Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Deaths in 2016. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protection

There has been the same amount of disruptive edits into this article from unregistered users. I'm not talking about a long-time protection (may come further on the year) but like a semi-protection or users only. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected for one year. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Number one again

In case you had not noticed, Deaths in 2015 was the most viewed page in the English Wikipedia in 2015, with over 20 million views [1]. Congratulations to all the contributors and wikignomes. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My grandmother checks the obits in the newspaper first thing every day. Guess 20MIL people do the same? - Wylie pedia 09:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I always check the obituaries; if only to make sure I am not one of those listed. An old joke, but worthy of an airing. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Color changes

There has been an annoying change in the Deaths in 2016. Before, when you read an entry it changed the entry to show that it had been read - color changed slightly. Now that no longer continues after you close the page and re-open it later. Thus you cannot see if you have read the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.63.170.131 (talk • contribs) 12:52, February 1, 2016 (UTC-5)

I believe that would be an issue with your browser, not with the page itself. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

References in Preview Screen

I notice that the reference entries now appear in the preview screen - Great!.-Kiwipat (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad someone explained that. I thought I'd formatted something wrongly during editing to start with. Useful tool. 86.113.174.106 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How many inline references per subject?

Hi. I have recently noticed that some subjects are being provided two inline sources instead of (what I thought was a standard) one. Is it agreed that a subject can have two? Or is someone (or more than one person) playing some kind of game with this? I would have thought that if anyone finds a better source for a death, they would be replacing the existing one, not adding it to the existing one. (As of this timestamp, I refer to that of Peter Mondavi, an entry for February 20, 2016.) Please clarify. 86.113.174.106 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

One legitimate one suffices. Removed the second from Mondavi. — Wylie pedia 21:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. 86.113.174.106 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Participation in the Olympics

Just wanted to check if I got people with me on removing info about participation in the Olympics. Surely mentioning winners and medalists are enough? Now Nic Zwetnow is mentioned as an Olympic sports shooter. His best result is 29th. Carlos Loyzaga is an Olympic basketball player. His best result is 7th. Robert Sassone 10th place is mentioned. And list surely goes on. I'm removing it for now, please stop me if I'm doing something wrong.Nukualofa (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, only medal wins warrant listing as notable achievements. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it better to note a generic "sport foo player" instead of noting the person played in two Olympic games? Is there an existing consensus not to list this? Participating in the Olympics is significant enough that it serves as criteria to meet GNG per WP:NOLYMPICS. Rikster2 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Olympic Games is just a championship. Why should it be treated differently from other championships? José María Rivas, who died 9th of January played in the 1982 FIFA World Cup, but listing that as one of his achievements isn't being considered. Gerry Byrne, who was the last former world champion who died, in November 2015, was rightly credited as world champion. Participation is criteria enough for a Wikipedia article, but this Deaths in 2016 doesn't need to list every notable thing a person has done.Nukualofa (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't listing every notable thing, it is giving context beyond just the occupation in the same way as listing professional clubs, songs, movies or political offices. Otherwise there is not context in the entry. Why not just list David Bowie as a singer/songwriter instead of listing a couple of his songs? Rikster2 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, it is just a single championship. Should we list every participation in a world championship as well? How about things like the Champions League? We don't list things like Oscar nominations and political nominations, only info of winning such things are listed. Reginaldo Araújo was bizarrely listed as an Olympic footballer earlier. The Olympic football championship is a U-23 championship, with only a fraction of the interest and status of the Fifa World Cup, however participation there is completely overlooked. There should be a standard.Nukualofa (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree there should be a standard - where is this one listed? Seems like there should be a manual of style for this page. This is the second time this month I have been informed of the "unwritten rules" of the page (the last being that one needs to follow the rule of three when listing teams, songs, films, etc - even if from a significance standpoint two or four would make more sense). Why do we list that David Bowie was an "actor" (in Labarynth of all films)? Why do we list that Abe Vigoda appeared on the Conan O'Brien show? These aren't fundamental to their notability. I just think the entry should succinctly answer the question "why was this person notable?" For a large segment of athletes, their whole careers are pointed towards making the Olympics - it is why they rate an entry on this list. just my two cents. Rikster2 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Back when I stayed on top of Olympic listings, regardless of finish, I would also investigate to see if they have other notable events in their career (Cups, Championships, etc). However I have slacked off from even checking Olympic participation due to new device difficulty. I don't think Olympic participation should be diminished, if that is their sole notability. In my opinion, it's about getting there than where they finish. Listing someone who participated by just their name, age, nationality and sport seems unduly unfair. I certainly wouldn't want to see someone who came in fourth place to be "generically listed" with the next normal sportsperson. Some of these people train hard to be included in the Olympics, as opposed to John Doe who played one season in badminton somewhere. No harm, no foul with one added word and year(s). — Wylie pedia 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, I wondered what had happened to the "Olympic" tag against many individuals here. I would trawl these pages to fill in the redlinks for dead Olympians. Easy to search for the prefix "Oly", find the names and fill in the gaps. There's no harm if the obituary states "John Smith, Olympic fooian, died today..", etc. It's a good qualifier. Yes, not everyone who competed at the Olympics has that as the pinacle of their career (such as that footballer mentioned in the opening para.), but it's a damn good start. Nic Zwetnow was also notable in other fields. Something I didn't know until someone expanded the article. I would never have located it without the Olympic qualifer. Well, I did, as I created it sometime before he died. Now if some self-appointed busy-bodies want to impose their own rules to not to include this, much to the detriment of the project, then fine, let them have their moment. Hope they actually fill in the blanks while they're so concerned that "Olympics/Olympian" isn't worth a mention. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I like how having different opinions makes somebody (me) a self-appointed busy-body imposing my own rules, even though I actually asked for opinions here on the talk page, and got support for my views. Being 29th in the Olympics isn't very notable. Playing a semi final (for example) in the FIFA World Cup, is a much bigger deal. I really don't understand why the Olympics should be given such a status here, when other championships and competitions aren't given any. How about participation in a Super Bowl game? How about a World Championship? The Eurovision Song Contest? Where to draw the line? Nukualofa (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Being 29th in the Olympics isn't very notable". So 28th is? Being at the Olympics is notable, fullstop. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Too close to call, so I will keep adding them, especially since "2011 Decanter Man of the Year" is worth mentioning. — Wylie pedia 16:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said being 28th is very notable either. Participation in the Olympics, whatever result, is notable enough to have a profile, but there's no need for it to be mentioned on this list. A lot of people have much greater sports achievements than a mediocre finishing place in the Olympics. Carlos Loyzaga, who is listed as an Olympic basketball player, with participation in the Olympic Games highlighted, only came seventh in the Olympics, but won a bronze medal at the basketball world championship in 1954. How come that's not listed, it's a better achievement?Nukualofa (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Then frigging add it! — Wylie pedia 07:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm bold enough, but I don't want it there. I just want somebody to give me an answer to why the Olympic Games should be treated so differently from other sports championships. Nukualofa (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC) (addition: or, when I think about it, I do want it there.)

I can answer that question- the Olympics are regarded as the oldest sporting competition in the World. It therefore has a special place in sport and is one of the reasons why in addition to being a representative of your country that it holds the place that it does. In your example such as the Champions League, you are not representing your country but a team, club or yourself. Which is also why Soccer/Football, Cricket and Rugby players have World Cup championships attached to their entries as well.Sunnydoo (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

mentioning once again, alphabetical list is unnavigable

It's virtually impossible to find people of universal fame and note in the list because people are constantly adding people they know to be of interest in a particular field, but are not actually very famous. From a UX stand point I want to relate the brick wall I hit every time I come here

1) I think to myself, I'm getting a bit older I wonder who's dead? 2) I come here to have a look 3) I find things like "Bryan Coombs, 81, British academic and shorthand expert (Pitman shorthand)"

pause here for a moment - not just any shorthand mind you, Pitman shorthand! that's a form of writing is it? I am curious, but I came here to find out which celebrities are currently engaged in the activity of supporting daisies, not to be deflected into one of Wikipedia's innumerable tangents.

4) I scroll through the list, noting Nancy Regan amid a column of the slowly greying noted for their contributions to the fields of things like "Prague 1937 regional conkers competition entrant (4th place)" and "dog grooming brush specialist who revolutionized grooming through the invention of the...." I'm sure my point becomes apparent.

I beg, plead, implore anyone who cares about making this page an efficient tool for organizing stiffening stars to make this list sortable by criteria other than second name. The grail which I seek is to be able to sort the list by number of page visits to that person's or famous porcupine's or whatever's page. I'm not saying it should be organized like that by default. That would be sickeningly controversial of course. Just that the user should have the option of filtering the list with the aim of flicking directly to the prominent passers on.

please.58.246.77.14 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should bookmark 2016#Deaths for your more distiguished tastes. — Wylie pedia 12:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as Wylie said, this page is for everyone of note who has died. (BTW, referring to it as "unnavigable" is a bit of hyperbole -- it isn't as if there are hundreds of names a day.) 2016#Deaths is much more exclusive. Skudrafan1 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(OP) It isn't Hyperbole, I'm letting you know about my experience as a user. I might check the annual obituaries list once every three months or so. Hundreds of people die in that time. Regarding what I actually suggested, I get the same response every time I mention this issue, namely: "This list is for 'everyone'". I didn't bring this point into dispute. All I'm suggesting now, and all I ever suggested is to reformat the lists to make them sortable by criteria other than family name. By all means continue to add deceased Peruvian frog farmers and notable carpet fluff collectors. Just make sure that there's a way to make them appear at the bottom (or the top!) of the list.58.246.77.14 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As discussed long ago, making this page into a more "user-friendly" table would be ideal for "everyone", except for the corps of regular editors here. By that I mean, it's bad enough we cannot get the random editors, who want their barely notable entry, to be listed here to follow the very basic editing standards we have set. So you want them to learn table formatting wherein one wrong code breaks the page format that we have to fix? On behalf of the regular corps, I invite you to create an account and join in the housekeeping. Then we'll see how long you like the new sortable format. But I would like to point out that you couldn't even put this topic where it belongs. — Wylie pedia 11:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(OP) "if you're not happy with the way the second cellist handled the the allegro, by all means take the stick and have a wave at the orchestra yourself, then we'll see how much you appreciate the....". This and responses like it are common knee jerk reactions by skilled persons to laymen from whom they receive unsolicited negative feedback to their hard efforts. It's understandable. The same people might even offer a criticism in retort; replying that the critic didn't know whether to put his suggestion at the top or bottom of a list, for example. It's true that I wasn't asked to provide feedback. My suggestion may of course also be of questionable value. It was, however, free of charge and carries no assumption that anything will actually be done. I'll take your advice and look at how table format is written and arranged and probably be sucked into several hours of happy procrastination (I like looking at code). Who knows, perhaps I'll eventually stand on your side of the fence and ward off future proposals to restack corpses in order of importance. For now though I still think it's a very good idea.223.104.5.202 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The other criticism to remember for the OP is that we have gotten a lot of flack over the years on this page especially for being too American and Canadian centered among other things (ie that we are non-inclusive). One of the reasons when I am available that I make a sweep of the African newspapers daily. You may not exactly care about some Nigerian jazz guitarist that passed away but that doesnt mean he may not have made a significant contribution to music in general in Africa. As for you railing on the Pitman shorthand guy, the British academic who passed, he made the last 2 updates that were done to the Pitman system. Why is that important? In courts of Law around the World and in places like the United Nations (or even your local town council or school board) where speeches are made, there are specific legal requirements that the minutes be taken down. That means shorthand has to be used to record those as people can talk faster than they can write. And in many locales, audio or visual tapes of the meetings do not meet the legal requirement. It may not have the sexiness of a film star, but the practical use of the application is overwhelming in society still today.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(OP) this is English wikipedia. I don't see a big issue with this. The entirety of Wikipedia exhibits a bias in this direction. It's not really a problem for people who do not speak English. To be fair I think the deaths category is one of the less biased of the areas of the encyclopedia. This among other reasons, is exactly why it should be arranged into sortable lists58.246.77.14 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

One other thing that I have thought about in the past that might be cool to implement (although I dont know how hard it would be to code Wiki's system) is to have an inline search function for this page. People could search for actors/actresses, politicians or whatever else and have only those results returned to them or highlighted. Might be a neat feature.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Death age by nationality

Anyone thought of doing a list or histigram? so which nations live longer?--178.111.96.35 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

see http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/ GangofOne (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Notable sporting events

There should be some sort of guideline to which sports achievements are listed on here. Now a Hungarian rally champion has his honors on the list, and that does feel a little unnecessary. In my opinion, national championships should not be listed here, it would make the page very cluttered. Some of the athletes could have tens of national championships in addition to their international wins. My suggestion is that the following sporting events get listed. I'm pretty sure I've missed something major. I also suggest keeping the lists short and sweet. If a guy has two Olympic gold medals, there's no need to list his Pan-American bronze medals, though that's hardly ever been done anyhow. Is this a stupid idea? I just felt it could be good to have some guidelines.

Olympic and Paralympic medals

World championships medals

Continental championship medals

NHL/NBA/NFL/MLB championship wins

X-Games wins

Major wins (golf)

Grand Slam wins (tennis)

Tour de France winsNukualofa (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why stop at sporting events? Let's throw everyone under the bus:

Prince, 57, American musician ("Purple Rain", "Little Red Corvette") and actor, Oscar (1984) and Grammy (1984, 1986, 2004, 2007) winner.

Those Grammys are a lot of "clutter" too, and all he did was sing. — Wylie pedia 15:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your point is. Do you want to remove it or do you want to keep it? Do you agree with me, or are you calling me an idiot? Your choice of words make me thing it's the latter. Anyway the question still stands. Should there be some sort of guidelines to which sporting achievements or any other contest wins and nominations for that matter? Should we list an athlete's greatest achievement, even if it's only on national level, such as with Attila Ferjáncz who won the Hungarian Rally Championship, or should only more notable achievements be mentioned? For a highly decorated athlete such as Tommy Kono, should his entry be Tommy Kono, 85, American IWF Hall of Fame weightlifter, weightlifting coach and bodybuilder, Olympic champion (1952, 1956), Olympic silver medalist (1960), world champion (1953, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959, world championship silver medalist (1962) and bronze medalist (1961, Pan-American champion (1955, 1959, 1963), Iron Man Mr. World (1954), head coach of U.S. Weightlifting team (1976), liver disease.? And that's even before national championships are listed. One could argue that most of these are greater achievements than winning a national competition in rally. So please, instead of acting like a smartass, why not just say what you mean? Nukualofa (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll overlook the "smartass" jab and say the current line of thinking is the Rule of Three: either three areas of notability or three awards or works. If there's not three, list what you can to show notability, other than their line of work. At the moment, I'm exhausted and don't give a toss over how an entry pops. After being called a name, I sure as hell don't now. — Wylie pedia 00:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it just slipped out. Rule of three is fine, but how low should we search to find the three? For example is winning the English Premier League a notable achievement for a football (or soccer) player. It is always listed under honours in the player's article. But it is never listed on the deaths page. How about winning a less prestigious league, like say the Bulgarian? I'm not sure if I'm making myself totally clear, English isn't my first language.Nukualofa (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

Forgive my ignorance at posting this in the wrong section, but there's something that I have wondered about frequently - has there ever been a day where no one died, i.e. no one notable enough to be included on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.34.6 (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have been editing these pages for almost 10 years and I do not recall a death-free day. WWGB (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.34.6 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2004 is missing four days (and two in a row). Not sure if that predates these types of pages. That November is missing a 21. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Did someone notable die?

April 11 - Stan Darling

April 16 - Wilmot N. Hess

April 17 - Soundarya

April 23 - Len Vale-Onslow

November 21 - Uwe Scholz

And there were many others on those dates. I guess we were not so meticulous back in the day! WWGB (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Individually, the ancients may have been much like us. But they were certainly less numerous. I think I still relied on the "Milestones" section of TIME in those days. Maybe in another decade, "we" will look back on us and chuckle about how we had to wait till someone died to note their death date. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May 27, 2016 will allegedly be a Fatality Free Friday in Australia, at least as far as "traffic collision" goes. I'm a bit skeptical, but maybe if we wish hard enough, we can take that day off here for everyone. Oddly, "how to wish hard enough" is something Google both autosuggests and finds zero results for. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

UK vs US spelling for third party countries

What is the (un)official policy for UK vs US spellings for people from countries for which English is a secondary language? So far in 2016, there are Argentine, Belgian, Brazilian, Bulgarian, Costa Rican, Danish, Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, Pakistani, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Salvadoran, South Korean and Venezuelan individuals that use American English (I believe the Philippines and Ghana generally use American spellings). Star Garnet (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

See demonym. — Wylie pedia 07:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't help in determining whether a Swede had leukemia or leukaemia, which is what I was (perhaps unclearly) referring to. Star Garnet (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the Swedes call it "leukemi" so adding the "a" at the end won't break the page. — Wylie pedia 08:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Contentious page move

How was this page allowed to be moved without discussion or consensus? I have asked the moving editor to reverse the move and commence discussion. The move seems like an outrageous abuse of power. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

RAP has now moved it back, thanks. For some reason I could not move the page back. WWGB (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone was inconvenienced just then. Anyways can someone point me to a discussion where the article title is discussed?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we're already here. I prefer the old/current way. More concise. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving red links

After a about a month persons with red links are deleted from the lists. I think it's valuable to keep these red links. The name if referenced with a secondary source (so in most cases meeting WP:GNG) and often an interlanguage link. What about moving it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/deaths_in_2016. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Against. Such redlinks have already had one month for an article to be written. It is doubtful whether even further incubation would lead to an article being produced. Besides, there is already a "waiting room" for such requested articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality. An interested editor can always enter the redlinked person on that page. Keeping another list of redlinked deaths just creates more work for the wikignomes who maintain Recent deaths. I wonder if Sander.v.Ginkel is prepared to carry out this transfer on a daily basis if his proposal is accepted? WWGB (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@WWGB:, red links have had a maximum of 30 days if the link was added on the day itself. And a red link <30 days is not long if you compare it to red links on Wikipedia:Requested articles. When I create biographies myself (> 50 per day) I always look at the what links here. If it is listed on a requested articles page I add all the info and references from that page. What happens now is that all this information is deleted, and that is a shame. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. There always is that one or more redlinks that might have enough to get an article made. But then if we keep the redlinks in, fun that invites users, both IP and created, to just add in any random person whose death made the news. Rusted AutoParts 02:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. Some creators are more interested in the recently dead than in certain nationals. But it probably won't become standard practice for every redlink.. Fine place for the ones people want to copy, though. If you feel like adding May, I'll add Kato Kung Lee (unless you simply feel like adding him to today's >50). He had a fairly historical run. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Support keeping redlinks in article rather than remove after one month. Perhaps start an RfC to update page policy... Baking Soda (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Against per User:WWGB. Redlinks have a month to be made into an article should it be deemed they're notable enough to warrant one. It's the notable deaths section after all. How does it make sense to hold onto a redlink after a month when no one steps in to review it? Rusted AutoParts 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm against leaving them here past the month, if that's what this is now about. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like it. That's what User:Baking Soda is supporting. Rusted AutoParts 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted though, subject of thread is moving red links to Wikipedia:Requested articles/deaths_in_2016. Baking Soda (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, ok. But as long as once the redlink is collected from here it gets deleted off here. Rusted AutoParts 14:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Against - redlinks being allowed in the Deaths lists at all are a suspension of the general focus towards notability, the backbone of the encyclopedia, but I feel they are perfectly acceptable in a current month. To maintain a proactive submission regime for articles to be transferred to Wikipedia:Requested articles/deaths_in_2016 is going to be time-consuming for someone (not me, I can tell you), but at least the redlinks will have disappeared from archived months, as is the case now. Whereas, if it is a case of keeping all redlinks for all time in archived months, I would strongly disagree with this, as it degrades the main principle of notability, if only in a slight way. I would say keep as is. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment – I propose requesting a bot (WP:BOTQUEST) to remove red links after one month, and possibly place at Wikipedia:Requested articles/deaths_in_2016. Baking Soda (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Support archive/request page Having the redlinks moved to their own page via a Bot is a great idea. You'd think it might have been raised before. Wait, it has! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel: - did you get anywhere with this? Maybe WWGB isn't too helpful to do something good to help the project here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to courtesy ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume good faith with good editors. So when WWGB stops stalking my edits with snide personal attacks, maybe I'll cut him some slack. So, until then. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

[2] [3] WWGB (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black, personal attack, personal attack, personal attack, personal attack, an they gone on and on. WWGB has a gigantic bug up his arse for some reason. Sadly, he's not adult enough to speak to me directly with whatever issues they have (on WP, I mean). Still, if he's happy to continue his trolling and attacks, then let him get on with it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else, guys. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Against but here's a thought, double the time limit e.g. 60 days that waay surely no editor can justifiably say there was not enough time to create the relevent article, (that will not stop all editors complaining) but please not another list, it seems to me sometimes that with all the labyrinths this encyclopedia could end up like Gormenghast which at the least would be counter productive. Edmund Patrick – confer 16:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the red-link policy, I still want to know why humans and animals are treated differently in this red-link policy? See below, the section entitled "Harambe". I understand the purpose and rationale of the red-link policy. I don't understand how that rationale differs if the article topic is human versus animal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Harambe

Re: Harambe. What's the deal? And why does he keep getting deleted? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that Harambe has been dominating world news for the past few days. There is a statement at the top of Deaths in 2016 that "Deaths of non-humans are reported here if they first have their own Wikipedia article". That was an agreed safeguard to stop well-meaning editors from adding newsy but non-notable dead animals, such as the local store cat. If Harambe gets his own article (and I think that is entirely reasonable) then his death can be added to the list. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice that an article has now been created, but it is up for deletion. So, the death could be listed for now, but would come down if the AfD is successful. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So, that brings up the question. Why are animals specifically excluded from the "keep a red link for 30 days" policy? Yes, someone could be a well-meaning editor who adds a newsy but non-notable dead animal, such as the local store cat. But how is that different than a human being? Someone can also be a well-meaning editor who adds a newsy but non-notable dead human, such as the local mayor or actor or whatever. What's the difference? Why did the animal category need a "compromise" or "safe guard"? I see no difference between people and animals, as far as the "red link policy" goes. Or, rather, as far as the rationale behind the "red link policy" goes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Humans are godlike, other animals are creeps. Wikipedia's based in the real world, but the real world has been steeped in the Bible for a long time. I'd like to see our furry cousins afforded the same redlink decency, but it's a very uphill battle. Easier to just accept it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"Furry cousins" also including the scaly, feathery, slimy and shelly folk. The other five kingdoms can go straight to Hell unheralded, as far as I'm concerned. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough with Gender Gap! We need to have more "furry cousins" editing articles here so there is no discrimination. Am sure there are some horses out their editing articles about themselves. We have plenty coverage on racing horse. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[4] WWGB (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Horses aren't next to godliness, but they're next to kingliness, per the other good book. So it's both natural and downright civilized to acknowledge those fine folk. Citation is needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Any insights? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Inter Language Links: Hebrew

Sorry - can anyone remind me how to create ILLs for languages that go right to left? There is an Israeli deceased in June 2016 with a Hebrew wiki page, and I have forgotten the method for doing this. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the benefit of ILL links to this article? Either the name stays red and is deleted, or the name turns blue and the ILL is deleted. Either way, the ILL never lasts more than one month. WWGB (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: See {{lrm}} Vycl1994 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that the ILL links virtually litter the page throughout many entries - by consensus, one assumes - there's no real question to answer on my part. And thank you Vycl1994. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I've translated maybe one ILL into an en-wiki since its use started here. The random others I've seen done (few and far between) have usually been hardly stubs created just to save our redlinks, with attached translate tags, in the hopes someone fluent expands them. That has also been rare. — Wylie pedia 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable deaths on article pages for specific dates

Is there any systematic way in which names get transferred from this page onto the article pages of the specific dates? Or is that just up to the whim of some random editor who may or may not "catch" it? Just by way of an example: Noel Neill is listed on this page as having a death date of July 3. She is not, however, listed on the article page for July 3 (under 2016 deaths). How does that happen for each individual? Is there any organized system of tending to these details? Or is it not particularly organized, such that a lot of people end up falling through the cracks? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Let's go with "whims". It's fortuitous for even bio talkpages to be updated, heck, even to have the Category:Living people changed. You may also notice in the November 25#Births section that Neill's year of death isn't added to her year of birth (1920). — Wylie pedia 11:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Basically every person on this list should end up on the death sections for article pages for specific dates (July 1, July 2, etc.). Is there not some "automated" way that this can happen? Rather than relying on whims and such? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Simple references? Or "cites"?

Hi. I've always been under the impression that the Deaths pages were always, by agreement, populated by simple references only i.e. the "cite" format is never used. I find tonight that there are wholesale instances of the "cite" being used, and have spent a considerable time going through them converting them to simple references. If the consensus has changed on this, why has it not been discussed in one of the Deaths talk pages, such as this one? Some guidance from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. Either I need to discontinue correcting these in good faith, or whoever is using the "cite" ref format needs to be advised accordingly. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The full cites were changed by a random editor who doesn't know the page's traditional standards. Keep Calm and Carry On. Thanks for reverting them. If you catch them in time in the future, try a mass-Undo to save you the headache. — Wylie pedia 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Finished the lot, so we are back to the status quo. Has the editor been informed of etiquette? I had no chance of a mass-revert, so have painstakingly unravelled the mess, but I will not be pleased to have to do that again, hence my desire for him to be advised. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(The editor has now been informed.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

When such major "damage" occurs, I find it is often easier to revert to the last good edit, then re-add any items added since the disruptive edit. WWGB (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Serial comma

Extended content

Does this page have some "rule" (among the million other rules it already has) about commas? I keep adding one, and it keeps getting deleted. Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I was taught that you do not use a comma between the next to last item and last item in a list if the last item is preceded by "and." For example: "apple, orange, pear and peach" is correct. "Apple, orange, pear, and peach" is not correct. Maybe the rules have changed in the digital age? BurienBomber (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I was taught the exact opposite. See serial comma. In the past, I edited this page heavily and always included the serial comma. I took some time off recently (from this page). Today, I added in serial commas. Some editor (Rusted Auto Parts, I believe) unilaterally decided that his way is right and my way is wrong. I am not getting into a pissing contest with him. So, here we are at the Talk Page over this, umm, "issue". (Because the usual suspects on this page are not happy with the 18 million other rules on this page; they feel the need to add one more.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:OXFORD. It doesn't matter which form is used so long as it's consistent. It's certainly not worth edit warring over. clpo13_(talk) 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell that to Rusted Auto Parts. In any event, from the article serial comma, we have this. The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, the United States Government Printing Office, and most authorities on American English and Canadian English require the use of the serial comma. In British English, use of the serial comma is not usual, although some authorities (for example, Oxford University Press and Fowler's Modern English Usage) do recommend it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to keep consistency on the page, and from what noticed on the page there weren't additional commas added after and when it came to multiple additions on their entry. I didn't "unilaterally decide" that "my way" (what?) was "right", so not sure why you feel the need to make snide jabs. Rusted AutoParts 18:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

PS, I'm not the one edit warring Rusted AutoParts 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary stated "No Comma Is Needed. No, it's Not." Or some other equally definitive and conclusive statement. (Which reflected your opinion only, and no more than that.) My summary said that your opinion is not dispositive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Fairly assumptive of you. Rusted AutoParts 19:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What part, exactly, did I assume? Those are your words. I am quoting from you and your edit summary. So, if the words came directly from you, what exactly is the part that I assumed? Or, in your words, were "assumptive"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The part where i'm presumably pushing "my way". What exactly do you mean by "my way"? It's the same way I had seen done in previous entries so I was merely attempting to keep consistency. You however, seem to be pushing your way by insisting we add this additional comma. It's not a practice everyone uses. As Clpo13 stated, as long as its consistent. It's not worth squabbling over, but yet here we are. Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Went to college?" And "fancy" format? Wow. Those are your arguments? OK. Clearly can't have a rational conversation with you. Thanks, any way. I will wait for others to pipe in. If I understand your argument, we should appeal to those who did not go to college, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. And we should use "non-fancy" ways, because standard editing guides are "too fancy". Again, wow. Don't respond to me. I will await the input of others. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: The reply by Rusted Auto Parts, immediately above, stated, quote: "Not everyone went to college and learned this fancy format of yours." So, my reply back to him referenced both: (A) going to college and (B) fancy formats of "mine" (because I guess I personally own the rights to serial commas, it seems. Which is news to me!). In any event, Rusted Auto Parts then deleted this statement. An action that speaks for itself. Nonetheless, through an edit conflict, I guess, my reply appeared during the time period between his adding and later subtracting his comment. So my reply above makes no sense without this context. Which is why I am providing this (explanatory) context. Also, it's my understanding that when people change their comments (after the original is published), they do so with a strike through (like ~~this~~). In order to avoid this very problem. However, perhaps strike throughs are too fancy and are only used by people who went to college? Does anyone know for sure on that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond to whoever I like, thanks. And what's difficult to understand about my argument, ~~college boy?~~ I'm maintaining article consistency. You whining about the way I worded a sentence (which I modified, BTW) distracts from the point. So, let's wait for other input, and if I feel like responding to you, I will. Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'd like the advice of an admin. Rusted Auto Part has called me a name, "college boy". I am not sure if that's being civil or rude or if that's OK for Wikipedia. And I'd like some guidance on that issue. And he has also accused me of "whining", when I bring a legitimate question to the Talk Page. Again, I am not sure if that's being civil or rude or if that's OK for Wikipedia. And I'd like some guidance on that issue. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You kicked this whole thing off by accusing me of "unilateraly deciding "MY" way is "better". I explained that I was simply trying to maintain consistency. You elected to try and make it seem that was not my intention [5], which I deemed was an assumption on your part. I don't appreciate people doing that, I find it greatly annoying and rather offensive that you see me as some sort of dictator in that regard. You're raising hell about a comment I made (which I reworded because I felt it was not an appropriate thing to say), electing to reword it to get my overall point across, which was not everyone uses the serial comma format which BurienBomber also pointed out. All of this has now deteriorated as you've elected to take great offense to anything I say and distract from the original point. So why don't we do that? Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

And before it gets said, yes, I haven't been acting very civilly. I get too worked up sometimes. It's a problem I acknowledge. I don't enjoy being told I mean something when it's not what I actually meant. I apologize Joseph for the uncivil conduct I made. Rusted AutoParts 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Guys, please. You're arguing over a comma. Please try not to let it get personal; think of it as business and leave your emotions at the door. By all means discuss whether to use serial commas or not, but try and remember that both versions work and it's not worth getting into a personal dispute over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to think about the likelihood of "consistency" in this case? Serial commas are generally a US English convention, whereas British English (on which I was raised) tends to be taught without the use of serial commas. Consistency across a worldwide English language device such as Wikipedia is therefore impossible without arguments of this nature breaking out. This small strike of the pen (,) is just not worth it. 86.113.34.17 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that either method is acceptable, and articles should use a consistent style, I suggest the only way forward is a straw poll to seek consensus. That way, Joseph can have his 18,000,001st rule. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been a good week or so. According to these discussions, I will be adding in serial commas where appropriate. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on serial comma

Support – From the article serial comma, we have this. The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, the United States Government Printing Office, and most authorities on American English and Canadian English require the use of the serial comma. In British English, use of the serial comma is not usual, although some authorities (for example, Oxford University Press and Fowler's Modern English Usage) do recommend it. Using the serial comma, therefore, satisfies both American/Canadian as well as British styles. Non-use of the serial comma will comport with British, but not American/Canadian style. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see consistency as that crucial on this quickly changing page, at least not until 2017. By definition, this page isn't stable, and I'm afraid that insisting on strict use or strict non-use of the serial comma, even if snapshot-consensually established, will waste time in discussions with the unaware. I don't think it's worth it, even if there were people ready to check the page every day for commas, and enforcing whatever rule is defined here. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are saying that consistency is not important. So, what does that mean? Any entry should be willy-nilly? Maybe it will have a serial comma and maybe not? And, if it's not consistent, no big deal. Is that your position? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  - Mostly yes: Maybe it will have a serial comma and maybe not, though that's not connected to either willy or nilly. And yes: on this fluctuating page it's no big deal. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    - Great. So when I add a serial comma to one that is not there, no big deal. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    - Also, not sure why you are calling this a "fluctuating page"? Yes, it temporarily fluctuates (for a month or so). Then it gets stored in the archives as a permanent page, after the month expires. So, from a long-term perspective, any fluctuating temporary page eventually gets stored permanently in archives as a non-fluctuating page. The historical archives are more important -- from an encyclopedic viewpoint -- than the temporary 30 days of fluctuation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    - Just to extend the pedantry a notch, this, and all related months, is an endlessly fluctuating page. Subjects get moved from incorrect death dates to correct death dates (and sometimes the reverse!), and the "choice of three" to accompany the crux of notability inline fluctuates dependant on the whim of editors based on what usually appears to be their personal favourites from all the criteria associated with the subject. Sometimes, rules are applied to remove certain redlink entries and non-notable animals. To call it "non-fluctuating" seems short-sighted to me, and a bit of a non-argument. For my own ends on the matter, I shall edit as taught locally, and leave out the serial comma when adding a fresh subject. If others wish to add it later, go ahead - I'm done with entry when I "Save page" and satisfy myself I haven't cocked up in some way when adding it. 86.113.157.129 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      - It is rather obvious that any page on Wikipedia can get edited. At any time. This page gets edited a lot during the month of July 2016. Once it's archived, yes, it can get edited. At a much lower pace/volume. If we select, say, "Deaths in February 1985", I doubt it's a very active page. Yes, it can be edited from time to time. Not with the same pace/volume of activity as "Deaths in July 2016". So, yeah, once a page gets "archived", it's pretty stagnant. Like 99% of the time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. For the sake of pedantry, then, let me substitute "endlessly fluctuating" with the much tighter term "constantly fluctuating BEFORE archival". I of course agree about hiatus once archiving has occurred. But during the times that each month is "active", any amount of fluctuation can be observed within the shortest timespans. Now, time for me personally to put this thread to bed. Thanks. 86.113.157.129 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what your point is. We are saying the same exact thing. The same exact thing. While the month is active, there is a lot of activity. When the month ceases to be active (and the current month is now "past"), there will be a little bit of activity here and there. Then, the activity pretty much drops to zero. My point is that the archived ("old") months are there in permanent form. The current month is in a constant state of flux (i.e., a very temporary state) for only 30 or so days. So, to me, what gets placed in the permanent archives is more important than what gets placed on this temporary 30-day page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been a good week or so. According to these discussions, I will be adding in serial commas where appropriate. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Add country links and flags

Please edit this page to add country links and flags in page. 201.75.176.46 (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Chiyonofuji Mitsugu, 61, Japanese sumo wrestler.

Won't happen, clear breach of MOS:FLAG. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Before: *NAME, AGE, BIRTH COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP-born COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP REASON FOR NOTABILITY, CAUSE OF DEATH, REFERENCE

After: *NAME, AGE, {{flag|COUNTRY NAME|name=BIRTH COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP}}-born {{flag|COUNTRY NAME|name=COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP}}, REASON FOR NOTABILITY, CAUSE OF DEATH, REFERENCE. 201.75.177.203 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone's not paying attention. — Wylie pedia 13:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Handsome Dan

Handsome Dan XVII does not have their own Wikipedia article, rather a subsection in a list of other dogs who've assumed the Handsome Dan moniker. Its specifically stated in the open paragraph "Deaths of non-humans are reported here if they first have their own Wikipedia article." Theres no mention of a standard protocol for Mascots. Rusted AutoParts 05:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We can change that and put an asterik by it. From UGA on down to War Damn Eagle, we have always put in Mascots as the "Master Name" so as not to start 2 million extra articles for individual animals on the Wiki. I will come up with some previous examples for you to see. We all know how you feel about non-humans.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The last UGA died on Dec 21, 2015. You can find it here for an example- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_December_2015#15.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"We all know how you feel about non-humans". Thats blatantly uncivil. And you state "we've always done it" but it doesn't make it correct. The specific guideline in the beginning paragraph states "Deaths of non-humans are reported here if they first have their own Wikipedia article." XVII does not have their own article, so thy immediately fail general guidelines for inclusion. Rusted AutoParts 05:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine I will change that then. Here is another one- Butler Blue II on August 31, 2013.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Top page is now reflective of the inclusion. Thank you and have a good evening.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And no it is not uncivil. I can go back and pull up 3 or more arguments you have started over various trees and other animals. I am merely stating that you dont like that rule and never have and you like to make it purposely obvious at every chance you get to everyone. This is not about you. Some people have school spirit and the symbol means something to them.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We did it in the past, doesn't mean it was correct to do so. I will again reiterate the first paragraph states "Deaths of non-humans are reported here if they first have their own Wikipedia article." The Handsome Dan character has a page. Handsome Dan XVII does not. That's what's written and that's what I go by, not "we've done it before". It is uncivil as it had no place in our current discussion and serves as a needless jab. And don't unilaterally change the guidelines to suit yourself. And what rule? The one you just added? I think I'll wait for outside input. Rusted AutoParts 05:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am telling you that by consensus this is the way we have done it in the past. I have given you examples and I can dig up more if you need them. We had this discussion and we did like this for a reason which you can go back into 2011 or 2012 the last time this was a big thing and dig it up. No it was not laid out purposely on the front page like I just did because most of the recurring editors knew this and it didnt seem to be a problem. Its all fixed now.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And the reason it came about was a discussion between me and WWGB. We decided instead of adding an article for Uga I through IX which is 9 articles and then multiplied out by probably another 100 NCAA schools or more (some of which like Bill who just died yesterday who was an XXXV or 35) gives you over a thousand stub articles on the Wiki. It makes a whole lot more sense just to condense them into 100 master name articles as they all have the same name but with a different numerology.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a problem when a double standard is instituted. I can clearly read "Deaths of non-humans are reported here if they first have their own Wikipedia article." in the opening paragraph, no indicated consensus for Mascots. You're saying that other potential people who could be listed get excluded, but a dog playing a character gets a pass? To me that's crap. If we immediately negate a rule about individuals not being listed due to it not having their own articles what the hell's the point? Rusted AutoParts 06:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that point that all notable forms of life should be covered on the page without an article present. However, it was a compromise that was made between the editors. I can understand the point to making an article present so that we dont end up with Paris Hilton's dog on the page, but dont agree with it in every instance.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And I couldn't care less if you and WWGB met for tea and decided this amongst yourselves, the page has instituted a guideline prohibiting non notable individuals, which includes redlinks (which are given a month) and redirects. Im following that. Rusted AutoParts 06:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am just telling you who was invovled in the last go round of this discussion back in 2011/2012. WWGB and I co-exist most days, but dont think we will be sitting down for tea anyways soon. We have very different value systems and that is OK too. To each his own.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We've said our pieces. I want outside input. Please stop edit warring and wait until there's a consensus on this. A current one, not a five year old one that hasn't been mentioned until now. Rusted AutoParts 06:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The only person who ever seems to start edit wars with me is you. I have given you several examples and can give you more if you like. I cant make you understand consensus more than that.Sunnydoo (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

See you keep saying there's a consensus. The very least you could do is track down that discussion and link it here. Rusted AutoParts 12:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If the animal itself is notable as a mascot, it should be included; if not, it should not. Dan the dog was, Bill the goat wasn't except in death. — Wylie pedia 09:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree based on what I've stated. Handsome Dan does have an article. But considering Handsome Dan XVII does not have his own article, this is why I'm against inclusion. Handsome Dan XVII redirects to the Handsome Dan page. Independently Handsome Dan XVII is not notable. And thus doesn't pass the guideline of needing their own article. Rusted AutoParts 14:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the "hidden" information on this subject from within the page source, as this "waiting list for approval" type device is outside the bounds of the approved essential information on help subjects and guidelines for editors accessing the source. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

I just added someone to the page and was going to include the cause of death, but a quick scan of the list shows that most, but not all, do not have a cause mentioned. I was confused about whether there was a policy change since the last time I was around here (it's been a while), so I did not include the cause. I checked the talk page archive and did not see any discussion of a change, so I don;t know what the current policy is. Clarification is appreciated. 142 and 99 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If cause of death is known, it's added. If it's not known, then we don't add a cause of death. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thrown by how few causes of deaths were listed. Last time I visited the page I seem to remember almost all of them had causes listed. 142 and 99 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Injuries sustained in psychiatric hospital escape attempt

I just wondered if this was a valid cause of death, as it is a recurring update on Marten Fortuyn's post. The "injuries sustained" part says nothing of how he died. Did he fall? Was he run over by a car? Was he bodytackled by guards? Was he impaled on a fence? Until we know, I'm suggesting it'll be left blank.Nukualofa (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

We use "injuries sustained" all the time: injuries sustained in a race collision, injuries sustained in a fall etc. None of those disclose why the heart stopped beating. Something happened, they were injured and died. If it is decided that "injuries sustained" is not a COD, then we shall never use that term again (or in the past). WWGB (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference. A fall could be lethal, a collision could be lethal. An escape is not lethal in itself, but it could lead to lethal situation. If somebody died from injuries sustained in a fall, we know that they fell to their death. We have no idea what killed Fortuyn.Nukualofa (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Usually, "injuries sustained" is Wikicode for "died some days later", so I can see a problem there. It's also quite long. I added it initially without the "psychiatric" part, and upon reflection, should've left off "attempt". Escaped to his death, but still escaped.

I agree it's just as vague as a stabbing/slicing/smashing/crushing/burning/choking traffic collision (which many also survive), but still specific enough to point readers in the right direction. Blank fields imply natural causes over violent ones, I find, especially after seventy. Whatever actually happened, it was misadventurous. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

table format

I'm spending an awful lot of time trying to find entries in this list format. Would be great to have it in table format so I can sort by each of the cited categories (when available)58.246.77.14 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the need. You want to know stuff like how many 43-year-old Armenians died of a heart attack, or something similar? WWGB (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am as well. It wouldn't be too hard to whip up a script to convert most of the list, but it would reduce the number of editors able to effectively add to the article and adds a layer of complexity to the whole thing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Solidly against the idea. Surely the list is primarily there AS a list - not as an exercise to see if a specific entry is in there somewhere? That's all well and good from an editor's perspective, but Wikipedia is a reference vessel for the wider public and not there necessarily to suit the editor. The easiest way to check new entries is to compare the latest point in the "View history" tab with a reference point of your own from earlier. That way, you can see all the changes, additions and subtractions which have happened since that reference point. As an editor, personally I am quite happy to graft for my craft in this way. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Most devices these days have a search/find function. That would serve you better than any table format. Listing anything would still cause one to scroll for it, either by date, name, age, nationality or COD. — Wylie pedia 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes understood. None of the regular editors here know what a sortable table is for. People currently do parse this list, for example, to look at and compare things like death rates of notable people within specific industries. A sortable table format (like every other compilation of information of this nature on wikipedia) would facilitate this and many other uses of the information at hand. This isn't the first time that myself and others have brought this up, I know, but there's a reason it gets brought up from time to time and requests of this nature shouldn't be rejected out of hand. Information which involves a list where each entry in that list has a certain number of attributes IS an array. The issue here is not "whether or not this information should be displayed in a table", it is a table, the issue is that of "how well it is displayed and how easy it is for the user to retrieve information from it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Despite your sweeping statement about the lack of knowledge afflicting editors of Wikipedia, and in particular our blatant ignorance of "sortable tables", I can assure you I know EXACTLY what one is - and very useful they are too, when used in the right article and/or the right context. But I still say not for this page, as I have opined above. Your reiteration of what one is and what one does still doesn't alter my view on that, as far as "Deaths" pages are concerned. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this statement affects wikipedia editors in general, nor did I make such a statement. I said "None of the regular editors here", "here" in this case is reffering to this page and thusly the people who maintain this list.58.246.77.14 (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What's the argument against a sortable table? I haven't heard the argument yet. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

For starters, it's more complex to maintain, rookie editors will screw it up and require more work by wikignomes, there is no significant demand for it and, IMO, tables look uglier than lists. WWGB (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Plus what's stopping editors from performing Control+F to seek out key words? RAP (talk) 03:50 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying so hard not to type the words "palm slapping forehead" but I can't help it, I just can't. I want you to know I really tried. Using the "find" command is for finding things that you know or expect to be there. Sortable tables which arrange entries by field value are for organizing data so you can easily look at stuff you didn't know is there, but would be of greater value to you if rearranged in some sort of context. The ONLY argument against making this list sortable is that it would take some work. Typically in cases like this the work is usually worth doing if a) the amount of time within which the work has to be undertaken is for all intents and purposes infinite. and b) the number of people willing to commit to undertaking the job is large. That sounds like wikipedia to me.58.246.77.14 (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Things which could be achieved with a sortable list. 1) People could quickly find deaths occuring in a region - people want to know what's happening nearby 2) It follows from point one that regional biases in the list could be more easily revealed 3) Industries - You want to know who's died in the world of baseball, finance, the silver screen etc 4) It follows from point four that one could easily exclude information they consider to be of little importance to them 5) Alphabetical - you can easily discover whether or not an entry has been made to the list 6) Copy paste - it would be easy to take excerpts from the list for further use in either research or publication Making the information sortable would make it more valuable. At the moment the list is being used like some kind of monument or municipal headstone where people come to commemorate their favorite figures, often of debatable public note. It's not that, is it? It's a source of reference information and it needs to be more useful than it is now.58.246.77.14 (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

IP, insulting those of us who maintain this article by saying that we don't "know what a sortable table is for" (insinuating this is the only article we edit) and previously stating that this page contains "Peruvian frog farmers and notable carpet fluff collectors" (which have never been listed) does not sway anyone to your side. Feel free to come back again in six months and cast stones, or, better still, register and edit this article to the standards you think it should be. — Wylie pedia 10:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the IP may now understand that his assertion/statement was more offensive than to just myself. By the way, has the IP ever considered getting an account for himself - or, I suspect, thought about stripping away his anonymity by logging into the account he already possesses, and coming clean about his obsession for the sortable table? I have already said that Wikipedia is for the wider public as a reference, yet the blinding focus seems to be on its merits or otherwise for editors. We should always 'get over ourselves' as editors, and think more about what is good for the casual visitor to our encyclopaedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I do have an account "edaham" but I don't always log in as I'm in China and it is/was previously slow to log in. This is no longer the case, but I am used to not logging in now. My sole focus for wanting this table organized as a table is because it would be better like that. The purpose of having the information here at all is to make it useful. I don't really care about the people who edit the information - or their feelings. I care about the information and my consumption of it. I've given my feedback as a consumer. Take it however you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise you could start with Wikipedia:Database reports/Recent deaths and add any columns you need. --Racklever (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea - edah is previously unsigned IP Edaham (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Kinsella - Cause of death

According to the CBC, WP Kinsella "ended his own life at the age of 81 under Canada's assisted-dying law." There is no cause of death listed on the page for him, but I am not sure how to phrase it. "Suicide" seems misleading so should it say "Euthanasia"? Without an explanation it makes it sound like the death of a pet or other animal. So I'm unsure here. 142 and 99 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There is the Assisted Suicide article which can likely be used unless/until a specific manner of death is released (e.g. suicide by asphyxiation).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that "assisted suicide" currently covers it. That's self-explanatory. Listing it as "suicide by <manner>" is misleading. — Wylie pedia 03:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Criminal Code only allows for administering a lethal substance. So "suicide by poisoning" could work, presuming his doctor was on the level. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@142 and 99: Pieter Hintjens just did the same thing and is listed as "euthanasia", so Kinsella is now as such. — Wylie pedia 12:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Date links

Tony1 has removed all the date links with the reverted edit summary, "It soon won't be inconsistent with similar pages. The guidelines forbid linking in section titles, to start with." However, I believe WP:DATELINK states: In intrinsically chronological articles ... links to specific month-and-day, month-and year, or year articles are not discouraged. Since clicking on any day of the year takes you to births, deaths and the like for that date, and that some of our entries are included there, I believe our links here qualify as being "intrinsically chronological". Thoughts? — Wylie pedia 05:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral - it's not something I'm prepared to edit war over, and I hope others feel the same. I can see both sides. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"intrinsically chronological articles" are those like 2012 and August 3 and 1890s and 20th century. Of the many many series of articles such as 2004 in film you'll find that they usually don't link general chronological items, for example. One problem is that it's hard to see the relevance of all August the thirds in history to the fact that someone died on that date; this goes against English Wikipedia linking practice, which is to hone the system to a reasonably focused and article-relevant selection—the key rationales being that (i) it's hard enough to get readers to actually click on links when they do stand out; and (ii) editors are in the ideal position to use their knowledge and skills of a topic to point readers to the most likely useful links.

Aside from this, I want to raise a different issue: I can see the original thinking behind stripping the date subtitles down to a bare numeral ("1", "2", etc); before they were piped, now simply straight text. May I suggest that the name of the month be included in each instance? I usually lobby for brevity in such matters, but here, the bare numeral is just a little to ... bare. What do you think? (There's an easy way to insert the month-name using global search and replace.) Tony (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

2004 in film is not quite as "intrinsic" as the DI page. For example, hardly any film releases or award ceremonies are listed on any month-and-day, month-year, or yearly pages. Deaths are, so by clicking the dates here that were linked, visitors could see and quickly navigate to other events on that particular date. Some of us wikignomes could also click those date links to add the more notable names to the death sections. Now, they will have to navigate to the Main Page or type the date in a Wiki-search. As for adding the month to every single date here, that would widen the TOC and lengthen the page and possibly cause extra loadtimes. Hence, our minimal reference setup. But thanks for asking opinions before doing that, unlike the date link-stripping. — Wylie pedia 10:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Film articles are indeed listed by month. "by clicking the dates here that were linked, visitors could see and quickly navigate to other events on that particular date." Why is everything that happened on 13 September in every year of earthly relevance to the death of a person on that date? Rather a trivialisation of their death, in my view. Tony (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No film articles in October's article, nor any in today's daily one, but deaths are, which I had to search for. You might want to unlink the years in the daily one, as the people dying have no relevance to the year. No other page monitor is voicing their opinion, after all the discussions there have been about page format, so I am officially excusing myself from this conversation and further editing this page. — Wylie pedia 13:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I typically load this page on a daily basis, and I used the date links to find out what else happened on that particular date. Having the links there would be convenient for this type of thing.128.84.124.194 (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But do readers need this? And would anyone object to the addition of the month to the section titles? (Seem my comment above.) Tony (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Tony1; I have made this point before in a previous thread - that Wikipedia editors always seem very keen to have some way of making their job easier when working on this page. Despite the page being in existence for the reader. And the reader is probably not going to be worried at all by the lack of linking. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tony1 - unnecessary re-adding of month to every line, as anyone loading the page is faced with a large-type heading saying "October". That should be introduction enough, I feel. As Tony1 says in his edit summary, if anyone disagrees with my point of view, revert again. I must say, though, that such a minor issue does not deserve all the time various editors are spending, when we could all be looking out for the latest deaths to add. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[a]