Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Guidelines for parenthetical credits

This is sparked by the Marvin Hamlisch discussion above. I am wondering why this page does not institute a "policy" (for lack of a better word) where no credits at all are listed parenthetically by the names of the deceased. We can just list the person and his occupation (i.e., reason for notability) in as brief and succinct a manner as possible. And, as always, people can link to the article to get more details. Is there any reason that such is not presently the policy? And would this "bare bones" approach cause any problems? I am just exploring the idea and would like to see if I am "missing" something. As an example, we would simply list "John Smith, actor" instead of "John Smith, actor (Film A, Film B, Film C)". The same would hold for singers, directors, sports stars, politicians, authors, and anyone else. I don't see what information would be "lost", as all of the key information would exist at the person's main article. Also, these people are (typically) famous enough that most people know their most noted works, anyway. Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, or input? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it emulates (is that the word?) their work, mostly the notable ones can't fit whole filmog's, disco's in. So Hamlisch's The Way We Were was a highly accoladed piece, so it makes sense to note that on his death marker. The problem above wasn't really a problem, but i only got a little picky about the selections. I have an OCD issue about additions. Rusted AutoParts 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I am not talking about Hamlisch, in specific ... I am referring to the issue, overall, in general. I think we should list all entries as bare bones ... just a list with name, age, nationality, notability, and cause of death. Anything beyond the "bare bones" obituary information (i.e., specific credits, titles, offices, works, etc.) can be found in the decedent's article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Then what's the point? Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I laughed when I read this ^, Rusted AutoParts. Next, someone will want to take away the Cause of Death addition, since it should be listed in their article (which most aren't, by the way).

I think of the parentheticals (my word) as informative, in case readers don't know the person but know their "work". Someone may not know Hamlisch, but know a movie he has done the music for without noticing it was him. Most would know that Ernie Borgnine was Marty in Marty. Moreso, I think going the generic way would lessen the impact of the listing. Also, keep in mind the similarity in names. If there are 3 actors named John Smith, visitors would actually need to go to the particular John Smith page to see which one. If the movie/TV show is listed here, it would save that hassle. I would rather be courteous enough to list the work and haggle over the proper listings rather than force someone to wonder if it's the same John Smith they were thinking of. But I'm generous like that. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WylieCoyote, your comments make a lot of sense. I never thought of some of the points that you brought up (which is why I raised this as a question, in the first place). And I agree with much of what you say. Thanks! As to the other (unsigned) editor, your snide comments are less than helpful. I won't bother to reply to your "attitude". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The unsigned editor was also Wylie, but i do agree with him as well on his points. Rusted AutoParts 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

By the formatting of the postings, it looked like there were two separate replies up above (one from an unsigned person and the next indented one from WylieCoyote). Sorry about that. So, we all agree on the general idea. The next question is whether – or how – to create some consensus about these parenthetical credits. Or should we just deal with it on a case-by-case basis? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the reply format. I was going to fix it but thought it had some sense of flow. (Both were separate additions.) As for the format vote, I'll add a subsection. — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Add as-is, omit, or alter format (VOTE)

(Voting process: "As-is" means leave it alone, "omit" means no parenthetical works, "alter format" means only adding parentheses in exceptional cases like for similar "familiar" names.)

As is, as per my comments above, mainly: if someone with similar name and profession died, listing would specify with work in parentheses (proper work, as is discussed above with Hamlisch, notwithstanding). — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Second the motion, per Wylie. Rusted AutoParts 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on! I am confused! What does "as is" mean? The situation ("as is" right now) ... as I understand it ... is that we address it on a case-by-case basis. Correct? Are you now changing that to a new system ... where we only add parenthetical credits when it is unclear/ambiguous as to which specific person died (i.e., two or more people with the same name)? And when it is a unique name (like, say, Sylvester Stallone ... with no ambiguity), then we list no credits at all? I am confused by your post immediately above. Please clarify what "as is" means ... and what your proposal is ... and what we are voting on exactly. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1) "As is" = don't change a thing. 2) The vote is what you, JAS, have asked for, I think. 3) As with the cite mess (my analogy), whenever major traditional changes occur on this page, formats almost never get followed. If we change it to not include parenthetical works/occupations, the next person adds parentheses and vice versa. 4) My vote, as stated, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I now understand, thanks to all of your replies. Except your reply #4. I thought that it was "broke" (per the Hamlisch discussion above). Which is why I opened the topic up for discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of the deceased's work is a different topic of discussion/vote than what to include (possibly an extension of alter format?). While not listing them at all would eliminate the hassle of edit wars as to what to include, it's still better than the extra guess work and having to navigate to that person's page (if there is one) to differentiate between Person A and B. —

Personally, I myself have seen more problems with edit wars over which credits to list ... far more than disambiguating two people of the same name. That has been my experience. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Of which, if the above discussions are any indication, not too many people are concerned. (Rest of comment moved to FAQ topic) — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This does not seem to be much of an "issue" (until the next edit war surfaces). I guess that we all have bigger fish to fry. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am (and so it appears for some time now, is WWGB). The constant edit warring (over what should, or should not be included, in 'their works') that inevitably follows someone of global significance dying, is a source of concern to me. I feel it does not do Wikipedia's credibility any good, if constant inclusion and exclusion of deemed 'significant credits' regularly occurs. My view is that it would be easier, and consistent, if this was left to the individual's own article to list them. For my money, the chances of two 'John Smith's' dying on the same day, and thus causing confusion is so remote, that it simply clouds the bigger issue. The truth is that, with due respect to all contributors, I am more than confused as to what option I am seemingly been asked to vote for. Perhaps it is just me.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding two actors (for example) with the same name - they don't need to die on the same day to cause confusion. If one has died and there are no credits to differentiate one from the other, the reader will have to click to see which of them has died. Like DRB though, I don't see an option to vote for that actually addresses the problem of arguments over parenthetical credits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sooo, we have two who don't know what to vote for? I'll re-iterate. Keep things as they are, remove the parentheses all together (which will may also confuse people who list things like sports teams), or only have "exception links" (which would probably be rare). It has nothing to do with "two John Smiths dying on the same day". Two actors named John Smith have two separate articles. If both are actors (of the same age), we would have to visit their page to see exactly who it is (by removing the parentheticals). I always thought the point of Wikipedia was to make things simple for the visitors? By only listing names and no works/occupations, a visitor would have to visit that listing's respective page, adding another step. I've seen names on here that I must link to, because nothing was listed, to see how I know the name — age, country, generic title, and COD doesn't always work. As in the case of Marvin Hamlisch, when I saw he died (which was first seen here), all I had to do to remind myself of what he did was look in those parentheses. This issue, like the cite mess earlier, makes me not want to contribute to this page. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Deaths FAQ

I have seen so many requests for a FAQ on this page that someone should get on that. Myself, I am a mere toddler when it comes to Wikipedia and the Deaths article that I don't think I could tackle that particle FAQ, but I suppose I could start one? Here's the issues I have seen the past 9 months:

• alphabetization
• bare URL vs. full cites
• entry's notability
• redlinking
• parenthetical works/occupations

Any others? And should it be a boxed page FAQ, with empty cite formatting to copy-paste and fill in? Alphabetizing the entry should be self-explanatory, just by looking at the page, but can be included. Yes, I understand that we could have bells and whistles around the FAQ box and someone will STILL add something wrong. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Other issues that seem to surface: correct phrasing for causes of death (e.g., "traffic collision" versus "car crash" versus "car accident", etc.); what is/is not acceptable as a cause of death (natural causes, etc.); whether or not certain titles and/or suffixes are included with the name (i.e., "Sir", British honorary suffixes, and such); whether deceased animals/plants are included; whether a link may be piped or the decedent must have his own specific article; etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, alphabetizing is actually not as self-explanatory as it may seem. For example, whenever I see a Spanish name or a Chinese name, I never know which is the first name or the last name ... and I never quite know the "rules" for which name is used as the alphabetic character in such cases. In some languages (I want to say, Spanish and Chinese, but I am not 100% sure), it seems that they do it "backwards" and alphabetize by the first rather than the last name. These "odd" methods are often listed with a hidden comment in the edit space, indicating the correct letter used to alphabetize. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

True about the alphabetizing. I recently created an awards article that listed Cote de Pablo as a nominee. All websites had her listed under "P", but I always thought the "de" in a surname went under "D", which is how I listed her. And this FAQ is going to be H-U-G-E(!), which is why it might need an article, rather than a section. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to add to the FAQ: listing names that auto-redirect to others. For example, Joey Kovar. If the person is not notable enough to have their own page, the name should be listed as, again for example, Joey Kovar (reality show star) or something to that extent. I also saw it for Gregory Ulas Powell. I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but it is kinda irritating. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this issue comes up frequently. I mentioned it above in my post. I stated, among other examples, "whether a link may be piped or the decedent must have his own specific article". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Expanding entries

Given that these lists aren't limited by any space constraints, is there a need for the entries to be so concise? Besides looking (in my opinion) rough and unfinished, the forced brevity also results in awkward sentence fragments ("after long illness", "train impact") and easter egg links (bomb blast, plane crash), and sparks debates over which of an individual's achievements are the most significant or worthy of mention. I've been thinking about expanding some of the past lists to provide a more complete summary of who each person is and how they died (as an example, compare Deaths in May 2006 to my expanded version). I'm not proposing that we adopt this format for recent deaths, just asking whether it's the direction we want to be heading for the stable lists. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect your commitment to the project, however, I wonder if you are undertaking a major task that will not be used by many. Once the current month and year pass, there is not a great deal of interest in the historical pages. Deaths in May 2006 is currently viewed by less than 30 readers per day [1]. It seems like a lot of work without much "payoff", given that the expanded content is already available in the deceased's article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There are already problems with these pages being too big for users with slow internet connections or mobile browsers. Expanding the entries will make the problem worse.--Racklever (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And this is just a list. If the person was concerned over the details, they could always open up the main article. There are also space commitments because of the new linking system that affect some users.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB, Racklever, and Sunnydoo. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that if person wanted more detail, the person could just click on the link (unless it were a red wikilink). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "Crash"

Here I go tilting at windmills again. If you look at the definition of the word "Crash" in regards to moving objects- the definition is "to collide, especially violently and noisily." This assumes two things- first that there is a collision and secondly that it is of a loud and violent nature. Now as dispassionate observers we cant necessarily conclude the second part is valid unless it involves a large object such as a plane striking the Earth (and even then how loud does loud have to be? That said an explosion would probably quantify).

That is why there has been movement away from crash towards "Collision" for Cause of Death because it is the first part of the definition. Citing a couple of examples today, a racing bicyclist and separately a racing motorcyclist both lost control and went over the edge of a hillside. A bicyclist going off of a ravine while tragic wouldnt necessarily make a lot of noise- so it cant be a "crash" even if you can accept the fact the "collision" part was with the Earth.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Red links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that deaths that have red links should not be allowed as this page is "a list of notable deaths" (my emphasis). If the article is red linked, it must not meet WP:N. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 18:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. The applicable guideline is WP:LSC, which discourages excessive inclusion of red links, but allows red links "if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." I think that WP:NOT#NEWS also applies here to some extent. So I don't think that there can be a blanket prohibition against red links on this page. (Also the fact that there is a red link does not prove that the subject fails WP:N. On the other hand, an AfD decision to delete would amount to proof.) But I do think that there can be a rather stringent expectation that, whenever a red link shows up, it is likely that there will either be a biography page about the person, or an event page about the death, that will be created in the near future, and the WP:BURDEN falls on the editor(s) who want to include the red link. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. Some redlinks, I have noticed, are also of people from other countries who have died. They may have listings in their native-language Wiki but not here. I think that is why they are listed here, as Tryptofish stated, in case someone creates an English article for them. Editors have the entire month plus 7 days into the next one to create an article for them and notability can be verified then. When the current month passes and receives its own articles, the redlinks are removed from the page here and in the new article. (For example, Deaths in June 2012, which was just created, has none.) Besides, there are also some other random articles with red links as well. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Thanks. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Remain. By long-standing consensus, redlinks remain until one month after the date of death. Many redlinks have been converted to articles after appearing here. There are wikignomes who remove each redlink one month after death. Having a one month "amnesty" stops arguments over whether the deceased is notable, despite not having an article. Being a redlink does not guarantee the deceased is not notable. Some redlinks have been restored to Deaths in June 2012. The redlink expires one month after the subject. WWGB (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Retain red links for the one month grace period (in other words retain the status quo). The links are helpful for article creation, especially with regard to foreign language individuals who clearly meet our notability requirements. As this process allows for expansion of Wikipedia (which is why we're here after all) I support it fully. The red links are vetted for potential notability and any obvioiusly non-notable and WP:NOTMEMORIAL type entries are removed in short order. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Status Quo. This again? Its amazing the number of articles that are generated off of red links. Just in the last 6 weeks I have seen scientists who made huge discoveries from the 40s, 50s and 60s have articles written on them, numerous musical artists and quite a few international dignitaries. One of these days if Wiki figures out a way to link all the pages together from all of the different languages so that there is 1 article for a person, it might be possible- but that day is not today. Leave the process alone. Sunnydoo (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfect example from the weekend. E.V. Thompson an English author of over 20 books didn't have an article written about him even though he had won 2 literary prizes. Additionally he was awarded an MBE for his contribution for the arts. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket prohibition, for mostly the same reasons as Tryptofish. Redlinks are ok sometimes, and wikipedia is not complete; if an entry meets notability with a reliable citation, then, under the current inclusion criteria, it should stay whether or not it has an article. That being said, I disagree with the current process of forcing redlinks to stay on the page for 30 days even when the subject isn't notable. I would entirely support re-evaluating that process, and would urge future contributors to this page to be judicious in their inclusion of redlinked entries which may not meet WP:N. As with other discussions, I'd also urge editors participating in this RfC not to oppose "because it's worked well for a long time", or similar. That's not a strong argument.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Retain redlinks for one month, as we do now. A redlink does not denote lack of notability. It denotes lack of an article, nothing else. Give people a month to write an article before removing the entry, aside from obvious non-notable memorial entries etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - While I don't have an opinion on whether the names themselves belong if there's no article, I do think that if there is no article then the name should not be wikilinked. This is because red links to personal names should be avoided per WP:REDNOT, because of BLP issues if someone created an article with the same name about a different person. - SudoGhost 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (RfC comment), per WP:RED (and WP:LSC per Typtofish). A red link don't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable. It means that an article (on a possibly notable subject) han't yet been written. -- Trevj (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have created an article that was about someone notable who didn't have a page yet. So leave the redlinks in and then delete after the usual period. Nasnema  Chat  18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Retain redlinks for one month, sounds sensible. There are many WP biographies that are sourced primarily from obituaries. After all, when someone dies their contribution is usually appraised. There are restrictions on WP to adding redlinks of living people to lists, but this obviously doesn't apply to the deceased! Sionk (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the restriction is on personal names, whether the person is alive or dead is irrelevant (and BLP applies to the recently deceased as well). - SudoGhost 06:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I added David Barby to the list about 10 hours ago. His name got a red link. Now he has an article which I didn't contribute to. Textbook case of why the motion is wrong. And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Retain for a month or so per comments above. CarolMooreDC 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether we should allow red links here always seems to surface from time to time - in fact, it seems not beyond sanity to have an entry about this at Wikipedia: Perennial proposals. The first time I read this suggestion made, I strongly opposed it - my example was Rose Gray. I pointed out that this had been a red link initially, but the person was surely notable (her death was mentioned on the news on BBC Radio Four). I made an article, and soon, people had worked very hard on improving the article, on Rose Gray. So, I still feel that we should oppose any suggestion that red links should not be allowed here, and it would any proposal to implement this policy would, I feel, meet with opposition. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint

I must say I HATE the way the page scrolls down when you click on the the source article now. I know why it was done sort of, but it sure made things way more complicated. It seems to me WIKIers make things fit the policy instead of making policy fit the way people actually use and read pages. Williamb (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It does this when you click on the number of the reference, as is standard on any Wiki article. If you hover over the number, the actual cite should appear near the number on the listing, allowing you to see/click the cite. Mine does, anyway. Hope that tempers your anger. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012

September 11: Raner, 26, Brazilian footballer, heart attack.

August 31: Guy Léonard, 65, Belgian footballer.

September 2: Victor Brännström, 29, Swedish footballer, heart attack.

 Done previously.

Sixpeo (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As a registered editor is it not possible to make your own edits? WWGB (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: only because the requesting editor should be able to make these edits him/herself. If this is not the case please re-activate the {{edit semi-protected}} tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all a bit harsh - Sixpeo had only 6 edits when they started editing this section - so, as the page is semi'd, they could not make the edits themself. Although Sixpo had reached 10 edits by the time they had finished editing this section, they may well not have realised this, or known the autoconfirmed rules and implications. May I remind you of WP:DONTBITE. Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hal David

Do we not list parenthetical works anymore, or are there too many to narrow down and list for him? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If we use EmmyGrammyOscarTony awards as the benchmark, then "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head" stands out. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Raindrops definitely as it was a #1 and nominated for an Oscar. I would say that (They Long to Be) Close to You should also go. Was a huge #1 for The Carpenters and is in the Grammy Hall of Fame for Songs. If we did a 3rd credit, I would nominate "What the World Needs Now," because of so many pop culture references from Austin Powers to the Simpsons. Sunnydoo (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Simply showing one song may suggest to readers that it was the only song for which he was well-known, and "Raindrops..." is not even necessarily his best-known (its awards may have reflected the need to recognise the accumulated successes of its writers over the years). I'd suggest adding "..."I Say a Little Prayer", "Walk On By", etc." But I'm more concerned about the need to show more than one song, than arguing over those specific examples. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"I Say a Little Prayer" only reached #4 on the Billboard chart. "Walk on By" charted at #6 and neither was a particular internationally well-recognized song. "Walk on By" is however in the Grammy Song Hall of Fame. We have been working to figure out a standard that could be applied to entertainers. Any input is and will be helpful.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about which songs are listed, but it should be more than one. In the UK, no version of "Raindrops" reached higher than #10. "...Prayer" reached #4, and "Walk On By" reached #7 - but "Anyone Who Had A Heart", "(There's) Always Something There to Remind Me" and "I'll Never Fall In Love Again", all made #1. Not easy to choose, but there should be more than one, or at the very least an "etc." so that we don't give the impression that he was a one hit wonder. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And now we have Joe South being listed with no fewer than four song titles. Can we develop some criteria, or guidelines, please, to guard against such obvious inconsistencies? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We need at least some minimal criteria. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's one idea. No matter (whatever) the huge scope of anyone's artistic achievements, no more than three to be listed here. I can not believe that that number is not sufficient to succinctly represent anyone's achievements, nor to remind those who are struggling, to recall that person. The link to the individual's own article should do the rest. Surely in this context, 'less is more'.

I do not disagree with you. However, won't that "rule" lead to the (inevitable) edit wars about exactly which three should / should not be listed? Just a thought. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference language

In the instructions, this format is given:

• Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, and reference (language of reference source, if not English).

However, the reference is normally cited with a <ref> tag, and the language should be within the reference, not a separate field outside it, right?

For example:

• Hebe Camargo, 83, Brazilian television presenter, cardiac arrest. (Portuguese)

...

References

should, instead, be:

• Hebe Camargo, 83, Brazilian television presenter, cardiac arrest.

...

References

Right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you said. For a long time, this page was formatted in the red manner above. Then – when the way that the page handled references was changed – the page was formatted in the green manner above. Then, suddenly, it changed again ... from the green manner above, back to the red manner above. I had meant to post a question about it, but I never got around to it. I am also curious why the "old" (incorrect) format was reinstated. Anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont think that any formal policy was ever implemented on it or stated about it. If you go back and look at April for instance, there are examples of both on the page. I think more than likely, it is the whim of whomever is editing the entry as to which way that it is done. I have always put it outside the ref tabs on my links. Arguments can be made for both forms. One side has the fact that is looks cleaner and you can mouse over for the link. The other side has the ability to look in a single glance at the subject or the language of the article to determine which link they want to look at. Dont think it makes a tremendous difference either way. And as Alan stated, the "Formula" line for the article needs to be updated if it is the former and not the latter. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A few months back, when we made the "big switch" in reference formats for the page, it was discussed that the red format up above should be changed into the green format (as far as the foreign language notations). I specifically made several dozens of these changes (i.e., changing those entries with the red format into the green format type entry). Then, a month or two or three later, things started to appear as a mixed bag. Now, it seems that there are more of the red formats and less of the green formats. In fact, several months back, we (some editor, perhaps it was I even?) specifically removed that "formula" line in the article intro, for this very reason. In any event, we should all agree on one consistent format, one way or the other. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Remember when we discussed the FAQ guideline thingy? On my sandbox, I actually had that "formula" included. As in: a hidden editor's note as to how to properly do the new cites which included the "language" clause.

The formula

<url>{{cite web|author= |coauthors= |title= |work= |publisher= |language= |date= |url= |accessdate= }}</url>

That formula is still in my sandbox as A:) I don't think many new people read the fine hidden print and B:) new policies either don't get followed or is taking a while to take effect. I think copy-pasting occurs and, if that copied cite does not have the "language"-included format, then it gets added the old way. But yes, the green way is the preferred way. However, the stated rule can be taken literally. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember your FAQ guideline ideas. So, a question ... if "green" (above) is the preferred way, why on earth does the article intro specifically state contrary (i.e., the format is: "Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, and reference (language of reference source, if not English)" ...? I am just curious. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a more proper way for the current listing to read should be "...cause of death, reference and language of reference source, if not English." But, if we had the green and an editor's note with the formula, this whole line would change. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the unclear part but they removed it altogether and just left "reference". I changed the wording to reflect that source language is STILL required! — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it, as a result of the above discussion. I can appreciate that you want to include some notation that a source's foreign language is still required. However, I do not like the way that you have phrased it. A Wikipedia article should be able to "stand on its own" (i.e., it should not be self-referential). Therefore, any mention of Wiki-computer mark-up codes (i.e., your mention of "(|language= )") is inappropriate to include within the article itself. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a "vote" to remove the instructions. However, since Joseph A. Spadaro does not like the way I added the new instructions, I will remove my new addition and just see how screwed up the page gets when non-English-speaking listings get put in and we cannot verify anything, due to not understanding their source. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that, if the user forgets to insert language=Portuguese in the cite, that makes it impossible to understand the source? If you speak Portuguese, you don't need that declaration to tell you it's in Portuguese. For that matter, if you have any exposure to non-English languages at all, you can almost always correctly guess the language of a source from the title, but if you don't speak that language, why does it matter? You can let "Google Translate" guess the language just as easily as selecting it. None of it solves the "problem" of people citing foreign sources (often when there is no other source available, at least in the ones in which I've been involved). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I really don't care anymore. If I see something "foreign" that is suspicious or non-notable, I will leave it for someone else to "translate". This is an English-wiki and if non-English editors can't make a simple adjustment, I'm not going to bother doing all those steps you list to verify. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple instructional cite formatting

Can we not list a simple cite template somewhere so that global Wikipedians can comprehend how to add things to this becoming-complicated page???

Such as: <url>{{cite web|author= |coauthors= |title= |work= |publisher= |language= |date= |url= |accessdate= }}</url>

Because I can promise that I will no longer fix "foreign" cites. We have enough trouble fixing reflinks anyway. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this page should be any different than other WP articles, requiring the user to correctly use the existing cite templates, or, if that's too much, the cite forms built into the editor. I don't get how removing a duplicative (of the language param in the cite template) field from the format makes things more complicated. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: It's not complicated to me, but I don't see how others cannot follow the simplicity of the changes. We still have some who use the old system/bare urls. But yes, my point is: why not have a code somewhere to assist editors who don't/can't/won't follow the simplicity? I have seen general cites in reference sections, cluing others in on where to look for things like television ratings, I just don't understand why a guideline code can't be installed. In this age of copy-pasting, one correct code would correctly lemming-ize this page. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Who says that it cannot be added? It certainly can be added into the "edit mode" part of the article ... perhaps within one of those invisible/hidden "comment" sections. I don't think it's appropriate to add it into the (visible) article itself, though. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish a window could pop up with the correct format, since, as I stated below and firmly believe, some editors overlook the "edit mode" notes. And I'm starting to wonder if the rest really care. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in September 2012

This is the first time I've ever done something with the page, but I had to split off Deaths in September 2012. If anybody wants to put up with the hassle of removing the September 2012 deaths from the main list, they're welcome to it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your intentions were good, however, please leave the monthly rollover to someone who knows exactly what to do. It is not appropriate to maintain two sites at the same time that both report Deaths in September 2012 (the original and the one you created). WWGB (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would've been willing to do just that, but every time I clicked on this page it took forever to load. I honestly thought a bot took care of this every month. --------User:DanTD (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And the correct time to do so would be at some point on the 7th of the month, as requested. As for the load times, that came with the new reference set-up earlier in the year which brought this page up to Wiki-standard, even though it is somewhat laborsome. I usually do the monthly Deaths page, but anyone can, as long as you know "exactly what to do". — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Seventh of the month, hmm? Clearly I missed this. My apologies. Other than that, was there something else I did or didn't do that I should've done? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you go into edit mode, just past the month and year, in this case: October 2012, you will see an editor's note (meaning: arrowed section) that says "Please note that, by consensus, expiring months are not collapsed until seven days of the new month have elapsed." As for the formatting of the monthly article, you didn't put them in numerical order, i.e. September 1 - 30. You just copy-pasted from this page to that, to name one example... This is a clear sign that most editors don't read the "fine print." — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved the September info today. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tables?

As long as we're wreaking havoc :) , how do people feel about tablifying these pages to make them easier to parse? The problem with the comma-separated format is that commas are used naturally within "fields" as well, which makes it difficult to parse which field is which in any automated fashion (as I recently had to do when researching deaths of oldest people in a country). An added side benefit may be that it is more obvious to someone when they get the format wrong or leave something out. I've constructed an example here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I proposed this exact idea several months back. If you know how to search the Talk Page archives, you can find the discussion. (I myself do not know how to search the archives.) My idea went nowhere. And, if I remember correctly, the objections were rather valid and actually did make sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did find it. See here: Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 1#Table format. Just because it was debated back then, of course, does not mean that you cannot bring the issue back up again. And, in looking back, it seems that that discussion and that decision were put "on hold" until the RfC (at that time) was completed. The RfC dealt with how this article should format references (inline versus the current method). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it's a test table, but even there the "language" in the cites are still wrong. That archive is only six months old. I would wager feelings about it would not change in that time. I know mine hasn't. Also, WWGB stated in that discussion: "The table is very wide, I wonder how it will look on narrow screens, especially handheld devices?" I've looked at my own userpage, which used to consist of a couple of tables, on a cellphone. It took me forever just to navigate that, I can imagine a table with 400 listings. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find a table format to be cold, impersonal and an overly-technical approach to a sensitive issue (death). We are building an encyclopedia, not a sortable research database. I don't think the readership would be too impressed with the suggested format. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB and Wylie on this. Table format is too busy with the repeating dates and the overall speed would be even slower than the current format, already of which many are complaining about. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, simplicity is best, but then I felt that way about the old way of sourcing. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. Sunnydoo (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Poulton

According to IMDB (http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm1386888/), Robert Poulton was born in 1960. No more specific birth date or age available. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical data such as birthdates. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This report gives his age as 55. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Knights

It has always previously been accepted that someone holding a British knighthood would be listed as 'Sir'. Yes, even Sir Jimmy Savile. Sir Stuart Bell had a knighthood conferred in 2004. I seek consensus to restore it to his entry on this page; this mirrors usual usage in the UK, as can be seen in the BBC News online story reporting his death where he is invariably referred to as 'Sir Stuart'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That has generally not been the accepted case here. WP:NCROY covers this- to wit- Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title: e.g. Arthur Conan Doyle, not "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" (which is a redirect). However, Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted, e.g. Sir Arthur Dean. There are many many examples of people in Parliament and others that have passed on and were listed here without this title and I see no reason to go back or to change the policy now. Sunnydoo (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes. I'm not discussing article titles. I'm discussing entries here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross purposes or not, why should entries here follow a different philosophy/styling to the individual's own article ? Note that it is listed as Jimmy Savile.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Every other Knight, Baronet or Dame who dies gets an entry on here headed 'Sir' or 'Dame'. Go to back entries and search for 'Sir'; there are usually about five a month. The only exceptions are those who themselves decided not to use their titles. There's no good reason the entry here should have to follow article naming rules. Wikipedia follows usual usage and In usual usage Knights are invariably known as 'Sir'. Invariably. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

True. Last month we listed the deaths of “Sir Andrew Crockett”, “Sir Yuet-Keung Kan” and “Sir Godfrey Milton-Thompson”, and in August we listed 7 of them. Why the sudden objections now? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is an earlier discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2007#Titles are not names. WWGB (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The WP convention is that people are recorded with the highest title they achieved. On the other hand, we discourage the inclusion of a knighthood in the article name, unless useful for disambiguating. The answer is thus that any list should include "Sir" either as a prefix to the article title or by piping. This will probably not come out in categories. This question will not normally arise with baronets (or peers), because by convention the article name normally includes the full title. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Another fight with June Blundell going on over these rules. Not going to weigh in on either side, but a consensus needs to be met and stick with it.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous people

With the death of actor Russell Means there is an interesting question. He was an indigenous person to the US much like an Aborigene in Australia. Since by and large the Indian Reservations manage their own land and have their own government within the US, shouldnt he be identified by his tribe? The announcement of his death was made public by a spokesman for the Oglala Lakota Sioux Nation. Sunnydoo (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

His page begins by calling him an "Oglala Sioux." I think those outside of the US would not understand what that is or where it is, without clicking that link. I personally think, while Native Americans have their own government, his death listing should be "American Oglala Sioux..." or even more simply "Oglala Lakota Sioux..." to be more proper. That wikilink will be clicked, nonethelsss. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a significant departure from current practice. We normally refer only to nationality, not race. We would only mention race if that was the reason for their notability, like

• Frank Chee Willeto, 87, American Navajo code talker in World War II. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of both. The Indian nations are pretty independent of the US government, but each tribe has to be sanctioned by the US government. So in a sense their nationalities and race is both American and Native. This individual in particular would have felt that it was an insult to be called an American, as he led an occupation against the US government at one point (and a lot of indigenous people feel like this and not just in the US). He also asked for the United Nations to recognize indigenous tribal nations as sovereign outside of the encapsulating nation. But many indigenous people also go the other way and proudly serve in both tribal and military capacities. It is an interesting case which is why I brought it up.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What if we did something like American Oglala Lakota Sioux actor and activist?Sunnydoo (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about you bringing up Race (which wasnt the intent), I will try to explain this a different way. Technically Indian Reservations are Territories of the US, even though they are within the borders. So yes, they would be American citizens. However, like people from Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas, Samoa, the Midway Islands and others (and those are just US territories, there are dozens of other territories of other governments in the World) would you identify them as Americans, as Puerto Ricans (for instance) or as American Samoans (for another instance). How exact would it have to be?Sunnydoo (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What about "Sioux" alone?--94.65.35.192 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sioux is not a nationality,it is an ethnicity. While some people may not like their nationality label, that's how the law recognises them. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok just to clarify for future purposes then, you are saying that instead of Samoan, Puerto Rican, etc. that we should list them as American citizens and not by their Territorial designation? I can live with that and understand that as long as the same standard is in place for everyone. This would also include places like the Falkland Islands, the Faroe Islands, etc.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no you are wrong. Those which you mentioned are not completely parts of the nation. Why no one is ever bothered when we call Hawaiians, Americans? Because Hawaii is a full part of the US. Puerto Rico isn't, so we say Puerto Rican. If Puerto Rico becomes the 51sr state, we'll start calling Puerto Ricans Americans. That's how it works.--94.65.35.192 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now there are opinions both ways. I agree with you that he should be classified as Oglala Sioux because Indian Reservations are territories like Puerto Rico and that self-autonomy is enough in a region to be called one thing or another. WWGB is maintaining that we call all American territories and all those other Countries overseas by their Motherland designation from what I am reading.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And please clarify the ethnicity thing. What makes a person Italian or Russian or Australian or American? Self-rule of government. The question is really "Is a territory which is semi-autonomous qualify for nationality status?" Besides the ones I mentioned earlier Kurds in Iraq/Iran, Gibraltar, half a dozen islands in the Caribbean, several islands around Australia, Diego Garcia and several other island chains in the World are all territories of various nations. Now as for American Tribal nations, they do enjoy there own semi-autonomous laws- take Gambling for instance. The Tribes have been making quite a bit of money from this because the Tribes fall outside the purview of the US Congress. The contact between the Tribal Nations and the US Government is through the US Department of the Interior specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The FBI cant even go onto tribal lands in an official capacity without permission. So I do think that the tribal nations qualify as semi-autonomous just as Puerto Rico has its own government and all the others as mentioned.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet again another Indian dies and its not handled the correct way (George Smith on Oct 30). Still waiting for someone to explain to me why we allow Puerto Rican and not whatever Indian Nation. They are both semi-automonous units within the United States. I am not Indian, but this is getting borderline offensive.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding new days

I feel that new days should not be added until a death has been confirmed, it's very rare that a notable death has been reported within 12 hours of the new day arriving in the Pacific and I think it looks stupid and unprofessional to have empty spaces below the dates for this amount of time Eagle2012a (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, for three reasons. (1) I do not think that it looks unprofessional. In fact, it actually gives the reader more information (i.e., that indeed no deaths have been reported for that date). (2) Typically, it is not very long that a date remains "empty"; the dates usually get filled up relatively quickly with at least one death notice. (3) If we followed your proposed idea, we could have the following situation (as an example). There is a death reported for October 10, but none are reported for October 9. In that case, we would have a listing for October 10, we would "skip" October 9 completely, and we would continue on with October 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. Having that "missing" or "skipped" date (October 9, with no deaths) would look even more unprofessional, I think. In fact, it would look like there was an error or a typo or some glitch (missing information) in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Things also get out of order quickly too. It happened twice about 3 weeks ago on a Wednesday and on a Saturday where the new day was not entered on time. People werent looking (and I was one of them) and all of the deaths for Friday and Saturday got combined for one day. It didnt take long to straighten out, yet it was a train wreck. One of the reasons I decided to be a little more proactive in getting the new date out there as soon as the time in Vanatu and Kiribati approached the midnight hour. Also one example where your 12 hour window failed I can give you from this week. Ashrahim Ali was killed around Midnight local time in the Maldives Tues Morning/Monday night. Within 2 hours CNN had the story and the whole world knew.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is also another thing that some people (newbies) don't know how to add (new days), so I consider adding an "empty" date a public service. Also, if you look at the main page edit history, some deaths don't get reported right away and added later, so October 4 will have some eventually, unless Death took a holiday today. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same exact joke. How strange it is to go almost 24 hours without a notable death. It seems there are 1 or 2 days every month where there are less than a handful of deaths. If something doesnt break loose in the next 8.5 hours, the 6th will arrive and we will have 3 days up with no listings.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sunnydoo, I do think you sometimes go too soon in adding a new day. The highest time zone is UTC+14:00, which means that a new day should not be added earlier than 1000 UTC. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I may be 60-90 mins ahead sometimes. If you look back at the last couple of days its +8.30 to 9.15 or right around there. I hate DST because it makes things so confusing, but it will soon be over with. I will add a Kiribati time clock to my desktop display to help monitor. Its also confusing because Kiritimati uses a different time zone part of the year than Kiribati and is 2 hours ahead even though they are both in 14.00. So right now its 2:45 local time in Kiribati and 4:45 local time in Kiritimati even though they are in the same UTC zone. Sunnydoo (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Daylight Savings Time this weekend. Will try to keep an eye on the time to make sure its not flipped too soon. Kind of wacky b/c like I said earlier Kiritimati isnt on DST but Kiribati is.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

They should be avoided. 79.243.204.206 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Example? WWGB (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Jo Dunne ?? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If Jo Dunne does not have an article in one month, the entry will be deleted. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Does every notable band have individual articles for each of the members? It seems that there are notable bands for whose members it is unnecessary to create individual articles, as they are not individually notable or the articles would really be nothing more than copies of information from the band article plus routine bio info (birth/death date/place, etc.). However, I would still expect to see deaths of the individual members appear in the Deaths articles because their death affects the (notable) band. No? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

They're likely search terms. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A new editor wanted to create an article for David Gold. He's tried and tried but the subject is just not notable outside of the band Woods of Ypres. I don't like a name redirecting to a band/work as it is a misdirection of sorts but, like WWGB says, they will be removed at the proper time when this occurs. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that it doesn't seem appropriate to remove them, even though they are not individually notable. Another current example is Lt. Col. Herbert Carter, one of the Tuskegee Airmen. My inclination would be to create a stub article for him if necessary, but that seems like unnecessarily "gaming the system". Linking to his mention in the Tuskegee Airmen article should be sufficient, though I can also see that creating a stub article (if it doesn't get deleted by the police) is more likely to result in a full article eventually. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A person might not be notable as an individual, but he/she might still be notable as part of a larger group (e.g., rock bands, the Tuskegee Airmen, etc.). I gave an example above (in a separate discussion) about Shields and Yarnell. Neither Shields nor Yarnell has an individual page, yet they both have that "duo" page due to their notability as a duo. When one of that duo dies (as one already has), is he/she disqualified from a listing here because he/she does not have an individual article? I think, in this case, both Shields and Yarnell should be listed in this article, despite the fact that neither one is notable as an "individual". What do others think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Deceased members of duos/partnerships/small groups probably warrant retention, for example, Lorene Yarnell and Panbanisha. Also, people who are notable "in character" like John Rovick. I don't think every Tuskegee Airman is notable, nor a member of a rock band just because his name article redirects to the band's article, like Gyan Singh. WWGB (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. OK, so some redirects are "allowed" (for "semi"-notable people like Lorene Yarnell) and some are not (for non-notable Tuskegee Airmen, for example). How do we distinguish between the two? How do we maintain some consistent policy or practice regarding redirects? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reporting "Death of X" cases here

There have been several cases recently where the death of a non-notable person has been considered a "notable death" and an article developed. For examples, see Death of Tia Sharp and Death of Sigrid Schjetne‎.

My question is: should such deaths be reported in this article? True, the deceased was not notable, but the circumstances of the death are considered notable. Should we list, for example, Tia Sharp and Sigrid Schjetne‎ on the Recent deaths pages?

Opinions? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Playing the Devil's Advocate a second, this opens the can of worms for notable events. In the case of the recent deaths of the South African miner's or every plane crash that happens or every terrorist bombing of building x or things like the Aurora theatre massacre, you will have a list of non-notable people who died a notable death.

It may also give ammunition to those who dont like the redlinks. My thought is just keep the current process regarding the notability of people. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Sunnydoo that we don't want an entire passenger roster of maybe 300 names after a plane crash, even though the plane crash will probably merit its own article. However, when an individual's death is that notable that it merits its own article, as with Tia Sharp and Sigrid Schjetne‎, I think there is more merit in its inclusion, than exclusion. If there is an article, there is no redlink so this doesn't affect that argument.

I don't know if there has been any research into who looks at the older lists, and why, but if you can't remember say Tia Sharp's name, but remember she was murdered during the Olympic games, you can use the list to find her name - provided she is on the list. Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arjayay (above). If a non-notable individual has a notable death, that individual should be listed here on this deaths page. In fact, I thought that such cases already were handled in this manner! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they always have been, but another editor took exception here [2]. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasoning of user Rusted Auto Parts, in that link you provided. That's akin to saying that we cannot list the death of Lorene Yarnell, because there is no article about her specifically (i.e., individually); rather, there is only an article on her duo team (Shields and Yarnell). A silly argument, at best. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with User:Joseph A. Spadaro Rustie's edit summary "it's about the death, not the person and we categorize people here" is not my understanding of how this has ever worked. This is a list of deaths (not necessarily just people, as trees and racehorses are included) so we do not "categorise people here". Once someone is notable enough for their own article, even if the reason for that article is their death, (and Tia Sharp went through an AFD) they are ipso facto notable and should be included. If Tia Sharp had failed the AFD, I could support the exclusion, but it would have been a redlink so would have been deleted in any case. It is not for editors of this page to run a second selection process, parallel to AFD. - Arjayay (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a new question in regards to this. This week several people were executed in the US. There are more scheduled for next week. These people were all convicted of murder and were sentenced to die. Additionally, all of the US media outlets were reporting these deaths. Being executed should count as a "notable" death in a civilized society. Why would they be excused from even a 1 month redlink? Sunnydoo (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on your posting. In order to have a Wikipedia article, either the person himself has to be notable or the person's death itself has to be notable. I do not think that being a murderer per se makes the person notable (as there are literally thousands of murderers out there). I also don't think that being executed in the US necessarily makes the person's death notable per se (i.e., that happens with great frequency, relatively speaking). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

But executions only occur in 58 countries in the world. The largest places are China (over 4000), Iran (360), Saudia Arabia (82), Iraq (68) and the US (43) for 2011. So we are talking about whether 43 deaths (or about 3.5 deaths per month) are a notable way to die in the US. Considering the press coverage for most of these, I would say that they are notable. The other countries on the list dont really publicize their executions. Sunnydoo (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Most executed murderers were unremarkable in life, and they remain unremarkable in death, unless they have an article like Marvin Lee Wilson. Otherwise their non-reporting here is covered by WP:NOT#NEWS. Whilst I abhor capital punishment, others have tried to use these pages to mount a campaign against executions by reporting every instance, if only for one month. WWGB (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am actually for capital punishment. I am just trying to understand the difference. The Wiki policy states "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)" Wouldnt that preclude the notable deaths you were talking about? And wouldnt it be a multiple event if a person is executed with publicity from the trial and from the execution itself? Sunnydoo (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so Donald Palmer was executed recently. He doesn't have an article, and there is no indication of any particular notability. So he does not get listed here. On the other hand, if someone writes an article about him, and it survives speedy deletion, prod and AfD, then he gets listed here. WWGB (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also ... to Sunnydoo's point: While the phenomenon (or issue) may be notable, each and every incident of it is not necessarily notable. So, there is a notable situation (e.g., that the US is only one of 58 countries that carry out executions, that the US carried out 43 executions in 2011, etc.). That notable general topic is covered in the article Capital punishment in the United States. However, each and every specific one of the 43 executions is not notable per se. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This question is not a million miles away from that old chestnut which gets asked here from time to time - namely, should we have reports of deaths with people with red links here? My view on this, which I make clear every time this issue surfaces, is that I am quite strongly in favour of inclusion of red link people here - after all, there was Rose Gray listed here initially as a red link, but I started an article on her (she was notable enough for her death to be announced on the Radio Four news) and soon people had worked hard improving the article. So, I repeat - my policy is to keep inclusion of people with red links here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see these as two distinct issues. First, we have a person who may (or may not) be notable; he gets a red link; he is allowed to be listed on this page for a month. That is the situation that you are addressing. But, the question above relates specifically to a person who is not notable, even though the circumstances of his death are. What are you proposing in the latter case? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I refer everyone to the "feedback" link up top for this page. I have seen a lot of negative critiques of this page from different visitors because they haven't found who they are looking for. This could be for someone who is notable in their specific locale, but not notable to the world/Wikiworld. Same example goes for someone on a popular TV show dying who is only notable for that reason (the show, not the death). The COD should not be the reason for listing here. If someone chooses to make an article for their death, that's their right. Whether it lasts long is another issue. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: how about we only list people who had an artical before they died. To test this, the user reporting the death should PREVIEW their edit before saving it. Then: if the person in the preview pane is redlinked, the user cancels their edit of that death; if it's bluelinked the user can save their edit of that death. That way, redlinks will never appear on this page. By person I include animals, and by this page I include Deaths in 2013, 2014 etc. Memassivbeast (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with ^ this argument ^ is simply that someone who has died may not have an English Wiki yet, but has one in their native country. Just because they don't have an en-wiki doesn't necessarily exclude them from mentioning here, ergo "redlinks". Allowing redlinks for 37 days is not that big of deal and gives someone a chance to create one, if the deceased is notable. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a page on that person in their native language's page then an English version should be created. Then the link will be bluelinked. Memassivbeast (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically, if that person has a page about them in any ligitimate language then they get a mention, then they get bluelinked. They have a page because they are notible, not because they died or their cause of death was through a notable event. Memassivbeast (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Memassivbeast's proposal, which states: "Here's a suggestion: how about we only list people who had an artical before they died". This implies that all notable people already have an article, and that Wikipedia is not "missing" any notable people. Which, of course, is untrue. There are many notable people, about whom an article has not (yet) been created. Just because that person might die, that fact does not make their notability die along with them. So, I disagree with the proposal. That is, in fact, why we have that long-standing policy of allowing red links for 30 days. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

It seems to me that, every time I click on "Recent deaths", I am directed to the edit page for the Main Page, and have to try again. Is this happening to anyone else and can anyone explain it? Deb (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

American, Puerto Rican, and Indian

Since I know this is going to come up with Camacho today. Let me reiterate the point I made up top. If you classify Camacho as a Puerto Rican, you have to classify all indigenous US people with their tribe name from here on out (eg Sioux, Comanche, etc). Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth territory of the US and their citizens are granted automatic citizenship under a Congressional act (Jones-Shafroth_Act). They are semi-autonomous similar in status in every way to Indians, who govern themselves on their own reservations and are only ruled by treaties with the US government through the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs. Saying that Indians are an ethnic status wont cut it as you can say the same thing for Puerto Ricans within the US. Also check this Territories_of_the_United_States. Look at the right side in the column....Under State, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico then Indian Reservations. All on the same status point.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Random Filipino non-celebrities

Am I the only one noticing a VERY large number of famous people from/in the Philippines listed in this section, when no one outside the islands have ever heard of said people? --37.46.185.226 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia is called "global." — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I count 5 Filipinos all month- 2 red link musicians, 1 red link to an American community leader, 1 blue link Olympic member and 1 blue link Priest. Don't think that is terribly egregious especially since the Philippines has 92 million people in it. On the other hand, it has been a terrible month to be an Indian politician. Notoriety is notoriety- doesnt matter where it is at and how "Westernized" it is. If you qualify as a politician or musician or whatever, you qualify- doesnt matter on nationality.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is Celso Advento Castillo, CAWylie? --37.46.185.226 (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't add that person, but then I never heard of Tony Leblanc. That doesn't mean neither are notable in their own countries. — WylieCoyote (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am the one who added Castillo. Among other things, he won the Best Director award for the Philippines in 1978 (FAMAS). If you do a wiki search on his name, you will see him mentioned in no less than 25 different articles about various roles in other films. While I was running my search tonight, not only was his name mentioned in all 3 Filipino outlets, it was picked up by half a dozen other Asian wire services. Usually the combination of those things means someone is newsworthy and the why on why I added him.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

He also is listed on imdb, which is one of the major film database [[3]].Sunnydoo (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear about adding red-links here, which is what you seem to be up in arms about: The people listed may or may not have articles in their native Wikis. (Castillo doesn't.) We leave them on the main page for 37 days (the month added plus 7 in the next) for those who wish to attempt to make articles about them. Most of them end up deleted on the 37th day. Native readers may come here to see who has died that may be popular/notable enough to be mentioned. If that's an issue with anyone, feel free to open a consensus discussion about it. I can almost guarantee a large percentage will be on the Inclusion side. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Camacho death

(copied to Talk:Deaths in November 2012)

If the result of his death was injuries from a gunshot, wouldn't that become a homicide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.192.145 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear there are 5 classifications of Death reported by Medical Examiners- homicide, suicide, natural, accidental and unknown. However, each of these classifications are further broken down to primary and secondary causes. For example, Natural Causes can be cancer, heart attack, etc etc. Suicide can be from jumping, gunshot, defenestration, etc etc. Instead of marking every death Natural Causes cancer or homicide military action, execution, gunshot, etc etc we just use the final primary causation. The one exception are suicides which are listed as suicide by method. Additionally a couple of times a month the ME is unable to determine which underlying factor caused a death and both contributing factors will be listed. For example this weekend you see Lawrence Guyot on the 23rd with heart disease and diabetes listed. Sunnydoo (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And one other point about this that might come up. You may notice a number of people listed as "Shot" while others have tags that say "injuries from gunshot." Another popular item like this strokes/heart attacks and complications from strokes/heart attacks. You may say that arent they all the same? Usually the editors on here will have shot, stroke or heart attack for people who died immediately or almost immediately from the incident. Complications of stroke/heart attack or injuries from gunshot tags are given to people who hold on for a period of time fighting in the hospital before ultimately succumbing to the wounds. Its a minor but important distinction.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request for December 1

Why is there a horse included on the list? "Go Native, 9, Irish-bred racehorse, euthanised after broken leg.[97]" Surely this should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misszo (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No - as is stated towards the top of the page - "Deaths of notable animals are also reported here." - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Watch List for Obits

I have found 2 references to people that have died this weekend in newspapers, but have not found a direct reference to an obituary for either.

The first is Dee Harvey, a Motown singer from Memphis that died in LA. [4]

The second is Sol Weinstein, a comedy writer and songwriter who wrote for the Rat Pack members (Frank, Dino and Sammy), Dom DeLuise and the Love Boat who was from Philly but died in New Zealand. [5] (at the bottom under the Howard wedding details). Bio- [6]

If someone runs across more information, we can add both of them.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you believe the above citations are inadequate? They seem to satisfy WP:SOURCES. WWGB (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts seem to need more information and both have in article cites from the sources, which is unusual. I did find another corresponding article for Harvey and he has been added to Dec 1st. Looks like someone else did find the Weinstein death. So we can close this topic now.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Error

Please, Oscar Niemeyer don't die from the respiratory infection, but from cardiorespiratory arrest. Check at http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ilustrada/628643-arquiteto-oscar-niemeyer-morre-aos-104-anos-no-rio.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulino Michelazzo (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Our English version, The New York Times, says "respiratory infection". — ^Wylie_Coyote 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving the deaths of people without WP articles (red links)

I was interested to see the earlier conversation Reporting "Death of X" cases here about the policy of allowing red links for 30 days. I've been using these listings as an occasional catch-all tool to become aware of deaths that I might have missed in other media. As Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on every single notable person (particularly as notability might be for something a few decades ago), I am sure that there have been deaths that I would like to know about, but where WP does not have an article. My understanding of the current system is that notice of these deaths is removed from WP after 30 days. Can I request that these red-linked notices are archived somewhere, so as to be searchable? Scarabocchio (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems a good idea to me. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Am curious as to what article/archive would be called. "Archive of non-notable deaths"? "People who have died that you may not have known"? And would it be an annual article, to be purged with each new red-to-blue name, should decedents' articles be created? — ^Wylie_Coyote 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Titles

So we are using some titles for alpha and not others? I dont understand the difference. When the Saudi Crown Prince and other princes died, we used the Al-Saud distinction. Same when the Norwegian sister of the King died this year, we used her married name. The same I would assume when the Queen of England dies we will use the Windsor distinction. Every Dame, Sir, Duke, Count, etc is listed by his familial name- not the titled name.

So what makes Ignatius or the Pope different than his familial name? We use the familial name for all of the hierarchs, bishops, archbishops and even a Russian Orthodox primate we had this year. (note- not talking about how they are listed with Dame, Sir, etc. I am talking about their familial names. They can be listed however, but the alpha order is what I am referring to here).

Are we just making this up as we go along, are there rules written somewhere were everyone can see them, or are we going with the tried and true- "thats the way we always have done it." Who else qualifies for this distinction besides the Pope and Greek Orthodox leaders?

And secondly, how about not taking a shot at me when English is the #1 language in Singapore. One would think knowing that fact that they might use the Western name form instead of the Eastern form. But whatever.Sunnydoo (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We publish to this list (and, I expect, everywhere else in Wikipedia) in accordance with the alphabetical order inherent in the article title, not some other word that must be gleaned from the article. When the Pope dies, he will be listed under B for Benedict XVI, not R for Ratzinger. When Madonna dies she will be listed under M, not C for Ciccone. When Elizabeth II dies she will be listed under E, not W for Windsor. Therefore, Ignatius IV of Antioch is listed under I.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my comments about English. I acknowledge that you do good work here, even if we do not always see eye to eye. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the part about aliases, I get that (Pele, Madonna, Bono, etc.). What I think my objection is that we are talking about Titles v. Personas. His excellency the 14th Dalai Lama is the title, but his religous name is Tenzin Gyatso. I dont have a problem with calling him the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso when he passes just like we did when the King of Norway's sister died. If you look on Sept. 16th, you will see it listed as "Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Lorentzen." When King Abdullah passes, it should be "King Abdullah, Abdullah al-Saud" or for Queen Elizabeth II- "Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth of Windsor." When they have a title, it should be filed with their last name just as we handle all of the other titles. I dont understand why we have one set of rules for some titles and another set for others. If the Archbishop of Canterbury died, everyone might know him as that, but we would list him under his Christian name and then lay out his titles behind him.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

And I am not picking at you or anything or trying to be obstinate, just trying to make sense of this. Here is another quandry. Sept deaths this year. We have John Lawrence, 2nd Baron Oaksey on the 5th listed under O and Nicole Russell, Duchess of Bedford on the 8th listed under R. And the big one to consider is on October 12th. An Armenian Patriarch died which is the same rank as the gentleman we are discussing and he is listed thusly- Torkom Manoogian, 93, Iraqi-born Armenian Apostolic hierarch, Patriarch of Jerusalem (since 1990).. So now we have Patriarchs going both ways. There needs to be an agreed upon standard for Titles because its all over the map right now.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be listed as Ignatius IV of Antioch, Habib Hazim and filed under H.Sunnydoo (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you should initiate a page move from Ignatius IV of Antioch to Ignatius IV of Antioch, Habib Hazim. If that goes unchallenged, then and only then the death may be listed under H.

My point is that readers should be able to look at a list and understand how the alphabetical order was determined, for example:

• Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
• Pelé
• Michelle Pfeiffer
• Phar Lap
• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
• Poon Lok Yan
• Gavrilo Princip

To almost all readers, seeing Ignatius IV of Antioch listed under H is just going to look like a mistake. WWGB (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Humor attempt: Michelle Pfeiffer died? — ^Wylie_Coyote 04:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I couldn't be arsed looking up a whole lot of dead people starting with P, so I just chose anyone who fitted. It's just a list, not a dead list!. WWGB (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignatius IV of Antioch is not the name of the page. It is Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch and his last name is mentioned in the Black boldface print at the article beginning. It is also listed above his picture to the right of the page. The reason I would like to put his name out there as Hazim after his title is so that people could see why it was alphabetized as such. But if we use your naming convention, it needs to be moved down to <==P==> now.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No, his pseudonym is Ignatius so that is what we use to alphabetise. The way we sort this list in alpha order is entirely dependent on the article title, not what may be found by delving into the article. Patriarch is an honorific title, not a name to be sorted. WWGB (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sunnydoo...

Can you not take the time and use the template I put on your talk page? After 36 days, it takes way too long to use Reflinks for your bare URL's and wait for a page load. Thanks! — ^Wylie_Coyote 10:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid point, particularly when the number of reported deaths gets to this size. There are only a small number of us utilising Reflinks for amending bare URLS on this page. It would be very much appreciated if all regular posters here could use a fuller reference style. Thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I really wish there was some way to hotlink that format in every time someone clicks "Edit", then give them the option to ignore if doing minor updates like CODs or Age or parenthetical works. And for the record, I wasn't harshing on Sunny d. All additions are helpful! — ^Wylie_Coyote 01:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If you do not wish to conform, then would you please at least add titles and dates to your additions? I, for one, get tired of seeing [1], [2], etc in the refs. And I am usually correct in assuming who just added those. — ^Wylie_Coyote 02:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Memories

Sigh, how good to be back in the zone where the page loads fast because references are short. Oh, for the good old days ..... WWGB (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one thing we can agree on...i really dislike the new referencing system. Sunnydoo (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder when the lag begins officially, what reference number, 100? I went to compare revisions at Deaths in November 2012 and got the spinning wheel, to which I just closed the window tab. Not worth it. And Sunnydoo, "disliking" the new system should not account for non-conformity. You just cause others the pain of reflinking your additions, which, in turn, cause their long page loads around the end of the month. — ^Wylie_Coyote 13:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is: I don't see all those proponents for this new system editing here, namely Jess. I remember her suggesting we Reflink for those who don't/won't/can't comply. — ^Wylie_Coyote 02:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)