Talk:Deaths in 2021/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Top 3

Recent deaths was the third-most viewed page in the English Wikipedia in 2020. It received over 43.5 million views, an increase of 9% over the previous year.

Thanks to the contributors and wikignomes for maintaining such a popular, informative and accurate article. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Periodic "period"

I see that the guidelines for editing Deaths in 2021 now have instructions not to include a period at the end of an entry. When was consensus reached on this issue? Editrite! (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No consensus exists, I have removed the statement. WWGB (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if someone hadn't deleted the relevant section argument from November 2020 Talk, I could have referred you to it (I was told in edit summary not to transfer everything over at the appropriate time - consequently, the conversation was lost completely). Instead, I've retrieved what should have been archived in perpetuity (and I hope you all will see fit not to delete this section when the time comes). The conversation establishing some kind of consensus has been archived. This is a full and unaltered copy of an historic talk section:

Full stops?

Why is there a full stop at the end of every line? Most of these aren't sentences and shouldn't have full stops. – PeeJay 18:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We've been there many times before - trust me on that - and the consensus amongst regulars prefers the full stops. You are also not correct - this list takes the form of a vast collection of sentences, each on new lines, which would normally qualify for a stop. However, I will leave this section open for debate on the matter once again. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But they aren't sentences. Look up any definition of a sentence and none of these lines follow such a definition as they do not contain any verbs. Do tell me if I'm missing something, but each of these lines is barely a phrase, let alone a clause or a sentence, and thus they don't need full stops. – PeeJay 00:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Full stops have been used since Deaths in January 1998. If there is a consensus to remove them, an editor with lots of time can start back there and work through the 274 intermediate months before we change the current month. Minor standardisation is sometimes not worth the effort. See also Talk:Deaths in 2019/Archive 2#Punctuation and Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 1#Use of full stop/period after each entry WWGB (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I did as you asked. The Cambridge English Dictionary says it's "a group of words, usually containing a verb" - "usually" indicates to me that the verb is not compulsory in a sentence. Dictionary.com then says "a grammatical unit of one or more words that expresses an independent statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc". Each line in the Deaths page is a statement of decease. Tell me where I have misunderstood the context of those explanations. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. None of the lines would stand on their own as a clause of any kind. You say they're "statements of decease", but they're not. There is nothing about "Shegufta Bakht Chaudhuri, 86, Bangladeshi economist, Governor of Bangladesh Bank (1987–1992)" that would indicate that that person has died. We only know that from the context of the article. Even those lines where a cause of death is given, when taken in isolation, don't actually make it clear that a death has occurred. If the line said "Bangladeshi economist Shegufta Bakht Chaudhuri, 86, who was Governor of Bangladesh Bank from 1987 to 1992, died on November 11." then you might have a case, but that's not what's happening here. – PeeJay 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

All the bullet points are sentences that implicitly state that the persons have died, and therefore the full stops are correct. It is the same as the example of "Two." being a full sentence in the example given in this article: Sentence (linguistics). --Marbe166 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in those fragments that implicitly states anything. Please indicate the clause that is implied by any one of the lines in this list. – PeeJay 07:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an introductory sentence at the top of the list. The advice from the Imperial College London here, regarding bullet-pointed fragments and full stops, is to use a full stop in lieu of a semi-colon for each and every line when this occurs. If you were to remove the opening sentence at the top, you might have a case overall. However, removal of the sentence at the top would also remove the context of the list, and so you would be hard pressed to avoid being reverted on that score. I note you have not scolded us for failing to use semi-colons? Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - I think this answers the point and gives some kind of consensus for future reference. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So - to be completely clear - when there is an introductory sentence at the top of the list (such as exists with ours), each entry SHOULD have a period/full stop. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The text above under "Full Stops?" was never deleted nor lost completely. It continues to exist, in archival perpetuity, at Talk:Deaths in 2020/Archive 1#Full stops?. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB: Thanks for pointing this out - the Archive links seem poorly advertised i.e. not included as standard on current or past Deaths by Year pages, and I was unable to find it. Irrespective of the niceties, my template edit request to remove the line demanding no periods/stops be used has been granted, and that sentence removed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

A suggestion related to ease of use of this page. I check this page daily but because of delays in reporting a death, it's usually necessary to go back and re-read the previous number of days to see if any new names have been added. Perhaps adding some kind of notation to a name that was added over the past twenty-four hours would be possible; if this occurred it would make additions to prior day's list much easier to note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.237.106 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what we are here for, and would take too much administration time when what we are supposed to be doing is adding names, all the other details and double-checking sources. Anyway, that's what the "View history" tab is for - by using that facility, you can easily check who has been added recently (it's what I and many other editors do ourselves as a daily thing). Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a feature that does that, but you need to create an account. Create an account. Then click on the star on the top right next to "View History". That's it! Next time you want to look at it click on "Watchlist" above and "hist" next to the entry for "Deaths in 2021" and then you see a list of changes with green dots next to the changes since you last looked at the page. Click on "cur" on the first line that does not have a green dot and you can see the new content highlighted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Well added, thank you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Of/From

I'm asking what the difference is. WWGB thinks its a "reliable source" scenario but I'm questioning what's the genuine difference? Other sources phrase it with "from". And in general the format used here is "from". So unless there's a distinction between their usages I genuinely don't see the point of switching to "of". Rusted AutoParts 02:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of engaging in a lame preposition debate, I observe that Sayers' COD was listed as "complications of dementia" when he died last September. It was changed five months later to "from" [1] with no reason given for the change. I merely changed it back to "of", which was WP:QUO. WWGB (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I must say that I've always been more comfortable with "from complications of", but the consensus has seemed to go with the opposite "of complications from". I'm just happy to go with the consensus while editing here, but I do still use the former set in my private writings. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"From" points at origin, "of" means possessive, based on my grammar-nazi upbringing. Wyliepedia @ 10:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Back when we posted office districts, this was a recurring debate b/c "from" was the origin which could be interpreted 2 ways and "for" which indicated on behalf of. "Of" in this case is used as a function word for cause, motive, reason. "From" as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation. and those definitions are from Merriam Webster.SunnyDoo, 23:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on Hall of Fame links

Curious as to what the consensus was on this issue. Seemingly been quite a few links out to national hall of fames rather than the main hall of fame for their respective sport/industry. Nanerz (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. Other editors are more committed to this kind of thing, so may be able to tell you. My preference is not to include these self-congratulatory links, if only because of the vast amounts of linespace they usually take up. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems that the two cases of Jim Johnson and Sealy Hill that have links to their respective national hall of fames are warranted. There does not seem to be an established international horse racing hall of fame. Nanerz (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's halls of fame, I think you'll find. Editrite! (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with national halls of fame, but I would not support the inclusion of subnational halls like the Wisconsin Golf Hall of Fame. WWGB (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Most times, even I avoid adding simple "national" ones and just stick to field/expertise ones, like radio, sports, or music. Wyliepedia @ 11:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a prediction of the future here?

Why is there a death listed for 26 February 2021 on the 25 February 2021? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rollo August (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Time zones exist. Nanerz (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct. The US will get their new day way before I do in Britain. Which is why I never get to post a new day at the top of the page. Call it the TARDIS effect, if you've ever heard of Doctor Who. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh? The US is behind UK. For instance, Los Angeles is 8 hours behind GMT. WWGB (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Ref, you have been zapped again by the Cybermen. Hasn't anyone told you, never stand too close to the time-space continuum. Tee hee. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I must shift my time zone again then. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Last Question of the ToC- "Q: Why is there sometimes a date without entries at the top of the page? A: A new date is added after a new day starts in the time zone that first starts a new day. A relevant time clock can be found here." Its always five o clock somewhere.SunnyDoo, 21:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What's going on?

A deceased subject's death gets moved to the day after their death was actually reported - the day on which it occurred (reverted); an allegation (rumour) of a hooligan's death is included on the flimsiest of gossipy sources (reverted), and a long-standing editor decides to weigh in lately with some quality spaces disruption (he says he's "correcting typos", but that's a vandal's edit summary smokescreen). Have we all suddenly gone nuts on this page? Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "suddenly", or "all", but yes, these are possible signs of scattered progress. I personally had "half a mind" to add Jim Crockett's three NWA presidential terms. Can I still rely on your long-standing ability to replace hyphens with dashes? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You can, but someone else did it anyway. And the focus of this slight rant is how off kilter the whole project seems to be right now, due to various ill-thought out additions and "inane edits", as one of our regulars called it on another editor's talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

At least this page doesn't claim stabbing victims were "impaled", like some nutty current event recollections around here. At least not yet. With my, your and Emk9's legit dashing and reliable oversight, who knows, maybe it never will spread from isolated BLP concern to widespread BDP plague! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable people who worked with notable relatives

Anybody have an opinion on whether it's crazier to call Walter Gretzky a hockey coach in general, or clarify that he "only" turned one kid into the great one? I get that notability isn't inherited, but can a coach truly be remembered for coaching nobody, even if the alternative is as batshit radical as linking to his notable prodigy project who just happens to be his progeny? Plus, people from Africa or Asia might legit not recognize the surname for what it means instantly, good to (softly) explain which obscure hockey legends are the supremely important ones and why, maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky did not arrange payments for his dad as one would a bona fide qualified coach. Walter Gretzky did what any dad would do, and that's teach his son all he knew about a subject. (I tried to coach my son soccer when he was young, but I never claimed to be a coach. I was a dad.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My dad went to school in Toronto when I was just starting to skate, and never came back. That's why my hockey career was mostly drinking, very few goals. You may be a better coach than he was, but you're no Walter Gretzky. That hockey dad was like Yoda, screw trying, just do it. And do it he did! He got paid, too, just took far more time and work than your average NHL team coach is willing to put in for his "boys". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have long believed it is absurd that it seems to be verboten to link other people on these death pages. It doesn't reflect any policy on Wikipedia that I can see, especially since the articles themselves are always pretty forthright about the fact that their notability stems from being related to someone. Anyone remember "Cynthia Lennon, British author"? Nohomersryan (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Those related to or connected with existing article holders should not rely on "name-dropping" to bolster their right to inclusion if they are still a redlink. If they are a bluelink with article, they don't need that onward referencing anyway, as they qualify for inclusion in the list regardless. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But if someone has an article and is primarily notable for being related to someone else, it is highly peculiar for this page to twist their "occupation" in a very different direction. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary notability should not be dependent on someone else who unarguably possesses inherent notability. The creation of alternative descriptions seems to be just an attempt to temporarily give the redlink subject their 30 days before they are removed or get an article of their own. My late father drove an army vehicle for Winston Churchill's son Randolph during the War, but that doesn't make my father notable in any way, nor would I expect Churchill's name to be used as a device to falsely facilitate such a move. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What did Patrick Bouvier Kennedy do to get an article? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This line is probably the only clue, "He was the first baby to be born to a serving US president and First Lady since the 19th century". Editrite! (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary notability should not be dependent on someone else who unarguably possesses inherent notability. The creation of alternative descriptions seems to be just an attempt to temporarily give the redlink subject their 30 days before they are removed or get an article of their own. I'm not talking about redlinks, though. Walter Gretzky has a page. The shortdesc of the page is "father of Wayne Gretzky". Here he's listed as "hockey coach", but that's not what he is notable for. At some point, you can ride being related to someone into meeting WP:GNG. It shouldn't be up to this page to decide if they're notable for doing something else based on a made-up rule. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The shortdesc became "Canadian ice hockey coach" 52 minutes after you wrote this. Either works, I think. Almost nobody would have heard he was Wayne's dad had he not also taught him the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. To me, it begs the question, should Walter Gretzky ever have had an article which survived deletion? Notability by insertion of sperm. That's it. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how hard it is for a hockey dad to mold a kid into someone who scores as many points as Wayne Fucking Gretzky? If it were easy, one of the millions who tried would have come even slightly close. How do you feel about Rocky Johnson and Antonio McKee creating (not just spawning) the relatively great Dwayne Johnson and A.J. McKee after they were grown? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the Johnson example is too late to consider for the future and the stats are too "fake" for some present, let's go with the whole Floyd Mayweather thing instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also consider why Phyllis Gretzky fails GNG (like Ata Maivia, Michelle George and the other Deborah Sinclair), despite doing the harder part of the everyday birds and bees business our mothers also did. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider further still, Deaths in January 2018 has Joe Jackson remembered as his kids' manager and his family's patriarch. If this is bad, that's sixteen times worse. Plus, Walter Gretzky's article has now survived AfD and ITN/C, so you might as well accept its validity. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 deaths not yet added to the lists

If somebody is interested, I have a truckload of deaths not yet on the 2020 lists on my profile page. Some of them are possibly added recently, some might be erroneous, some might even not be dead, but most should be an easy add. There are just too many of them for me to handle. Nukualofa (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• IIRC I tried in the past adding a few earlier-month, leave alone earlier-years, deaths, but they were reverted, probably as too late... ELSchissel (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah, if they are notable, there's no problem adding them. Redlinks, redirects and unsourced deaths are removed, but otherwise it is fine. There are regularly added deaths all the time to earlier months/years, but not this many. Nukualofa (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate the help I'm getting adding these names to the list. I keep adding people to 2021 as well. Really wish I had the time to add them all, but my life has become much more busy than it was a few years ago, so I'm falling behind. Nukualofa (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Horses

Just out of curiosity, why do horses and pandas get added to the prominent top of page recent deaths list on PORTAL:Current_events instead of being sidebarred like a lot of humans? Augu❤Maugu 💕 04:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the nomination for Kind at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) RD: Kind, animals with pages are allowed to be posted, as affirmed by this discussion. The main criteria for listing is the quality of the article based on WP:ITNRD. Emk9 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I know that they are allowed as I frequent the Current Events portal often. I am more curious as to why they are chosen to be on in the "Topics in the news:" over people more often than not. Augu❤Maugu 💕 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Kind was the dam (mother) of Frankel, if not the greatest, arguably one of the greatest racehorses of all time, retiring undefeated to become a successful sire. Editrite! (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of that success included knocking up his second cousin (via Northern Dancer), which got Without Parole life without the possibility of greatness. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I get mad when I see a race horse listed in the main page's recent deaths section. Nobody except for a very niche audience cares about your dumb horses, nobody cares about your bourgeoise sport and it's quite insulting considering there are people who've done more for the world yet they get pushed off for some lame old klepper. I get giving a main page obituary to say, something like the last known member of a species, but race horses should be tucked deep in the bottom of any given date. It's insulting, it's anti-human and it's bourgeoise. 89.201.82.158 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(Correction: last known member of your species.) That day will most certainly be epic. Wyliepedia @ 12:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in use in archived pages of this project

Just a heads-up that both User:Obituarian and User:Nekrologue have been identified as sockpuppets of the blocked User:Alvalade XXI. They have been active constantly over the past few days in a number of the archived months from 2020, mainly changing causes of death from "COVID-19" to "complications from COVID-19" - even, it appears, if the changes are not always justified or truthful (so it appears to be an agenda campaign, which has so far been partially slapped back by admins). There's every possibility that another account could be registered for the same purpose, so please be watchful, as I am being. One admin has rolled back some of the edits by the socks, but I expect many more still remain which bend the cause-of-death truth. I don't have time to go through them confirming either "COVID" or "complications", so if anyone else has a spare few hours, feel free..... Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Undeserving Front Page Announcements

Why do undeserving former athletes make the front page? Seems anyone who spent one season in professional baseball, cricket or football will get mentioned when people who were actually relevant in other fields, such as science and finance, do not. For example, Ed Armbrister is on the front page. He spent 5 seasons in MLB and performed poorly. Why is he pushed to the front? Is this just dumbing down the page for sports fans? Ivan Hitchens (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns at Talk:Main Page. The editors here do not determine the contents of the Main Page. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This text is from the nomination template for Recent deaths on the front page. "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." So perhaps sports articles are more likely to meet the quality requirements, since a lot of information in sport articles is based on well documented events. Emk9 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We had a similar enquiry recently (see section "#Horses" above). They really aren't questions for this talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Remind me of the rules of redirects

Please remind me of the rules of redirects. I thought that they were not "allowed"? But, I am not 100% sure. If not allowed, how do we handle a somewhat unique situation like Dick Hoyt? There is no article for him, per se. But, there is an article about him and his team-mate/partner. This brings to mind Shields and Yarnell. I think we had a similar discussion about that, some time ago. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

They operate like redlinks if I’m not mistaken, so the 30 day grace period before being erased applies. Rusted AutoParts 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But ... you answered my question, while it was still incomplete. I was in the middle of editing/clarifying the question, when we had an edit conflict. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

With the proviso that, if enough true biography (birth date and place, explanation of notability, death date) exists in a shared article redirected to, or in an event article redirected to, the redirect should be allowed to stay after the 30 days. This has been done on occasion and not erased in the past few months. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I think my question was not worded properly, on second thought. Sorry about that. I guess I really don't care (too much) about redirects. I guess I care about "piped links". I thought that a death entry was only allowed here if an article bore the same name as the deceased. (So, for example, a deceased band member could not use the name of the musical band article itself, if the deceased member did not have his own specific page ... right?) I just checked the article Deaths in July 2010. It lists Yarnell, with the "piped link" of Shields and Yarnell. So, Yarnell does not have an article about her, per se. I thought I remembered some debate about this type of thing. I think the debate came up with another death (not the death of Yarnell, but Yarnell was referred to as an example). I searched through the old archives, and I could not find the old debate. I think it may have had something to do with the guy from the Moors murders ... ? Anyway, what's the rule / procedure? Not necessarily for redirects, but for piped link entries? Thanks. Sorry for the confusion in my wording of the original question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The name was Ian Brady (Moors murders), who died in May 2017, if that helps pining down a previous discussion. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, in Hoyt's case, there's a decent section for him at the team redirect (which would normally anchor (#) to), so his is above-par. Usually with band redirects, there's barely a name drop for them. Wyliepedia @ 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Recently, I removed the death entries for James Burke, Bruce F. Meyers and Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing after one month, as they were redirects to an organisation or event. In cases like Dick Hoyt and Phil Everly, I tend to cut some slack and allow the entry to remain, as the deceased is synonymous with the notability of the landing page. Of course, there is no such rule so, if challenged, a rigid application of our guidelines would see those entries deleted too. WWGB (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Piping shouldn't be done in the example quoted by Joseph A. Spadaro. Lorene Yarnell should redirect to Shields and Yarnell - and indeed it does already. So piping is totally unnecessary, as the redirect does that job naturally. There's a time to "avoid redirect", and a time to let it do its job. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Usually in the business/band/office links, I change the shorter redirect links as a teaching method for the newbies looking for a shortcut, but I don't try to click on every blue link to fix them. Entry names, however, I do with the necessary piping, especially with similar names across Wikipedia (again, for those seeking quick and dirty shortcuts). I tend to cringe when a mayor listing points to a list page that is just a simple list, because that doesn't really detail the office, but it is what it is. To the OP point, the entry should either be the person and/or disambiguation, a "death of" link, or a suitable redirect (mostly musical group/band). Wyliepedia @ 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Loose ends

My thanks to the dedicated crew that keeps this page going. If you're already seriously busy doing that, fine. If you would like to go to the next step (besides the obvious task of updating the main article for the person who has died), perhaps you would like to help me find other pages where the person's year of birth is shown, but not the year of death. The following RegEx search quickly finds most such pages:

~"Simon Bainbridge" insource:/Simon Bainbridge.{0,30}1952[^–\}\{\]]/

These are pages such as Peacock (surname), List of xxxx composers, List of people from Xxxx, David Hull (disambiguation), and place names, e.g. Montreux. This search also finds date ranges where a hyphen was used instead of an en dash, as in (1952-2021); if such formatting is not of concern to you, just insert a hyphen after the caret (^) and you won't see them:

~"Simon Bainbridge" insource:/Simon Bainbridge.{0,30}1952[^-–\}\{\]]/

Most days there are about 20–30 names added to this page. It takes me roughly an hour to find and fix all the loose ends. I don't bother with the red links, as people without articles are seldom added to list pages, and are often quickly removed. This is quite a load for me to carry, and would be glad to let others have a chance to experience the satisfaction of stamping these out. If you want to claim one day of the week, let me know, and I'll stay out of the way that day. Do you know of any other places where we might find editors interested in this? Chris the speller ^yack 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not a table?

Is there a consensus that the format has to be bullet pointed text? A table seems much more easy for the reader– is it just a matter of someone doing the legwork? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Some earlier discussion of tables at Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 2#Visualizing Deaths. Generally unpopular, due to increased load times and a perceived lack of compassion. WWGB (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Manual of Style/Tables. With over 1000 entries around the 37th changeover date now, a tabled page would be ungodly unsightly. Wyliepedia @ 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And imagine going back through the years to 1996/1997 changing all those too, for consistency's sake. No thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. ELSchissel (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If the list was much much smaller it could be a feasible enough concept, but there’s way too many names, and way too many Deaths in X articles to go back and convert. For that reason I’m out. Rusted AutoParts 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I thought one of the criteria for inclusion in this list was to have at least one Wikipedia article in any language. Can someone clarify for me? Thank you in advance. PhillyHarold (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No, a death listing without any Wikipedia article may remain for one month to allow an article to evolve. If there is no article within that month, the death listing is removed. Some deaths, such as clearly non-notable people and those with a previously-deleted article, may be removed immediately, without waiting for one month. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. PhillyHarold (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, Inter Language Links (ILLs) are purely voluntary, so if one editor declines to add an ILL (should it exist), another may decide to include one. And I'd just point out that opinions on baseline notability can be the subject of much debate from time to time. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What are the criteria for adding ills in the same month? I've had ills I've had in preceding months reverted (fairly sure that's consistent), but I'm not sure why an ILL I added to a link from earlier this month was reverted without explanation and rapidly, so I suppose there must be some rule I violated by just adding it... ELSchissel (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Some editors add an ILL to a redlink to note that the deceased is considered notable in another Wikipedia. ILLs should never be added or remain on a blue link. There are no “rules” around ILLs, someone may remove an ILL that someone else considers valid. If in doubt, maybe ask the editor who removed it. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen an ILL get reverted for no reason - they can be taken out if: a) the foreign Wikipedia article it leads to gets deleted by their admins, or b) an English article is created about the subject in the obit line, in which case the ILL gets masked by the English bluelink and is removed as not needed when this is noticed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hrm. I'll double-check it then, thanks. Thanks for the explanation. ELSchissel (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Job titles

Following recent reversions of Mayor/mayor, can we confirm our position on listing job titles, consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES? I thought we were using lower case universally. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister and President are both job titles. Nanerz (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, which means they should be written as prime minister and president unless starting a sentence. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Same follows for ceo and chairman. I put them in this way and someone invariably changes.SunnyDoo, 03:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are aware that CEO is an acronym. Nanerz (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking colloquially, it is a fact that US job titles are often capitalized regardless of the rules, when other countries prefer to stick to lower case correctness. How do you solve that quirk? Seems to be something to do with titles not looking important enough to some unless capped. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll stick with the shortcut suggestion that capitalization is "not required" (unless the office/position is an acronym), and, by using the "z" there, I'm American. Wyliepedia @ 19:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that they are an acronym. The point though is that it is pretty stupid to be "president of the United States", but have an acronym that is POTUS. That is the definition of inconsistency.SunnyDoo, 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not stupid. As I say, it doesn't sound important enough to some. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly no more stupid than abbreviating corona virus disease to the acronym COVID. Just because an acronym uses caps does not mean the expanded term must. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The English teacher wants to chip in here:

IF you are referring directly to an official office title e.g. "President of Zimbabwe", "Mayor of London", then the title is always capitalised at the front. Pages like Sadiq Khan, Michael Bloomberg and Virginia Raggi are well constructed articles which demonstrate this in the lede for "Mayor of X"

IF you are informally referring to their role rather than the office itself e.g. "he was a mayor for the city of London" or "he was a president of Zimbabwe", then mayor isn't capitalised, (but in the Recent Deaths section, we're referring to the office, and even linking to the page of the office in many instances).

and IF you are referring to "Mayor" as a substitute for a name e.g. "Nice job, Mayor", it is also capitalised.

This, in my opinion, is a bastardisation of the English language which has been recently spearheaded by a select few editors, and I think we should promptly revert back to the older (and technically correct) way in which this was always done (random example: see Deaths in March 2012). I strongly doubt any user is about to volunteer their time to decapitalising all the entries on over two decades worth of "Deaths in" pages. I'm interested to hear the input of more editors on this. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Entries like 'President of the United States' or other similar political positions should be capitalised as appropriate. GiantSnowman 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

PS if you want to change the status quo and remove capitalisations, start a RFC. GiantSnowman 22:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:JOBTITLES which specifically includes "president of the United States" with a lower case p. I have no intention of starting an RfC to apply an existing guideline. WWGB (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Folengo: Re this edit, have you read MOS:JOBTITLES? A relevant example there is "Richard Nixon was a president of the United States". That is no different to our death entry reporting "Mauro Favilla (was a) mayor of Lucca ". Lower case for the job title is appropriate in both instances. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB:, where are you getting the modifier "a" from in "(was a)"? Or even the "was"? Even if you interpret the bullets as sentences (questionable), offices are presented as independent clauses. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, it is "Mauro Favilla, ... Mayor of Lucca." Even if you include the "was", it's "Mauro Favilla (was) Mayor of Lucca (the case directly referenced by MOS:JOBTITLES). It's still "president", "prime minister", "ambassador to X" (as opposed to "of Y to X"), etc. when the geographic unit is excluded, as is generally the case due to the nationality being listed (and private-sector title should generally not be capitalized), but written standalone, it's "Governor of Montana", "Bishop of X", etc. There are places where you have to be careful, e.g. "Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court" and "Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri", but not the other way around, and "Secretary of State of Illinois" as opposed to "Illinois secretary of state", but that's how they should be referenced regardless. A case I'm slightly unsure of: "Governor (years) and State Treasurer (years) of Oklahoma" vs. "governor (years) and State Treasurer (years) of Oklahoma". The latter looks and is silly, but I'm unsure of whether a syllepsis constitutes a "reworded description"; I would think not, and the parentheses in the middle don't affect anything gramatticaly. Star Garnet (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You have written over 200 words, applied terms like "modifier", "independent clauses" and "geographic unit", and I do not find the situation any clearer. Frankly, there is nothing to be gained by using a capital letter when a particular set of unclear conditions is met, it just leads to inconsistency and confusion. Why can it not be kept simple, using lower case for every job from president down? We don't need Mayor of Lucca any more than we need Rat Catcher of Hamelin. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you plan to comply with WP's MOS. As it's relevant here, MOS:JOBTITLES essentially boils down to: full (or a version of full, like United States → U.S.) official title without a modifier → capitalized, otherwise not. As it hinges upon modifiers, I'd suggest familiarizing yourself. They are rarely in use here. Star Garnet (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This is all getting ridiculous. We are now seeing people lower-casing things like "minister for the interior", "speaker of the House", "leader of the opposition" - usages that are literally never seen outside Wikipedia. Frickeg (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about "never seen outside Wikipedia". The NYT Manual of Style and Usage includes examples like "cabinet titles, United States and foreign, are capitalized only when they precede names" and "lowercase titles except when they directly precede names, and place long titles after names: Lee P. Milori, minister of internal affairs". The Chicago Manual of Style provides "Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (traditionally replacing the title holder’s first name). In formal prose and other generic text, titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name". I don't know why the confusing Wikipedia MOS cannot summarise in such a clear and concise way. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Year arrangement when linking to Grammy Awards

Hi. There is a link in the credits for Ethel Gabriel entry (this edit) which does not tie in with the information held at the article Grammy Award for Best Historical Album as regards the 25th Annual Grammy Awards. Those awards were held in 1983, to reflect material produced in 1982, but are earmarked as "1983" nevertheless. The year keeps being changed to "1982" in the entry, despite the assertions of that Wikipedia article. Discuss please. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Really not sure what to discuss here, from what I remember when we began this award format when placing the year it’s always the year of the ceremony, to reflect the year of the win. Rusted AutoParts 11:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Also @Refsworldlee: didn’t realize this had been an issue, apologies for removing the dubious tag. Rusted AutoParts 11:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been my understanding that awards are year-stamped in the year that they were won, not the year that they were earned. Hence Gabriel's Grammy should be dated 1983. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't even see the point. The article obviously states she won the award for her 1982 work, awarded in 1983: in fact, it doesn't at any point state she won the award in 1982. The format of the page has ample consensus on listing Oscars, Grammies etc with the year of the ceremony so it definitely should be 1983, which does not contradict the source at all. Huferpad (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. I thought it was a globally accepted and understood fact that Grammys, Oscars, even Blues Music Awards are granted in year "Y" for work published in year "X". This is not a Wikipedia 'quirk' - surely no consensus needed. 1983 it is, no doubt. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Not a problem, and not at all an issue until one other editor and myself approached 3RRs most recently, a violation which I don't partake in. I maintain that piping the link to 1982 when it is a 1983 occurrence would be tantamount to Wikipedia lying to itself. Pedancy for some is exact information for others, including me, and I had no intention of entering a slanging match with the editor involved, who I otherwise respect and who does sterling work here. Dubious/discuss was the only way forward I could see. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know why we're having this discussion, as it's a straightforward subject. We all know, I presume that the Grammys are PRESENTED or held early in the year AFTER they are ACTUALLY WON (or earned, one and the same thing), for the body of work in the previous calendar year. It would be virtually impossible to present them in the same year, obviously. The year they are presented is basically irrelevant, as the Grammy website confirms i.e. 25th Grammys of 1982. You don't win or earn something in 1983 for doing nothing in that year, if you get my drift! Editrite! (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit here had Gabriel winning at the 24th Annual Grammy Awards, which clearly did not happen. That said, the Grammy Awards website refers to Gabriel's award as 25th Annual GRAMMY Awards (1982), so perhaps we do need to review which year we tag to an award. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don’t think we do. The 25th awards ceremony objectively happened in 1983. Since we include the award category in the “X winner” section, we link the ceremony in the year. So there’s really no other year to list but the year the ceremony happened otherwise in my opinion there’d be quite some confusion as to why the year, in this example, is 1982, when that award was not presented to that person in 1982. Whether they decided the winner in 1982 or another year aside from the ceremony is irrelevant (and kinda OR? How do you know when they chose the winner?), as they are being awarded the prize in the next year, this case 1983 Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was opened because, as it stands, the year piped does not relate to the article it's linked to (a 1983 occurrence). This misinformation still exists in the Deaths page. For comparison please note: the Jessica Walter entry gives a pipe to the 27th Primetime Emmy Awards and gives the exact year they were AWARDED (1975). Naturally and logically. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

O.K. Let's get down to the nitty gritty. The linked Grammy article introduction clearly explains that the awards ceremony was being held in 1983 to recognize achievements in the previous year. I think we need to give our readers credit for having at least some intelligence. However, to avoid any possible ambiguity, I suggest as a simple solution that (1982) is placed right next to the heading in brackets as part of the heading, which agrees with both the article and article source, which also happens to be the Grammy website (surely an impeccable source). In answer to a previous post, my first edit was based on the assumption that the original entry was correct, which in hindsight was clearly not the case, but was corrected in my second edit anyway (the only reason that the previous edit wasn't reverted). All major awards ceremonies, as far as I am aware, are usually held early in the year after the awarded work was produced, simply because in theory, the last eligible day is December 31. The sealed results are held in advance by auditors under tight security until the events. Editrite! (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s not about giving an impeccable source to prove they are awarding the achievements of 1982, the fact of the matter is they are officially announced and awarded the prize in 1983. It would be deceitful to list the year as 1982 because it’s just not true they won in 1982. The thought process of “well technically they decide this then, etc” is needless overthinking. Keep it basic and to the year of the ceremony. Rusted AutoParts 01:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You miss the point completely. Obviously nobody is saying that she won IN 1982. She won FOR 1982. There's a difference. It would be more misleading to say 1983, when it was achieved in 1982. She may well have done nothing in 1983. Editrite! (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would we put if for the year they were winning it for that doesn’t really make any sense. Yes, their work came out that year, but when it comes to winning the award and physically being handed it that happened in 1983. Rusted AutoParts 14:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It may not make sense to you, but that's the way the industry works, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, and we can't arbitrarily change the way they view their own industry. Nobody is really interested in when the ceremony was held, only in when the work was CREATED. You're looking at it from the wrong angle. As I've said before, the award is actually won before it's presented. Think of it as the first official public announcement of the win . . . then maybe you'll understand better. Editrite! (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We aren't hear to change the way the industry or readers look at things, what are you talking about? We are literally just noting when they won an award... Rusted AutoParts 23:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Think of it as the first official public announcement of the win" that's exactly what we do already because that's what's being put. This nitty gritty overanalyzing over their voting and winner decisions is unimportant. We're just noting what award they won, and when it was won from the perspective of when they were announced to win it. Rusted AutoParts 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the Grammy website (link in one of the above posts), if you haven't already done so (in which case, there's no hope), which is the primary source, by the way. The bottom line is that it clearly says "25th Annual Grammy Awards (1982)" NOT 1983. Wake up. We're here to present the facts, not our version or interpretation of the facts (like the mainstream media do too often). The ONLY way we can do it your way is to add "announced on this date". I won't comment on the first of your two previous replies, but let others judge for themselves. Editrite! (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To break the stalemate, I thought it may be helpful to look at the other EGOT awards. Emmy and Tony awards are presented in the same year as the performance, so no help there. The 92nd Academy Awards were presented in 2020 for performances in 2019. Well, oscars.org refers to them as "2019 (92nd)". [2]. So, it seems that both the Grammies and the Oscars label the winners according to the year of performance, and not the year of presentation. The evidence is building that we should do the same. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

But this literally doesn’t change when the deceased in question is presented with that award. The point isn’t to highlight what the awards organization does in their voting process or what year of film/music/tv/etc, it’s highlighting when the deceased individual won the given prize that has been linked. Jessica Walter won her Emmy in 1975. Larry McMurtry won his Oscar in 2006. Why would we need to highlight what the awards organization is doing when it’s about the person? Rusted AutoParts 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This just popped up for me on YouTube actually, but on the official Oscars YouTube upload of Steven Spielberg winning best director for Schindler’s List (1993), they put it as the 1994 Oscars. Rusted AutoParts 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ref . . . According to WWGB, the Emmys are awarded in the same year (see post above). If that's the case, your earlier 1975 Jessica Walter Emmy example is not a good one. Editrite! (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It was my example, and it is a good one. The show she was nominated for debuted in 1974. And aside from that the Emmys have a set timeframe of an average television season that spans 11 months. This most recent ceremony covered May 31, 2019 to June 1, 2020. Regardless how does this negate my point of it being about the winner, and not the inner workings of the organization? Rusted AutoParts 09:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's NOT a good example because the Emmy winners are shown and awarded in the same year UNLIKE the Grammys . . get it. Anyway, since when have you been signing posts as Ref, or are you the same person? Editrite! (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The question remains as to what you're talking about on both fronts now. The first front being this "shown and awarded in the same year UNLIKE the Grammys" nonsense. I literally explained how Walter's Emmy performance began in 1974. Also if you mean nominated and awarded the same year, Grammys absolutely do it the same year too. Nominations were announced in January 1983. The award ceremony was a month later. As for "Anyway, since when have you been signing posts as Ref, or are you the same person?", I have no idea what you mean. Either you're being snide at me responding to something you meant for Ref, or that your tried to ping Ref to criticize them for a point I made as well. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@RAP . . If a message is addressed to a specific person (which you've admitted) why would anyone else take it upon themselves to give an opinion, when they weren't asked for it? Have some manners. It's called netiquette. Don't do it again. All this Emmy nonsense is only a distraction from the real issue which is the Grammys (not the nominations). Editrite! (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you being so insanely rude? Like I said I made the same point, and since Ref hasn't remarked here since it's inception, why not address it? And the Emmys were always supplemental proof of my point. If we're just going around in circles now, seeing as I pointed out this particular Grammys ceremony saw it's nominations and broadcast take place in 1983, and all I've seen from you is ooing and awing about original research-fueled notions about when they meet to form their nominations, then I think this discussion has reached it's conclusion, and the consensus agrees that what's important is when they won. Rusted AutoParts 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, that won't ping me. @Editrite!: this is the proper way. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've not replied because I've nothing to add, and this circular discussion has been going on so long that the contentious issue has now departed for the separate page Deaths in March 2021. Neither I nor the other editor can call the play, as we are the main "protagonists", so I'd appreciate someone coming in and making a consensus decision and perhaps removing Ethel's tag in line with that decision. Right now, I couldn't care less either way as it's ancient history on the timeline of my personal editing. I will just repeat - the link can tell the truth as to where it leads, or it can lie/mislead as it does right now. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So given the just about two week gap in replies, I feel comfortable believing that the status quo is to be maintained due to lack of consensus. Rusted AutoParts 09:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Legislative Politicians formatting

Ok guys, looks like we may have to go over this again. If we want to undo the current consensus then lets discuss that. But the consensus is on members of the legislature that we use the form "members of XXXX", where XXXX is the Senate, House of Representatives, Legislative Assembly, Chamber of Deputies, Knesset, or Parliament. Now because of the English law formatting, some countries do use the term MP (which means member of Parliament) and MLA (member of legislative assembly) and we have allowed that abbreviation. However, when you switch the format to a job title such as Senator or Deputy or whatever, you are changing the format out of what we commonly have agreed upon. So lets choose one form or the other. MP does not equal Senator or Deputy. They are completely different formats as one is part of a body and the other is a job title. The US and other similar bicameral legislative models do not use MS for member of Senate or MHR for member of the House of Representatives. Thanks. SunnyDoo, 01:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why the simpler "senator" is not better than the long-winded "member of the U.S. Senate". They are even called senators at the article List of current United States senators. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mostly because in the U.S. there are 2 levels of Senators...one at the State level, the other at the Federal level. When you would say Georgia Senator...would you mean Georgia State Legislature or one of the 2 Georgia senators that represent in the U.S. Senate.SunnyDoo, 03:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In countries like Belgium, as far as I know, there is only one Senate in the country, so a simple "senator" should suffice. In the US, it could mean anything, that's why we should clarify between national's and a state's. Also, with this now being a renewed discussion, changes to the entries shouldn't be made. Wyliepedia @ 04:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But the thing with that is you are non-standardizing the process and treating different entries differently. We should be trying to keep things uniform in one way or the other. Now we are going to have Deputies, Senators, MPs, MLAs and whatever else which are different forms of the same thing. It looks like a mess to me.SunnyDoo, 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we are following the MoS on job titles, not de-standardizing anything. You cannot standardize those things which are not specifically related to each other, and anyway Wikipedia is not remotely an exercise in tidiness. Different countries have different title forms. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I continue to think "member of the xxxx" is far clearer than the hodge-podge of abbreviations that are currently being enforced. If space is the concern (and it is the only justification I can imagine), using the above format still leaves most politicians well short of some of the entries we end up with for actors, etc. We may know what MLA, MHA, MP etc. means, but our readers may not, and we shouldn't require them to click on a link to find out. Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

But that's exactly what links are there to do - to allow the visitor to find out more about a subject, or a set of abbreviations if that be the case. The full title would be linked to the same page anyway, so why dispense with abbreviations to make a subject line longer and increase page loading times for those unfortunate enough to have slow internet or inferior devices? Most people have tooltips enabled I believe, so just hovering over the linked abbreviations will give the full title without even clicking thru. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at John Warner. What a shame we cant format him the way he deserves....he is just a senator...not a US or a state...just a senator.SunnyDoo, 01:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And Lambert Kelchtermans was every-damn-thing. Wyliepedia @ 07:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"Notable" deaths?

I cannot believe this question has not come up already, but a search of the Talk page reveals no consensus has been arrived upon as to what exactly constitutes a "notable" death? What qualifies someone to be added on this list? What does one have to do to be considered "notable"? When is someone not notable? My mother was known all over town for her apple pie. Is she notable? I was on television once after being interviewed when my son sucked a pin cap down his windpipe while he was at school. Am I notable or, for that matter, is he? I believe there needs to be a discussion about this notability requirement and a consensus needs to be obtained regarding who gets on this list and why. If such a consensus exists already, and surely it must, will someone please point me to that discussion page. Thank you. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If they're notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them, they're notable enough to appear here. If you think someone is notable enough to have an article written about them but there isn't one currently you can add their name, but it will be removed after a month if the article never gets written. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTABILITY. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, and unfortunately, one sometimes has to search talk pages attached to Deaths pages from years ago to discover where and when a particular consensus was reached. Such is probably the case regarding notability. I've still never seen the Talk page which granted redlinks one month's grace so that they might have an article written about them. Not that I disagree with that principle, it's just that it appears sometimes we have to take another editor's word that a particular consensus does exist historically. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly no consensus, but I raised the one-month moratorium back in 2007. There were fewer Wikignomes back then, so an idea often stuck unless anyone objected. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Notable awards

Recently, we are seeing a greater number of "awards" being attributed as reasons for notability. I refer to awards like Russian Federation Presidential Certificate of Honour, Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, People's Artist etc. Are these truly notable awards, or are they handed out in the hundreds and thousands, and merely bloat our ever-lengthening entries? WWGB (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if any of those awards are the entries' claim to fame, but I do think none of them (awards, that is) merit adding to this page. Dime a dozen, in some instances. Wyliepedia @ 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Many of those national awards are entered as a device to "big up" the deceased without reference to real notability. Only international awards deserve line space in what should be a limited length entry, or at least as concise an entry as possible. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Began removing "People's Artist" today. Wyliepedia @ 10:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Honours

Can someone explain why Americans, being arbitrarily granted a 'Hall of Fame' membership is deemed notable enough to be allowed inclusion here, when the British Kenneth Mayhew's Military Order of William ("the oldest and highest honour of the Kingdom of the Netherlands") is excluded ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I expect only an American will be able to answer that, so I'll trouble this thread no more. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, as an arbitrary American, not all HOFs get included here. As has been discussed here before, only international or type-specific are given. Secondly, I suppose in my initial removal of Mayhew's MOW that I saw it as a chivalric honor only. (Some of those are paid memberships). Since then, it seems the Netherlands MOW is akin to the American Medal of Honor, which would (or should) be included in those entries. I can re-add Mayhew's distinction. Wyliepedia @ 15:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sanity prevails. Thank you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Derek R Bullamore: I wouldn't go that far. Wyliepedia @ 20:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Terms in office

Folengo has asserted "there was a discussion about terms and we agreed to maintain them". This is at odds with the discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2020/Archive 1#Any amount of years? where there was a preference to limit different year spans (tenures in office) to three sets for anyone listed. There is agreement to implement the "rule of three" across these pages, and terms in office should follow. Unless someone can put forward a different consensus, I will remove the excessive term listings at Deaths in 2021#8. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the criteria for choosing which three terms of office are displayed out of, say, six terms in total? If it's by importance, how do you quantify this? Or do you take "last three terms", "first three terms"? This is where the rule of three falls flat on its face a bit. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ro3 should cover how many offices (in a politician's example) should be listed and not years. Example: a nation's senator who also served in a congress and was speaker shouldn't have a city councilman position listed. As Ref stated, you can't cherry-pick the terms. The !vote at the archive link was 6–3 for all-inclusive regarding terms, ugly as it makes the page look. Wyliepedia @ 15:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Re this discussion, Proposal I (limit of three terms) was upheld, whereas Proposal II (no terms reported) was lost. Therefore, the outcome was to report no more than three terms. That can be achieved as follows:

• Virbhadra Singh, 87, Indian politician, minister of steel (2009–2011), four-time chief minister of Himachal Pradesh and three-time MP, complications from COVID-19.[3] WWGB (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As a sidestep to rule of three, I would vote to continue with Proposal I with no change to consensus. It still seems the least contentious of the available actions regarding politicians with excessive numbers of terms, and could be applied to equivalent scenarios in other fields of life and work. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dates are very important to me. They define the historical period in which the politician was ruling and for how long he held power. Also allows to understand if he was in charged during some historical events. --Folengo (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If those dates were wikilinked to specific events or infamous acts, I could understand that point of view. Not many people have such an innate knowledge of event dates as to recognize swiftly a timespan in relation to specific events. Terms of office are just lumps of numbers after all. And mostly clog up an entry line most of the time. The important and notable thing about politicians is that they served in certain capacities, and not exactly when they served. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

But with office tenures, as with the case of Gian Franco Kasper, if no years are listed at all, then that makes him seem to be the only president of FIS. See, you had to click it to know differently. That said, I'm all for brevity, looking at June's 800 entries. Wyliepedia @ 22:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your example is clearly not feasibly the only president of FIS, that's unlikely to be the case in any walk of life let alone politics. The WWGB method of highlighting the number of times a term was held satisfies your call for brevity, I think. I believe the "numbers game" could be continued by clicking through to the person article, where all would no doubt then be revealed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Policy on animals?

Don't we have a policy on which animals are noteworthy enough to mention here? I've been seeing more horses listed, and while they might merit entries of their own, I don't see this as becoming a list of notable human AND equine deaths. Am I wrong? Bruxism (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This subject has been raised many times . . . check out the fourth FAQ at the top of this page. Editrite! (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bruxism: and how about signing your posts properly, like I did for you? Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Checking Bruxism's last posts on talk pages reveals that they normally sign their posts correctly. In this case, they accidentally typed one tilde too many. This has happened to me too. Not a big deal. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Is COPD linked too?

Tommy Engstrand, 81, Swedish sports journalist and television host, COPD.[18] (18.07.2021)

I would have thought COPD was sufficiently common as not to require linkage?

Darcourse (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The abbreviation COPD is certainly a common term, but the longer form, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is sometimes hard to remember and for some even hard to say. Personally, I'm happy that courtesy is served by maintaining the linking (I certainly won't be removing the linkage). Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Death of X

When there is an article such as Death of X, Killing of X or Murder of X, I thought we had consensus to include Person X on this list.I cannot find the relevant discussion in the talk archives. Does anyone else recall such consensus, or even find the discussion? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really, that may have been so long ago I wasn't involved in this project. However, I'm pretty sure I was told at one point that scant or non-existent biography of the whole life of the event subject would preclude it from being kept after one month. Like redirects - if there's a redirect to a shared article which still gives substantial bio of the deceased, it can be kept as a redirect. Event articles surely must exist under the same criteria, rather than just quoting the name of the deceased and what happened to them in a single instance, without filling in the rest of their life? New consensus discussion required, maybe. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely remember. It was always a "big issue" for me. Here are two of the previous discussions (and I think there may have been a few more discussions, pre-dating these two):

• Talk:Deaths in April 2017#Robert Godwin

• Talk:Deaths in 2017/Archive 1#Should "Death of X" articles be listed here?

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I was around for both those discussions, but barely remember them. However, on the basis of the above discussion so far, I have returned to my recent revert edit for January 2021 to restore Olly Stephens to that month's list. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to add a comment. In your edit summary, referenced above, you indicated: consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2021 indicates only mention of the subject name in the event article is sufficient. Perhaps you mis-spoke? Your statement -- probably inadvertently -- indicates that any mention of the deceased person in an article thereby "qualifies" that person for inclusion in these "Deaths Lists". I don't think that was the consensus. I read / understood the consensus to be: if a person's name is specifically mentioned in the title of an article, then that person qualifies for inclusion. (For example: Shooting of Robert Godwin, Killing of Justine Damond, Shooting of Daniel Shaver, etc.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my literal oversight. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a (semi-) important issue ... and it rears its head every so often. So, I just wanted to clarify and avoid any confusion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Homicide"

Hey. Homicide is a crime, not a cause of death (re: Nancy Frankel). As the Law & Crime source article states, "Frankel’s autopsy is scheduled to take place on Thursday to determine the cause of the victim’s death." So no cause had yet been established by that point, and none announced as yet (to my knowledge). Can we stop putting crimes in where an exact cause of death should exist? Especially the same mistake over and over? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of persistent recurrent errors, homicide is yet again not a crime. Some homicides are the result of crimes, and some crimes have "homicide" in their titles or definitions, but on its own, it's a manner of death. As far as those go, suicide is the only one consensus says may stand in for an unknown cause in this list, so you're absolutely right that we should wait for the cause to be known this time (though "exact" has never been required, exactly). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

More saliently, in this instance the homicide is being reported as a crime against Nancy Frankel. And we're always aiming for as exact a cause of death as possible, or we wouldn't be diligent Wikipedia editors. However, thanks for pointing out my errors and omissions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

In this instance, first-degree murder is the reported and alleged crime. Homicide is an element of that crime, but not the crime itself. One-word verbs (like "suffocated") are exact enough for most homicides here, historically, though a death certificate is usually wordier. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

To those dummy editing comments into edit summaries, why would you not place your comments here instead? Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably for one or more of the reasons at Help:Dummy_edit#Purposes. Minor content issues do not necessarily need to be ventilated on the talk page. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

But it sounded like you challenge my thinking on this and would prefer the broad description to be in there, even though, as pointed out in a source above, "autopsy is scheduled to take place on Thursday to determine the cause of the victim’s death". I think "suicide" is basically different, because there is only one killer involved (oneself). The term homicide also lends itself to inserting assumptive comments into the encyclopedia 'pre-judice' - assuming a legal outcome before it's been to court is not what we're supposed to be doing. And I would prefer "suicide by X" in the subject line over just plain suicide any day. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Magically, this section is now moot. Quite simply because a CAUSE within homicide was found, currently described "murder by suffocation". I'm more than happy with that outcome. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We certainly cannot use “murder” for now as there has been no such judicial finding. It was my intention to use “homicide” only as a temporary placeholder until a more accurate, physical cause of death (suffocation) was determined. I’m happy to just have “suffocation” as the standing COD. I’ll leave it to others to argue for/against the permanent inclusion of “homicide”. WWGB (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I say smothered or asphyxiated. Wyliepedia @ 01:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Nancy Frankel ... She seems pretty "famous" ... and the circumstances of her death are quite notable. Is there no obituary out there with a date of birth? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing that I can find personally of a reliable nature. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been keeping my eyes open. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability criteria for inclusion in this list, or not?

As there are back and forth edits currently being made of the strap line at the top of the list page (removing the word notable/restoring same), a discussion will need to take place on whether, as the removing editor asserts, the criteria for a baseline notability is a contravention of the neutral point of view requirement in Wikipedia, or if it is the long-held wish of the editorial majority interested in this project, established historically by consensus. Please note, removing the "notable" word will undermine many of the other long-held consensual agreements, such as the removal of entries displaying only redlinks and inter language links after one month, as the subjects would no longer need to be notable to retain a position, on the face of it. If the notability requirement is removed, expect the list to be several hundred names long each day, and the majority permanent redlinks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this list should contain only those with an established notability through an existing article, or likely to get one shortly, as it has been for years.Nukualofa (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it appears that that main plank of the project is being challenged.

My first observation would be to question exactly how the removing editor is interpreting that part of the strapline? He seems, from his edit summary, to assume that we are indicating that all the DEATHS were notable i.e. either the manner in which they died or some other factual facet of their demise. Whereas the use of the word is clearly designed to ensure that non-notable persons do not enter the list. In that case, rather than just removing the "notable" word, would the editor consider rewording the sentence while retaining those very important seven letters in the guide? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand how he/she finds the word notable to be an inappropriate point of view. I'd appreciate it if the user in question would clarify that here.Nukualofa (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: comment? Wyliepedia @ 22:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm a male user, and the problem with using "notable" in prose for "notable deaths" is that it shows a stance one has about them. I thought it was already obvious how that implies only certain folks' deaths matter, which comes off as a middle finger to others who are deceased. We shouldn't treat any specific instance of a person dying as more important than another individual or group of people. Maintaining "notable deaths" as opposed to simply "deaths" only enables neutrality issues by keeping a disrespectful subtext of "if you weren't already famous, then we don't care whether you died". This isn't so much a criticism of what gets included as it is not wanting any editorial comments in the mentioned subjects who died. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Setting a criteria where, after a period of one month, each entry must have an article is certainly not contravening a neutral point of view. What you are talking about is inclusion, inclusiveness and being inclusive, not being neutral in a point of view. It's impossible. We have neither the time (nor most people's devices the bandwidth) to add any and sundry deaths from around whichever country you live in or from around the world. I've already said how impossibly bloated the pages would become if the requirement for notability is removed.

By your reckoning then, Wikipedia itself is not following the POV rule by insisting that only notable people can have an article. If it's purely a matter of wording, there's only one way to re-jig the text in that line to keep the focus off the death itself and on the living requirement for notability - to make it: "The following deaths of notable people occurred in 2021." You can't make it misleading by just scrubbing the word "notable". Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You've misconstrued my point: I wasn't saying the inclusion criteria was flawed or that we need to change who does/doesn't warrant an article, just that we shouldn't insert editorializing into pages. By no means would it be misleading to simply remove the word "notable" before "deaths". Its abscense would actually just give a sense of "these people died within a certain calendar year", plain and simple even when not an exhaustive list. One's personal opinions on the people who died is something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. Please don't use inclusion criteria as an excuse for including biased terminology within the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Most of our content here is actually reporting the "deaths of notable people", that is, a person who was notable in life and has recently died. In some cases, though, we do report "notable deaths". For example, we acknowledge notable deaths like Killing of Justine Damond while not acknowledging the death of a 90-year-old neighbour. Damond was not notable, but her death was. Basically, if you were not notable in life, or you did not die in a notable manner, then we don"t care to report that you died. The inclusion of "deaths" in the intro without qualification just encourages the newbies to add anyone who died. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The strap line, as I call it, is a guide to help editors know what they should and shouldn't post. They shouldn't add non-notable people, that's been accepted. So what kind of guidelines omit indicating that important requirement? Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would go further and put the word notable in bold. Editrite! (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

no female deaths?

or is it that there are no notable females? surely surely, on this planet, there are at least 3 notable females a day who have died?

i realise everyone is overworked.. maybe if females felt more welcome they would join in helping with the workload? fluffykerfuffle (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Deaths added are based on announced facts with reliable sources, and not according to any gender-based prejudice. If you look closely enough, you will see plenty of entries for all gender assignments. And you will discover plenty of female editors too in the course of your work as one here, if you decide to continue. In the form that you've framed it, your argument is too random and generalised to be taken seriously, and sounds very much like gender platforming. Help us find the obituaries and add them with us. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted this editor to the existence of the WP:Women in Red WikiProject, which each December/January has "Women who died this year" as one of its editathons as well as generally working to improve the representation of notable women in the encyclopedia. PamD 07:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources announcing the deaths of notable females please feel free to add them. Otherwise, we're not going to add random notable females without sources or with questionably unreliable sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That's one reason I joined the WIR group, to acknowledge women no longer with us that were notable in life but not recognized in the Wikiworld. As suggested, please feel free to remedy the "oversight", since most decent obituary-type news items have great biographical information in them. Wyliepedia @ 07:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that, notability aside, the majority of deaths every year are male by a fairly large margin. As long as women refuse to tell us their secrets, men will be dominating the dirtnap game for years to come. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If somebody is interested in getting more women on this list, you could add the following names to the current and last month: Barbara J. Litrell, Michelle Jerott, Erin Gilmer, Martha Chikuni, Carol Patrice Christ, Joyce Maluleke, Jacqueline Sassard, Ruth Pearl, Paula Caplan, Noor Mukadam, Ann Marie Flynn, Christa Mulack, Sue Pinnington, Eloise Greenfield and Margaret Bourke. Please don't murder anyone to get the quota up. Nukualofa (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a "Malaysia-related article"

I see no reason why Malays should be exempt from the article's standard and stated policy of alphabetization by surname. Western name order is similarly used for all Hungarian and Japanese persons and Vietnamese custom of referring to people by given name is not followed. One English-language-based standard applied worldwide. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No-one is saying that "Deaths in (year)" articles are Malaysia-related. The individual person articles in English Wikipedia relating to Malaysian people certainly ARE Malaysia-related - by definition. Therefore, name order conventions for projects in the English Wikipedia are inherited through such articles. What puzzles me is how you are offended by the naming convention at all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@96.250.80.27: It is a long-observed practice here to follow sorting of names by cultural conventions. For example, Eduardo Martínez Somalo is sorted under the middle, paternal surname Martinez, and He Kang is sorted under the family name He. WWGB (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a specifically stated policy of this article that alphabetization is by surname (regardless of cultural convention such as where in the name it appears). 96.250.80.27 (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@96.250.80.27: That is not a "policy". It is just a statement written by a Wikipedia editor to assist newbies. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:NAMESORT, which provides "Malaysian names usually use a patronymic system and are sorted as they are written". That is, sorted by first name. WWGB (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

May I also suggest the IP become a card-carrying Wikipedia member and create an account, since they have been editing for almost a year??? Wyliepedia @ 07:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• It might be helpful if there was a note in the "edit notice" for this page to clarify this point. Should "Please add entries in alphabetical order by family name." be amended to "Please add entries in alphabetical order by surname or otherwise as set out in WP:NAMESORT.? It would formalise the "long-observed practice" described above, as opposed to the existing "specifically stated policy" of using surname. The text displayed to the reader, of "Names are reported under the date of death, in alphabetical order by surname or pseudonym ..." can be left as it stands: I think that very few readers will have any problem with some people appearing ordered by a segment of their name other than a western-style surname. PamD 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Partially implemented. WWGB (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB: Thanks but you haven't done what I suggested: I don't think we need confuse the reader by going into detail, but it's the Edit notice, the thing editors read (or should read) before editing the page, where we need to go into detail about using WP:NAMESORT. PamD 07:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not have the appropriate authority to edit the edit notice. Someone further up the food chain will need to do that. WWGB (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Death age when exact birthdate unknown

There are some cases where a person's death age is reported, but their exact birthdate has not been published anywhere reliably. I assume we can rely on the reliable sources' stated death age, as someone conceivably gave their age, even if we, the public, dont know their exact birthdate? At the page Tommy Curtis, 166.205.141.22 (talk) and 107.117.172.25 (talk) keep reverting the sourced age of 69 with edit summary "Birth month and day unknown"[4]

Sources stating that he was 69 are

• Tallahassee Democrat ("He was 69.")
• Panama City News Herald ("69, August 3, 2021, Pasco Gainer Sr. Funeral Home.").

Deaths in 2021 has him at 69.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We should accept the deceased's age if published in a reliable source. Some media, however, think anyone born in 1950 and dying today will be 71, despite the fact that some will not have reached their 71st birthday. WWGB (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should assume that reporters did due diligence, in the absence of reasonable doubt otherwise. Moreover, the funeral home announcement presumably was made with access to his birth records or family who would know his age.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This would seem to clear it up for the case of Curtis. Though I do echo the sentiment above by WWGB. Connormah (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Searching the archives

I was looking for an archived discussion, and then realized that the name of this page and talk page changes every year, of course. Would it be possible to include a search function, on top of this page, for all the "Talk:Deaths in [year X]" pages as well as their archives? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There are discussions on the talk page of every month, so the search would have to be "Talk Deaths in [month M] [year Y]". There are hundreds of such pages. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's a tech whizz out there with time to spare, I doubt that any of us would complain if they introduced such a tool. Beyond my capabilities, unfortunately. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I hadn't thought about these talk pages being archived monthly on separate pages, and the total does look enormous now, though when you add up all the (sometimes short) talk pages, you'll probably still get less volume than what's in certain other search-the-archives boxes. I agree, if someone does add such a tool, it will be appreciated (certain things have been discussed several times before, and it can be useful to revisit and point out such threads). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes ... often a topic comes up that we want to review / research. But, no one remembers the specific month / year of the discussion. I have faced this issue many times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I wish there was a way to filter based on the age of the person who died, to make it easier to find out about people who unfortunately died young. While perusing the list of deaths it still gives a bit of a pang seeing someone in the prime of life passing away 'before their time', so I can't help but click to open their article to learn more. Why, I don't know. Morbid curiousity, I suppose. Although I'm a software developer (retired) I wouldn't have a clue how to write something like that for Wikipedia. I do, however, have an acronym for it, ready to go. The Death Age Filter Tool (DAFT). – Itsfullofstars (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, there really isn't any programming to satisfactorily have one all-encompassing archive, nor a "search feature". The white bar above starts giving WP article suggestions, until you hit that Search button, then it sends you to the archive that includes thIs page name, as stated above. Possibly, the only way to remedy this would be to start using the Recent Deaths article title in the future, since that could mean the past year. (not recommended) The talkpage would also have to be ran by a bot as well to prevent bloat. Wyliepedia @ 13:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit

'what subject was noted for' is multiple words and not a noun phrase like the other properties in the sentence. It also references 'the subject', which is already implicitly present. May I suggest 'notability' as its replacement. Darcourse (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point. The description is already employing good grammar. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Demonym wars

I see Refsworldlee has been on an anti-Unionist rampage again today, demoting various UKoGBaNI nationals to their various constituent "nationalities" rather than uniformly treating the passport-granting entity as the nationality that counts. I reiterate (having previously opined under this heading last November) in response to this rampage that only if it is directly related to the person's notability (sport international, nationalist politics, cultural specialty, or such) should the particular "home nation" affiliation of a British person be regarded as worth note in this article as opposed to something that could be discovered by following the link. As long as the Union endures to disregard it is a subversive and inappropriate practice. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What wars? If you create (or book in to) an editor account here, you can change them all back at your leisure. Besides which your slant is highly political and that's not what demonyms are all about. You are taking afront where none is intended. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Lee's edits can be extremely irritating, and contrary (fwiw) to the widely accepted essay at WP:UKNATIONALS (and specifically WP:UKCHANGE). Neither nationality nor appropriate demonym are solely determined by place of birth. Unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise, people from the UK should be described as British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It is my understanding that we always use "British" for a UK citizen, unless the deceased identified strongly with a particular country. For example, Sean Connery was Scottish, not British.

By the way, what we use in these lists are adjectives, not demonyms, although they are often the same. Carrie Lam is a Hong Kong politician (adjective), versus Carrie Lam is a Hong Konger (demonym). WWGB (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's right there, in the first line of the "essay-not-guideline": "However, there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom". I'm not returning any other comments on this - if you want to revert my edits, revert my edits, but quote me no "widely-accepted" (subjective) essays. Not accepted by me, that's for sure. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

At least you identify as a Brit. Editrite! (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC

Carol Harris

Interested editors may like to take a look at the entry for Carol Harris at Deaths_in_August_2021#7. Another editor persists in applying a unique style despite my request to follow the consistent style. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Vert der ferk? Wyliepedia @ 03:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

An editor seems to have started a one-entry crusade, mainly on the premise that we are "heavy-handed" here. I have one revert to go until 3RR. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

And I'm done reverting there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Is U.S. out-dated?

September 20 2021 lists two cases, Sherwood Boehlert, and Billy Maxwell. Both use U.S. and not US. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Countries and multinational unions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#US and U.S. suggest this is outmoded usage, and should be replaced with US, like everyone else. Unfortunately, W.P. seems flooded with the older usage, so a macro might be called for. Darcourse (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not read it as U.S. is outmoded. It says either may be used, as long as a particular article is internally consistent. WWGB (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

W.P. ... or WP???. That's how subjective this post is! It's always been an "either"/"or" and will stay that way. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Argentine v. Argentinian

Hi. I've long been confused by which we should use here, more recently going with Argentine by consensus. Which is it? If it's Argentinian, Hufer has a lot more work to do correcting previous months/years than just correcting this article. Answers on a postcard. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

According to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, the appropriate adjective (not demonym) for a citizen of Argentina may be either Argentine or Argentinian. While we are able to use either, perhaps we should agree to use just one in the interests of consistency. WWGB (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Huferpad: thoughts? Wyliepedia @ 13:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well (stepping in), I would have thought that the editor's changes automatically indicate the descriptor he would prefer to see, so why not leave as is and agree on Argentinian for future entries? I am not bothered either way personally, but let's have uniformity.(Let's also have a volunteer to go back through the months/years and change those, which will invariably be tagged Argentine.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

After around one hour of research I must admit I found no strong evidence for one or the other, and it seems the sources I based my reverts upon were biased. In fact, it looks like today both Argentine and Argentinian are used interchangeably as both a noun and an adjective in all authoritative sources freely available, though it is clear that "argentine", while originally an adjective meaning "silvery", came first as a noun when the "República Argentina" simply started to call itself "Argentina"; "Argentinian" is a later invention, but it is unclear if it came to be as another demonym or as "argentine"'s adjectival form. Anyway, since as pointed out past articles consistently use "Argentine" and today there is no difference, I think it's best to stick with it. I'll correct the current article myself in the next few minutes. Edit: I see it's been reverted already • Huferpad talk 14:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Argentine. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Web scraper sites

Just in case some are not aware, I'm quite certain that several web scraper sites like usdaynews.com, celebritiesdeaths.com and fataldeaths.com (lol) mine this page with some sort of algorithm and generate pages clickbaity titles. Frustratingly, I've seen these used as death sources on some articles a number of times... they are in no way an WP:RS. If only there was an easier process to blacklist them. Connormah (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh there’s so many of them. They also run social media accounts and post whenever any name turns up here, even if it’s true or not. Couple years ago James Earl Jones was randomly out in at the start of the year. I or some other editor took him out but regardless the sites reported it so there was a period where people online thought he had legit died. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

They're fairly easy to spot though, and I'd say if it looks badly written and amateurish, don't try using it as a source here. I take it we're reacting to the removal of Ian Carey earlier, where a dodgy-looking Russian site admitted quoting USDayNews directly. Which is why we couldn't risk being wrong about Carey's death. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

At least the bot sites are helping our pageviews, eh? Wyliepedia @ 01:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was in part what spurred this, Refsworldlee. I have also seen those sites used as citations in articles from time to time as well, cites all filled out and such. I'm not even convinced that anyone "writes" those pages on the sites, just that they are spit out in some automated fashion. The Enquirer-style titles (in no particular order: something something "Cause of Death" name of person "shocking"/"unknown"/"revealed") are a dead giveaway that something is off. I guess it just goes to show how vigilant we have to be with adding names to this page, as there is the chance for false info to spread out wider. I don't really have the time to do the groundwork for it, but I wonder if these sites can be added to the spam blacklist (surely they must rely on ad revenue from their tabloid-style titles, but I have those blocked so who knows). Connormah (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ian Carey

Resolved

Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Im gonna use this thread to compile a list of the web scrapers I’m aware of, so we know which to ignore:

• Celeb Saga
• Dead Death
• Inside Eko
• Top Info Guide
• Celebrities Death
• US Day News
• 247 News Around the World
• Latest News South Africa
• Beyond the Dash
• Social Telecast Rusted AutoParts 05:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's always fun to read what the scraper sites write about people who are not well-liked, such as serial killers. Here is an excerpt from Inside Eko's Rodney Alcala obituary: "Across social media users’ timelines are statements that show respect, admiration, and gratitude towards Alcala as people mourn the passing.", and from Peter Sutcliffe's obituary: "This departure was confirmed through social media posts made by Twitter users who pour out tributes, and condolences to the family of the deceased." Nukualofa (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, of course, Inside Eko (and many of the others) have a stock of condolent phrases which they choose from - sadly, they rarely look at exactly the context of the person's notability or notoriety, and prefer to throw in text that is completely conciliatory, regardless of that context. I'm sure they are all seeking to make themselves the go-to places for obituary, but they just end up looking ridiculous to any right-minded person. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Jup Weber

8-oct-2021. Is it really 'Luxembourgish'? It doesn't sound right! I was expecting 'Luxembourgian', until I found Luxembourgers, which sounds much better. Darcourse (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To quote the same article: "The corresponding adjective is "Luxembourgish"." So that nullifies your argument somewhat. I'd say the demonym in the entry, as it stands at my timestamp, is correct. Any other thoughts? We've already slain the Argentine question, so please let's have other views on this. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

According to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations the appropriate adjective is either Luxembourg or Lucembourgish. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Content farm link

(from CAWylie's talk page for Li Zhengming's source)

On Deaths in 2021, min.news is a content farm website and has already been spam-blacklisted by zh-wikipedia, so I changed the link to a more reliable link. And I decided to submit min.news to wp:RSN RFC, but I changed the reference link first. Zh-wikipedia's spam-blacklist is MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Should I change the link to a simpler format, like 中国工程院院士、南开大学教授李正名病逝！年初还曾发表自述 (in Chinese)? Kethyga (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kethyga: That change would be acceptable, as long as it is in that format.  Fixed. His article also uses a source from Nankai U. Wyliepedia @ 03:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @CAWylie. Please help sumbit min.news to WP:RSN for RFC, as I am not so familar with the submission routine. Kethyga (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Rick Jones (television presenter)

Paywalled sources, such as The Times are banned here? If so, then the date of death (as well as exact cause) are unsourced. But perhaps it doesn't matter if someone just says they saw the details on Twitter sometime. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "banned". They're just tagged as such (as are the "non-global" sources) to temporarily to inform readers. Some people can subvert a paywall and work around it, others may not have the know-how. I'm sure there are enough gnomes here that can look behind the curtain to satisfy verifiability. Wyliepedia @ 10:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. When I added that source, which allowed the correct date and exact cause of death to be shown, it was correctly marked with "url-access=subscription". But it was removed, with the edit summary "only one ref per line - but noting in this edit summary that the move was made based on https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rick-jones-obituary-gt0k78ssk (paywalled)". So now we have the original source, from The Guardian, which has no date of death or exact cause, although at least it hasn't been moved back to the incorrect date of 8 October. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No bans, but definitely avoidance. As many editors as possible should be able to access a reference and be able to ascertain that the truth according to it is contained in the death entry. Paywalls and European access blocks mean that, as Wyliepedia says, those denied access are reliant on others to confirm (when ideally we should all be able to confirm through our own perception). As to the question of "working around" or circumventing a subscription, that's hardly the legal position to promote in an encyclopedia, nor a brilliant recommendation in spite of the online news industry. Referencing a paywalled site in an edit summary is IMO preferable to including it when we know that a large section of the readership/editorship can't actually verify for themselves. However, I'm not getting into it yet again with you, so do with it as you wish. But please don't use two references per line. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the misapprehension that material at Wikipedia had to be reliably sourced, not just "confirmed through our own perception". I'm also not "getting into anything yet again with you", just trying to clarify what policy applies at this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, paywall and European-blocked sources are still reliable, just not accessible by some visitors. For example, I get maybe the first few lines of an NYT article, then hit the paywall banner. It's still reliable, but I wouldn't put it here if there were a number of others I can use. Wyliepedia @ 15:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes sure, fully agree. But, for the record, if there aren't "a number of others" that you can use i.e. none, it's better to add all the details you want and just say "it's ok, I read it on Twitter"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems it's fine if "the wife" said it on Twitter. I'll know for next time. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I base the way I edit entries around making sure the source used at least confirms the death. If the best source for that is, say, The Guardian since it’s not paywalled that’s what should be used. If a source like the times has more detail, like specific age if that wasn’t known at the time, or COD, that can be placed in an edit summary to corroborate the edit. If someone else does that, I can verify if the times source indeed had that info as I have a baseline account to be able to read a handful of articles now and then for this sole reason. There’s also making use of the online presence of family or friends/representatives because sometimes details get left out, such as the esophageal cancer Jones had, sources just cite cancer. From what I’ve gathered most sources are going by that tweet from his wife, which clearly states it was esophageal, and this is now also supported by The Times. Rusted AutoParts 16:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I had assumed, wrongly it seems, that everything at Wikipedia, had to be visibly sourced. There seems to be a slight conflict when the rules at a certain article say "only one source allowed". I don't tend to make a personal evaluation of what "most sources" use for their reports - either they're deemed reliable or not. The practice of demonstrating validity by, e.g. putting a paywalled source in an edit summary, is new to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of images on these pages

There is a discussion at Talk:Deaths in 1996 regarding the addition of images to Deaths in XXXX articles. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

More slow page-loading times. Which doesn't bother those who already have high tech devices, but affect those who either cannot afford them or are hampered by slow local broadband connections. (I could easily have posted this comment in the section above - it's relevant to that too - but I'm not getting directly involved in all that again.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death § "Deaths in YYYY" articles leads

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death § "Deaths in YYYY" articles leads. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Mediterranean Games

Are we boosting these now, as in the case of Agustí Jorba Argentí's bronze on 21 October? I know they're a branch of the Olympics, but this might open the floodgates for other "games". Wyliepedia @ 11:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NTRACK includes "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)". So, the Asian Games are acceptable, but do the Med Games rank with them? I don't know. WWGB (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I think it was me who got the Med Games info for Argentí into order, but I am not sure if it really belongs in actual fact. I'd say keep for now until we get any other feedback in this section. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Bare sources

Why do "we keep the sources bare" at this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#3 at the top of this page. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So essentially a technical limitation driven by the limits of editors' devices? Is that consensus quite recent? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I've been editing these lists for ~15 years, and they have never been "full" citations. In fact, it used to be just [URL] links. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure we don't want bare URLs. But has technology progressed any in the ~15 years since that decision was made? How slow is "too slow to load"? I would have guessed there are many articles, which are equally long, that don't have this rule. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why fix what isn’t broke? Rusted AutoParts 12:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Full citations provide much more at-a-glance information, such as author, title (usually the headline) and dates. For sources hidden behind a paywall they can also provide direct quotes to support contentious or disputed claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not the length of the article that is problematic, it's the number of references. I don't think many other articles would have 700-800 references, which these articles include every month. If every citation used the "cite web" template, every template must be rendered before the page loads. Also, it needs to be remembered that this is one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia every year, with over 43,000,000 visits each year. Any noticeable impact on the page loading time runs the risk of deterring regular readers from returning. There is a small group of wikignomes who maintain these pages, sometimes accused of being a club or exerting ownership, but always trying to do the best. The agreed rules here are all about keeping these pages consistent, useful and popular. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. I guess one might have to do manual comparisons via e.g. Long pages. We have no way of ever quantifying the "risk of deterring regular readers from returning", do we. Do we even have any actual data on how much longer it takes? I'm not even sure how one might run such a test. I guess it gets progressively worse as the month goes on. I'm not saying that the article is "broken", I'm just suggesting that full citations could sometimes be used e.g. for paywalled articles or non-English articles (where translations can also be given). Yes, I'm sure gnomes are people too. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the purpose of the reference here is just to prove that the subject is dead, so that's not "contentious or disputed". Fuller detail on the deceased is available, with full citations, at their main article. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. But we sometimes seem to have differences between what's reported here and what's reported at the main article. There is often some uncertainly about exact date of death. Another restriction here is "only one source allowed". I did try and raise this topic before, as I had assumed that this article had to, in some way, "follow" the main article. But the response I got said something about "bragging rights". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Another approach might be to initially hide References in a drop-down box and allow a show for interested readers and editors (assuming this is not contrary to MoS policy). I wonder was this considered at the discussion ~15 years ago? I'm not sure this would really jeopardise "keeping these pages consistent, useful and popular." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

My historic and long-gone comment about bragging rights was not directly to do with what you are talking about now. In the main, this article/list generally sticks to what is being claimed/informed by the person article linked to the death entry. What varies that is repeated and persistent misinformation being inserted into the person article, when it later becomes clear that our entry actually gets it right and just has to wait for the person article editors to sort out their differences. We can actually serve as a further check against misinformation, rather than be viewed purely as going our own way regardless of what person articles say. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we can. What's your view on the requirement to only ever use one single "bare" source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

As in a previous discussion, I still maintain that bare sources use up less edit code, therefore should result in quicker page loading times for those with inferior tech or disadvantageous broadband conditions (such as in the area I live, where I'm lucky to get 9mbps). This seems to be the gist of arguments by others so far too, but further discussion will clarify that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that bare sources use less code. Are these "Deaths in XXXX" the only articles that have such a large proportion of references? I really don't know how much difference it makes to those editors with "inferior tech or disadvantageous broadband conditions." I doubt that anyone knows how many such editors there are. There are plenty of larger articles, of course, e.g. List of chess grandmasters. But these may not be as amenable to such strategies for quicker loading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to further qualify remarks I have clearly made establishing a certain position for me. That position remains, so I think it's time to let other editors have their say here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking you that. But other editors are very welcome to reply or make any other contributions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this restriction relate to all "Deaths in XXXX" articles or just current year? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Archived months in years never lose their edit coding bulk, so retain bare sources for the same reasons, as it stands at the moment. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But if I go back to e.g. Deaths in January 2006, everything has full citations? Is that just because it's a smaller article, or because it was before there was consensus to use bare sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this page being audited or something, lol. Idk why the older pages filled out their sources, perhaps yes they can withstand the added load time given it's a shorter list but I think it's pretty evident here why the need for bare sources are necessary. More people are dying/having been sourced as dying. Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure the discussion ~15 years ago was perfectly valid; but it might be useful to know what evidence was used then to evaluate the trade-off. I was just surprised that these pages use a different citation style to the rest of the encyclopaedia. I was just suggesting that in some cases, a full citation, and/or more than one single source, might be useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But would you not agree that a full cite "in some cases" is guaranteed to destroy the consistency aimed for in this project? And how would you decide which merits a full and which only merits a bare? As mentioned earlier above, the aim of including citations of any stripe in this list of dead people is to confirm without doubt that they have actually died - no more. The ramifications of including someone who is still alive don't bear thinking about, and it has happened on occasion.

The extra information in a full cite is, as you say, useful, but that's not really what we have focused on in the past. Links exist within the subject line of the deceased to other Wikipedia articles where further information can easily be found. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that continued consistency here will be far easier to use and apply, even if what is produced is inconsistent with the rest of the project. I'd still like to see some kind of "quantitative evidence" for loading times; perhaps I'm just too sceptical. In ~15 years the number of entries has probably increased, but maybe people's devices and download speeds have got better? I'd be surprised if there weren't other, more elegant, solutions to the problem. As long as there is consistency between the entries here and their full article, perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm assuming that, once a month has been "put to bed" and is no longer being actively edited, the references are filled in to full cites. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've mentioned my poor download/upload speeds already due to the BT broadband cabinet and exchange issues which exist in the UK (not sure if similar problems are experienced in other countries), and it is very frustrating to sit and wait for a feature-laden website page to load, believe me. As to the cite issue, there would be no point at all in restricting the current month to bare sources and then converting them to full cites after archiving - whether a month is current or archived, the massive edit code burden for both remains the same. Each page in each month/year is currently treated in the same way because they all have this source code bloating. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you for one seem to have a noticeable problem with the page as it stands, so adding in full cites would probably make it much worse. I have no problem with page loading, so maybe I'm lucky. I do have to wait for very large pages like User talk:EEng to load and I guess most other people do to. I'm still unsure why some older "Deaths in MONTH XXXX" articles have full cites. What you see as "code bloating" is a normal MoS requirement across the rest of the encyclopaedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, time for others to have their say I think. Quite enough column inches from me for now - I'm bloating the page..... Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't all rush at once. Is there something peculiar about references that make them more difficult to load than ordinary text? Otherwise it's just this size of the entire article that's the governing factor. The argument here seems to be "we've done it like this for 15 years, so why change now." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No one owes you a response. Anyway, like I said before if it’s not broken why fix it? Rusted AutoParts 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia no one owes anyone anything? I don't think something has to be "broken" for it to be improved. Perhaps there are many other articles which have "dropped out" of the need for full citations. This was just the first one I had come across in 14 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

But do you really feel what this and every other deaths page needs is to add extended load length via padding out the sources? Would you be the one who goes through to make the updates? You had 3 frequent editors to the page explain why the editing practices employed better suit the page, I really don’t know what else can be explained. Rusted AutoParts 17:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

But it's not every other deaths page, is it? More historical pages have full citations (and again it's just my personal ignorance, but I don't know why or what the cut off is)? I'm sorry but I still don't understand why it's the number of citations that causes the problem. And no-one has been able to explain to me "how slow is too slow". Perhaps you could here, now? If bare sources are just fine, and wholly within MoS policy, then I guess any article could use them, as long as there was local consensus to do so. And sorry, no, I'm not volunteering to personally change all the bare sources into full citations (even if that were deemed preferable). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I suppose this thread is at it's end. It's preferred to keep it bare and you don't wish to see the switch to full cites through so it seems that's that. Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I probably would wish to see the switch to full cites. Because I think full cites are more useful and that would be consistent with the rest of the encyclopaedia. Sorry if you see that as disruptive. But that would be based on an evaluation of evidence that so far has alluded me. I asked "how slow is too slow", but you can't tell me and it seems no one can tell me. I know something was decided, by persons unknown, about 15 years ago. And I don't seem to be able to get much further. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"you don't wish to see the switch to full cites through" is in regards to you saying you wouldn't be the one going through to convert the bares into fulls. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

lol. One might want to separate principles from individual editing. Single editor crusades at Wikipedia generally fail. And I do have one or two other articles I occasionally edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a crusade, it’s just me seeing you push for a change presently no other editors here support and you also saying should it be elected to convert to full cites you wouldn’t participate in that. I just don’t know what else could be said here, it just feels like a lengthy amount of “but why?”ing every response. Bare cites just allow for quicker additions and less load time. How slow is too slow? I don’t know, I can’t really put an exact number of seconds to it, but it’s more ideal to be able to just snap into the page. I guess I wouldn’t want to see the page take as long as it does to load my userspace cataloguing of deaths. I figure since these pages average almost or over 500 entries, thus meaning about 500 sources, should all those be filled in it would make for a slower experience losing it and even saving edits. Rusted AutoParts 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Parts, I was characterising my own possible single-handed conversion of bare cites to full cites as a crusade? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Now awaiting some input here from @Unreal7:, who has recently been converting archived months/years to full cite using reFill 2, despite having been approached on their talk page. I have duly invited them to join this conversation for a review of the current consensus. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. If there's consensus against, I won't do it. Unreal7 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, that's all I've wanted, is some response of some kind. I thank you for visiting this talk section, and hope you have gleaned enough from the above discussion to know why we are not in favour of full cites. You are of course entitled to challenge any consensus at any time, but merely ignoring completely the approaches made for comment by editors is not productive. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)