Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in December 2017/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use of “Hall of Fame” in entries

I’ve re-added the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame twice to Connie Hawkins’ entry, and just re-added the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to Tom Petty’s. They had been removed by User:Fronticla with a note that “pov hall of fame mentions in lede, most of those listed are probably in a HoF of some level, even if local, just say who they are.” I think that is a reasonable point if someone is removing a Regional or otherwise minor HOF, but these cases are significant HOF indications - the top level in the subjects’ genre so to me it seems they should stay. Any obituary of a basketball player inducted into the Naismith HOF is going to say so in the subject’s obituary, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. But I figured I’d ask what the consensus is on this, if any. Maybe this has been discussed and as should leave it alone, but I didn’t recall any conversation about it, so I thought I’d ask. Rikster2 (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Any of the major HoF awards will have been a significant event, and a notable one, in the life of the deceased. The major ones (which is where the trouble starts - identifying which are major and which not) should easily be included - IF the entry is not already overlong and loaded with song titles composed/performed or films appeared in, or any examples of that ilk. A concise entry is a great entry. Ref (chew)(do) 19:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Also re-added the R&RHOF to Fats Domino. I also do not like the blanket reason given by Fronticla with this edit summary: "simp, almost every notable NBA player is in a HoF, even state/local/college ones". They obviously don't know what Naismith recognition is.— Wyliepedia 20:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Umm, no, jerk. I know it's important, but it has no business in the first sentence of an article. Show me an FA that starts like that. Gotta keep things simple and POV. Fronticla (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Correct about a bio's intro, but this page isn't that. And, since I'm in a great mood, I'll overlook the namecalling. — Wyliepedia 11:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think that the Hall of Fame for Great Americans is the "original" Hall of Fame,and all its members are already dead...any other HoF should be identified as such rather than only piped to the specific HoF a decedent belonged to.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be awkward (and verbose) to list Tom Petty as "American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame musician..." — Wyliepedia 00:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it would convey necessary information.LE (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Singer-songwriter" or "singer and songwriter"

There are occasional edit wars between these two terms. Does anyone have an opinion when each of these terms should be used? WWGB (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there are edit wars exactly, but just recently I've changed one to match two others for the month, in the style "singer and songwriter". And that's the only reason, for uniformity where possible. As usual, sitting on my fence, I don't mind either way. Ref (chew)(do) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
According to something called "Wikipedia" singer-songwriter "is used to define popular music artists who write and perform their own material, which is often self-accompanied generally on acoustic guitar or piano." As well, it "came into popular usage in the 1960s onwards to describe songwriters who followed particular stylistic and thematic conventions, particularly lyrical introspection, confessional songwriting, mild musical arrangements, and an understated performing style." That would be opposed to someone who happens to sing and write songs much like someone may sing and play the lute, two possibly notable occupations, but not necessarily connected. If the sources specifically refer to someone as a "singer-songwriter" it is (usually) meant as the specific, not the general, term and should be used. freshacconci (✉) 14:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
All good and valid points. It is probably worth noting that the expression "singer-songwriter", as the Wiki article also states, may have subtly variant meanings, at different times and in different countries. User:Freshacconci is on the button about using the source as guidance - usually ! I do not think that uniformity is necessarily the best approach. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Singer-songwriter refers to a specific classification of musician. For example: John Denver, Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Dolly Parton, Joni Mitchell. Other artists may have occasionally written songs, like Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin or Frank Sinatra but they would never be called a singer-songwriter. Yet, in the thoroughness of "Deaths In .....", you can be assured someone will/would list both singer and songwriter in their entry. BurienBomber (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I also agree completely with Freshacconci. It needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, rather than trying to impose a spurious uniformity. "Singer-songwriter" is almost a genre of itself, and is a term that should not be used for musicians who both sing and write songs, but are not most notably known for performing in the "singer-songwriter" style. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If they write then sing their own songs, use the hyphen; if they sing as well as write songs (for others), separate. Again, this is the onus of those adding the entries, most of which copypaste from wiki-bio leads and the lazy journalists, leaving us gnomes to come in after dark to clean the WCs. — Wyliepedia 06:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
So, for example, Billy Joel is a singer-songwriter but Jimmy Webb is a singer and songwriter? WWGB (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Good examples, as both their bios state! (Great, now one of them will die.) — Wyliepedia 06:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Jimmy Webb is known as a songwriter rather than as a singer. So, in that case, songwriter and singer - not vice versa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh goody, DI20XX has become "Words with Friends". — Wyliepedia 09:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Deaths in October 2015

Could some of my fellow gnomes keep an eye on Deaths in October 2015? Someone keeps adding a non-notable child. I have already reverted three times, and don't want to breach 3RR. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On it, and cautioned the editor. — Wyliepedia 03:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The contributor appears to be a parent (see this draft article he/she is now compiling) so try to be gentle as this undoubtedly continues. Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Was apparently just a really good friend, as stated here ("brother I never had"). — Wyliepedia 07:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Claims to fame

A couple of Wikipolicies seem in direct opposition to the effective good of this page. In the one-sentence entries, we should be able to declare what someone is best known for, and sometimes that is for being somebody's relative, despite "Notability is not Inherited" (which of course is not applicable to royalty), and also there's the recent (making me bring this up) matter of John B. Anderson, who may qualify because he was in Congress, but came to the notice of the great majority of those who ever heard of him because of his now-deleted-from-here presidential candidacy. Omission of the real reason why a reader may care to know about a person misleads. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying "Presidential candidacy should be notable?" Regarding Anderson and despite the rather lengthy diatribe at his page, he "finished with just under 7% of the vote" and "did not carry a single precinct in the country", also shown at United States presidential election, 1980, therefore his candidacy mention here isn't notable, in my opinion. But, I'm also one who allows Olympic non-medalists. (Sidenote:as a school project in 1980, we covered the election, no one mentioned him then, either.) — Wyliepedia 08:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I voted (for Carter) in 1980.I had never heard of Anderson until his presidential run.Anderson got nationwide news coverage that greatly multiplied his fame...his candidacy is what he's best known for.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Anderson's entry should mention his candidacy, he was one of the more successful third party candidates in recent years; I would anticipate that, for example, when Ross Perot passes, his candidacy would be listed. OZOO (t) (c) 15:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Folk hero" Khajavi

Seems like a good place to complain about Riz Ali Khajavi. Buddy stopped a train from hitting a pile of landslide, and was thereafter celebrated for it. We call him a "folk hero", essentially saying he's famous for being famous, rather than for doing something. Apparently, preventing a crash is a tad too dramatic for some, which is how I (and Wikipedia) feel about heroes.
If we're not calling Bud Moore, Slobodan Praljak or Shashi Kapoor heroes, we should think of something to objectively describe Khajavi, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
My concern was with the contrived term "train crash preventer". I have no issues with plain English like "prevented a train crash". WWGB (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A guy who prevents a train crash is pretty clearly a train crash preventer, like the hero who acted was an actor or the one who drove was a driver. It didn't take enough work to be "contrived". On the other hand, "folk hero" isn't in our source, and Googling it just finds Wikipedia mirrors. That's straight-up invention, and we'd be better with "national hero", "devoted hero", "Iranian hero" or "deceased hero", if we need to tout his prevention as heroic at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't sell yourself short on being a "contriver". A Google search for "train crash preventer" comes up with exactly one ghit ..... yours! Anyway, I restored his train role. You can decide what type of hero you want him to be. Seems he will go to red heaven in one month anyway. WWGB (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's weird. "Train crash prevention" is popular enough for an Autocomplete. What the hell are we supposed to call people in that field? Until I know, I guess any kind of "hero" will have to do as a noun, POV or not. If he doesn't get an article, I'll be a bit sad, since the crash he prevented would've likely got one, but not sad enough to scour, translate and compile decades of Iranian schoolbooks. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Khajavi ghits return more results if you look for "Rizali Khajavi" or his nickname in the textbook stories "Dehghan Fadakar". Some retellings have him stripping down to his skivvies to signal the train then deciding to wear pants, some have him burning his shirt because his lantern light was too faint to be seen, and my favorite is of the passengers assaulting him for causing the train to stop then praising him once they understood their potential peril. Oh, and when asked for a reward, he suggested, and was given, a better house to live in. — Wyliepedia 21:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I am the one that entered the original figure. I also chose the moniker b/c I couldnt come up with anything else. I scoured Wiki and purposely linked the article for a number of reasons. But there are several people that have problems with reading comprehension or just cant be bothered to read an article and understand it. To wit-

"Folk hero" or "national hero", according to wiki, is a type of hero – real, fictional or mythological – with the sole salient characteristic being the imprinting of his or her name, personality and deeds in the popular consciousness of a people. This presence in the popular consciousness is evidenced by its historical frequency in folk songs, folk tales and other folklore; and its modern trope status in literature, art and films. Although some folk heroes are historical public figures, many are not. The lives of folk heroes are generally fictional, their characteristics and deeds often exaggerated to mythic proportions. The folk hero often begins life as a normal person, but is transformed into someone extraordinary by significant life events, often in response to social injustice, and sometimes in response to natural disasters.

Now looking at the highlighted portion I thought that fit pretty well given the facts that he was (A) only famous for this event, (B) his act is taught in Iranian schools from the article itself which ticks the literature requirement off, (C) exaggerated to mythic proportions as Wylie so kindly pointed out, and (D) the response to a natural disaster.

Thats 4 for 4 just out of the opening paragraph from the Wiki Page. I care not one way or the other, but there is a method to that madness of why it was chosen. You guys can fit it however you want, but please argue the facts as editors should instead of telling us how you feel as a reason why you are against something. And yes I used serial commas up above, and no I am not going to apologize for that either. Have a wonderful day! Sunnydoo (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It was a fine descriptor. That's why I added to it, instead of replacing it. Different heroes take different paths, that's all. Some stop trains, some take helicopters. I almost added "unlicensed signalman", but the only Google hit for that is the utter sort of madness. Your sort's the good sort, as usual. Any advice on whether a dead man can be remembered for owning a dead horse? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan Sinfield

I've added Alan Sinfield, who died on December 2, but I am looking for an RS. In the mean time, I added this tweet.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Twitter is not considered a reliable source about others, WP:TWITTER. There will be other, better death notices. WWGB (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is why "I am looking for an RS."Zigzig20s (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you removed it. It is not a random Twitter account though. I think it's better than nothing...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not been established beyond doubt that he is dead, as there is no reliable source. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
We're using a Wordpress blog now, written by someone claiming to have heard about this death. Not much better than a tweet, RS-wise, but longer, at least. Sets a mildly poor precedent, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

John Anderson

NYT: John Anderson, Who Ran Against Reagan and Carter in 1980, Is Dead at 95 WSJ: John Anderson, Who Ran For President as an Independent in 1980, Dies at 95.

That should be put back on the Deaths page. Sovper (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

See above. — Wyliepedia 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This is on the John Anderson disambiguation page: John B. Anderson (1922–2017), United States Representative from Illinois and 1980 presidential candidate.

So if that appears like that it should also be on the Deaths page as it originally was. Just about anyone who has heard of him knew of his 1980 candidacy (plenty more than knew of the legal case). Sovper (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

See above. Join THAT discussion - don't keep opening new sections, where the discussion won't be continued. Ref (chew)(do) 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Maxwell Frank Clifford (10 December 2017)

That's what it now says -  Done by someone. Ref (chew)(do) 19:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
But is he notable as a sex offender? Should it really be included? Nukualofa (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Found guilty of eight counts of indecent assault against four victims. I would say so. Half the lede mentions it. Further stated that if trial conditions had been at a different time, charges and punishment would've been more serious. — Wyliepedia 13:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately for him and his victims, he is eminently notable as being that - perhaps more for that than his professional activities, in the end. (Me to wife: "Max Clifford is dead." Wife to me: "Oh, what, that sex pervert?" ... Not: "That jailed publicist?") Ref (chew)(do) 13:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Included it is. Just wanted a quick colloquy. Nukualofa (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hidden absence

I note that someone has made "Macon Brock" a redirect to Dollar Tree but not written an article. The Dollar Tree article doesn't say much about him. Does this suffice to prevent his deletion for not having an article? (Dollar Tree's website still has a bio for him and will likely issue a memorial press release -- they recorded his retirement as chairman in September).LE (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As stated in the FAQ above, blue links that are made redirects fall under the same potential for removal in 30 days as redlinks. Meaning, unless Lee's article is expanded, his entry for December 2017 deaths will be removed. His redirect will remain in perpetuity in the Wikirealm, though. — Wyliepedia 23:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ana Maria Vela Rubio is a pre-existing redirect.12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Article intro

In recent days someone or other has apparently decided to remove the explanation to readers (and potential editors) of how this article is organized. I am at a total loss as to how this benefits anyone.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User name is James Allison that keeps mucking things up. It has to be well documented because of all of the issues and potential for problems and warring editors. Taken a lot of conflict to get where we are at today...sure as heck dont need to start at square 1 again. Will keep an eye on it.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
"Mucking things up" and your edit summary aren't very AGF. As my edit summaries explained, nothing has been removed. The text was moved to the HTML comment; and subsequent reverts have now unnecessarily duplicated the text in visible space. Keeping the text visible in the article is an unnecessary WP:SELFREF. James (talk/contribs) 19:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
And all this done despite a long-held consensus agreed among regular editors, or those who previously chose to comment, for how this particular page needs to look, by 'the rules' or not by 'the rules' as decreed. If you'd started this section and conversation before introducing changes against that consensus, you wouldn't have had folk accusing you of "mucking up". Ref (chew)(do) 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
And yes I used the term "Mucking things up" when the same editor has made the same changes 3x and been reverted all 3x by different regular users. If you have a question about how things are or are not done or want to change something, then you have found the correct Soap Box to stand on, so fire away. No one is shying away from the discussion, as it is a very healthy thing.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Toni Mascolo/Toni&Guy

So Toni Mascolo's main claim of fame, i.e., having been co-founder of Toni&Guy [de], has been removed twice, once because the company is "non notable" (which it isn't) and once because the exemplar contained an interlanguage link (which isn't a reason for removing it completely). Imo, we shouldn't attach more importance to being a small part of a big whole (e.g. playing a minor role in a well-known movie, or placing 56th or something at the Olympic Games) than to being a big part of something which isn't quite as well-known, yet still notable. I think mentioning Toni&Guy, whether formatted as a red link, an interlanguage link, or no link at all, is decisive for readers to immediately realize who he was. If we assume that he himself might have been notable (and a "Guardian" obit is quite a hint at that), I'd consider it consequent to assume the company he was involved in is notable as well and therefore to at least mention it here. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to turn both of those redlinks in your first sentence to blue en-wikis, if you feel so strongly about it. This entire talkpage contains standards set by those of us trying to keep this popular page manageable. You have 26 days. As for your actor/Olympian gripe, we typically follow WP:NACTOR and WP:NOLYMPICS. — Wyliepedia 13:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
My general question is why exemplars would necessarily need to link to an existing article, even if they undoubtedly add valuable info to an entry, such as in this particular case. Your answer just avoids that question. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I'm not asking for a change of our general policies, just for using a bit more common sense now and then. You, for example, remove the info concidering Toni&Guy because it is about a "non notable business", but then encourage me to write an article about it? If you've changed your mind about it, why wouldn't you add the info to the entry then? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't changed my mind about it; I'm saying, to pass as an examplar here, any parenthetical should be blue. Toni&Guy, according to its ghits that are self-referential except for Mascolo's obit/death notices, has an uphill battle being notably created in English form, as its poorly sourced German article suggests. — Wyliepedia 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I know I started this, but I don't see any need for further discussing an article that doesn't exist yet. By having an entry on Mascolo, we currently assume he's notable. And based on the Guardian obit, we can also assume that this notability is strongly connected to (and probably solely based on) his involvement in Toni&Guy. It's the usual procedure for entries of business people to name the firm(s) they were involved in. And yes, I agree that parentheticals should be blue, yet it's not a must, is it? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Not in the sense that you need a heart to live, but yeah, 99% absolutely essential toward this page not exploding in red. Everyone's done things for (or to) three marginally notable organizations/albums/families. If a person had three jobs, that's a potential nine things (and six parentheses, plus countless spaces). Same math applies to bluelinks, and sometimes we run out of room on a line, but it's worth it for giving readers something complementary to click and peruse; redlinks and blacklinks have no such value. You've clicked one, you've clicked them all. They're handy for the people, since you could (and some regularly enough do) easily tell someone's general story citing obits alone, but that doesn't work for everything they've touched. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Not everyone has been co-founder and chief executive of a company that's active in 48 countries (info per the Guardian obit). That's the kind of involvement I've explicitely referred to. I also don't get your argument on the "clickability" of content – his entry doesn't contain any bluelinks anyway, so what's your point here? That ten additional characters would be too much distraction? (A bit of) sheer information doesn't have any value on its own for you? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It tells me the company's name, so not entirely useless. Just a bit meager next to the sort of thing a reader would learn from a bluelink. And yeah, it's only ten additional characters this time, but everything that's ever spiraled out of control has started small enough. Just the nature of spirals. If we let Toni&Guy in based on global reach, what defense would we have against people who publish titled works on the Internet, available in about 200 countries (and to six people in space)? Slippery slope, my friend. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"48 countries" and yet only one wikilink? That is precisely the reason not to add the business here. Same reason Mascolo is still red. My personal criteria for scrutinised bio creation is cross-enwiki-coverage. To be frank, the time and effort made here to include the business in the entry could've been put into trying to get either article created. — Wyliepedia 23:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Thanks for creating both articles. I had probably searched for Tony & Guy and found nothing, that's why I used the same spelling as in the German article. There are several articles linking to Toni & Guy and, according to the page's log, an article had existed there before, apparently for years, but been deleted without an afd discussion. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Axolotl Nr.733. I did deliberate about what title to give the article, deciding that Toni&Guy was too stylised for our purposes, and that Toni & Guy would be more encyclopaedic. Toni Mascolo now has obits in the Guardian, Times, Telegraph, BBC, Metro, Sun, and Mail. We have had a somewhat promotional article for a younger brother Anthony Mascolo since 2006, and one for Shammal Qureshi, CEO of Toni & Guy North Pakistan, since 2014. Have tagged the latter for speedy deletion (G11).
There are plenty of large companies lacking coverage on Wikipedia, and too many which are barely notable or not notable enough, created by COI and paid editors. Our business coverage is still weak.Edwardx (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bechir Rabani death

According to what I've found searching for him, he is a far right extremist threatening real journalists at their homes. His death is only mentioned by far right nationalist propaganda sites with a so and so relationship with truth and reality. No real media outlet has yet to mention his death. I doubt very much he is more notable than the average comments section troll. Nukualofa (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

For balance though: regardless of politics (which we don't create a bias around in Wikipedia, based on our own personal preferences), the guy is being widely reported as dead on the internet across the world, it seems. For sure, if he is entered in the list (at least for 30 days), I for one won't be removing him. We've had many more controversial and perceptibly evil characters than him documented in these annals before. Ref (chew)(do) 07:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your personal opinions about him or the sites reporting about his death are. He is notable and several newssite are reporting about his death: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] except for those which have already been linked. Even before his death he was mentioned in MSM: [6], [7], [8], [9]. He is indeed notable and we shall wait 30 days before we removes him if he don't gets an article. DrKilleMoff (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

None of those "newssites" reporting his death are reliable. They are all far-right propaganda. It's pretty clear to me those sies are elevating Rabani to some sort of martyr. Having been mentioned once in Expressen doesn't make him notable. Nukualofa (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Aktuelltifokus also "far right propaganda" according to you? That has a left profile.[10] And once again, it doesn't matter what your personal preferences about the sites are. They don't become unreliable when it comes to reporting Rabani's death or because they have a more right profile then the major newspapers. Rabani has been mentioned several times on several sites before his death. He became a very notable person within the last year. DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Very notable person? No wikiarticle in any language, infact not mentioned once on Wikipedia in any language. A Google search with time set prior to his death will give you mostly blog hits. It's not my personal preferences about the sites that's my problem. The problem is allowing unreliable sources in general. But whatever, include him if you feel so strongly about it. Nukualofa (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, it's no good me even posting the phrase "regardless of politics". Whatever we do, we can't get involved in taking sides in any spectrum of world life - not if we want to maintain (and even sometimes regain) credibility as an encyclopedia. Ref (chew)(do) 15:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Nukualofa in disregarding anything but the unreliability of the sources. We make redlinks here for people with potential for articles, and without reliable sources, there's no potential for passing GNG. Maybe he'll become famous in the next thirty days, but I wouldn't risk a dollar on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Reference the person who added the "relevance/discuss" tag inline at his entry - how would you describe him then? The translation does result in "citizen journalist", and he's not a blogger as such, more of a whistle-blower activist. And he's solid GONE after thirty days anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't check this page and see the discussion about it. Paradisets portar (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought perhaps not! No matter - but it's very rare for the Deaths pages entries to be fixed with such tags, as pro-active editing and discussions such as this one usually create a consensus. Although the tag doesn't do any harm, the matter has been discussed here and won't (as far as I can see) result in any changes to the text as it stands (nor will it probably result in a Wikipedia article for Rabani, and therefore a removal after 30 days as a redlink). Best wishes to Paradisets portar regardless. Ref (chew)(do) 23:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Carney - (Dec 16)

The cause of death for Mr Carney is cited as traffic collision, while the wikiepedia entry for Mr Carney states that he died following a fall in his home. It seems a correction is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.68.1 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - The revised reference now confirms head injuries following accidental fall at home. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed "accidental". Not our style. Still implies it, I think. A suicidal fall is a "jump" and a homicidal is a "push"; all somewhat involve natural causes through gravity. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
"suicide" is however routinely specified here (and should be).LE (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
.....although the absence of the word "accidental" in a death report can never imply that the occurrence was a definite "suicide" per se. Ref (chew)(do) 07:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of Terence Beesley

It was announced on December 18th that he "passed away at the end of November". He needs to stay in the November 2017 rather than December 2017 deaths article! LE (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be an unknown date if he died near the end, but not at it. Thirti dayes hath novembir. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@LE:No he doesn't. Consensus here is that unknown death dates are listed under the date that death is reported. Anyway, his correct DOD will emerge sooner or later. WWGB (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
When does November end on your calendar? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant. His specific DOD is unknown, we don't invent one for convenience. We already have a procedure for such issues. WWGB (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
It's only unknown if you completely disregard the announcement that he "passed away at the end of November". You and your alternative calendar can't stop Wikipedia forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Just how long do you stretch this? ... if the death of Raoul Wallenberg were specifically confirmed, with a non-specific date decades ago, you'd include him strictly at the date of announcement? LE (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Elvis Presley, a DI-page watcher, told me the other day that he would have listed Wallenberg on the Deaths in July 1947 page as "date reported". Wake me up when November ends. — Wyliepedia 03:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

But we can't do that for Beesley since his death wasn't reported until in December. We don't have an Unknown date-section.DrKilleMoff (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What we do know is that he died in November. An unknown date in a known part of November. How long after November it took for this to become public knowledge shouldn't matter.LE (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You clearly cannot currently list him in November. It's impossible, because whichever "late November" date you choose will be a downright lie by default, until such time as reliable sources report the actual November date! Whereas quoting a "death reported on this date" is never a lie, as each source article usually has a proveable date stamp (if its at all a reliable source). If there's a way round this, then suggest it - don't point towards a spurious resolution or a false date to "park" him on. Ref (chew)(do) 22:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The source article identifies the death as having taken place in November. Probably each month's article should have a "date uncertain" for persons whose exact date is not known. LE (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if his recent Telegraph obit (requires subscription) has a death date but at the moment searching Google on "Terence beesley death date" yields December 18 and a cite to Wikipedia showing how this policy directly results in the spread of misinformation! LE (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The beautiful thing about Wikipedia and this page is wikilinking. Here, as we have for years, we can add someone when they're reported to have died, whether yesterday or last month; an entry's linked name, if notably created, can point a curious visitor to their page; then, if a confirmed date of death is made public, the entry can be moved to the proper date/page. Truly is a beautiful thing. — Wyliepedia 02:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A similar case is Michael Mortimore. His death was added to the article in September, but only recently has an obituary been published, which still doesn't state the death date: [11]. I'm sure there will be an additional obit in an academic journal, but until then, is there any possibility to list his death anywhere here? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Beesley's obit in The Stage DOES specify him as dying on November 30th and I have restored him to his correct month-article.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Stan Pilecki

Before Nukualofa and I engage in full edit-war, lets discuss; Stan Pilecki was born in Germany (in a refugee camp) to Polish parents. The family then emigrated to Australia when Stan was 3. If he kept his Polish citizenship and obtained an Australian one it makes him a German-born Polish-Australian. If he didn't keep his Polish citizenship he is a German-born Australian. If this even needs to be distinguished here, I'm fine with calling him just "Australian". But he is not Polish-born, he was not born in Poland. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Polish-born means he was born with Polish nationality. Norwegian actress Liv Ullmann was born in Tokyo, but that doesn't mean she's Japanese-born.Nukualofa (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The implication of Polish-born is that they were born in Poland, which was not the case. Rusted AutoParts 22:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
What is interesting here is the nationality of the person. The intro on the Deaths in 2017 page says quite clearly: "Name, age, country of citizenship at birth, subsequent nationality (if applicable), what subject was noted for, cause of death (if known), and reference." Name is Stan Pilecki, age is 70, country of citizenship at birth is Poland, subsequent nationality is Australian, noted for rugby, not known cause of death, reference. It's the way it is, and should be done. Where the person was born is irrelevant. Nukualofa (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty So then we just list him as Australian. Got it. Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
No, because his nationality at birth was Polish. How is that even possible not to get? What is it about "country of citizenship at birth" that's difficult to understand? Nukualofa (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
You’re acting as if we follow the “at birth” bit to the absolute t. If that was the case we wouldn’t include adopted nationalities like we have been. What’s difficult to understand that born is to mean born in. He was born to Polish parents in Germany. So he’s technically German-born. The suggested German-born Polish-Australian could be a viable option. Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not correct, as he has never been German, he just happened to be born there. He might be Germany-born, but he wasn't born a German. Again, Liv Ullmann was born to Norwegian parents in Tokyo. Would you say she was Japanese at birth? Nukualofa (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
You can read about citizenship here: Jus sanguinis. "Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state."
And here: Jus soli, where it says: "An exception to the increasing restrictiveness toward birthright citizenship, prior to 2000 Germany had its nationality law based entirely on jus sanguinis, but now children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth, if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and the parent was residing in Germany for at least eight years." Nukualofa (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
And even more here: Polish nationality law. "A child born to a Polish parent is a Polish citizen at birth. This applies whether the child is born in Poland or elsewhere." Nukualofa (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"Polish-born" is open to two interpretations: "born a citizen of Poland" or "born in the nation of Poland". Our introduction makes clear that we are interested in the "citizenship at birth" option. So, I am with Nukualofa that is OK to describe Pilecki as Polish-born. WWGB (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I've always been brought up that geography is key when describing which nationality someone is born into, the fluidity of inter-national movement in the modern world means I grudgingly accept Nukualofa's premise. Ref (chew)(do) 06:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Lyudmila, we hardly knew ye. — Wyliepedia 19:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And I likewise agree that it is citizen at birth and subsequent later on. Many military families and stuff were born overseas and not always on the installations. In the US they are recognized as citizens despite this. Other places may mean other things, but it is the same in jolly ol' England as well. Olivia de Havilland is one of the best examples. Born to English parents in Tokyo, she would be British, b/c the Japanese government did not recognize foreigners at that time as birth citizens. She subsequently got American citizenship by naturalization, French citizenship by marriage and the Japanese came back and made her an honorary citizen. So when she dies it will be British-American-French-Japanese actress.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
And another quick point...this goes to self-describing which we do here in certain cases, like the Sinn Fein MP that died in Northern Ireland last month. From the article he was a refugee of Poland from WWII living in a German refugee camp before being accepted into Australia. I dont think at any point, him or his family would have considered themselves German. It just happened to be where they were b/c of circumstances at the time.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
"So when [Olivia De Havilland] dies" <-- which is never, by the looks of it. Nukualofa (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Changeover to Deaths in 2018

As usual, the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not apply at the end of December.

The reason is that Recent Deaths on the front page of Wikipedia is pointed to Deaths in 2018 from January 1. This means that deaths from that date need to be reported on Deaths in 2018, rather than staying on Deaths in 2017 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway). WWGB (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
On a related matter, is it possible to ensure that the semi-protected status of the page survives the transition. From memory, it usually gets lost, causing problems in the first few days of a New Year. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Derek. If an admin reads this, can you please pre-emptively semi-protect Deaths in 2018 as it is bound to be vandalised. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
A little breathing space this year - it's protected until February 24th 2018, at which point I suggest that someone remember to approach MilborneOne, who last protected it and understands fully the need for such to be done without delay or hindrance, as he had an extended involvement in the last round of vandalisms. Ref (chew)(do) 07:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Although, of course, Deaths in 2018 will be whole new page, come to think of it! Ref (chew)(do) 07:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems there's a man on the Canadian Internet who died on December 11, with a memorial service on February 24, 2018. If that wasn't odd enough, his name was D. Terry Odd. At 8:00 Mountain Time, Montana presents Mountains of Courage: Dialogues with the Living, about Death and Dying and at 19:00 Saskatchewan Time (which is sometimes not Mountain Time), Fort Saskatchewan's cultural elite meet Rotary Death by Chocolate. Over to the east, Munich's Fierwerk will warmly greet Sweeping Death at Heavy Winterstorm 2018 and coming back to Canada, it's the somewhat familiar Death of a Bureaucrat in Minneapolis. Down in New Orleans, John Mayer returns from near death to Dead & Company, courtesy of Smoothie King. As for serial killers escaping justice, it'll be a slow day, with just one (that we know of). Even so, it's a lot to look forward to. Cheers to a year where nobody dies, and is better than slander or lies! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(MilborneOne has kindly agreed to take a look at things at the new Deaths in 2018 when it becomes active. Sighs with relief.) Ref (chew)(do) 16:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't exhale quite yet. This past March, Deaths in September 2010 welcomed a brand new Unclear Citations tag into our world. If this isn't remedied by January 1, it may not be as utterly catastrophic as Y2K, but it'll still be one more thing to potentially feel collectively guilty about not accomplishing this year. Who can protect us from that? I tried, but couldn't understand what was unclear about them, so just changed a few "car accident"s to "traffic collision"s. May, June and August are similarly tagged, if that's any help in deducing the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

InedibleHulk - it's the old chestnut of using or not using "cite web" inline sourcing. As you know, we don't use the full cite format in the current Deaths pages, in order to keep coding slimmer. Bots and other editors have been all over unattended archived versions of past years and re-added "cite web", chucking in a generalized opinion tag that they do not understand the simpler version. To be fair, they have also identified many dead links and added links to content only available now through the Wayback Machine internet archive. It's a mess, but sortable with work, and the tag can be removed if a return to simpler source citing is achieved (or earlier, as it's not a Nazi state after all). (To be honest though, I don't often personally revisit earlier years; I'm only interested in keeping the current Deaths page correct.) Ref (chew)(do) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'll give 2010 a shot next year. For now, it's bender time. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(Sidebar: Illuminati confirmed, hilarious! — Wyliepedia 17:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

Wow. Deaths in 2018 has admin protection BEFORE the year starts! So, thank you, that one idiot who blanked the page earlier. Ref (chew)(do) 23:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurrah!

Hurrah! I see that there is a separate sub-category for deaths in December 2017 before December 2017 has finished. Many thanks to the kind Wikipedian who sorted that out. Vorbee (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be SugarRat. — Wyliepedia 04:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_December_2017/Archive_1&oldid=1136654930"