause of death.

2. When a second death with the same cause on one date is entered, the author may not necessarily be aware that a linked cause has already been entered for that date. (Articles generally have one original author; deaths on a given date do not).

3. Which cause of death should be linked? The one that appears first in alphabetical order? The one that was entered first, even if that person's name begins with Z?

I support the notion that every cause of death should be linked, as that is more reader-friendly and easier to maintain in this situation.

Concerning heart attack, I think it is rather pompous that the main wiki article is called myocardial infarction. The term heart attack is much more widely used and understood within the general community. By way of contrast, there is a primary entry called stroke, not the medical term cerebrovascular accident. When I convert an obit into a notable death, it is not a normal reaction to read heart attack and think "oh, I must enter it as an M I ...". WWGB 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a particular opinion either way, but if we do decide to delink all but one cause, maybe we can do the same for things like "American," "British," "boxer" etc. Just reduce them to one instance. Canadian Paul 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

References

I have previously stated this in Talk:Deaths in 2006, but I think that instead of external links, we should have references. --Thelb 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so big on having the references here. A good number of the people have articles, and in those is where (in my opinion) we should do the full {{cite}} ref. If we do it here then the already very long list by the end of the month will be a very very very long list. Syrthiss 13:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See my test page. It won't end up that long (much shorter than the page itself will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 (talk • contribs)

You've proved my point exactly - on your test page, the references take up as much space as the death notices and thats only for the first ~week of the month. With one reference per death notice at minimum, we'll have a page that is twice as long. Syrthiss 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The test page looks impressive, but many contributors to Deaths struggle with the present structure. I can foresee very messy referencing that will need very frequent cleanups. What do you see as the benefits of referencing on this page, over the present format? WWGB 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It adds more information about a source, rather than just seeing , for example. Currently, you don't know what website it was on, who wrote it, etc.--Thelb 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I've just seen Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, and it says that if you use the current method, you have to reference it at the bottom anyway. --Thelb 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mouseover an embedded html link you can see the URL at least, and the WP:REF is a guideline, not policy. I don't really care either way, but WWGB has a good additional point to my argument. If we do include foot-references and people dont use the cite template and ref, are process wonks going to go yell at them on their talk pages? Syrthiss 12:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just reiterating my opposition from Talk:Deaths in 2006.

: look better on this page (also in reference to Syrthiss' point about the enormity of the page under a ref system) and are easier to understand for a greater amount of editors. The page is extremely fast-moving and refs would be much harder to do logistics on (per WWGB). And we still don't need to fix what isn't broken. tomasz. 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Thelb4. I know you're just trying to improve the quality of the page. Maybe going through old Deaths in XXX YY pages and converting them to bottom references is the way to go, as its unlikely after a month or so after-the-fact that anyone would be adding new references. Syrthiss 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, should I go and work on some old ones, then? --Thelb 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a relative newby to this - but my vote would be to leave things as they are. I'm very pleased with the current look of the embedded html link versus a reference. Tom M. 14:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think inline references are the way to go, here.. for example, what if somebody wanted to print off the page? all they have are numbers.. you can't mouse-over something in a print out. and the argument that they will take up too much space isn't a good one.. haven't you seen any featured articles lately? it's better to be thourough. 131.111.8.104 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive correction

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)

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)

Notable death citations in languages other than English

The addition of a Russian-language video link for Murat Nasyrov caused me to reflect on the relevance of references in languages other than English. Should a death be reported on the English-language Misplaced Pages site even though there are NO English references to the death? Perhaps in such cases the reporting of the death should be limited to the Misplaced Pages site in the first language of the deceased? How "notable" are these people outside their own country? WWGB 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

generally in the past we've allowed non-English references for people considered notable where no English-lang ref can be found at the time. It used to be that people would delete the (French), (Russian) etc. source-language tags, which was nightmarish. we'd usually replace them with an appropriate English source as soon as one can be found tomasz. 14:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the first reporting of the death is in a language other than English, as was the case for Mr. Nasyrov. Later, however, we are often able to get an English-language reference, even though the quality may not be the best, e.g., " http://allrussiannews.com/news/20-january-2007-in-moscow-the-crooner-murat-nasyrov-was-lost.html " I think the death should be reported in the English Misplaced Pages site with whatever reference is available, and then upgrade (to English) the reference when available. Que-Can 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are people who speak foreign languages, and we don't want to ignore them, do we? So where's the problem? Why a direct link to the German Misplaced Pages article on Gerhard Bronner was removed twice is beyond my grasp. And why was the reference to Jennifer Strange deleted? We cannot rule over life and death here, only report it. <KF> 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Strange achieved nothing notable during her lifetime. Any notability flowed from the manner of her death. Her Misplaced Pages entry is under consideration for deletion for the same reason. Concerning foreign languages, this is the English language section of Misplaced Pages. If someone is fortunate enough to speak a second language, they are always welcome to visit the Misplaced Pages portal for that language. WWGB 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to sound rude, but I consider the above statement an expression of narrow-mindedness. I can well imagine that it will find its supporters, but I don't believe that it is universally acknowledged among Wikipedians that foreign language sources should be generously ignored, the prime motivation being the reliability of information presented here. If someone is unfortunate enough never to have mastered a second language, someone else will surely be able to verify the content. After all, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort.

On a sidenote, I wonder how American tourists would react if, on a visit to Vienna, Austria -- the city I'm writing from -- , they were constantly reminded when they address someone in English that "this is Austria, we speak German here".

As far as Jennifer Strange is concerned, are you going to put up Guy Goma and Arthur Winston for deletion as well? Best wishes, <KF> 09:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to WWGB) A second language? For many people actively using and editing English-language Misplaced Pages, English is a second language. Nevertheless, they might prefer this Misplaced Pages to their language one, or work on both, or whatever. But this being a Misplaced Pages in English has nothing to do, for what I was led to understand, with notability of people and stuff. If a Norwegian writer or a Moroccan song is notable, it is notable whether we cover it in English-language Misplaced Pages or any other one. Or, perhaps, there are Wikipedias with other guidelines, but one of the main policy of this wiki is WP:NPOV, and cultural and national bias is a tendency to avoid, not a policy to enforce... --Goochelaar 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is the point: if the Norwegian writer is only notable to Norwegians, is that notable enough for this list? A lot more Norwegians are notable to Norwegians than to the rest of the world, so of course there is not only one standard of notability. If the death is not reported in English somewhere in the world, then probably the person isn't "en.wikipedia.org-notable". ESPECIALLY when no one has even been bothered to write an article telling the world why the person is notable! 80.225.0.12 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-references

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Specialized Sites

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)

What is "standard length"?

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)

Nationalities

Please include the deceased's nationality and link to the page on his/her country of origin between the person's age and reason for notability (like it says right at the top of the page in the instructions for formatting entries). Someone keeps insisting on placing the nationality notation in parentheses at the end of the entry (i.e. (Lithuanian), (Italian)), making more work for the others who have to rework each of these improperly formatted entries. Finduilas 09 11:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I insist on placing "Lithuanian" at the end of the entry, since that refers to the language of the citation. It is NOT a reference to the nationality of the person. WWGB 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

so i suppose the Brazilian football player was supposed to be Brazilian and Portuguese, then? schoolboy error. tomasz. 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(English/British)We have an Alan Ball listed as "English", then an Arthur Milton listed as "British". Both are described as English in their respective articles. I suggest deciding on one term or the other, for the sake of consistency. "English" would be more specific, but "British" might be be more appropriate as an indicator of national rather than ethnic identity. ***Looking at past deaths, I see that "British" is the standard (correctly so, I think). One other question, then: What about Victor Kneale (April 8), listed as "Manx"? Shouldn't that be "British", or is the Isle of Man considered politically and/or geographically separate enough from Great Britain for this distinction?

British is always used here instead of English, Welsh etc. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom so Manx is appropriate. WWGB 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Isle of Mann is a part of the UK, it certainl;y is neither an independent state nor a part of any other country, SqueakBox 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you make of British Islands, which contradicts your assertion? WWGB 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Very different person

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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links). Hope this helps, Goochelaar 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Helps a great deal! Thank you. And the Manual of Style is very helpful to bookmark. I appreciate your quick response. Tom M. 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of template

I noticed and fixed alot of recent articles (within the past five days) of people who died that were not tagged with {{recent death}}. 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)

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)

Based on the wording of the {{recent death}} 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)

Wikilinks

Greetings, might I ask why people use WIKILINKS when the article doesn't link to anything? People, please! Functionality! There is NO need for a link, and in fact it is inefficient to do so, if there is nothing at the other end. Worse, articles that could be written aren't because people assume that since there's a link, there must be an article.

Now, maybe I've done it too, out of habit or simply following the herd. May I suggest that everyone STOP adding Wikilinks unless there's something to link to or you plan to start the article in the next few minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

i have just spotted this and have to completely disagree with it. people use wikilinks when the article doesn't link to anything because (a) it's a generally good assumption that anyone who deserves a mention on Deaths in 2007 deserves an article, as being important enough to warrant one is generally enough for the other. (b) if such an article doesn't exist, a redlink informs people that it doesn't exist while also implying that it should.

yeh? who assumes that, precisely? surely since the link is red, they assume precisely the opposite.

you may. i for one am going to disregard your suggestion. tomasz. 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

? and Circas

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 {ł_talk} 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rounded-up/Overstated Ages

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 {ł_talk} 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Asian age counting

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 {ł_talk} 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I just proposed the following wikiproject Misplaced Pages: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)

sign me up! tomasz. 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Biggest killer

What is the average way to die nowadays? -Yancyfry 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no possible way to answer this without clarifying what you mean. Also, this should be asked at the Misplaced Pages:Reference Desk - possibly Miscellanous, possibly Science, possibly Mathematics. JackofOz 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I mean average disease. --Yancyfry 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

Shouldn't the external links posted next to the names be changed into actual references as stated in Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, rather than straight external links? — The Future 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed previously. See above: Talk:Deaths in 2007#References. WWGB 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Notability

An editor has persisted in abbreviating the entry for a number of recent deaths, paring back to terms like "academic" or "television presenter". The guidelines for this section ask for a "reason for notability". These people are not notable merely for holding the above positions, but because they were the first female chancellor, first television presenter etc. Some extra wording is therefore essential. WWGB 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Comer, a murderer, is listed under this article "Deaths in 2007" because he was executed. In the USA, about 50 convicts are put to death each year, and many more individuals are similarily dispatched in other countries. When does an executed person become notable enough to be listed under Deaths in 2007? Should Robert Comer be included? He is included under List of individuals executed in Arizona, but perhaps he's not notable enough for this article and should be deleted.Que-Can 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal belief is, if any death notice is a "blue wikilink" then it stays; if a "red wikilink" (and it does not turn blue after a few days) then it should be considered for deletion. I think there are too many non-notables on the list at present. WWGB 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:WWGB that there are too many non-notable persons listed here, especially those with red Wikilinks. If a person who has just died does not already have an article written about them, perhaps it should be up to the editor who enters the death listing in this article to create an article about the deceased, immediately or within a period of time - 72 hours, for example. Just a thought... Hurrmic 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to go along with that... 72 hours to create a blue link... or consider the person not-notable. Tom M.

That's the general measure of notability on other lists. Sounds perfectly reasonable. --Monotonehell 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages is not yet so all-encompassing that it has an article on every single notable person in the history of the world. I've created articles on notable people who've come into my current consciousness only because they've just died, I was already aware of their place in history, and I've noticed that we didn't yet have an article on them. Seeing them on this page is often where I find out that they've died. I'm sure many others have done the same thing. Instituting a 72-hour or any other arbitrary cut-off point here would do damage to the ongoing capture of names of people we need to have articles on. There's nothing wrong with red links - they're there for a purpose. But that said, the issue remains of whether or not an executed person is notable for that reason alone. In general, I'd say no. So, I'd support the removal of names of executees who have no other claim to notability, but I would not support the removal of all red links just because they stay red for an arbitrary period of time. -- JackofOz 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz: This has come up in discussions on many lists before, where generally the weight of "spam" type redlinks was so heavy that the consensus was to remove all redlinks. The reasoning was that if someone wanted the name in the list so much they would be further motivated to create an actual article which would then be exposed to possible ProDs. I see your point here though, and it's a valid one. I guess it will come down to what I just mentioned, if the problem becomes so great that an arbitrary cut off needs to be made. --Monotonehell 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Monotonehell. I watchlist a number of lists that contain various redlinks, and nobody seems to have a problem with them. "Spam" edits are easily identified and are quickly removed, leaving only valid redlinks, just waiting for someone to create articles out of them. They serve as a reminder that an article on person X doesn't exist yet, and they may well be on various editors' "to do" lists. The reasoning you referred to above is not one that I would have supported. Creating a decent stub - by which I mean not just one short para with the person's name, dates, and occupation - involves quite some writing, and identification of citable sources, and it takes effort and time to put together. Not every editor has the skills, time or desire to do such work; but they can still be of service to Misplaced Pages by adding a valid name to a relevant list, which takes 5 seconds. It's then up to the "team" to do something about creating and building the article. That team may well include the editor who made the redlink, but it need not. -- JackofOz 02:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that 72 hours is rather short for an article to appear. I was thinking more of, say, one month. So on 30 June, for example, it might be seen that there are still redlinks for 30 May (currently Andrej Reiner and Cacho Tirao). If no article was written within the month, then it's death to the death notice. I have cleaned up Deaths in January 2007 to see what a tidy month can look like. WWGB 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks excellent. One month seems a very reasonable time also. tomasz. 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

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 _{r e s e a r c h} 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Notability questioned

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 Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. Tom M. 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tfmurphhk (Tom M). I don't think you are wrong to question the notability of James Capozzola. The fact that there is no Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

News feed

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)

6:00 PST : Castro Dead. 6:05: Castro not dead

Wow! Misplaced Pages has the power to bring back the dead! All it took was a reload of the page!

How Reliable is this? There's not even a source at the moment

• Redirect-Class biography pages
• WikiProject Contents pages