Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:REFPUNC

Hello.

Doesn't WP:REFPUNC say that references should be right next to the preceding punctuation – period/full stop, comma, or the like – if there is any? As of now, there are a space before every one of them.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. I've fixed that. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 08:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Clean up of EL

I cleaned up the external links quite a bit. This involved removing the local, city-specific obituaries (and ugly multi-column format), and adding two links which actually concern the topic of this article. The two links there currently are what we should be striving for; they are specific to 2012, include only notable deaths, and have a global scope. The external links should now be in accord with WP:EL and WP:NOT. If anyone has any questions or concerns about this, I'd be happy to discuss further. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the original format. This page is for all notable deaths, not just those reported in a single American newspaper. --Racklever (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I assume you read what I wrote above? The format that you reverted to does not offer a global perspective, as it includes only deaths in the cities listed (which are few), and it does not include notable deaths either, as they are local obituaries for non-notable people. The LATimes and TvGuide links, on the other hand, provide a list of global deaths of notable individuals. It just so happens that the list was published in the LATimes in the first case, but it is not limited to LA (or even US) deaths; the second result is someone from London. If you still object to the LATimes piece for another reason, we can happily remove it. However, the current format falls afoul of WP:EL and WP:NOT. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The list of published obituaries in reliable independent media is intended to provide sources for entries to this article. It satisfies WP:EL in that it provides links "that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

External links are not intended to house tools for editors to find more content. They're intended to provide additional information that could fit into the article. Google scholar is incredibly useful for finding sources for a great many articles, but it doesn't meet WP:EL. WP:LINKFARM says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." Listing the local obituaries for every major city on Earth is not "adding one or more useful content-relevant links". And again, these lists do not contain notable deaths, or global deaths, or deaths only from 2012. The links I provided do. This is a case where we need a link to "one major fansite", not every one we can find. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"every major city on Earth"? "every one we can find"? A tad hyperbolic, methinks. WWGB (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not hyperbolic at all, actually. We're including a bunch of major cities now. Why aren't we including other major cities? When I asked you this before, you told me "if you can find other local obituaries, include them too". So, every one we can find, which I just about guarantee will include every major city on Earth. We can't just include every local obituary in this article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID advises against linking to "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". That would seem to rule out the lists of notable deaths that Jess wants to add. On the other hand, the same guideline says "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject", which rules out local obituaries. One of these rules is going to have to be ignored. On balance, I'd rather we provide too much information than a couple of totally redundant links. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The links I provided give information beyond this article, including pictures and information about the topic which we cannot include due to space. That being said, there's no reason we have to include external links at all. If you think both options are against policy, then we should remove them both. I'm fine with that. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to give everyone some time, and not push things; I know my schedule is crazy at the moment too. But, it would be helpful if others were willing to discuss this issue. Does anyone still oppose removing the large swath of external links which violate WP:EL and WP:NOT? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 13:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question may be whether anyone other than you wants to remove them? WWGB (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's a discussion. And it appears the people who authored WP:EL and WP:NOT would want to remove them. I can start another RfC if we really need to... but I'd really prefer to just discuss this collaboratively instead. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this, actually. I've looked through all the external links, and I think we could trim a lot of them. There are four that I definitely want to get rid of: Legacy.com (a database of other obituary websites), the Globe & Mail (primarily local, non-notable deaths), Der Tagesspiegel (local non-notables, and WP:NONENGEL), and the Boston Globe (which doesn't seem to have any obits at the moment). As to the rest, some of them are probably too local in scope to be relevant (The Star, the Mail & Guardian, the Scotsman), and some of them are so similar that there's no need to link to all of them (The New York Times, for example, covers all the obits listed in the other American papers). So yeah, I'm with Jess on this. I think we should follow the advice of WP:EL and keep the external links to a minimum. Personally, I'd suggest that we link to The Guardian, The New York Times, and the LA Times, and cut out everything else. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also open to removing obituaries that are purely local in nature or otherwise limited. I am opposed to the removal of obituaries in reliable sources that list more than local obituaries, especially replacing them with a television guide. Boston Globe obituaries appear to be archived at legacy.com which may be a good reason to keep the latter and not the former. Is the current list of 17 links too long? Yes. Should it be cut back to two links? No. The Globe & Mail, The Star, Der Tagesspiegel and The Boston Globe would seem to be certain starters to meet the grim reaper. Compared to the megasize of the references section, having a dozen or so external links is relatively small and inoffensive. Plus, I reiterate that WP:EL provides that "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". WWGB (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If it helps reach a compromise, I'm not averse to keeping the Sydney Morning Herald, the Mail & Guardian, Variety, and maybe one other British paper, along with the three I've already mentioned. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, guys. So, it looks like we agree it should be trimmed down. If we do that, we should identify which types of links are important and serve a unique purpose, and exclude ones that are redundant. 12 links which all serve the same purpose is too much (this is the case of using only "1 fansite" when we have lots). Even one obituary per country would be too much (we'd end up with hundreds!) As far as I can tell, there are two types of links which would add useful information to this page: 1) A compilation of notable deaths in 2012, with pictures and information tying them together in a way we cannot, such as the LATimes or TVGuide links. 2) Possibly, we could include a large database of global obituaries for 2012, or a database of other obituaries. We should only include this if there is one good one which encompasses a global scale. We shouldn't include one in this category which is sub-par "just because". Do we have any good ones which do that? I put some thought into this earlier, and a third option I came up with was a site providing statistics about deaths in 2012. I found a few country-specific ones (US gov website, old census data), but nothing global and current. I'm not sure this really fits anyway, but if we found a good link that complements our list well, that might work too. Are there any categories I've missed? Which links (of the ones we've proposed so far) would fall into each category? AFAICT, the Guardian is UK-specific, and the NYTimes appears to be very US-centric (though occasionally delving into Europe/etc, when the death collides with US interests). If there's something I've missed, let me know! Thanks guys. — Jess· Δ ♥ 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My issue with Legacy.com and all the other databases I've come across is that they don't discriminate between local and national papers, so most of the obituaries they link to are purely local. On the other hand, Legacy.com does have a "memorial site", which is basically another collection of notable 2012 obituaries, but with lower standards of notability, and therefore more obits (291 so far this year). Whether this makes it better or worse than the LA Times and TV Guide, I don't know. But I do think that alongside these broad overviews of 2012, there should be some links to "recent deaths" pages, like in the Guardian and NY Times. They may be US/UK-centric, but they seem to cover pretty much everyone who meets our standards of notability. If we wanted to avoid the appearance of Western bias, we'd have to link to African/Indian/Chinese obituaries as well, which is probably how this page ended up with so many links in the first place. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent to legacy.com; I'll cede to your judgement, and whatever you think is fine with me. The issue about country-specific obituaries is more concerning to me. I don't think simply adding an obituary for every single country is an adequate solution to the problem (there are nearly 200 countries, after all). I also think it's a problem to list only US-centric or Western-centric obituaries and not include others. WP:Systematic bias covers this in some general detail. Ultimately, I can't envision any way that we can include area-specific obituaries (without bias) and still keep our ELs down to a reasonable size, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. With that in mind, I think the only reasonable course of action is to not include them (rather than violate policy). I'm happy to discuss it more if you have other thoughts on the matter (or perhaps 3O would help provide extra input?) It seems we have general agreement that the LATimes is appropriate, and that Legacy.com may be appropriate. Could we perhaps trim it down to these two and then discuss adding others to the group if necessary? (If there's others that fill a unique role I haven't considered, please correct me!) :) Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The assertion of possibly 200 obituaries is entirely hypothetical. The current list spans five countries. What is so unique about the LA Times? Now that alone would just confirm Wikipedia is US-centric. Trim the UK and USA lists if others agree, but it is really a small and inoffensive list compared to the reference monster. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, the LATimes article is a global list. It just so happens to have been printed in a US source, but that doesn't make it not global. The second entry is from Cuba. If you're aware of a more global source which covers the same material, I'd be happy to discuss it too. Right now we have 8 entries from first world, Western countries (primarily the US and Europe), and only one from "South Africa". We're not even representing some of the continents, much less countries. Why not Brazil, India, Ghana, China or Uganda? Even just first-world Western countries would put us over the top once we include Canada, Italy, and the rest of Europe. Featured articles follow WP:EL, limiting their lists to a small collection of a few links, all serving a unique purpose. That should tell us something. We already have more than that, and we're not even representing a small fraction of the Western world (much less the rest.) Limiting our links to one or two per category, and which cover a global scope, entirely rids us of that problem and allows us to follow policy. — Jess· Δ ♥ 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Could we perhaps trim it down to these two and then discuss adding others to the group if necessary?" I'd rather do it the other way around - remove the ones we agree aren't appropriate, then discuss the rest. I think we're agreed that a maximum of one US and one UK paper is enough, so I've removed the Independent, Telegraph, LA Times, and Washington Post (and added Jess' two links). I'm still against removing all the local papers, but I think the Irish Independent and the Mail & Guardian are too infrequently updated to be appropriate external links, and I don't know why I didn't notice this before, but the Variety obituaries appear to require a subscription to view. Can we agree to drop these three links as well? DoctorKubla (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@DK, I certainly think it would be ok to remove those other 3. Regarding the local entries, how do you feel about including the US and UK entries without including entries from the rest of the world (a handful of which I've listed above)? I think that's a problem, per WP:Systematic bias, but if you feel differently, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to link to a few national papers from around the world that publish notable, country-specific, obituaries. The problem is, there aren't any. I've looked through all the major foreign English-language news sites and I can't find anything that would be suitable, just the occasional local obit column like the ones you've mentioned. So I don't think we're guilty of systematic bias if we exclude foreign websites; we're just choosing the most appropriate links, and if the most appropriate links are to US, UK, and Australian websites, there's not much we can do about that. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@DK Thanks for the response. I've read your reply a few times, but I'm having trouble understanding it. You say "there aren't any [national newspapers]", but we have quite a few, including the US and UK ones you mentioned later. I listed a bunch from Brazil, India, Ghana, China, Uganda, Canada and Italy above. I could go on to list more. What's your feeling on those? As far as I can tell, they're the same as the US and UK obits, but just for a different country. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant there aren't any appropriate non-Western obituaries. The US/UK ones list notable deaths, while the examples you give from Brazil, India, etc, are local, non-notable, obituaries. That's why I think they aren't appropriate external links. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that makes some sense to me. I think we'll have to revisit this at some point (either to address the Western bias, or to clean up a proliferation of notable death lists that will creep in to the ELs), but that may not be for a while yet, and I have no problems with it for now. Thanks for the discussion; I think we should be fine with just limiting it to the 3 you initially proposed, any perhaps Legacy.com and/or TvGuide if you feel they're warranted. I think we could also do without those two. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests

Are edit requests removed from the talk page once the edit is completed? I've seen it happen. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, is the entry below this one a response to what I asked? 67.71.2.203 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. There were a couple of formatting errors. But yes, it looks like completed requests are periodically removed. To reduce talk page clutter, I'm guessing. Why do you ask? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Only because I've seen edit requests disappear and was wondering if that's part of normal practice. Thanks for explaining it. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the ones from May 2012 (and earlier ones). Those got moved with the creation of Deaths in May 2012 and its talk page. Requests within the current month on this page should not be removed, answered or not. — WylieCoyote 00:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And I just noticed that WWGB is the one removing completed requests. — WylieCoyote 02:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked that user about it on his/her talk page and am awaiting a response. If necessary someone can initiate a discussion of the practice on this page and come up with a policy that everyone can follow. Just by the way, I notice that you don't sign your talk page contributions. In theory anyone can just type the text "WylieCoyote" so that's not a signature. Guyovski (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no purpose in having simple completed edit requests cluttering the talk page. If Editor A types "please add Fred Flintstone" and Editor B responds "I added Fred Flintstone", keeping the dialogue serves no useful purpose. Besides, admins routinely delete completed simple requests on other pages. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See below. Guyovski (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My address shows up in the Edit History should anyone really need me. "I'm WylieCoyote and I approve this message." — WylieCoyote 20:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In line references or not

I have been following the discussions about the format of what way to ref deaths but didnot see nor cannot find the decission process. 1)can that be highlighted on the talk page and 2) IMHO it does not work. Edmund Patrick – confer 05:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for the RfC, it's under that collapsed pink bar at the top of this talk page (click "show"). The conclusion of the closing admin, Moonriddengirl, is in the box in the top-right corner. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources in foreign languages

Now that we have the new citations format in place, I have a question about listing sources in foreign languages. What is the proper citation format? (A) To list the foreign language in the death entry itself (in parentheses at the end, the way that it was always done in the past)? (B) Or just list the foreign language as a notation within the footnote? (C) Or list the language in both places? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to mention that the source is in a foreign language anywhere in the entry itself. If you want to include it in the footnote, you probably can. There's probably an attribute in the {{cite web}} template, or you could put it in parens within the ref tag. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The most common method is to use the |language= parameter of the Citation Style 1 templates. Good raise 15:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So, am I correct in my understanding ... that you are both stating to use option "B" from my original post? Is option "B" the correct citation format? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as guidelines are concerned, there is no "correct" format. Other ways to denote the language of a source include using templates like {{Ja icon}}. Anyway, for articles that opt to put citations into footnotes, your option B would appear to be the only one to make sense. Good raise 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Great ... thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion: Deleting Completed Edit Requests

Since not every user has edit privileges over the Deaths page, sometimes edit requests are made here on the talk page. Once those requests are fulfilled, they are sometimes deleted without a remaining trace by some editors but not by others. The justification I've heard is twofold: that such simple exchanges are routinely deleted by administrators on other pages, and that deleting them reduces clutter. A potential justification for not deleting such requests is that they enhance the completeness of the record or at least make tracking edits a little bit easier. Either way, I'm happy with whatever people do as long as it's done consistently by everyone based on consensus. That's why I'm asking people for their thoughts on the matter. And if it's decided to create a policy of deleting completed edit requests, perhaps there should be a guideline as to how long such requests should be left on the talk page before they are deleted. Anyone? Guyovski (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

When you first asked about this, I assumed it was standard practice. But you're right, if a consensus hasn't been established, the issue should be discussed. Removing fulfilled requests doesn't strike me as a problem, but if there are concerns about keeping the record intact, perhaps they could be moved to a seperate archive rather than deleted. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If left the requests will disappear in 30 days as this page now has automatic archiving. Manually removing them is not necessary. --Racklever (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep till the archiving. Editors who post them may not notice/look for the change on the main page and come here first for the answer and see their post removed after it's been answered and removed. In a perfect world, the original poster should be allowed to remove the OP after the answer. However, that probably won't happen most times. Still, the requests, answered or not, get moved with the archiving and solves the "clutter" issue. As for removal on "other pages", that discussion belongs on those pages. — WylieCoyote 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Murder" as cause of death

Newspaper articles will sometimes report that someone was "murdered", especially if it's an emotionally charged situation, like this. But "murder" is a specific legal term in every country that I can think of. To list that a victim was murdered is to claim that someone was convicted of this charge, of killing someone intentionally, etc. If there's no conviction there's no murder, really. I realize that the term "murder" is sometimes used rhetorically but this reflects a lack of neutrality that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree on all points. "Murder" is also vague because there are multiple causes of death encompassed within that term--shooting, stabbings, defenestration, etc. In the case of the journalist mentioned above, I believe the cause of death is properly listed as "shot." That's the way it should stay unless he was, for example, strangled instead. Guyovski (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are no references that state the method of his execution. WWGB (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Then we might have to be satisfied with the weasel word "killed." That's also vague but is about as specific as one can get when the actual cause of death is not referenced anywhere, and all we know is that he didn't die of old age or a disease. I'm against using "executed" unless it was a government currently in power that conducted a formal execution within its jurisdiction. If that's the case then it should be "executed." Guyovski (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with most – if not all – of the above points. I most strongly disagree with User:discospinster's assertion that: "if there's no conviction, there's no murder". I outline my reasons here:

(1) First and foremost, we (at Wikipedia) must merely report what the reliable sources report. If the reliable sources report "murder", then we likewise report "murder". This is independent of any other arguments, feelings, opinions, conjecture, etc. A basic foundation of Wikipedia is "verifiability, not (necessarily) truth".

(2) A newspaper article or an article online on the internet is not a document in a court of law. They are not courtrooms. Therefore, whatever the legal definition of murder may be, that is irrelevant to what the "common" language definition of murder may be. If we were in a court of law, we would apply legal definitions. We understand that mass media (newspapers, internet, etc.) are not indeed courts of law. As such, they use a different vocabulary than a legal vocabulary. And their usage and meanings of words cater to the masses and are understood to do such. This is independent of any legal definitions that may exist. Thus, any legal definitions are irrelevant for the purposes of reading or interpreting the content of non-legal reliable sources. This happens with many other fields, as well, besides law. For example, newspapers might use scientific words inaccurately, such that they don't conform to the precise scientific definition. They do the same for psychological terms, economic terms, and the like. The news media are not expected to conform to the precise definitions within all of these esoteric fields. Rather, they report with the language and words that are readily understood by the mass populace and by laymen.

(3) It is patently (and obviously) false to say that "if there's no conviction, there's no murder". Some clarifying examples are offered here. (A) There are hundreds upon hundreds of unsolved murders in this country (and in this world). Just because the murderer has not been identified or found (much less, convicted) does not mean that a murder did not occur. One has nothing to do with the other. If a bank were robbed, but the robber "got away with it", would we claim that there was, in fact, no bank robbery? No, of course not. This is so even though there is a "legal definition" of what constitutes "robbery". So, by the flawed reasoning of the original post, would you claim that the Black Dahlia was not, in fact, a murder victim, simply because the murderer was never located? (B) Would you claim that Nicole Brown Simpson was not in fact a murder victim, simply because no one was ever convicted of her murder? (C) Consider the case of murder/suicides. These occur with great frequency. The police/authorities (and the press) have no problems concluding that a crime is a murder/suicide, even when the murderer has not been convicted of the murder. In other words, whether or not the murderer was actually convicted of a murder has no bearing on whether or not a murder in fact occurred. Several other examples: Would you claim that the students killed during the Virginia Tech massacre were not, in fact, murdered, simply because no one was ever convicted in that case (owing to Seung-Hui Cho's suicide)? Would you claim that the students killed during the Columbine High School massacre were not, in fact, murdered, simply because no one was ever convicted in that case (owing to the suicides of both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold)? Would you claim that all of the people killed during the September 11 attacks were not, in fact, murdered, simply because no one was ever convicted in that case (owing to the hijackers' suicides)? The same logic would apply if the police killed the perpetrator on the scene (prior to any opportunity to bring the perpetrator to trial and/or to conviction). My point is that some event might properly be called a "murder" – not only in layman's terms but also in legal terms – independent of whether or not someone was actually identified or charged (much less, convicted) in that event. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Unsolved murders and murder/suicides are perfect examples of counter-arguments to the original poster's arguments. Whether or not someone is (subsequently) convicted of murder does not, in any way, retroactively determine whether or not a murder, in fact, was committed.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph makes some very good points. He caught very well that a conviction (or even an arrest) is not require for the police to declare that someone died of foul play (although they don't actually call it murder). There is also something to be said for the argument that this is an encyclopedia relying on other primary sources, and our information comes from what those sources say. We can question the accuracy of sloppy layman language, especially in the case of non-independent or politically affiliated news media, which often slant their news coverage; but if a news medium uses the word "murder," we have to quote it as saying "murder." But I'd like to bring the discussion back to what matters on this talk page: whether the word "murder" is a legitimate cause of death in a death listing. I still say it isn't because it's too vague, and because it isn't really a cause of death. People are murdered in various ways--shot, stabbed, drowned on purpose, thrown out of windows, etc. Those are the actual causes of death. In nearly every case those actual causes of death are made public by whoever reports the death, even if they call it "murder." And even in the rare case where the way someone died is not specified beyond the word "murder," I prefer the word "killed" because of its more neutral implications. Yes, I acknowledge that people can be killed in traffic accidents, by lightning, and in numerous other ways that don't involve human agency, so "killed" is a broader term than "murdered." I just have a preference for using it because of its neutrality, since "murder," in colloquial speech, is not a neutral word and always carries moral connotations. So I propose that we do research to find out whether someone was shot, stabbed, defenestrated, or whatever, and use that as cause of death; and, if we can't find anything specific enough, say they were "killed." Guyovski (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: In terms of "executed," I propose that that word be used only if someone was put to death by an executioner employed to do so by a government currently in power in that jurisdiction. This would apply even if we don't personally recognize the legitimacy of the government or the justice of the execution. I'm basing this proposal on what the word "execution" means. Even then, it's better to use a specific term such as "hanged" or "lethal injection." Guyovski (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with using the word "killed". If anything, in the case of a murder, we can use "homicide" as preferable to the generic "killed". And, in any event, we should just use what the reliable source reports. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond to some of Joseph's original points:

The original source accompanying the entry did call it a "murder". But the current source only says he was killed. The word "killed" carries a more netural implication than "murdered", and if different sources use different language then we might as well go with the more neutral one. As I said above, and Joseph reiterated, laypersons will use the word "murder" in a casual way, but when they do, they're likely implying that someone was killed in a particularly brutal or shocking way, or that the killing was intentional (the September 11 events are a good example of this). If someone is hit by a car and killed, or even killed by gunfire, people generally don't call it "murder" if it was an accident, unless they are trying to inflame emotions. Even if it's "obvious" to us that there was intent, it's not Wikipedia's place to import this extra layer of interpretation. Even in the article for the September 11 attacks the word "murder" is not used in relation to the victims. As Guyovski says above, there is a moral connotation to the word that doesn't exist in, for example, bank robbery. So we can say that a bank was robbed without making any moral claims, but to say that someone was murdered, without a trial and conviction, certainly does make such a claim.

So no, I don't think that we should call Black Dahlia and Nicole Brown Simpson "murder victims". They were killed by the hand of another person, but we don't know (in law) who that was. That's why O.J. Simpson's article does not label him as a "murderer". If we say that Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, who did it? O.J. hasn't found the real killer yet. Using the term "murder" is thus confusing and unnecessary. ... discospinster _talk 21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you missed some of my points. Regardless of how you personally feel about it ... and regardless of what you personally "think" ... it is not really in dispute that the Black Dahlia and Nicole Brown Simpson were murdered. (Just read both of the articles. The term "murder" is used throughout both.) Whether or not someone is later convicted of those crimes is wholly irrelevant. Just because someone is later convicted, that does not go back in time (retroactively) and allow us to determine that a murder occurred. If a murder occurs on January 1, then a murder occurs on January 1. Period. Whether or not someone later gets convicted (let's say on July 1) ... that subsequent fact does not go back in time and change or "determine" what happened on January 1. You are confusing the issue of (A) did a murder occur? versus (B) did someone get convicted of that murder? They are two separate and independent issues. So, yes, Nicole Brown Simpson was in fact murdered. The Black Dahlia was in fact murdered. The students at Columbine and Virginia Tech were in fact murdered. The victims of 9/11 were in fact murdered. There are many murder victims who are murdered in murder/suicides. All of these acts constitute murder ... and it is wholly irrelevant that the murderer was never found or identified or charged or convicted. One has nothing to do with the other. Also, none of this discussion really matters. We simply report what reliable sources report ... regardless of how we personally feel about it. This original source (here: [1]) used the word "murder" at least five times. Thus, I recorded it as a "murder" on this deaths page article (before it was changed to "homicide"). I assume that someone later changed the reference source. The second source – the one currently in place – uses the word "killing". So, I am fine with removing "murder" and using "homicide" instead. However, if indeed we kept the first reference, I would argue that "murder" is the correct term (i.e., in allowing Wikipedia to merely report what the reliable source itself reported). Also, a tangential note ... a bank robbery (and calling someone a bank robber) does indeed have moral implications. I am not sure how you can assert that it does not. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my attempt to prevent this thing from becoming a bloodbath (a possibility for which there is precedent if you consult the historical record). Much of this discussion is digression. All we need to worry about is what cause of death is appropriate for the entry on the article page. The key question is whether murder is a cause of death. I've expressed my opinion that it's not because the term is too general. Shooting, stabbing, defenestration, and so on, are actual causes of death, and we should always give them preference. But if all the reliable sources we have only say "murder," then we have little choice but to use that word, even though it tells the reader absolutely nothing about how the person died other than that it was through human agency. Same with the word "killed," which is even more vague than "murder" because it can refer to accidental causes of death such as automobile collisions and lightning strikes as well as to deliberate killing by another human being (or even an animal). If different reliable sources say "murder" and "killed" then I vote for "killed" because it's more neutral, even if it's more general and less informative. So how about it? Guyovski (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what I stated above? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination to delete Deaths in 2004–2011

Editors may be interested to know that someone has nominated the deletion of the following pages:

The deletion discussion is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2004 for all eight pages. WWGB (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cast my vote and encourage everyone else to do so. How you vote is up to you. Guyovski (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Navbox deaths

So we've got a navbox now that links to all the prior months and years. I was thinking we could move it higher up the page, to replace the list of "see also" links. Thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The current setup is like what lawyers call "belt and suspenders" because it gives casual Wikipedia users twice the chance to find the right linked page if they want to move on from the current one; but since we aren't practising law here, maybe redundancy for the sake of completeness is not quite as important. I'm undecided and prepared to go along with the consensus. Guyovski (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way that it currently is, though I concede redundancy. But that (redundancy) is not necessarily a bad thing. The "see also" directs people to other similar pages. I also think (but I am not 100% sure) that Nav Boxes have to go at the very bottom of the page (i.e., it cannot be moved up). I assume that there is some policy or style manual (MOS) on that ... because I have only seen Nav Boxes placed at the very bottom of articles. If that is the case (that it must be kept at the very bottom), that is another argument for maintaining the status quo and keeping the (redundant) "see also" section above it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera

Does anyone know what the Wikipedia policy is on using Al-Jazeera as a news source, as was done in a recent entry? I take no position because I don't know. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with using it as a source, subject to the report being of a factual nature - just like any other media outlet. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it "after long illness" or "after a long illness?"

Right now both are being used. It's a very minor point, but maybe we should try to develop a rule by consensus just to help with uniformity and standardization. Guyovski (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fan of either one. I would rather have a root stated cause of death. If illness is the cause and not otherwise stated, would prefer the term "illness." Sunnydoo (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So you do not feel that the phrases "long illness" and "brief illness" provide useful additional information that makes them significantly different from each other? The bare word "illness" can refer to either. Guyovski (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Long" and "short" are imprecise. Taking six months to die from cancer may be a "long" illness, but it is relatively short compared to someone who succumbs to cystic fibrosis after years. Also, I would be surprised if "illness" appeared on a death certificate. It is usually a delicate code for other conditions like cancer or AIDS. Just because a newspaper or obituary chooses to publish "after [a] long illness" (or "natural causes" for that matter) does not mean we are bound to reproduce that. We should limit ourselves to conditions (pneumonia, heart attack, stroke) or events (shooting, stabbing, explosion). WWGB (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm persuaded. So do we wait a while to see whether anyone disagrees or take action right now? And even if no one disagrees, who will undertake the soul-destroying task of ferretting out, researching and editing the zillions of entries over many years that say "after long illness" or "after short illness?" My bones melt when I contemplate having to do it myself. Guyovski (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you saying that when (as is often the case) all the available sources refer vaguely to "a long illness", we should omit the cause of death altogether, or is "illness" an acceptable placeholder until more details come to light? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should revisit and change past months and years. What's in the past can stay as it is. Since Deaths in June 2012 is rapidly becoming a greenfield project, why not eradicate all the references to illness (whether long or short) and wait until a correct c.o.d. is found? There are editors here who are very clever in finding correct causes of death from published sources. WWGB (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well. "Illness" deaths listed as CODs remind me of using "natural causes" as CODs. Both are unnecessary, in my opinion, unless the exact "illness" is cited. — WylieCoyote (talk)

Find a Grave as reference (possibly yet again)

I just found Find a Grave used as the reference for a death entry. It was easy enough to replace with a published obituary, but that's not the point. Is Find a Grave really a reliable source for notable deaths, especially in terms of notability? I also wonder how an editor can pick out the notable deaths from the thousands of deaths that must be added to that site every day. It must be a backbreaking amount of work. If this issue has been discussed and resolved already please let me know. Guyovski (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Find a Grave, like legacy.com, are not ideal sources, but are helpful landmarks in identifying the need. I've always seen legacy.com cite it's source, which is useful in identifying the news origen (and should not then be used to support the primary). Find a Grave is only a reliable source for photographed gravemarkers "written in stone": names, relationships, dates, epitaph (errors and misspellings do still occur) and are almost always correct for location; like any source, may become outdated if exhumed and re-interred. Photos and source references can be helpful though. Neither is perfect, but shouldn't be forbidden as stepping stones to proper sourcing. Find a Grave has 20 times as many entries as en.Wikipedia has articles, but almost no vandals. Dru of Id (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's well described at Template:Find a Grave. Dru of Id (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar?

I've been thinking about alternative ways of linking to the prior months, because piling them up at the bottom of the page doesn't seem like an ideal solution, practically or aesthetically. It occured to me that a sidebar might be quite useful, like 'navbox deaths' but only for the current year. I'm not very good at this kind of thing, but I've put together a very basic prototype here. Any thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I really like that ... a lot. But, where exactly would it go? Won't it eventually "interfere" with the Table of Contents (both physically and aesthetically)? When the Table of Contents gets vertically long (i.e., 25 or 30 days), it seems that this new sidebar would be physically underneath it (I assume?). Which defeats its purpose, no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. They could probably be "floated" side-by-side, somehow, but that would look a bit awkward. I suspect I know the answer to this, but I may as well ask: do we really need a table of contents? Does anyone actually use it? DoctorKubla (talk)

Great question. I would be reluctant to agree that the TOC should be removed. It's a necessary evil. I actually only use it when the month gets long and I don't feel like scrolling all the way down. Then, I will hit the TOC links to bring me down to the bottom of the page. Here's a thought. Can you make that sidebar list the months horizontally across, as opposed to vertically up-and-down? (Sort of like the TOC at this page: List of Latin phrases (E).) That might make it more able to be "fit" on the page, maybe even above the TOC. Or maybe we can make the actual TOC of this page horizontal, like that Latin phrases page? Or a combination of one or the other or both, being horizontal? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's what the May 2012 page looks like with a horizontal table of contents and a horizontal navbox. Something like the latter is already being done in the monthly articles, but I prefer the horizontal TOC, myself. What do you think? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, both great solutions! If I had to choose one over the other, I prefer the first one (horizontal table of contents) over the second one. But they are both good ... and, seemingly, workable. On the horizontal TOC ... don't you also have to list the "extra stuff" (like See also, External links, etc.) ... and not just the numbers from 1 to 31? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, can you show me what it would look like if both the TOC and the Sidebar were horizontal? Is that possible to see? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Both horizontal, with extra stuff. I've added the first few days of June, too, to see how it could work when the months overlap (although of course they'd be in reverse order). The problem with using the horizontal TOC on the main Deaths in 2012 page is that it has to be manually edited every time a new section is created (ie. every day). This also means it can't be transcluded as a template, so it takes up quite a lot of space at the top of the editing window. Probably the best combination for this page is horizontal navbox and normal TOC, but I think having them both horizontal would look quite good on prior month's lists. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I'll just throw it up and see if anyone objects. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I objected and redirected to the main navbox, but it was before I saw a link to the discussion linked in an edit summary. The main problem is that it's really just a misplaced navbox. Navboxes like the one I redirected are typically bottom of the article material and, well, we already had one down there. I wouldn't object to a better design, maybe. Sorry about the removal of the navbox, I'll see about an alternate design, though, because something should probably be up there. — Moe ε 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually after looking in your userspace, the horizontal table of contents would probably be the best bet for having an alternative formatting, it looks very nice and we could probably alter it to feature a link to the previous month on the left and to the next month on the right. — Moe ε 02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Taken from your example TOC: User:Moe Epsilon/sandbox. — Moe ε 02:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh, good thinking. As I say, I'm reluctant to install a new and improved TOC on this page without the approval of the people who'd have to maintain it. Your combination navbox/TOC would be perfect for past months, though. I'll probably get around to putting it up later, or someone else will. I suppose this page'll have to stay as it is for now. Thanks for the input, anyway.DoctorKubla (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my TOC would work on this article anyway since it changes on a daily basis, might be too much work to keep it updated. If you need help implementing them, just drop me a line and I can do it right quick. Sorry again about reverting your navbox before I saw this conversation. — Moe ε 06:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Refs

I noticed this article has references, while the other Death pages just have links. So why don't the other Death pages have refs. It'd look a whole lot better.--Mjs1991 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of references is a very recent development; the RfC is still there at the top of this talk page. Someone will probably go back through the archives and reformat the other Death pages at some point. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone feels froggy enough to edit the previous pages. Here the ref tool to do so: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks. Just type the page into the blank bar. Takes 5-10 minutes, depending on the size. Also, you may list the deaths chronologically should you come across those (1-31, rather than 31-1) if you have an hour to spare. — WylieCoyote (talk)

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot

Hi, I have made a new feed for the New Article bot. The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected Death-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/DeathSearchResult, the articles are supposed to be manually put into the Deaths page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Death, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/DeathLog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. --Racklever (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the change to references from links?

And why now? I really hate this new format? 86.152.74.146 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is at the top of this page, at Talk:Deaths in 2012#RfC: Should we use references. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another controversial proposal

I don't expect anyone to support this, but here we go.

The "Deaths in 20nn" pages are currently up for deletion. They won't be deleted, and shouldn't have been sent to AfD in the first place, but I think there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. Look at Deaths in 2004. Strip away the extraneous fluff - the intro and the external links (the section headers have already been dealt with). What we're left with is an article consisting of twelve links, and nothing else. There are seven other such articles, all the way up to 2011. Lists of lists are perfectly valid, but why eight of them where one would suffice? And once this year's over, we'll all migrate to a new talk page, and leave behind yet another pointless list of lists.

I propose the creation of Lists of deaths by year (or "by month" or "by date"), with links to every monthly death article from 2004 onwards. The existing yearly articles can be redirected to (for example) 2004#Deaths, which lists some of the most notable deaths in each month with a "main article" link to the full list, thus performing the function which Deaths in 2004 should probably have been doing. The histories and talk pages of these articles will remain intact, so there's no need for complex history merges.

That's the first proposal. Let me move on to another related issue; namely, that important decisions have, in the past, been scattered across eight different talk pages. The discussions that are held on these pages help establish consensus and set important precedents, but locating a specific discussion can be difficult. So if the above proposal were ever carried through, I would go on to suggest that Talk:List of deaths by year become our central venue for the discussions that affect every list of deaths, past or future. Edit requests, debating the format of individual entries, all that can be kept to the relevant month's talk page. This would necessitate the creation of, say, Deaths in July 2012 at the start of the month, rather than at the end. This makes more sense to me, because, let's face it, this page isn't a list of deaths in 2012, as the lead so boldly proclaims. It's a list of deaths in June 2012. Last month it was a list of deaths in May 2012. A month from now it will be a list of deaths in July 2012. The only reason I can see for changing the scope of the article every month is so we don't have to swap talk pages too often. Wouldn't it be better to have a single forum for these broader discussions, so we never have to swap talk pages again?

Anyway, that's my view on this. I don't know how clearly I've expressed it, but there it is. Have at it. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd totally support that change. I still think adding the list of deaths to the year article (such as 2004) would be an ideal step forward, but this is a suitable alternative. It eliminates a lot of that redundancy, and redirects can be made for each year (or even month if necessary) to point to the relevant sections. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to this proposal? If not, DK, I think we could boldly try creating it and see how that goes. Alternatively, you could file an RM. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2004 concluded with strong support for the status quo, I think there would need to be stronger consensus for change than two people. I do agree that we need a single point of reference for decisions affecting these pages. We spend too much time trolling through old pages looking for consensus statements about deleting redlinks, reporting notable animals, when to use titles like "Sir", whether someone is British or English etc. Another concern is continued accessibility to the Talk:Deaths in 20nn pages which contain much valuable discussion, and which are currently linked directly to Deaths in 20nn. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, the AfD concluded that the Deaths in [Month] articles shouldn't be deleted in the current climate. Ultimately, AfD wasn't the right place to take that proposal; discussion should have been had here, and the articles moved/merged/deleted as a result of consensus here first. A lot of the !votes were hinged, therefore, on that mistaken jump to AfD, pointing out (rightly) that the articles don't violate any policy and don't qualify for our usual deletion criteria. On the other hand, this proposal is quite different. We're discussing merging the year articles into a larger list which includes all months, such that we have a centralized place to work, and a centralized list of links to the other articles. I've put together that list, based on my understanding of the proposal, at List of deaths by year. We can the current month to the top (i.e. merge this page), and we'd have that more unified workspace. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I really, really dislike sections like 2011#Deaths and earlier years. They reproduce, truncate, prioritise some deaths over others. What are the criteria for this listing? Is it left to the whim of a particular editor to list a personal favourite? The complete authoritative Wikipedia source source is the list of deaths by month and year, not a pissy little list that masquerades as being somehow important. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we already have 2011#Deaths; I didn't add that. We have it for every year spanning back to before 1988. The criteria for List of deaths by year would be the same criteria as here. Nothing would change. The only difference is that we'd be linking the old months (as I've done already), and when it rolled over to 2013, we wouldn't have to change articles. I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from in your reply above, but does that answer your question? — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As a full example, here are the two articles merged. I've changed the bullets to commas to reduce vertical clutter, but otherwise it's the same. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Jess. I wasn't suggesting that this article should be merged with List of deaths by year, but that we could use that article's talk page as our permanent "base". I don't know why I suggested that, because it's not a good idea. So ignore that. I was trying to kill two birds with one stone, but these issues are best dealt with separately. The new page I proposed has been boldly created (thanks to Jess), and any further debate about the merits of merging can be taken to Talk:List of deaths by year. I'm going to throw in a section break, so we can move on to the second issue of creating a central forum for discussion. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple more ideas

As I said above, it would be a lot easier to find past discussions if we could stick to one talk page and not have to move to a new one each year. With that in mind, what about reappropriating Recent deaths? It's been a redirect since 2005, but it would be a much more sensible title for this article. And this would be an incredibly hassle-free solution; this article could carry on functioning as normal, the only difference being that it would always be current, and its talk page would then be our permanent home.

A more mundane alternative is for someone to just archive all of these discussions in their userspace or something. Then all the archives could be searched at once.

Any thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we're quibbling on titles now. I'm less interested in the title we assume than the functionality of the page. If we can come up with a concept for a page and hash out all the details, an appropriate title for that concept should be an easy final step. That being said, I think the concept of having one page which lists the current deaths (providing a perpetual workspace) and lists links to previous deaths pages is a good idea. I think User:Mann_jess/Workspace does that at least adequately; the most recent deaths show up at the top of the page, and as the month passes, those links instead become a link to the specific Death in month article. Is that what you're thinking? If not, how would your proposal differ from that? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quibbling on titles, I'm saying I'd like to keep the two seperate. One page for recent deaths, and one page of links to previous months. List of deaths by year would be much less useful for navigational purposes if you had to scroll past a month's worth of deaths to find the links. And the recent deaths page would have Navbox Deaths on it anyway. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so your proposal is to combine all the yearly pages (Deaths in 2011, Deaths in 2012, Deaths in 2001) into one article, named List of deaths by year (which I created). Then, we would create another page named Recent deaths, and move the content of this page (including deaths for this month) over there. When the next month rolled around, we'd purge the page and start over (like we do already). Consequently, when the next year rolled around, we wouldn't have to change articles. Is that correct? — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. I wish I could have expressed it so eloquently. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cool. That works for me. Other editors may have something to contribute to the discussion, so we should probably leave it open for a day or two (at least) to get further input. After that, RM might be a good step. Alternatively, if we get enough input here, we could just try making the move. Thanks for the suggestion! :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles that may need adding

--Racklever (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of an icon in Template:Navbox deaths

Editors may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Navbox deaths concerning the use of an icon within the template. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Manner of Deaths

This is a discussion point that I would like to bring up revolving around Batman's death. There are 5 recognized pathology categories for death- Homicide, Suicide, Natural, Accidental and Unknown. I understand that there are a number of different kinds of accidents and people have a way of describing these based on Country of terminology from Truck v. Lorrey, Car v. Automobile, etc. However, "Crash" should not be acceptable as a manner of death. It is either accidental or intentional (homicide/suicide). The police are investigating the death, but are looking at as an accident related to speed and alcohol.

Now this brings up the Polish General last week who probably committed suicide. Do we use apparent car accident and wait for the police and coroner inquest? Do we leave it blank?

The other point is that "Accident" has always been used from what I can tell in the past. Why now all of the sudden the change to Crash? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnydoo (talk • contribs) 05:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And one more point while we are on the subject, I have noticed a variety of other terms being used perhaps for similar circumstances. For instance, I have seen traffic collision used widely in the past. Is this term used specifically for when a car hits something like an unmovable object? Or is it used for when 2 cars hit each other? How specific of a definition should we strive for...various phrases to describe incidents or just one category for car accidents (and Pedestrian v. Car is a whole different argument).Sunnydoo (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Traffic collision is the term that Wikipedia uses for a vehicular incident. That includes a single-vehicle event, where the "collision" occurs with a wall or tree, or even the ground (in the event of a rollover). I have tried to use that as the standard c.o.d. wherever possible. I do not agree with the use of "accident" as that implies a lack of blame, intent or responsibility. Ultimately, we should be striving for the c.o.d. consistent with the death certificate. Where that is not yet available we have to rely on reliable sources that do not prejudge the inquest, for example, asserting suicide where that is not established. I don't know that the pathology categories should have any particular importance here. WWGB (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Site Suggestion

One more thing I would like to suggest to the community out there. We seem to be addressing the same issues again and again in the talk pages. My suggestion is that perhaps we should work up a FAQ guide for a separate tab where people can go in and look at frequent questions and a "How to" guide on acceptable terminology and what to look for and include in a post. Sunnydoo (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone asked me a question on what I meant by acceptable terminology. What I meant is that we could have an outline of terms for people to use such as Homicide by shooting, stabbing, explosion, etc.; Suicide by gunshot, hanging, jumping, defenestration, poisoning, etc.; Natural would be by disease name or natural causes; Accident by vehicle type (Car Accident, Railway Accident, etc) or by action type- diving, falling, drowning, etc; Unknown of course would be blank. Sunnydoo (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused by this (and the immediately above) discussion. Aren't we simply reporting what is reported in reliable sources? No? Am I missing something? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its two discussions out of the same topic. What I am saying is because there seems to be so much discussion on which terms are appropriate and for the matter of consistency couldnt we roll something into a FAQ guide. This would also help with questions that keep recurring like Why are Animals and Trees included? How to link source material. etc. I think it would help out all of the people who heavily edit the page if everyone starts rowing in the same direction. So as another example from the above discussion if "Traffic Collision" was entered for all accidental automobile wrecks instead of Car Crash, Car Accident, Traffic Accident, Vehicular Accident, etc. it would seem to help things out. Sunnydoo (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I like the FAQ idea. Of course, the substantive content of the FAQ requires input and consensus. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the FAQ idea! But I also think they/we need to decide on what format the page should be (in the "Lists of Deaths" discussion above), then a FAQ should made. There are "how to" pages about doing references and tables in other articles so I think there should be a helpful one for those who have questions about this article's layout. The "non-human" noted deaths, the terminology and full cites formatting (or a link to) could be listed on the FAQ. This way we could comment "See the FAQ" rather than a lengthy page-stretching discussion that seemingly pops up every month. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting "Deaths in..." pages

There's a discussion over here about whether the "Deaths in 20nn" articles, which have now been merged into Lists of deaths by year, should be redirected either to "20nn#Deaths" or "Lists of deaths by year#20nn". If anyone has an opinion on that, your input would be appreciated. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody? Then it looks like consensus is to redirect the pages to "20nn#Deaths". I'll get onto it tomorrow. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there is not consensus. I have already expressed my opposition. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Three others disagree, and I personally find your objections unreasonable. I'm trying to invite wider discussion, in the interest of fairness, but if no-one else cares either way (as seems to be the case), then consensus is to redirect the pages. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, another interpretation may be that no-one else wants to change. Perhaps you are confusing disinterest for consensus? WWGB (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

References format

I really really really hate the new references format, what was wrong with the old one? I want it back! Eagle2012a (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in 2012 - file size

As I don't see this addressed anywhere else, yet, I'll address it myself. My last edit to the page was 20 June; by 23 June the page would no longer load for me, although it still loads AN/I, which is larger but has no references. My contributions to the page were minor, but I used it to find articles to edit, which it seems I'll be unable to do about 1/3 of each month, so I'll now stick to the ones here on the talk page and the ones I see in the news. Good luck. Dru of Id (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of regular contributors realised that would be a consequence of footnote references and expressed that opinion in the RfC. I can no longer access this article on a handheld device, even for reading. I think it is unfortunate that one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia is unavailable to potential readers. This is not a case of being a sore loser, just a re-statement of the consequences of the change to footnotes. It will be interesting to compare the number of visitors and edits before and after the change. WWGB (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's no stroke of genius to realize that larger articles cause problems for editors and readers with weak hardware/slow connections. WP:SIZE has made that point long ago. Fortunately, there's options aside from going back to the crude way things were before. For one, the pages could be broken down even further. Or, a less demanding form of referencing than fully filled-out Citation Style 1 templates coupled with Cite.php footnotes could be used. WP:CITE leaves a lot of leeway in that regard. Sadly, and to my surprise, the "regular contributors" here appear to be more interested in whining and pouting than in seeking a solution that's acceptable for ~~everyone~~ a greater number of people. The way the RfC was closed, it does prevent the former "style" from being restored, but it does not mandate the style currently used. Good raise 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I voiced this concern, which was overlooked in the original discussion - something about 300+ references to load. Couple this with the aggravation of adding/editing an entry, the long load time after saving, only to see that someone has added something else before you saved causing a re-do and even more loading time. I vote for a ref section reboot. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't overlooked. It was read, considered, and found to be insufficient justification for continuing to violate guidelines. Anyway, what do you mean by "a ref section reboot"? Good raise 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked in the collapsed discussion and the first post under "Arbitrary break I" is mine about 500 references lengthening the page (and, by default, load times), to which I saw no response. As for "a ref section reboot", I was merely supporting your "less demanding form of referencing", hence, a reboot. This new setup is akin to buying a fuel-efficient vehicle, only to end up stuck in traffic. What has it saved? — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That point was addressed a few times in the discussion. It even had its own section below the RfC with examples and comparisons listed. Anyway, picking a different citation format is perfectly fine, just so long as we follow the closing of the RfC, which is to say follow guidelines by using a format which avoids linkrot, is transparent, and doesn't suffer from other issues outlined in WP:CITE. A lot of the time taken from cites is used in loading the cite template, so if loading times are really that important, we could (for example) manually format the citations. I don't support doing that, and I don't think others will either, but it's one option to speed up page load time without contravening consensus from the RfC. If you have an idea you'd like to try, feel free to present it. To my mind, this isn't a serious problem, but I'd be happy to discuss it nonetheless. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I forgot about the "two examples" listing underneath. My apologies. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the current system isn't ideal, but I still think it's better than the old one. And as Goodraise says, the cite templates aren't essential if they're substantially increasing the page size. There are plenty of options to discuss. (Personally, I'd like to eradicate references from all but the red-linked entries; so long as somebody checks that the linked-to articles are properly referenced, there's no need to duplicate the references here. But I've raised this before and no-one agrees with me, so I'll shut up about it.) DoctorKubla (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the same (radical) proposal occurred to me too! Why do we need references at all for bluelinked deaths? An inquisitive reader just needs to click on the deceased's article where the death will surely be referenced. There are precedents in Wikipedia where lists are not referenced, for example, DYK and In the news on the front page. Redlinks could still be referenced until such time as they become bluelinks or are deleted after one month. I wonder if this might be the solution that keeps everyone happy? WWGB (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, we don't need references. An unreferenced article can stick around for years without anyone complaining about it. However, when it comes to creating articles of which the larger community can say "yes, that's great work", then we need references, and not just in articles linked, but in the articles themselves. You don't typically find articles of that quality in DYK or ITN. New articles appear there. If you want to see the quality desired by the larger community, you'll have to look here and here. Good raise 01:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, high quality lists don't always need references. IIRC, I listed 2 featured lists in the previous discussion which didn't have refs for the entries. Even if there wasn't a precedent, there's always IAR. I would be fine with taking that approach if others feel it's a good idea. There's apparently 3 editors here that do, so maybe we should discuss it again? — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, high quality lists do always need references. If you indeed found two featured lists lacking significant amounts of references, please let me know, so I can fix them or send them to FLRC. Good raise 02:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, I hope I'm considered in your "3 editors" as I feel a better format needs to be done. Either a simpler citation process (the load time is actually in the preview for me, the page otherwise loads as normal) or a way to hide the ref section somehow (which will not help during previews). I have no problem with any cite process as long as it's conformed to by all. The only problem I foresee with only relying on deaths to be added to that person's page (if they have one) is if it's been added here and not there, and therefore not cited. Also, please keep in mind the delay still remains after the month has its own page and removed from here (and then put in chrono order), ergo, the song remains the same. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Goodraise, are you saying FLs need references for the entries due to guideline (e.g. WP:FLCR) or convention (e.g. those are the only lists that get promoted)? I don't see refs listed at all in FLCR, so could you point me to where it's mentioned elsewhere, if it is? I think adopting any policy on this page which would prevent us from eventually meeting FL criteria is a bad idea. However, as far as I'm aware, this wouldn't be a major obstacle for us, provided we have a reasonable justification. I'll reiterate that I don't see this as a serious problem that needs solving, but I'm willing to do it (i.e. I'm not going to oppose it) in order to address the concerns raised by a few of the "regulars", because I don't see it causing any harm. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:SAL, stand-alone lists are articles, and reviewers at FLC treat them that way. They ask for references for information they'd expect to be referenced in non-list articles as well. While there appears to be a significant number of editors holding that list articles should be treated differently, i.e. being allowed to rely on linked articles for referencing, that position is not presently supported by guidelines or policy. Perhaps it's time for the community to make an explicit decision on the matter. I don't know. I'm just describing what the situation at FLC is at the moment, and has been for years. Good raise 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested: Template:Fcite web. "...fast-cite alternatives to cite_web for use in large articles. To allow extreme speed, only the basic parameter names are supported". Created yesterday by Wikid77, and I assume still in development, but worth a look. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I boldly changed cite web instances in the article to fcite_web. If there are any issues, feel free to revert me. For the editors having loading problems, does this help? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My load-time concerns lie within the "Preview" viewing, where it has to load the article, as well as the lengthy visible cites. It's a bit faster but only by seconds. (Yes, I'm nitpicking.) We'll see what others with various PCs say.— WylieCoyote (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The load time is now two clicks to find the source. I fail to see any advantage in using a references section to this dynamic page. Nasnema Chat 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

List of latest additions to the list?

I need some help. I had a link that would list the latest names added to the Deaths in .... page on my old laptop. I am looking for it again. Does anyone have it? It is extremely helpful in quickly seeing the new names. Otherwise, I have to scan the whole months list each time, trying to see if I recognize any names that weren't there last time I checked. Thanks. 64.134.70.175 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can check the history of the page. Click on "History" at the top of the article. If you find an old revision that you're familiar with, you can hit "cur" to see differences between that revision and the current page. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Query about page view statistics

If you go to "History" of this article and then click on "Page View Statistics" you will see that this article gets viewed often - over two million times in the last 30 days. Would it be possible to work out where this stands in Wikipedia's most viewed articles? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on daily or weekly views, Deaths in 20nn is often overtaken by breaking news or trending topics. At the moment, it is likely that topics like Higgs boson or Roger Federer will achieve more hits than Deaths in 2012. Here is the data for this week. On an annual basis, however, Deaths in 20nn usually features in the Top 10 most visited articles, as shown here and here. All the contributors here can be mighty proud of their efforts. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that - very interesting data! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Footballer vs. football player

Just a heads up - "footballer" refers to somebody who plays association football, "football player" refer to somebody who plays American football - that is standard and shouldn't be changed to avoid confusion. Giant Snowman 13:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From our private discussion I will reiterate. We have had this discussion several times in the last few months. It was one of the ideas to why I brought up the FAQ page being instituted so we could avoid rehashing the same items. Wiki recognizes both in its definition of "Football Player." However "Footballer" is a colloquialism. "Football Player" is the more formal form. Since these are formal entries and because we want to keep the terminology similar, we have adopted it as the primary listing.

This also will avoid the need to start labeling things such as American Football player, Australian rules football player, Canadian rules football player, soccer player, and on and on. One term to rule them all- Football player. Sunnydoo (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And here is the main wiki page link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_player Sunnydoo (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Association, American, rugby, Aussie rules - they're all different sports! You will NOT hear any American football fans describe their players as "footballers", and you will NOT describe any association football fans describe their players as "football players" - this is a clearcut case of WP:COMMONNAME. Giant Snowman 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Precedent here (which does not seem to count for much any more) was to use footballer for association football, and football player for all other codes. This is evidenced in Deaths in April 2012, for example. WWGB (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that precedent thas been longstanding - but Sunnydoo does not seem to know/care. Giant Snowman 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Further - Google search for "footballer" brings up 31 million results, mainly about association football - compared with "football player" which has 25 million, mainly about American football. Giant Snowman 13:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all stop trying to be uncivil and pick a fight. We had this discussion both in April, May and June. However I cant seem to find the copy of May's and June's discussion and they have been removed from the Talk Page for both months. Several editors have been removing the references since then and just not me. If you guys want, its fine by me. From now on we will put in all Association names and break them down such as Canadian Rules Football Player, American Rules Football player, Australian Rules Football player. Sunnydoo (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Who's being uncivil and picking a fight? Quite an accusation to make. As for discussions in April, May & June - well I've never discussed this matter (or any other) with you before, I rarely edit this article and I can't recall ever using the talk page. If they're not in the archives then perhaps they never happened? You can aother sports whatever you want, but association football players are "footballers", simple as - though I'd suggest "soccer player" for US/Canadian/Australian. Giant Snowman 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be problematic as there are no codes known as American rules or Canadian rules. Also, the first adjective describes the nationality, not the football code. Do we really want to refer to a Canadian Canadian football player? WWGB (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be Canadian Canadian rules football player I think. British English rules footballer, American American rules football player and Australian Australian rules football player. This is why some of us were trying to use 1 term for the complete set of football players as on the main wiki football page- just to simplify players. And yes I take umbrage at shots across my bow. I do this as a hobby helping out with the CoDs and dont need to be specifically called out with snide comments. I just do this to help out.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is "English rules" football?! and where are the "snide comments"? Giant Snowman 14:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there an issue with simply having "footballer" for Association football, "rugby player" for rugby league & union, and "football player" for the other codes? It's how I've seen it work for as long as I can remember. Giant Snowman 14:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Call WWGB

I wasnt totally on board in the past with the car accident, car crash, etc scenario with everything being referred to as a "traffic collison." However that has now changed and I completely understand your point. The Cuban activist that was killed this week in what was termed a car accident may have in fact been run off the road in an intentional act. There were several International witnesses who lived through the car crash and are getting out of the country before they make a statement. I dont think there could be any better example to illustrate your point to everyone. Good call on that one. Sunnydoo (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, fellow editors!

I have already sorted the June 2012 article in my sandbox. (I was bored.) I know more for June could be added before the 7th day cutoff, but I just wanted to save others time by telling them not to do one. I will wait till July 8-ish before adding it to the actual page. I think I have it down to a science now! The format will mirror May 2012. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why has someone removed all of the red links ? --Racklever (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean in the June article? This appears to be standard practice for the stand-alone monthly articles. Pick one at random to check. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The normal way is to leave the red links for a month and someone deletes a days worth of links each day.--Racklever (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(ADDENDUM: Moved July info to Deaths in July 2012.) — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A bigger issue...

...Two months into the new Cite format and some has not caught onto it. Seven reference updates in two days. Just sayin'. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We still have 2 regulars (not going to embarrass them but I know who you are), that wont put in Cause of Death on articles they submit with the CoD in it. Not surprised by the lack of adoption on the new system. Sunnydoo (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The result of the RfD on citations did not "compel" anyone to use footnote references, it just said they could no longer be refused. I think that bare references can be expected for quite some time. WWGB (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The alphabetizing within the dates is slowly catching on, too. </sarcasm> — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the problems with the alphabet are because of the different rules in naming that several societies have. Mix that in with the proper proper names (I will admit that Ranking Trevor got me the other day as I had it filed under "T") and there is bound to be a little chaos. Again if someone would start a FAQ guide, that might be something else to be included in it. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the hidden editors' note at the top of the article was the FAQ? But I doubt many people read that anyway. They just jump into the additions. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about a page specific one- not a wiki general one.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)