This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reverse chronological order?
Is anyone else entirely baffled why this is in reverse order? It should start with January 1st, not end with it. --24.101.74.164 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. I have raised this issue before. To no avail. I don't mind the reverse chronology so much for the current month (as it places more recent news at the top of the page). But, I do mind it for past months. That is, when the current month's page gets archived, it will perpetually be listed in reverse order. That simply makes no sense. Can this be changed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
-
- This page links from the Wikipedia front page as Recent deaths. I guess casual readers don't want to scroll through up to 31 days to see who just died. It's probably more relevant to have the most recent deaths at the top. As for older months, I don't really care, but which wikignome is going to volunteer to reverse the order of every month? WWGB (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- WWGB, my point is ... the current month is very ephemeral ... it is only a temporary and fleeting page. Once it gets archived (as an "old" month), then it stays that way permanently. So, while the reverse chronological order is good for the current month, it is nonsensical and "backwards" for the old/prior months. I think that the relatively light "burden" of scrolling down 31 days for the current month is a small price to pay. Keeping all of the old months in backwards order is a big price to pay for that minor convenience. Keeping our eye on posterity (the archives) should trump and supersede the convenience of maintaining reverse chronology on the current page, which ... by definition ... will only last for a (very fleeting) month. Once it's archived (sloppily, in reverse order), it stays that way forever! Don't you agree? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
- Furthermore, the casual reader does not necessarily have to "scroll through" 31 days. They can simply hit the appropriate "Table of Contents link" and be taken immediately to the correct date, without any tedious scrolling. Maybe there is a way to add a link in the Table of Contents (that says "take me to the END of the page") ... similar to links that take a reader to the "TOP" of a page? That may be a workable solution? Thoughts? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ↑ This. ↑ Maybe even perhaps a handy "Chrono button" like I've seen on some tables (of some proficient movie stars) where those who don't like scrolling or notice that handy TOC can click to list the "older" dates? I, for one, like the "recent deaths" (current setup) and check it weekly, if not daily. As for fixing the previous backlogged ones, I have enough "fun" fixing everything else on here that I come across as noticeably improperly formatted, i.e. references, et al. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
My preference would be for reverse-chronological on the current page, and chronological on past ones, I think the nature of "recent deaths" makes that best. But as WWGB says, that requires someone to go and reverse all the archives. Any volunteers EJBH (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. However, I don't think we need to ask for a volunteer to reverse all the archives. That seems like a huge task! Perhaps, the volunteer can start the reversal process with the 2012 months. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
My own personal preference would be to keep this as it is, so that the top of the list gives the names of the most recent deaths. If one wants to see who has died in the past few days, as my guess is that many people who view this page do, then this would make sense. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Overlinking in past months
Back in September 2010 we started doing the "Deaths in..." articles with minimum wikilinking and it seems to have had a good reception over the past (almost) two years. Should we go back and do some serious delinking on the months prior to September 2010 or just leave them be? I may be volunteering myself, but I certainly don't want to put in the work if I'm just going to be reverted, so I want to establish a consensus beforehand. Canadian Paul
My own preference would be let this page of Wikipedia remain as it is. It seems to be serving its purpose quite well, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Whats with all the red links?
They are probably not notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is long-standing consensus here that redlinks remin for one month to see if an article develops. If not, the listing is deleted. WWGB (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's always a nice surprise to see how many of the red links actually turn blue before the one month deadline is up. I know I've personally created an article or two on very notable individuals based a red link here (example Colette Renard). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This very issue has been covered on the talk page of a "recent deaths" (I do not think it was this year) before. Some one suggested that we get rid of the red links from this page, but I pointed out that sometimes, people do get covered who were formerly only mentioned in red links. The example I gave was of Rose Gray, who was notable enough to have her death mentioned on the Radio Four news. As I say, this issue has been covered before, and I can see it becoming a perennial issue on this talk page - so perhaps we need a note at the top of these pages about this issue. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
New Zealand
Isn't New Zealander the correct demonym for the country of New Zealand? When the deceased is from New Zealand, shouldn't the listing include the demonym (New Zealander) and not the country (New Zealand), as it does with the listings from all other countries? Any thoughts or insight on this matter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Compare: He is a New Zealand chicken sexer with He is a New Zealander.
- We'd never say He is a New Zealander chicken sexer, and we'd never say He is a New Zealand. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- It's no different from the distinction between "French" and "Frenchman", or "British" and "Briton". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever happened to Old Zealand? Dont we need to list its death? User:Arkitan (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deaths of animals
Are we now listing deaths of animals in reference to that racing horse that died? Who cares of a horse dies, even a notable one? (Any horse that makes alot of money at the track would be a notable horse) It just becomes food or glue in the end! This is a list of notable humans that died, not animals! Any thoughts? Arkitan (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I second that. Animals should be on a separate list. The fact that we always had some animals doesn't mean this is the right place for them. Status quo is not good enough reason for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.89.236 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
We've always listed notable animals who have died. Examples include Travis the Chimpanzee in Deaths in February 2009Crboyer (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This article is about notable deaths, not notable people. There is no consensus to change what we have done for years. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- The list has also included notable plants in the past, although The Senator (tree), originally listed under 16 January 2012, seems to have disappeared from the list - any particular reason? - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- So, has The Senator (tree) death entry been added back into the article? Or not yet? If not, for any reason? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Table format
I am curious what others think about reformatting this page as a (sortable) table, rather than as a list. I assume that there are both advantages and disadvantages to each format. I have provided an example (below) of how the March 1, 2012, death entries would appear, if formatted as a (sortable) table. Please leave any comments, input, ideas, thoughts, suggestions, and feedback below the table. Thanks.
- Deaths for March 1, 2012
Date of Death | Name | Age | Citizenship | Reason for Notability | Cause of Death | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
March 1, 2012 | Blagoje Adžić | 79 | Serbian | Politician | [1] | Serbian | |
March 1, 2012 | Phillip R. Allen | 72 | American | Actor | [2] | ||
March 1, 2012 | Alice Arden | 97 | American | Olympic (1936) high jumper | [3] | ||
March 1, 2012 | Henryk Bałuszyński | 39 | Polish | Footballer | Heart attack | [4] | Polish |
March 1, 2012 | Andrew Breitbart | 43 | American | Publisher and political commentator | Apparent heart attack | [5] | |
March 1, 2012 | Jerome Courtland | 85 | American | Actor, director, and producer | Heart disease | [6] | |
March 1, 2012 | Lucio Dalla | 68 | Italian | Singer-songwriter and musician | Heart attack | [7] | |
March 1, 2012 | Fathulla Jameel | 69 | Maldivian | Politician, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1978–2005) | Heart disease | [8] | |
March 1, 2012 | 9th Jebtsundamba Khutughtu | 80 | Tibetan-born Mongolian | Buddhist spiritual leader | [9] | ||
March 1, 2012 | Archie Kalokerinos | 85 | Australian | Physician | [10] | ||
March 1, 2012 | Thomas J. Lydon | 84 | American | Federal judge | Sepsis and car accident complications | [11] | |
March 1, 2012 | Germano Mosconi | 79 | Italian | Sportswriter and news presenter | [12] | Italian | |
March 1, 2012 | Callan Pinckney | 72 | American | Fitness professional, created Callanetics | [13] | ||
March 1, 2012 | Randy Primas | 62 | American | Politician, Mayor of Camden, New Jersey (1981–1990) | Bone marrow cancer | [14] |
One advantage is that this new format would (at least, somewhat) address the issue of "reverse chronological order" that has arisen in the past (and was discussed above). See Talk:Deaths in 2012#Reverse chronological order? (above). That is, when the page is created (and subsequently archived), the deaths will appear in chronological order from March 1 through March 31 (as opposed to reverse chronology). However, during the current month, readers are likely more concerned with the most recent deaths (i.e., a reverse chronology of the month). This can easily be achieved by the reader simply sorting on the "Date" column in descending order. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of initial observations:
- 1. The table is very wide, I wonder how it will look on narrow screens, especially handheld devices?
- 2. The table uses the sortname template to achieve alpha order, I think this will be beyond many of the contributors to this page.
- 3. The full repetition of the date on every line is annoying.
- 4. Overall, I think this format will require a lot more work from the wikignomes to maintain the consistent quality of this page. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Just from an aesthetic point, I think its a little bit busy with the repetition of the date (and yes I understand why its there, I just dont care for seeing it over and over.) I also dont care for all of the lines but again that is an aesthetic point. One positive is that it highlights the areas for people to add into as we seem to have been slipping on CoDs of late as people enter them in. Sunnydoo (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Deaths for March 1, 2012
Date of Death | Name | Age | Citizenship | Reason for Notability | Cause of Death | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
March 1, 2012 | Blagoje Adžić | 79 | Serbian | Politician | [15] | Serbian | |
Phillip R. Allen | 72 | American | Actor | [16] | |||
Alice Arden | 97 | American | Olympic (1936) high jumper | [17] | |||
Henryk Bałuszyński | 39 | Polish | Footballer | Heart attack | [18] | Polish | |
Andrew Breitbart | 43 | American | Publisher and political commentator | Apparent heart attack | [19] | ||
Jerome Courtland | 85 | American | Actor, director, and producer | Heart disease | [20] | ||
Lucio Dalla | 68 | Italian | Singer-songwriter and musician | Heart attack | [21] | ||
Fathulla Jameel | 69 | Maldivian | Politician, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1978–2005) | Heart disease | [22] | ||
9th Jebtsundamba Khutughtu | 80 | Tibetan-born Mongolian | Buddhist spiritual leader | [23] | |||
Archie Kalokerinos | 85 | Australian | Physician | [24] | |||
Thomas J. Lydon | 84 | American | Federal judge | Sepsis and car accident complications | [25] | ||
Germano Mosconi | 79 | Italian | Sportswriter and news presenter | [26] | Italian | ||
Callan Pinckney | 72 | American | Fitness professional, created Callanetics | [27] | |||
Randy Primas | 62 | American | Politician, Mayor of Camden, New Jersey (1981–1990) | Bone marrow cancer | [28] |
Just a thought. (Try sorting.) Goodraise 05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- To Goodraise: Thanks. I have never seen that feature before. I want to make sure that I am understanding it correctly. When the table is unsorted, there is a single listing of the date in the first column. However, when any of the columns become sorted (say, age, for example), then the first column (date) receives a separate line (row) entry of "March 1, 2012". So, in this specific case, that first column of one row entry (the date of March 1, 2012) somehow transforms into a column with 14 separate row entries (whereby the same date is repeated 14 times, once per row). Is that how all of this works? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, pretty much. Goodraise 14:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, pretty much. Goodraise 14:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- To Goodraise: Thanks. I have never seen that feature before. I want to make sure that I am understanding it correctly. When the table is unsorted, there is a single listing of the date in the first column. However, when any of the columns become sorted (say, age, for example), then the first column (date) receives a separate line (row) entry of "March 1, 2012". So, in this specific case, that first column of one row entry (the date of March 1, 2012) somehow transforms into a column with 14 separate row entries (whereby the same date is repeated 14 times, once per row). Is that how all of this works? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- List form. I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's much easier, the way it is (list form), for those who don't know how to add to tables, inserting all the markups and such, to just simply type a name in the respective date, age, COD if listed, and a bracketed source. But that's just my opinion. I actually LIKE tables on some pages, but not here. Nice table work though! As for Sunnydoo's comment about the "slipping on CoDs", I myself haven't seem them listed in most sourced obits either, or the sources don't follow up on them. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Visually, it is an improvement and, in an ideal world, would present a more professional appearance. (Granted it might look better in some arenas than others). However, I do somewhat agree with other comments here. We seem to have enough difficulty getting some editors to follow a simplistic alphabetical format as it stands, without introducing sortname templates and the like in to the equation. For me, it tallies with the ever ongoing argument regarding the formatting style of references, in that it introduces further complication for users. Ultimately, if gnomes spend more time trying to retain the format, than the perceived benefit, it does not appear to be a step forward. Good effort from Messrs Spadaro and Goodraise though.
-
-
-
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Thanks for all of the input. It seems like consensus is against any change, in this regard. So, I am glad that I asked first. Thanks again. Thanks, also, for the above compliments on my "good table work" and efforts. I appreciate the feedback. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- It would be great to see the previous months formatted with this new table format, while the current month (only) retains the current list format. But, that seems like an awful lot of work for someone to undertake ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Great! I never heard of that software, and I certainly don't know how to use it. But I, for one, would not object to prior months being re-formatted. And, it appears that consensus dictates that we keep the current month as is in terms of list format. Thanks. Are you planning to reformat the older months? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We're talking major changes to a large number of pages here. First, I think, we should further refine the format. This might be a step in the right direction:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Name | Age | Date | Citizenship | Description | Cause of death | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blagoje Adžić | 79 | 1st | Serbian | Politician | [1] | |
Phillip R. Allen | 72 | 1st | American | Actor | [2] | |
Alice Arden | 97 | 1st | American | Olympic (1936) high jumper | [3] | |
Henryk Bałuszyński | 39 | 1st | Polish | Footballer | Heart attack | [4] |
Andrew Breitbart | 43 | 1st | American | Publisher and political commentator | Apparent heart attack | [5] |
Jerome Courtland | 85 | 1st | American | Actor, director, and producer | Heart disease | [6] |
Lucio Dalla | 68 | 1st | Italian | Singer-songwriter and musician | Heart attack | [7] |
Fathulla Jameel | 69 | 2nd | Maldivian | Politician, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1978–2005) | Heart disease | [8] |
9th Jebtsundamba Khutughtu | 80 | 2nd | Tibetan-born Mongolian | Buddhist spiritual leader | [9] | |
Archie Kalokerinos | 85 | 2nd | Australian | Physician | [10] | |
Thomas J. Lydon | 84 | 2nd | American | Federal judge | Sepsis and car accident complications | [11] |
Germano Mosconi | 79 | 2nd | Italian | Sportswriter and news presenter | [12] | |
Callan Pinckney | 72 | 2nd | American | Fitness professional, created Callanetics | [13] | |
Randy Primas | 62 | 2nd | American | Politician, Mayor of Camden, New Jersey (1981–1990) | Bone marrow cancer | [14] |
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Once we've agreed on a format and reached consensus to implement it, we should do so on one list only and try to bring it through WP:FLC. At the very least, we should wait for the outcome of the RfC below. Being allowed to use footnotes would be great for a format like this. Anyway, I'm not planning to do anything at this time. I'd rather not put the (still considerable) effort into this, only to get reverted. If it finds consensus though, I'd gladly help out. Goodraise 01:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Great job! Three immediate thoughts of mine: (A) – I don't like how you list the date as an abbreviated "1st" or "2nd" ... personally, I would prefer "March 1" or "March 1, 2012". And (B) – you will still need a "Notes" column for things like "death reported on this date" or "foreign language source", etc., which are relatively common on this page. (In the current month, there are already some 50-odd parenthetical notations, and the month is not even half over.) And (C) – I think if the first column (Name) were left-aligned (as opposed to centered), it would give the table a neater presentation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. Replying in order: (A) With that table, I was just throwing out ideas. Nothing set in stone. Unfortunately, the feature I mentioned earlier seems to conflict with using row scopes, which are called for by MOS:DTT. So apparently, we can't have both. (B) "Death reported on this date" could be denoted through a marker, like
({{dagger}}), and noting what language a source is in should be done inside the footnotes. (C) Would be fine with me. Goodraise 01:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Replying in order: (A) With that table, I was just throwing out ideas. Nothing set in stone. Unfortunately, the feature I mentioned earlier seems to conflict with using row scopes, which are called for by MOS:DTT. So apparently, we can't have both. (B) "Death reported on this date" could be denoted through a marker, like
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Next attempt:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Date | Name | Age | Citizenship | Description | Cause of death | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
March 1, 2012 | Blagoje Adžić | 79 | Serbian | Politician | [1] | |
March 1, 2012* | Phillip R. Allen | 72 | American | Actor | [2] | |
March 1, 2012 | Alice Arden | 97 | American | Olympic (1936) high jumper | [3] | |
March 1, 2012 | Henryk Bałuszyński | 39 | Polish | Footballer | Heart attack | [4] |
March 1, 2012 | Andrew Breitbart | 43 | American | Publisher and political commentator | Apparent heart attack | [5] |
March 1, 2012 | Jerome Courtland | 85 | American | Actor, director, and producer | Heart disease | [6] |
March 1, 2012* | Lucio Dalla | 68 | Italian | Singer-songwriter and musician | Heart attack | [7] |
March 2, 2012 | Fathulla Jameel | 69 | Maldivian | Politician, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1978–2005) | Heart disease | [8] |
March 2, 2012 | 9th Jebtsundamba Khutughtu | 80 | Tibetan-born Mongolian | Buddhist spiritual leader | [9] | |
March 2, 2012 | Archie Kalokerinos | 85 | Australian | Physician | [10] | |
March 2, 2012 | Thomas J. Lydon | 84 | American | Federal judge | Sepsis and car accident complications | [11] |
March 2, 2012* | Germano Mosconi | 79 | Italian | Sportswriter and news presenter | [12] | |
March 2, 2012 | Callan Pinckney | 72 | American | Fitness professional, created Callanetics | [13] | |
March 2, 2012* | Randy Primas | 62 | American | Politician, Mayor of Camden, New Jersey (1981–1990) | Bone marrow cancer | [14] |
An asterisk (*) denotes dates on which a death was reported.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- How's this? By the way, if something like this should find consensus, I'd also create a template to go along. In the article source, the last line of this example would then look something like this:
{{deathdate|March 2, 2012*|Randy|Primas|62|American|Politician, [[Mayor of Camden, New Jersey]] (1981–1990)|Bone marrow cancer|{{cite ...}}}}
Goodraise 05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- How's this? By the way, if something like this should find consensus, I'd also create a template to go along. In the article source, the last line of this example would then look something like this:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think it looks great. But, I am a little confused. Is all of this predicated on the premise that we will start using footnotes (i.e., via the RfC below)? Or not? If not, then isn't your Table exactly like the very first one that I proposed up top (except for, maybe, the column widths)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- All of what? I'm just trying to fine tune the design before converting dozens of articles. As far as I'm concerned, these tables don't look all that different from one another. I'm just working on the assumption that footnotes will become allowed here, because without them, featured status will be out of reach. Goodraise 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(unindent) Thanks. By "all of this" ... what I meant was: "all of these changes to the Table are predicated on the article using footnotes". I wanted to clarify if that was your assumption, and you indicated that it was. Your Table looks good (and, I agree, all of the Tables are, more or less, the same basic idea). However, I still think that there is a problem with the parenthetical notations. I honestly don't believe that they can be "swept" under the inclusion of an asterisk or dagger notation. My only idea is to use a separate column (as my very first chart above exemplified) ... other than an extra column, I am not sure how to incorporate the parenthetical notations. The problem with the asterisk or dagger is that there are several (valid) side-notes that may be added to an entry (not just the one note of "death reported on this date"). Just off the top of my head, I can recollect four such parenthetical side-notes to entries: (1) death reported on this date, which is quite common; (2) body found on this date, also quite common (and distinct from #1); the foreign language notations (which need to be addressed in some way, whether we have footnotes or no footnotes); and (4) I remember in the Natalie Holloway case some notation such as "legally declared dead on this date" (to distinguish that she actually died seven years prior). These are merely four that I personally remember; I assume that there have been – and will continue to be – others, as well. Anyway ... my point is that there are several valid side-notes (with four examples listed above). And all of these are probably not able to be contained in a single asterisk/dagger notation. Any and all valid side-notes would need to be accommodated (when we create a generic chart template). And there are many valid parenthetical side-notes and variations, other than the single asterisk note of "death reported on this date". So, we need to address that point. I don't know of any other way to accommodate them all, other than by adding that "extra" final column at the right-end of the table. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly how common are these anyway? There's lots of ways to deal with such issues apart from devoting an entire column to them. One way would be using a second group of footnotes (<ref name="reported" group="n">Death reported on this date.</ref>). Goodraise 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Yes, they are relatively common (several dozen per month, I'd estimate). So much so, that they need to be addressed and accommodated in some way. I am not married to the idea of having an extra column in the table. I am just saying that they need to be anticipated and incorporated into the generic template in some way. Whether it is via an extra column or via the extra footnotes that you propose, either way, we'd need to figure out what to with the (very commonplace) side-notes. I think both methods have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of an extra column is that the information is readily apparent to the reader, without having to scroll way down to the bottom of the page to check the footnote. And, if we are already adding some 300+ footnotes to the bottom of the page (one reference per death entry, if the RfC below dictates) ... then, I am not so crazy about adding even more footnotes, on top of that, to accommodate the dozens of side-notes! These are my thoughts at the moment. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Looking at the past 3 month, I see about 3 per month. If it's this few on most pages, I'd say a second group of footnotes is the way to go. If several dozen per month is typical, I'd go with markers (* and such). A whole column would only be justified if at least a third of the entries is in need of some sort of note. I'd rather not have to count them on every list; are you sure you're not overestimating their commonness? Either way, making the template accommodate these notes should not prove difficult. Goodraise 19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree that, whatever route we decide, making the template accommodate these notes should not prove difficult. However, I am not sure that you and I are talking about the same thing. I am "counting" the foreign language notations; perhaps you are not? And, in the current month, there are already some 70-odd parenthetical notations ... and the month is only half over. (A very quick count of the present month yielded 67 foreign language notes, so far, as of April 16.) I think you mentioned that the foreign language note would be "absorbed" into the footnote (if the RfC ends up that we use footnotes). If the RfC ends up that we do not use footnotes, we still need to accommodate the foreign language notation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok. But, a note is still a note ... whether it's a content note or a source note. And, either way, the note would still need to be "noted" somewhere ... no? So, I am not sure why you are not counting them (i.e., the foreign language notations)? Where are you proposing that they be listed, under the new Tables format? Let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think we're just talking past each other here. I'm not counting them, not because I think they don't count, but because I can see (without counting) that there's a lot of them. Of course we need to put them somewhere. And if the RfC should indeed turn out against footnotes, we can just as well cram all notes into a dedicated column. Just featured status will then be impossible no matter how pretty and accessible we make the table look otherwise. Goodraise 23:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, thanks. So, I guess we will just wait and see what that RfC brings. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Edit request on 11 April 2012
Peter Martyn-Hemphill, 5th Baron Hemphill http://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths/147770/hemphill-5th-baron-peter-patrick-fitzroy-martyn
Alexander Leslie-Melville, 14th Earl of Leven http://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths/147831/leven-melville
46.246.221.39 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Partly done: Alexander appears to already be listed, and Peter Martyn-Hemphill doesn't appear to meet WP:N given that he doesn't have his own wikipedia article, which I believe is a requirement for inclusion in this list. If you need any further help, please feel free to re-enable the requested edit template. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- You know, maaaaany people are listed without having an article. Also, every member of the peerage is automatically notable, whether they have an article or not and that's a policy.--46.246.221.39 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Common practice is to add anyone with presumed notability whose death has been reported; any who remain redlinked after 30 days are subsequently removed. Dru of Id (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I know that! Can't you just put him until the end of the month?--188.4.225.249 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- We're currently discussing whether non-notable entries should be included to the end of the month. I don't believe this practice complies with policy. The best thing to do right now is to find reliable sources which indicate that he's notable. That would allow us to include him either way. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Since others have addressed this, I'm going to change the answered parameter on the template to "yes" to help clear a backlog. 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable entries
I removed entries without wikipedia pages on the basis that they are non-notable, but I was reverted. The explanation I was given is that consensus has been to leave the entries for a month, and only prune them then. Such a policy doesn't make sense to me, and is opposed to our general guidelines for including notable content. If an entry is very definitely non-notable, then leaving it in for a month won't help anything; the individual has died without attracting enough attention to warrant a wikipedia article thus far, so he's almost certainly not going to end up becoming more notable after his death. There will undoubtedly be exceptions to this, but we can easily insert those exceptions after they are shown to be notable by documented reliable sources. This opposite approach leaves us in a guaranteed perpetual state of having non-notable entries which don't meet our inclusion criteria. For instance, take Wataru Mori: we don't have so much as a claim of notability, and no working reference to establish that he even existed. Leaving him in for a full month in the hopes that he'll suddenly become notable isn't doing us any favors. I'm happy to discuss further, but it seems likely that we should standardize our inclusion criteria on this article with our criteria elsewhere on-site. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are several editors who have regarded redlinks here as a 'to do' list of sorts, and many initially redlinked articles are created fairly quickly, more before they would be removed. Most redlinked entries do meet the inclusion criteria, but creation of articles has not reached the maintenance stage yet. There are still sports figures who do not have articles, general officers who have led national military branches, as well as state Speakers of the House, let alone representatives. Dru of Id (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I understand that. But those entries can be added after notability has been established. Across the rest of the site, notability must be established before content is included. I don't see any reason this article should be different. If editors are looking to make a to do list, there are other places to do that outside of mainspace. This talk page, AfC submissions, sandboxes, userspace, etc. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm just saying what was said above (whats with all the redlinks) and our historical precedent for the Deaths in XXXX pages. I think where you are getting caught up is that if these were actual articles there would need more evidence of notability. As they are merely redlinks on the Deaths in XXXX table, the fact that they have a cited obituary are often an indication that they are (1) claiming notability and (2) providing a citation in support of that. We also want to be as considerate as possible when dealing with recent deaths. A general rule of thumb of a month grace for redlinks (honestly, here I'd never prune them as long as the obits are linked) seems a decent interval. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okay, yea... I understand that editors are saying there's precedent to do it this way, but I'm asking whether that should be the way things are done. After all, WP:CCC. An obituary doesn't indicate notability - most deceased members of my family have a published obituary, as that's just a standard practice in my area. My hangup is that 1) this method is contrary to the rest of the site, and 2) it guarantees non-notable entries in the list, which is a violation of the inclusion criteria. If specifics are easier, then put another way, why should we include Wataru Mori? — Jess· Δ♥ 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Removed Wataru Mori, as his/her link was dead, with no prejudice to his reinstatement. I assume my failure to find a link is due to Japanese only sources and my American English search engine. Claims for people on this page need to be considered at face value - politician, probably notable... race car driver, possibly notable... your uncle Billy who was a great man and loving father and is survived by his 25 grandkids but who otherwise just wrote insurance policies for his career probably not notable. I don't agree that the way it has been done guarantees non notable entries in the list. I'm also not inclined to debate it further. If you wish to delete all the redlinks, feel free to start a RFC or delete them all or whatever. Just don't edit war if someone other than me reverts you. Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If the current policy is "any editor can add an entry, and that entry can't be removed for 30 days", then how wouldn't that guarantee non-notable entries? I see that you've moved on, Syrthiss, but I'll leave discussion open for a bit longer before reinstating the edit. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus to remove the redlinks. I suggest restoring them per previous consensus to keep them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If there's no consensus to remove, the only reason is because of lack of discussion, which I'm trying to spur. This issue has been brought up again and again. No strong consensus exists, AFAICT, to include non-notable entries against the stated inclusion criteria of this article. I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'd appreciate it if others could actually participate in the discussion rather than just voting that they agree or oppose. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- BTW, I made the change to spur discussion, but was reverted by someone who only said "red links stay for 30 days", with no follow-up here or further reasoning provided in edit summary. I re-reverted and asked the editor to discuss the matter further here. If you'd like to revert again, I have no problem with that, just please discuss the matter here and not simply refer me to previous consensus. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I quote - "Guys, I'm not trying to be hostile here". Nevertheless he thought he would "prune the list again". I can not help but feel said editor is playing agent provocateur, and then innocently wondering why, when he throws a grenade into the trench, everyone therein cries, 'there might be casualties'. I would suggest plenty are participating - it is just that you do not like what you hear. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- That isn't helpful, Derek. This isn't a battleground. I opened this section to discuss the matter, and have been doing my best to spur discussion since then. I don't see how anything above is me "getting answers and just not liking what I hear". I got input from two editors, one of whom didn't follow up, and another told me to reinstate the edit. WP:BRD specifically mentions making a bold edit to reopen discussion, and that's what I've done. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, I'd very much welcome it. The big question I have (which is outlined above) is why we should create an inclusion criteria for this list, and then insist that it be violated with non-notable entries. Why are entries like Wataru Mori acceptable here? What useful content are they adding? — Jess· Δ♥ 00:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Please allow redlinks to remain for 30 days, as previous consensus agreed. This gives project editors at least some time to create the article after the person has died. the red link serves to encourage creation of articles of truly notable people if someone sees it and has time to create the article before the person adding it. I try to add then create basketball notables as they occur and sometimes others are able to get to it before me. Wikipedia:Red link states that "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Not sure what drives deleting them immediately instead of helping the project grow - especially since there is a working process to prune them and an established consensus to keep them unil then. Rikster2 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, if you want to propose a change to the existing process, have the discussion then enact the change after the new consensus is reached. I would also say what's the big deal deleting redlinked articles that either don't have a reference or that you can ascertain truly aren't notable? I don't get it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. Someone deleted all red links. One cannot add an article. Why? Then make a list with all red -to be written- articles. I personally added two and now they are gone. This is rude! And they were of today and yesterday. 30 days should be the time to react. NEVER less. Please!
Will somebody re-instate the entries? Who decides here? Some "God" from above? Please advice, otherwise I will refrain from contributing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrec (talk • contribs)
-
- Hi Rikster. Thanks for the comment. As I mentioned above, I reinstated the edit for the purpose of spurring discussion, as WP:BRD suggests. Syrthiss suggested I reintroduce the change, but I left it for 4 days hoping others would contribute to no avail. Remaking the edit seems to have done the trick. AFAICT, you're saying essentially the same thing as Dru above, which is that this article should serve as a to-do list for editors rather than as information for readers. There are lots of places on-site to-do lists are more appropriate, however. These areas reside outside of mainspace, so as not to interfere with the content we're delivering to our readers. If those areas aren't sufficient, I'd be more than happy to help organize an effort to create a project or resource for that purpose. Mainspace, on the other hand, is intended for content which already meets our inclusion criteria, which for this article is stated as a person who is notable, and already has an article. If a subject is notable but doesn't yet have an article, then we can create one and then add him to all the lists and categories to which he would apply. How about we discuss what kind of resource would be most appropriate for editors to skim through and create articles. Would something in WikiProject Death do the trick, or a separate list in the WP namespace? Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- It is information for readers. It tells them when a (presumably) notable person died. Which might spur you to create the article (deaths and obits are often triggers for article creation). The 30 days also serves as a clock to motivate whoever added the article to actually do it as opposed to procrastinating, so it serves a purpose to keep the encyclopedia growing. Have you done an analysis of how many redlinks were notable vs. not? Because you're making an assumption that they aren't notable - seems like if you suspect a specific redlink isn't notable you could just scan the obit and figure it out pretty quickly. Delete any you run across that don't either have a reference or don't meet that initial scan. I know I only add people who are notable - whether they have an article or not. And 90% of the time I create the article within a week. I have redlinks to create sitting on my user page that have been sitting there a year. And in those 10% of articles I don't get to - well somebody just goes through and deletes them in 30 days which clears out any not created. The process works. Why create some new holding area when you can do it here and at least give readers an idea of who has died on a given day? If we change the process due to consensus (though I don't see a consensus forming around your proposal so far), I'll probably just stop contributing to this page in general. I can always add the relevant basketball figures to the deaths section of articles such as 2012 in basketball and work from there. Though I'd probably figure I add about half the basketball figures who die in a given year to this page, it won't bother me to skip that step and let some other editor keep track of it. Wiki politics like this pretty much kill my enthusiasm for this site, truth be told. Rikster2 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- How about WP:REDDEAL, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article". Clearly a bunch of editors have reached consensus to keep such links, with the full knowledge that many articles evolve as a result of the deceased appearing on this list. You really are testing the patience of many responsible editors with your "bold" editing against consensus. Oh, and the redlinks have started to appear again. You had better get back to them soon. The price of boldness is eternal vigilance! WWGB (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
This is a perfectly crappy thing to do. A lot of us spend time digging through articles from around the world looking at notable people in various aspects of society. Some people may just not have links yet but still are important. How about a scientist who changed the world in the 1970s or 1980s in a fundamental way that was overlooked by the recent internet people. And you want to do this because it wont load on your blackberry or is slow to load? Unbelievably insensitive that the work goes on can be affected by the problems of 1 person. Sorry if I am being snarky, but I dont think you get it. There are a whole host of people who bring info to this page to have others work on it. This type of thing and the individuality behind it instead of for the collective is the thing that makes me want to quit. And not trying to attack you, but how many articles have you contributed to the Deaths for in 2012? Are you even in the Top 20?(Sunnydoo (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC))
-
-
-
- @WWGB Ah, thanks for reminding me of that. I meant to respond to it earlier. WP:REDLINK is speaking of wikilinking text in the page already. It is not saying we should add new content which doesn't meet our inclusion criteria in the hopes that it will meet our inclusion criteria down the road. For that, WP:CRYSTAL applies. I'm not against keeping redlinks in the article; I'm against including content which doesn't meet our criteria for an extended period of time, even when it can be shown to be non-notable. I'm not trying to test anyone's patience, WWGB, but this persistent hostility isn't helping. I left discussion open for an extended period hoping for input, but didn't get any. I'm following policy and WP:DR to the letter here, and I'm going well out of my way to civilly engage everyone collaboratively. I'd really appreciate the favor returned.
- Again, you make the assumption that every redlink is a non-notable person. That is not a valid assumption and redlinks for notable folks would be entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. The issue isn't just about adding people who don't meet notability standards. I think very few if any would argue with deoeting links of truly non-notable individuals. Rikster2 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Rikster, I created WP:Requested articles/Deaths with the list of each entry pruned from here. If you're not familiar with it, WP:Requested articles is set up specifically for the purpose you've mentioned. I check it occasionally for good article candidates. Hopefully that'll be a good place to add and search for candidates. We could easily keep it updated with anything added from here that doesn't yet meet our criteria. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Screw it. I'm out. I'm not a "death" guy I'm a basketball guy. Somebody else can try to ensure that notable basketball figures make their way to the page. Would just like to point out that consensus usually requires more than one person to achieve. Have fun, kids. Rikster2 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- @WWGB Ah, thanks for reminding me of that. I meant to respond to it earlier. WP:REDLINK is speaking of wikilinking text in the page already. It is not saying we should add new content which doesn't meet our inclusion criteria in the hopes that it will meet our inclusion criteria down the road. For that, WP:CRYSTAL applies. I'm not against keeping redlinks in the article; I'm against including content which doesn't meet our criteria for an extended period of time, even when it can be shown to be non-notable. I'm not trying to test anyone's patience, WWGB, but this persistent hostility isn't helping. I left discussion open for an extended period hoping for input, but didn't get any. I'm following policy and WP:DR to the letter here, and I'm going well out of my way to civilly engage everyone collaboratively. I'd really appreciate the favor returned.
-
-
I am done too sorry. This is a horrific change and its a shame one person can ruin everything. I cant go on helping with the project. Good luck guys! (Sunnydoo (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
-
- Rikster, regarding your post above (I hit an EC posting at the same time as you), I'm happy to go through the list and prune individual entries as well. I assumed this would be done after the existing non-notable entries were pruned. An alternative approach would be to modify the existing inclusion criteria for the article. All I'm noting is that the inclusion criteria (which I had no part in crafting) says "entries must have these characteristics", yet no editor is enforcing that entries have those characteristics. If you're not invested in the article enough to continue discussing, then that's fine. It's a shame, but maybe I'll see you on another article some time. I posted to your talk with some appreciation for your contributions here. Hopefully the WP:Requested articles/Deaths list will be useful to others who are looking for a to-do list related to these articles. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I don't really want to get drawn into this discussion too deeply, since I really don't have a preference on the red links, but the premise of the argument (as stated by the name of the section and the edit summary "Clean up non-notable entries" when removing) and the rationale for the removal of the red links implies that the entries are non-notable, which is in at least some cases demonstrably false. For example, the only red links that I add to the list are Olympic competitors, which are notable per WP:ATHLETE as is anyone who has "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". So well I have no opinion on including the red links, the implication that they are all non-notable is far from true. Canadian Paul 02:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Paul, that's probably true. I assumed the problem was that a lot of drive-by editors were adding non-notable entries (interspersed with maybe a few good ones). Then, how about we do this... I'll create a new section with some of these entries, and we can figure out which ones are appropriate and which should be pruned. Wataru Mori, for instance, was a clear candidate for removal, and having looked through the list there are clearly others as well. After we've cleaned the list out a bit, then WP:Requested articles/Deaths can be used to encourage editors to create articles for notable entries which stick. We'll have to adjust the inclusion criteria of the article as well to allow entries without articles, since that seems to be the wishes of a lot of editors here. I have some things to take care of tonight, but I'll try to get to that list quickly. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an excerpt of the message I posted on your wall that pertains to this discussion- If you look at the notability requirements, you can understand there is some vagueness to them. If I am in Denver and the Communist Leader of India dies, but he does not have his own wiki article, what makes him less notable? It may not be notable to me, but it may be to someone else who did not realize he didnt have a page. We find a lot of these issues with foreign notability types. It is published in a credible world newspaper and by the BBC. What makes him not notable? Secondly, people do fall through the woodwork. I worked on a scientist that died this month who didnt have an article yet she developed the Whooping Cough Vaccine. You think that wasnt notable? It probably saved well into the millions of lives.
I think you are looking for an end product and that is fine to you. We are looking at it as a living resource pr a clearinghouse. There is no problem with leaving the names up for 30 days and then disposing them. That has worked well in the past and although it takes a little work on the back end, it saves a lot of conflict on the front end over who is arguing who is notable or not and who ultimately decides that they are in fact notable. If someone sees someone they think is notable they can fix it right away. We have some editors who arent that technically proficient at toggling through screens and looking at additional resource entries attached to the lists. Some people in fact dont realize they exist at all. Having this one list with all of the information there and presented for everyone to see and work on puts it all in one place. Occam's Razor states other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.
The only issue that you have presented is with lag because of an "excess" of notability. (Sunnydoo (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC))
- The argument that the person isn't notable because they didn't have a bio before they died is a falsehood. There are tens of thousands of notable people on the planet right now who don't currently have a Wiki article. Reporting a recent death acts as a launchpad to fill in the gaps. Canadian Paul has already stated the points about missing Olympians, which I try to then add the biographies as the news reports come in. I also try to create other notable entries, esp. ones for actors and film directors. Many of these "non-notable" people are not British/American/Canadian/Australian, but already have a biography on their respective language wiki. I noticed a glut of dead Dutch politicans recently - are they all non-notable too? WP is a work in progress and by the definition of not having a biography before they died would mean anyone who died before 15 January 2001 shouldn't have an article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the things having the redlinks in this article may do is attract new editors (Wow! I can't believe they don't have an article on him! I could do that!). Looking at the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Deaths, it highlights for me how Anglo-centric English Wikipedia still is, since the numbers of still-needed articles for English-speaking countries (regardless of the race or immigration of the subject) is disproportional to their populations, and their occupations more so; some of that is availability of sources, some is editor interest, and some is language barriers. I see few descriptions on that page, however, that I would challenge a presumption of notability; we mention candidates in election pages (and link them, presuming they may become notable later), long before they meet guidelines for separate articles. I don't know how many are in the articles of politicians who later became notable for something else but who still have no article, but they may never have met our current guidelines. Unless separately challenged, I think the redlinks here should remain, and 30 days is a reasonable time; they could then be moved to the Requested articles/Deaths page, which I think would be useful. Dru of Id (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Bare URLs
I spent considerable time converting all the bare urls in the article to references using the standard {{cite web}} template, but was reverted. The editor's edit summary didn't give a reason for the revert, or indicate why we should be using external links inline in the article. Using external links inline in this manner is contrary to the MOS; see WP:Citing sources. I'm happy to discuss this further, but in the future, if there is a problem with an edit which must be reverted, it is usually helpful to provide a reason in the edit summary for the revert, rather than simply asking for discussion. IIRC, this is covered in WP:BOLD. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
[ URL ] | This article uses bare urls instead of citations. Please do not change this without discussion. See here for the discussion that lead to this and here for some criticism. |
--Racklever (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Hi Racklever. Thanks for the response, but that doesn't really address anything I've said. I read the two discussions you linked to, and actually read weak consensus to change to references per the MOS, not to keep bare urls inline in the article body. The primary argument against it, even in that discussion, was that "we've done it this way for a long time", which isn't an argument. I'm happy to discuss further, but as I said above, I'd appreciate it if editors who oppose following the MOS in this case actually discussed the issue, rather than repeatedly asking for discussion (which I'm trying to provide). — Jess· Δ♥ 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- This discussion could go along with the "Table" discussion above. What you need to understand is that a safe bet would be that a large percentage of editors might not know how to DO {{cite web}} templates. I've had to fix numerous references on television articles, because editors take the easy way out/like to keep things simple. It's MUCH easier to just put brackets around a sourced obit reference than take the extra time to add all that the templates call for for someone who died that may not be all that notable. It may not be MOS, but simplicity sometimes is better. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okay, so if a new editor comes onto the page and puts in a new entry with a bare url, we thank them for the contribution and just change the link to {{cite web}}. That's what we do on every other article on wikipedia. I'm sure it was a consideration posed before the MOS guideline was created, so I'm not sure it's a reason to break convention for the whole rest of WP just for this page. There are also reasons not to use bare urls - which is why the guideline was created - including that the target of the link is not obvious, the convention is non-standard for anyone who's viewed any other article, the author and access date are lacking for reference, and it's prone to link rot. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As was stated by others on topics like these, if you (or someone else) wish to go behind each and every person to add Cite Webs, have at it. Current obituary references total: 125. Have fun! — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I've still had to fix some Cite Webs on other pages where someone doesn't probably do them. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
Racklever put it in fine print, but this was discussed four years ago. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I saw that, as I indicated above. I responded to it in my second post. The TLDR gist is 1) the prime argument, even then, was that "it's been done that way for a long time", not a reason to break the MOS, 2) consensus appeared to be for changing to {{cite web}}, 3) even so, WP:CCC, especially after 4 years. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- My vote: Don't allow. I won't add any future deaths if it becomes that involved. I've been on Wiki for the past 4 hours and have grown weary from adding/changing "cites" in other articles. Thank the gods for "copy/paste" for the same refs on different articles! But to stay on topic, it is rude to revert someone's hard work w/o stating why in the Edit Summary. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, you don't have to use the {{cite web}} template. You can still keep adding links inline if you really want. But, another editor will then come by and fix them to proper references. If you find the cite templates hard to use, there are a number of tools which might help. Reflinks is one. The cite templates really aren't that involved; they're used on every single other article on wikipedia, and there's a reason for that. Did you read my posts above? Among the problems with bare links, I listed "the target of the link is not obvious, the convention is non-standard for anyone who's viewed any other article, the author and access date are lacking for reference, and it's prone to link rot." That's why the MOS says we should not use them. I don't understand why this article should be different than every other article, and why we should simply ignore the manual of style. — Jess· Δ♥ 01:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My last comment on the matter: MY Reflinks usually does the dates as yyyy-mm-dd so I still have to fix them. Deaths appears to be a hotly-viewed/used article so the simpler the better. I've seen other articles that simply use ref brackets from those non-compliant editors and I leave them be (unless they are on articles I care about). Like I said, the repairs from fixing proper Cite Webs may be more trouble than their worth for a simple monthly resource like this one that, once it's past and backlogged, won't matter. And I wonder who the "other editor" here will be to fix all the problems? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think we're making a pretty big deal out of very little... using {{cite web}} is as simple as surrounding the url with {{cite web|url=...|title=Something}}. If that's too hard and you don't want to do it by hand, then there's tools (like Reflinks) to do it for you. Yes, they use standard conventions (such as dating formats). If you have a problem with how reflinks formats the date and really feel compelled to change it, then do so, or find another tool, or leave it for other editors to change. You have lots of options. None of this is the least bit comparable with the very serious problems associated with providing bare external links inline, which is why it's against our broad, site-wide, community-driven content guidelines. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Jess, who is going to "come by and fix them"? Certainly not this wikignome. Are you here for the long haul? If so, I suggest you go back to Deaths in October 2004 where the current system more or less began. Then you can work your way forward, slowly and surely, converting every month to footnote citations. That would be a demonstration of good faith and strong intent, and show us that your way is better. Pleaae don't just make an ad hoc change at Deaths in April 2010 and expect everyone to fall into line.
- Just to summarise some of the reasons why we use the current method:
- 1. As stated, many editors contribute to this article and are unfamiliar with footnote referencing
- 2. Having the citation at the end of the line allows immediate verification of the death and its circumstances
- 3. Long pages with many footnote citations take much longer to load.
- 4. This is one of the most visited pages in Wikipedia, over 60,000 visits per day. Clearly, we must be doing something right and providing a useful article. We really don't need clumsy inconsistent entries until someone "comes by to fix them". WWGB (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WWGB, placing the responsibility of getting every related article up to compliance with the MOS on my shoulders is both unfounded and inappropriate. For one thing, I already made the change to this article to put it in compliance, but someone reverted me. Saying that I, personally, have to stick with a whole category of articles for you to be willing to abide by our content guidelines is ridiculous.
- 1. This is true of every article on wikipedia. WP:BOLD indicates that contributions don't have to be perfect immediately. This is the nature of wikipedia.
- 2. So does having a reference at the end of the line. Additionally, the {{cite web}} template allows the user to see what page they're going to before clicking the link, prevents link rot which may make the link unavailable, as well as solving other usability issues. Adding references is more usable, which is why it's a content guideline. See the relevant policy page I quoted.
- 3. Negligibly. This is not a reason why this article should ignore the manual of style when all other articles abide by it. Many articles (e.g. Intelligent design) have many more refs than this one. ID is a featured article. It never would have been featured if it didn't conform to the MOS
- 4. See #3. Our featured articles all, without exception, abide by the MOS. None use external links inline like this. If we're going by precedent of the best articles, then a small list-class article isn't the place to look.
- Look, I can start on RfC on this if there's enough opposition to it, but I'm fairly certain the community will conclude that we should abide by the established community standards for content outlined in the MOS. To say otherwise, I'd have to see a compelling argument for why this article is fundamentally different than the rest of wikipedia, which as of yet I haven't seen. I'm happy to discuss this further, but if anyone thinks getting broader input from an RfC is the way to go, let me know. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The precedent here is other dynamic articles, not static articles that achieve FA status. This page changes every few minutes on average. Very few articles have such an edit history over time. Other dynamic articles also do not use web cite templates, possibly for the same reasons. See, for example, April 2011. One of Wikipedia's Five Pillars is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Seems relevant in cases like these. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Featured articles get edited a lot. Many times by new editors. Do you have any FAs watchlisted? Nothing in the MOS says that it doesn't apply to lists, but let's assume for a second that articles are different than lists. Take a look at any featured list (e.g. List of United States hurricanes, List of snow events in Florida, List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes). All follow the MOS. Some featured lists get edited heavily. IAR is applicable only insofar as there is a reason to ignore the rules; Read WP:IAR. The only objection raised so far is that making references is hard. That's a consideration that was taken into account when the MOS guideline was created, and is not unique to this article, and as such, is not compelling to me. Would you feel more comfortable getting broader input from an RfC? Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 04:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Of course, you are free to take this matter to other forums. In my humble opinion, the small group of wikignomes who maintain this list will not take kindly to having changes forced through. This ever-changing list has survived in its current form for more than seven years. There has to be a message in that. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This list about deaths in 2012 has survived for 7 years? Wikipedia has changed a lot in 7 years, and policy is pretty clear. You haven't responded to anything I just posted, so that makes discussion hard. I'm not forcing changes through, which is again trying to pin responsibility on me for sticking to our established guidelines; I opened discussion on this talk page (BTW, I'm the only one of all the editors involved to do so, about all 3 issues). I obviously didn't do that to "force" anything. I'll start an RfC to get broader input from the community. — Jess· Δ♥ 04:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I've spent a few days mulling this over, and only object to doing so in the most recent deaths, where there would be a constant mix of bare urls with cite web; any previous months & years should be changed to cite web as comprehensively and systematically as possible, but the mix in most recent deaths would be an eyesore on a highly visible page. Dru of Id (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
External Links
My third and final edit, along with all the others, was reverted. I removed the very large list of external links to area-specific obituaries. These do not conform to WP:EL. Additionally, they're not exhaustive (why Ireland and not Dubai?) and they're not relevant to the topic (including non-notable people and dates outside of 2012). Again, no reason was provided for the revert, except to "restore the standard format". Guys... I understand I'm new to this article, but I'm not new to wikipedia. I've been around the block; I hit this page handling the ESp queue, and I'm doing my best to work on the page to bring it up to WP standards. I understand others may not agree with the edits I'm making, but please actually engage in discussion and give me reasons for reverting so we can discuss them and come to an agreeable solution. If there's a reason we're violating WP:LINKFARM just for this page, I'm happy to talk about it. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- To Jess ... for what it's worth, I appreciate your efforts to improve this page. I have only scanned the above discussions very quickly. But, it seems that a standard line of argument (against Jess's proposals) is "we do it that way, because that's the way we've always done it". That's not particularly convincing. Once again, I applaud Jess's efforts. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you managed to get other editors offside because you made several profound changes without any discussion or warning. As for the "external links", readers who come here are interested in deaths and obituaries, and so these sites are relevant. If you prefer, we can call them "further reading". They also provide a source for adding further entries to the list. As for "Ireland and not Dubai", if you are aware of a dedicated obituaries page in the Khaleej Times then please add it to the list. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:BOLD, which is listed in the 5 pillars, yes; I made changes based on established community standards. After being repeatedly reverted without a stated reason, I then politely engaged in discussion on the talk page and asked for input. I'm not sure what's so offputting about that, or why any hostility is warranted. I'm happy to engage, work collaboratively, and open to changing my mind given a compelling reason, but I'm striving (to the very best of my ability) to make this article better by bringing it up to our established community standards. WP:EL and WP:NOT discuss what is appropriate for external links within articles. A relevant passage is "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." AFAICT, you are effectively proposing that we add the local obituary of literally every single city on the planet. I don't think that qualifies as "one or more useful content-relevant links", particularly since these obituaries don't only concern notable people, or deaths occurring in 2012. If these sites are helpful for locating content, then great! Include them here, on the talk page, or your own personal server, or your sandbox or user page, and alongside other similar links (like, say, google scholar), use them to edit more effectively. That they are useful for editors doesn't qualify them for inclusion in the text. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Should we use references
Should this article use references (such as <ref>{{cite web...}}</ref>) or inline external links within the body (such as [http://...]) — Jess· Δ♥ 05:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support using references, per the MOS, WP:Citing sources, and the reasons presented in the sections above. Our guidelines clearly state that using references is important, more user friendly, and avoids common problems with using just bare urls. Some of those problems include the target of the link is not obvious, the convention is non-standard for anyone who's ever viewed any other article, the author and access date are lacking for reference, and it's prone to link rot. References don't suffer from any of those problems, and are a standard across the site. External links within the body was deprecated many years ago, and should not be used here. Please see the discussions above for further context. — Jess· Δ♥ 05:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not inline.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support the status quo. To summarise my main arguments:
- 1. URL at end of line allows for quick confirmation of death and details
- 2. This is a large page by end of month (over 400 cites), that many web cites makes page very slow to load
- 3. Similar process used on like lists, see April 2012 for example
- 4. List edited by many editors, including novices
- 5. Many contributing editors cannot use web cite effectively, adding to cleanup detail for a few wikignomes
- 6. High access page (over 60,000 visits per day), a page with mixed/messy cites is not a good look for Wikipedia. Current page looks clean, simple and effective.
- 7. The present format has been in use since Deaths in October 2004. That is a considerable precedent. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Essentially copying my responses from above, which weren't addressed:
-
- 1. So does a web cite, which is why it's used everywhere else
- 2. So are other articles, including featured ones, which all use references
- 3. Inline external links are not used on any featured lists. Not one. If other low-quality lists don't yet comply with the MOS, they should be fixed too.
- 4. True of every article on wikipedia. With that in mind, we still made the MOS guideline.
- 5. True of every article on wikipedia. It's not that much work (see section above), nor does it introduce serious problems. External links, however, do introduce serious problems.
- 6. Current page doesn't look clean. It looks sloppy and out of touch with the way every other article on WP is formatted. There's no indication of where the link goes before clicking on it, which also makes it more difficult to use. This is not the most visited page on WP, by far - featured articles get a lot of traffic, and they all use a standard format.
- 7. WP:CCC. 8 years ago, inline external links were acceptable. They were deprecated many years ago, and nearly every article has been converted to refs since then, per explicit guideline. I don't see any reason this article should be different, and simply ignore the MOS. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Having recently brought up virtually the same thing, I'm familiar with several (but probably not all) previous discussions about this. I can understand the stance of many regulars of this page that anything but [URL]-format references are unpractical here. However, I don't see why previous incarnations (Deaths in 2011, ...) should be kept in this state. Goodraise 05:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Goodraise 13:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support status quo per WWGB above. This list page is unique within Wikipedia and there are very good reasons that it appears the way it does despite the fact that it may not follow typical MOS guidelines. All entries are vetted at the time they are added and include a reference - expanding the references is unwieldy and does not improve readability or comprehension of the list page. This format has worked well for years; changing to match guidelines better suited to articles and short lists is process wonkery. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- You said "there are very good reasons it appears the way it does". What are those reasons? I have asked for them repeatedly... the best I've gotten is that using {{cite web}} is hard. What about the very serious problems introduced by using external links inline, which was the reason for the MOS guideline? — Jess· Δ♥ 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- ~Who said "using {{cite web}} is hard"? Not me. The bold-, italic-, wikilink-button edit line has a Cite button at the end of it, which should make it easy for any editor to do it. The problem is getting every editor to use it. - WylieCoyote (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We don't need every editor to use it. If someone screws it up, we fix it, just like everywhere else on WP. I already fixed them all on this page, but someone reverted me and said they should be the other way... I asked why, and was told "it's the way we've always done it", and "using cite web is hard". So, when
youPonyo says "there are very good reasons it appears [this way]", I want to know what those very good reasons are. I haven't seen them yet. I also want to know why the very good reasons our guidelines outline for not doing it that way don't matter on this article, such as link rot, clearly representing the target of the link, clearly publishing cite info, making a consistent feel for usability, etc. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need every editor to use it. If someone screws it up, we fix it, just like everywhere else on WP. I already fixed them all on this page, but someone reverted me and said they should be the other way... I asked why, and was told "it's the way we've always done it", and "using cite web is hard". So, when
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've searched the above comments for using cites as being "hard" to no avail, only saw the "always done it". Good luck in your endeavors to get this passed. I spend enough time fixing other cites on less-viewed pages, so I imagine it would grow tiresome for one or more "copy editors" here. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You said above that {{cite web}} was "involved", inline links were "easier", and other editors didn't know how to use refs. I don't know how to take that but that they are hard. "X is easier than Y" means "Y is harder than X". I disagree with the assertion, but it seemed fairly clear to me. You haven't answered any of my questions or advanced any reasons to use inline links, which makes it really difficult to engage in this discussion... I'm really trying here, but I still don't see any reason not to follow policy for just this page. — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, I see. "Involved and easier" doesn't necessarily mean "hard". Case in point. Look at all the bare URLs. The references are from "confirmed editors", who find that it's easier to just use a URL in an article that begs for full cite webs. I used the Reflinks tool twice there and it timed me out twice, therefore not completing my "ref fixes." As for here, I think I have saturated this page with my answers and reasons and this is my last one since it's "difficult" for you to engage in discussion, or would that be "involved"? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's an unassessed article. Sure, if we compare this article to stub-class, unassessed, and C-class articles, I'm sure we'll wind up with lots of different conventions than the MOS prescribes. That doesn't mean those are good conventions. Look at all the good class or featured articles: none of them do this. Once again, we don't have to get everyone to use cites, and you don't personally have to fix errors here for us to allow errors to be fixed. I tried to clean the article up, but was reverted and told consensus was they shouldn't be fixed. Now I'm getting arguments that we shouldn't fix them because other editors don't want to. I do. I'm trying to, but I'm being barred from doing so. I still haven't seen any reason that this article is different than any other, and should simply ignore our WP-wide content guidelines. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arbitrary Break I
- Status quo support - My fingers hurt from the points I have made, but let me also add the conciseness that is also called for in Wiki articles. A reflist of 500 references a month would lengthen the page. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Status quo support - In my opinion, there are no serious problems with having inline links in this article, and there are no compelling reasons for introducing a list of refs -Kiwipat (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- So, you recognize that there are problems with having inline links in this article, and that there are reasons for introducing a list of refs. Curious that you still support the status quo. What might the reasons for that be? Goodraise 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why is following policy not a compelling reason? — Jess· Δ♥ 15:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Err, it's only a guideline, not a policy. WWGB (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. A content guideline that is used in every good article across the entire site. Why is following the consensus of the entire community on this issue, as outlined in the MOS, not a compelling reason? — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not compelled and, so far at least, neither is anyone else. WWGB (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Umm... within these few sections, we have 3 editors (including myself) who support following wikipedia-wide consensus on the matter, and 4 regulars to this page who have opposed it without giving any solid reasons. I don't think "no one" is a really apt characterization. With all due respect, I appreciate your input, but my question was posed to Kiwipat. I would genuinely like to know why he doesn't feel that following site-wide consensus is a compelling reason to use refs, as well as his reasons for using external links inline to begin with. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- The fact that there are "regulars" who agree that what you are proposing will not work should give even more weight to the argument to maintain the status quo, not less as you seem to insinuate above. And the "no solid reasons" comment is incorrect, they are simply reasons that you evidently do not agree with. You are certainly not the first editor who has happened upon this very high profile list and decided it needs "fixing". At the end of the day/week/month it is the "regulars" who are familiar with the formatting and the eventual fall-out of the changes that are left to clean up the mess and eventually it returns to the format that works best, which is the current state. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- How about if we let Jess run this page in May 2012, just to see if this cite-web plan is a success or will blow up in their face? Since apparently our "solid reasons" nor our opinions matter? — WylieCoyote (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Guys, I'm not trying to be hostile here. If I thought your opinions didn't matter, I wouldn't have started 4 sections for discussion and an RfC, as well as spending considerable time responding personally to each one of you. The problem is, I'm asking questions and not getting answers. The regulars here are just saying "I don't agree" and then bailing. That's not helpful. I'm being told "some people don't want to do it themselves, so you can't do it even if you want"; that's not an argument. I'm being told "we've done it this way forever"; that's not an argument. I'm being told "there are problems, but the reasons to switch aren't good enough" without any indication of why we should keep this problematic version; that's not an argument. I'm being told "the MOS doesn't matter because of IAR", with no indication of why we should IAR; that's not an argument. None of these are solid arguments. I get that you guys have been doing this for a while, and you've done it a certain way, and changing things up can be tough sometimes. But the way things are being done now are against the way we do things on WP, and will prevent this and any other related article from ever being a good article. We have the MOS for a reason, and there are a lot of problems it was created to circumvent. This article suffers from a lot of them. I'm not trying to force anybody to change their editing habits, or push anyone into a new convention they don't like; I'm just trying to personally fix up some standard issues on this page so it's a better article. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Umm... within these few sections, we have 3 editors (including myself) who support following wikipedia-wide consensus on the matter, and 4 regulars to this page who have opposed it without giving any solid reasons. I don't think "no one" is a really apt characterization. With all due respect, I appreciate your input, but my question was posed to Kiwipat. I would genuinely like to know why he doesn't feel that following site-wide consensus is a compelling reason to use refs, as well as his reasons for using external links inline to begin with. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not compelled and, so far at least, neither is anyone else. WWGB (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. A content guideline that is used in every good article across the entire site. Why is following the consensus of the entire community on this issue, as outlined in the MOS, not a compelling reason? — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Err, it's only a guideline, not a policy. WWGB (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why is following policy not a compelling reason? — Jess· Δ♥ 15:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, you recognize that there are problems with having inline links in this article, and that there are reasons for introducing a list of refs. Curious that you still support the status quo. What might the reasons for that be? Goodraise 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Status quo support I've read over all the arguments and my opinion is that we should maintain the bare URLs on at least the current month list, so unless stated otherwise, assume that I am referring to any current month and not to past months or years. The MOS guidelines are just that - guidelines - a set of broadly applicable rules that have seen wide-spread use across the encyclopedia and to which consensus has been reached that they are a useful setting of guiding principles. As it states at the top of, say Wikipedia:Citing sources, however, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I would argue that whatever is linked to by "recent deaths" on the front page should be considered wholly different from most other articles and ignore all rules should be applied to the guidelines for it. That makes what is done on any other article or list irrelevant. Why we should apply an exception in this case is (correct me if I'm wrong) the real question you are asking here.
- The reasons for this have been mentioned above but key is that this page is a potential WP:BLP nightmare that several diligent users have spent considerable time maintaining just to make it look as good as it does and, as you pointed out, it's still "sloppy and out of touch" (debatable, but I agree that it is certainly not the best it could be ideally). Most pages are about set topics that stop evolving after a (potentially long) amount of time, so once all the citations are converted to proper format, depending on the quality of the article, there's not a whole lot more that is going to be added - of course, articles develop and new information can always be uncovered, but it's at a much more steady, even slow, pace. According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records, the most citations a single article has ever had is 895, and that article was split. By contrast, Deaths in January 2012 alone has 468 citations that stuck, not to mention all the ones that would have been there for red links that didn't become articles, foreign language citations that were transferred to English, links that went dead etc. etc. And that pace will never, ever stop. That is why there is so much resistance to adding "proper" citations: editors here already have a hefty burden already in keeping this page free of vandalism and BLP concerns, and they get a hell of a lot of flack for insisting (as they should) for proper citations even when a death is "known" (the example that comes to mind is the kerfuffle over Fred Saberhagen's death, even though that's ancient history by Wikipedia's standards. Maybe think about the initial reports of Michael Jackson's death for a slightly more recent example). Quite simply, if it is mandated that "proper" citations are used, I doubt that anyone is going to spend their time maintaining the page and we're going to have a lot of nice citations that are very much in line with Wikipedia:Citing sources and a lot of serious BLP issues. The average editor who watches over this page has limited time - they can spend time doing fancy citing or looking over the entries for potential problems. The latter is what has been prioritized, and my opinion is that it should remain that way.
- I guess rather than arguing or debating, this is more just my attempt to explain why you are being met with such resistance despite what probably seems to you like a handful of lazy editors who would rather argue on a talk page to keep the status quo than actually follow the guidelines. Just remember that to them, they might see someone who has no experience with what it takes to maintain this page on a daily basis coming in and telling them how they have to do things regardless of how practical it may be. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people would spend the time to make it look nice and be BLP safe. But from the comments on the talk page, that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact it seems like most regulars would stop working on this page if the proposed citation style were mandated, which in my opinion would make this page a lot worse because there would be fewer eyes on it checking for BLP problems, formatting things correctly, etc. etc.
- Having said that, I don't have any objection to standard format being applied to previous "Deaths in..." articles, which would require less maintenance and may actually support WP:BLP concerns by making dubious death claims easier to spot (what vandal wants to waste their time faking someone's death with a proper citation?). Of course, many people (myself included) have proposed far less controversial proposals to the old articles and have been met with apathy or rejection. I proposed removing excessive wikilinks on older pages, something we already do on the current pages, and no one supported it, so I'm not going to spend my time fixing the articles when I might get instantly reverted. So, I'd support fixing the old pages, but wouldn't do it myself without consensus.
- In summary, requiring compliance with Wikipedia:Citing sources would drive editors away, leading to fewer page maintainers, leading to a worse page than we had before (due to more BLP issues, inconsistent formatting that lasts longer etc.). Thus, WP:IAR applies because the rule would be detrimental to the article's improvement and maintenance. Canadian Paul 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Paul, I truly do appreciate the considered response, but I think you've missed the point. When we say "we should use references", we are not saying that each editor has to modify the way in which they add or edit content on the page. No one has to make any changes to the way they do things. The question is whether these articles should be working towards meeting the standards of a higher quality article, and thereby allow editors to come in and fix problems. I am personally attempting to fix the article such that it meets those standards, and other editors are telling me I'm not allowed to. I'm not asking others to change, I'm asking to be allowed to make corrections. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand your point completely; however you want to state it, you are seeking consensus to change the referencing format of the page to fall in line with the MOS. All I was attempting to do is explain why I feel that is a bad idea and why you are meeting with such resistance. If you are going to be so disingenuous as to write "I'm being told 'the MOS doesn't matter because of IAR', with no indication of why we should IAR" after I wrote 6kb of text explaining why I feel that we should IAR, then it makes me think that you really aren't making much of an attempt to understand the other point of view in this case. It's fair if you don't agree with my reasoning, that's the name of the game, but you cannot claim that no one has provided an explanation of why we should IAR. Although I agree that some of the other "status quo" editors may not have expressed themselves as clearly as they could, at the end of the day they are expressing that they have come to the conclusion that following Wikipedia:Citing sources would be more detrimental to this article than not following it. If more people believe that than not, then consensus is that we keep bare URLs. Otherwise, consensus is that we adhere to proper citation style. It's as simple as that. And I'm fully willing to admit that I may be wrong on this one - it's very possible that everyone !voting to follow Wikipedia:Citing sources will continue to maintain this article and make it look much better than its current state and, if they do, I will commend you and all those editors. I am merely skeptical based on my experience here and on Wikipedia in general. But it's one time where I'd be really happy to be proven wrong. Canadian Paul 19:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I've been trying to leave the conversation alone and let others weigh in, but I think some clarity here is important. When I mentioned IAR in my post above, I wasn't referring to you. You did, indeed, provide justification for invoking IAR, however, it was also brought up a fair number of times before you without justification. (e.g. WWGB on Apr 12) I appreciate that you took the time yesterday to give me a considered response, but in your case, I think your argument boils down to "some editors don't want to use cites". That doesn't carry weight with me when its used as an argument to say "no editor is allowed to use cites"... "My brother John doesn't want to edit wikipedia, so I vote that no one can." What I've been looking for is an explanation of why the problems outlined by WP:CITE don't apply here, why this article is different than all others on WP to warrant an exception to guideline, and what benefit external links provide to begin with. Until today, no one has attempted to answer those questions. WWGB provided a comparison of article size 2 hours ago which attempts to address #2. I don't find it personally compelling, but it's an attempt to answer the core issues, which I appreciate. Lastly, consensus isn't a vote. This RfC is intended to spur discussion about the issues, not to tally supporters in a straw poll and settle on the majority. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Per WP:CITE, "Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it." Yes, you are seeking consensus to change, but you also need to accept the outcome of that debate, whatever it may be. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- WWGB, considering that guideline says that inline external links were deprecated years ago and we should not use them, I don't think it's saying what you've implied. There are lots of ways to properly cite sources which conform to the MOS; that guideline is saying that we should consistently use one of those acceptable methods. It does not mean that we shouldn't correct problems just because an ip editor might mess it up one day and then things wouldn't be consistent. Again, the question is whether it is acceptable for an editor (like me) to use citations within the article and correct noncompliance with the MOS, not whether every editor from here on out must be forced to change their editing habits or face penalties. Every article on WP has external links added to it now and then; we just quietly fix them. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
Arbitray Break II
- I've been wondering. How are print sources handled? When editors want to cite obituaries in national newspapers, do you tell them to find online sources? Is there some way to make them fit in nicely with the inline links? Or is the current "citation style" enough to deter any such attempts? Goodraise 03:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is the first time I see this article (after a note on the talk page of the Biographies Wikiproject) and I'm baffled. Since when would lists like this not need to follow WP:MOS? Including the fact that we should not use external links in the body of a text? The argument that there are older lists that also do this is, of course, completely fallacious (or, to say it less reverently: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). This article urgently need a lot of cleanup to bring it in line with the encyclopedia that it is part of. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No-one seems to have mentioned one of the principal reasons for not using bare URLs, which is WP:LINKROT - I would welcome a response from the "status quo" editors on this specific point.
The argument about new and novice editors having problems citing references properly is extremely weak, as the article is indefinitely semi-protected.
The statement "the present format has been in use since Deaths in October 2004" is no reason whatsoever - before 1991 "the format" was to read the deaths column in your newspaper. Things change, evolve and move on - or (rather appropriately) die. - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)- My response to Goodraise and Arjayay would be that those are both very valid points and great reasons not to use bare URLs, (Goodraise: they simply aren't included, which can be very frustrating) but I (not speaking for anyone else) believe that even taking those negative points into consideration, the article would be still be in better shape with bare URLs than formal citations. Rather than restate my arguments though, I'll let people hack through my paragraphs above to dissect why I feel that way. And again, I would love to be proven wrong here! Canadian Paul 19:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Use references' for consistency, which aids both editors and readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Aids readers?. Seems to me only editors are upset. The bare link is there to click on if readers want - simple, clean, efficient. Readers of this article couldn't give a toss about refs with information shown for them. This drive to 'standardise' the article is simply an exercise in editorial pointyheadedness, with little or no regard for readers.-Kiwipat (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I've mentioned this a few times, but when we settle on a non-standard format lacking in information, that impacts usability. This is a readership issue primarily. Wikipedia readers expect to find refs for claims, not external links. Refs also provide author, date, title and publication info so the reader knows where they're going before they click the link; external links are lacking that metadata and "blind". Bare urls are also prone to link rot, resulting in readers being confronted with incurable 404s; cites don't suffer from that problem, which means a better experience for readers. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Support using references, per the MOS, WP:Citing sources. Being a list class article is no reason not to adhere to MOS unless there is a specific reason per policy and guidelines. Consensus rules on this however as there is no goal towards improving assesment of class of importance to weigh any decision.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Supports using reference, per MOS because that's the right way to do it. Sorry if it's hard. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 13:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- OPPOSE The way things are have worked very well for many years now, and I see no reason except to be a trouble-maker or imposing one's will that 1 person has made such an issue of it. Williamb (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Inline references and MOS-style references, since this is a heavily sourced article, I suggest ignoring consistency (by WP:IAR). So, let editors who want to put inline links continue to do so but also allow others to add or migrate links to a normal MOS method. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 01:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support inline references as status quo, for reasons of space. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Supports use of footnotes: Readers looking for references can easily find them. Also, maintenance of citations is easier if an editor can look over the References section and upgrade as needed. I agree that bare URLs make the article more compact, but the maintenance of citations is more important. Wikipedia gains respectability by its reliable citations. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support MOS-style references if this RfC is still open. There's no reason this article should be exempt from following the MOS. If the argument is that it's too much effort, it's silly to repeatedly revert an editor who's willing to make that effort. And the fact that the current format doesn't allow offline sources is ridiculous. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support use of proper citations Part of the point of the citation template is to enable better tracing of material when links go offline... which they do, quite frequently. Having some metadata about the sources that are being used enables editors in the future to trace articles where the URL has changed, and to find the articles if they are hosted elsewhere (for instance, on archiving sites like archive.org or on services like Lexis-Nexis or HighBeam). Not using proper citation templates is just sloppy and ought to be fixed. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support using proper MOS references, i.e., footnotes and citation templates. It's silly that this discussion even needs to be had, that's what the MOS is for. Raw inline links are uninformative compared to a proper citation and appear unprofessional. Sandstein 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Clarification and comment
Any discussion of citation and "references" on WP tends to get confused because of a higly lamentable confusion of concepts. I would like to offer some clarification of concept, which might assist this discussion, and then comment on the nature of WP:verification.
First: while the "ref" in the <ref> and </ref> tags is derived from "reference", what those tags create is not a reference itself, but an in-line link to a footnote — the familiar [1] thingys. These link to the footnotes (usually collected elsewhere by template such as {{reflist}}).
Second: the importance of the foregoing is that any kind of material that can be placed "in-line" in the article text — more text, external links, "bibiographic references", citation templates, etc. — can also be placed between <ref> tags, and therefore in a footnote. So what we have is two levels of where stuff can be put: "in-line" in the text, or in a footnote which has an in-line link. Same stuff, just different levels.
So when Jess initially proposed using "<ref>{{cite web...}}</ref>" he implied two things: use of the "cite web" template, and placement of it not directly in the text ("in-line"), but indirectly in a footnote with an in-line link. So there are really two questions here. But supporting or opposing "in-line" is nonsense: both alternatives are "in-line". The main issue here seems to be whether to continue with the use of external links (aka "naked urls"), or to switch to a citation template (specifically, "cite web").
I submit that the principal policy applicable here is WP:verification, which says: "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." An external link is nothing more than a pointer to some place on the Internet. While it barely suffices to indicate where verfication might be found, it is a single datum, and quite fragile: any error in it, or any change of the target, breaks it, leading to link rot.
This kind of problem is not new. The print world figured it out quite a while back: include as much information as you can about the source. E.g., the link provided for Carlos Fuentes goes to the Washington Post. No author or date provided, but if the link should break I would have a good lead on where to look. This also bears on the reliability of the source. E.g., I would be rather skeptical if the source was The Onion. Or some little-known blog. The point is: additional information is good.
Such additional information need not be in a citation template. It could also be added as simple text. A minimal proposal could be that naked urls — lacking a label — be banned, that all external links are required to name the source, and possibly the author, date, etc. Use of a template would be more convenient and more consistent, but is not necessary.
The core issue here, stripped of misconceptions and complications, is this: should this article move beyond naked urls? Most certainly it should; the question is how.
-
- ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A real example
Note: Originally a subsection of the RfC above. Moved for clarity 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
To provide a comparison, I spent considerable time "creating" a footnotes version of Deaths in December 2011 (which is now a fairly stable article). The two versions may be compared below:
Version A (current) | Deaths in December 2011 with URLs | size= 69,060 bytes |
Version B (suggested) | Deaths in December 2011 with footnotes | size=131,319 bytes |
Observations and comments
- Version B (with footnotes) is 90% bigger then Version A. That is, footnotes almost double the size of the article.
- I cannot download Version B to my Blackberry because of the article size. That means I could not read or edit the article while traveling each day. WWGB (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- 131k is big for a list, but not out of the ordinary. WP:Article size discusses articles with prose size alone of 100k, and all the stats there indicate this article (with or without refs) is well within the confines of a normal article. For comparison, btw, the first page of facebook is nearly 500k without any images, external resources, stylesheets, etc; browsers regularly download pages many times the size of your mocked up version, and quickly. I appreciate the comparison, however. Thanks for the effort! — Jess· Δ♥ 03:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- And please take into consideration that both versions of the article that was brilliantly compared by WWGB are without the redlinked/barely notable deaths which currently take up one-third of the current month. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Yep. I'm aware of that... and planning to boldly remove them from this article for a second time in short order. I was giving discussion some time before jumping back in, but it would seem now that everyone is either for it or disinterested. I'll do that now, since you brought it up. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Disruptively remove again. Dru of Id (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. I'm aware of that... and planning to boldly remove them from this article for a second time in short order. I was giving discussion some time before jumping back in, but it would seem now that everyone is either for it or disinterested. I'll do that now, since you brought it up. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- sigh* Or in this case, Bold, revert, discuss, editor tells you to try edit again, wait a week with no further input. Bold, get berated for following normal processes. Look, if you have something to contribute to the discussion, you're welcome in the section I started specifically for it above. If you actually read WP:BRD, it says it's cyclical (i.e. B comes after D). If you have a problem with my editing, you're welcome on my talk page to discuss it. I'd appreciate it if, here, we could stay on topic. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- By the way ... when does this RfC discussion end ... so that we have a final decision, one way or the other? Does anyone know? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Typically, RfCs take 30 days, but that's not a hard rule. Ideally, it would end in a natural consensus. Alternatively, if we can't do it on our own, we'd have to ask an uninvolved editor (perhaps an administrator) to close it for us. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't commented on the matter yet and probably don't want to. Since you're also familiar with these articles, you're in the ideal position to help move this RfC forward by summarizing what has been said so far (listing pros and cons). I think that would be a great help. Goodraise 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- No, I have not commented on this issue. You are correct. The issue of bare URL versus footnotes is not an issue that is important to me. I can go either way on that issue. Therefore, I don't have much to add in that regard. My "bigger" issues with this page are the possibility of setting it up as a table (versus a list), as in the discussion above. And, also, setting up the old archived pages in chronological order, instead of reverse chronology (also cited in a discussion section above). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think someone uninvolved with the article would be best. I was planning to ask an admin at AN after enough time had passed. I'm trying to stay away from the article and let others discuss in the meantime. Give it a while yet, after enough editors have had a chance to comment, I'll get someone over here to close things up. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Other examples?
- Question, Are there other examples of bare URLs (not dealing with list of Deaths)?
-
-
-
-
- DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
Linkrot
So what's the big deal about URLs and linkrot in this article? A deadlink is still rotten if it has ref and /ref tags on either side of it. Take this example from 16 January 2012:
- Mike Current, 66, American football player (Denver Broncos, Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers), apparent suicide by gunshot. [29][dead link]
The only function of this link was to confirm that Current died. Any other information can be drawn from his article. In what way would a footnote ref be more helpful? WWGB (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Read through WP:LINKROT and WP:CITE, which were both cited above a few times. When author/publication/title data is provided in a cite, the cite can still support the reference even when the online copy has gone offline. Additionally, that data can be later used to find another copy. When a bare url goes offline, we have no data about it, so it doesn't adequately support the statement, and since we don't know anything about it, we can't effectively look up another copy. — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'm familiar with those articles. My question relates specifically to this page. How is Mike Current's death entry, for example, enhanced by having the deadlink [30][dead link] written as a footnote? It's only purpose was to confirm that he died. The information about his age, nationality, football teams etc is readily available from his main article. If a reader wants to confirm his death, they just need to enter his name into Google and, hey presto, up comes other references like [31]. Even if a reader does want the exact source, it is already known that it comes from the Statesman Journal on or about 16 January 2012 (the date of his death), so that would enable it to be easily found in print format or in a web archive. So, I ask again, what benefit is served in this article by having footnotes? WWGB (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- The same that's served by any other, and covered in WP:LINKROT. It's good that his article is linked, and if it includes other sources, we could copy those over here. All we need is one good one to back up the entry. A dead link does nothing. Sure, readers can make assumptions about what it says and when it was published, but I'm not sure what help that is. A proper cite, however, backs up the entry in the same way that a print source does (we do use those, remember), which helps us meet WP:V. The additional info also helps correct the dead link if there's trouble finding it in archive.org or another cache (which does happen). These aren't unique problems for this article, and I'm not sure how this article would be somehow unique when it came to sourcing. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Dynaformer
Are we really accounting for racehorses in this list? 209.7.246.33 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yup; all animals that are notable enough to have an existing Wikipedia article at the time of their death. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Please scroll up to the section here titled "Deaths of Animals". Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 May 2012
Please clarify the date of birth issue regarding actress Patricia Medina. The current status and according to LA Times is that she was born July 19, 1919 and 92 years. But this obituary from The Telegraph states she was born November 11, 1918 and 93 years old. Which source should we believe?!
194.69.14.120 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The article gives a reference for 1919. You can discuss this further at Talk:Patricia Medina --Racklever (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 May 2012
Please add french crime novelist Pierre Magnan (1922-2012), who passed away on April 28, 2012. He was 89. [32]
194.69.14.120 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. For those who question his notability, see his French Wiki. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Brazilian singer Tinoco (from the duo Tonico & Tinoco) died on May 4
- Tinoco, 91, Brazilian singer (duo Tonico & Tinoco), respiratory failure. [33] (Portuguese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.59.4 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 5 May 2012
2 May 2012 death of Zvi Zeitlin states that he was a "Russian classical violinist". Please change this to something more like "Russian-born Jewish-American classical violinist". I was a student at the Eastman School of Music when Zeitlin taught there. He spent the bulk of his life and all of his professional career in the United States, and the principal language he used in his professional and personal life during this time was American English, not Russian. His having been born in Russia was nothing more than an accident of fate (besides, technically he would have been born in the RSFSR, not "Russia") that no way makes him "Russian" in the way that, say, Mstislav Rostropovich was "Russian". Thanks. 74.116.219.15 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- How is his religion relevant? Why not just Russian-American classical violinist? 83.80.170.157 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I did not make any mention of his religion. I don't have any idea what, if any, religious beliefs Zeitlin had. And I fully agree with you, they would be quite irrelevant. As to my suggested inclusion of the word "Jewish", this was just a nod to his cultural heritage, which I know to have been Jewish. I know I've seen the hyphenated construction "Jewish-American" (and comparable constructions like "Mexican-American" or "Russian Jewish") all over the place in Wikipedia, but if there is a trend to get away from this, that's fine by me. However, I would certainly not suggest using your alternate proposal "Russian-American" for Zeitlin, since this misleadingly suggests that he was of Russian ethnic and cultural background, which doesn't do justice to him or to actual Russian-Americans like Michael Bolton or Natalie Wood. Like it or not (and I personally don't like it and wish it were not so), the English language doesn't have two different words to distinguish between "ethnically Russian" and "from Russia", the way it does, say, for "Serbs" and "Serbians", respectively. So if you object to mentioning Zeitlin's ethno-cultural background for whatever reason, I would use the perfectly accurate "Russian-born American classical violinist". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.219.15 (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Partly done: It looks as if someone has changed it to "Belorussian-born American classical violinist". Marking as answered. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Jimmy Smet
Belgian former footballer Jimmy Smet has passed away on May 4th, 2012. He committed suicide. Source: http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/voetbal/120505_jimmy_smet (Dutch language). 83.80.170.157 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 6 May 2012
Marika Mitsotaki, 82, ex-First Lady of Greece, Old age combined with longtime history of Polio. http://www.capital.gr/News.asp?id=1490804 77.49.20.131 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Done; added as Marika Mitsotakis --Racklever (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 6 May 2012
Kostas Karras (el:Κώστας Καρράς), 76, Greek actor, MP (2000-2007) Prostate cancer http://www.zougla.gr/greece/article/efige-o-kostas-karas-525623
77.49.20.131 (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --MuZemike 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit Request for May 8th
Are we now listing notable terrorists?
The only notable terrorist that should be listed is Bin Laden, otherwise, who cares about these idiots?
Just simply remove them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkitan (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Being disliked does not make a subject non-notable. And there are/were *many* notable terrorists besides bin Laden. 68.13.247.167 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Senility as cause of death
I've been seeing a lot of three Japanese entries with 'senility' as a cause of death. This seems sort of nonspecific to me, is it a translation thing? Just curious here. S7evyn (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- It could be dementia, although its many forms usually only cause death to be noted as 'complications from dementia', which normally masks the true cause(s). I am not a medical person though. It is a good question, and I will pose another. Why is it that the majority (and I have not undertaken a specific numerical calculation here - perhaps someone good with figures should do so) of Japanese deaths here seem to be red links. Is it a cultural/language thing, or are the Japanese deaths being 'promoted' irrespective of true notability ?
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- It may simply be that there's a lack of slightly-less-notable biographical articles translated from the Japanese Wikipedia. But as I read on this talk page, red links either turn into blue links or get pruned out as they get old, so the problem solves itself. I didn't really notice it as a notably large amount of entries. S7evyn (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I have seen bios in other Wiki-languages that haven't been translated over to English, for either notability issues or translation reasons, but, to answer the topic at hand, senility is a form of dementia or Alzheimer's or what-have-you. It just depends on the source that lists it and thus the editor posting it. Luckily, a senility wikilink takes you to dementia. And yes, if not cured or monitored, you can die from "complications". — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I will again stress that I am not a medical person, but I worked in a hospital for years. A euphemism for the actual cause(s) of death is often just that (to soften the reality), and the exact word probably does differ between nations/cultures/creeds, but basically means roughly the same thing (as WylieCoyote notes). Having created two lines of discussion within the same heading, I do also take S7evyn's point about the linking issue on this page.
-
-
-
-
-
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Red or blue links, COD's should be clear. As with suicides, it should be understood but most people list how they killed themselves. "Complications from" takes 5 seconds to type in. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
Michael Burks
Hi, could someone please add blues musician Michael Burks to the list? He died on the 6th. (source) Thanks. 68.13.247.167 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notability, outside of Arkansas? — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yeah? I think? Regularly headlined the King Biscuit Blues Festival which draws people from all over the country. News outlets report he headlined festivals world-wide and released several albums through a contract with Alligator records. He
was apparently on tour in Europehad just returned to the States following a European tour at the time of his death. [34] [35] [36] 68.13.247.167 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah? I think? Regularly headlined the King Biscuit Blues Festival which draws people from all over the country. News outlets report he headlined festivals world-wide and released several albums through a contract with Alligator records. He
-
-
- I would tend to agree. He has an article at Allmusic [37] - a decent starting point as far as notability is concerned; has had two albums in the Billboard Blues Albums Chart [38]; was a regular performer for a top blues label, Alligator Records; and has links to Wiki articles such as Alligator Records, Albums released in 2008, and Memphis in May. In addition, he worked with Johnnie Taylor, O. V. Wright and Marquise Knox, according to The Dead Rock Stars Club. Latter day blues musicians have a hard time to gain recognition compared to, say, Muddy Waters or B.B. King, but I believe Burks has more modern day blues credentials/notability than some. I am slightly annoyed he is not on my 'Reds or blues' list (I reckon Burks has more notability than most that currently reside there).
-
-
-
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You tease ! Well, for a start, he have added his name to this article.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- New article now created at Michael Burks.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Lord Glenamara
The Times reports today, 10th May 2012, that Lord Glenamara, formerly Ted Short, has died. He alread has an article here. I can't find a reference to when he died.MetroDenizen (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- He is listed under 4 May, as confirmed by such obituaries as this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you; I confess I hadn't looked that far back. Also his article made no reference to his death, though I see it now does. MetroDenizen (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 10th of May 2012
Gunnar Sønsteby. Went peacefully after a period of illness, Old age. Norwegian language: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050054. cbs and fox articles only say "cause was not announced" simply cause there was none to announce. He , as we say, "slept in quietly", fell asleep, never to wake up again. Raymond Holmoey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
-
Done by Jkaharper. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Ramesh Mehta
It is the wrong person's article which is listed as Ramesh Mehta. There are two of the same name. See http://deshgujarat.com/2012/05/11/synonym-of-gujarati-film-comedy-ramesh-mehta-passes-away/ and http://www.indianetzone.com/40/ramesh_mehta.htm FYI.--62.158.118.109 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is wrong, the sources listed for his death or his main article? Both of the sources you list are very similar to the one given for his main page death. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- I thought it's not so difficult to realize that the person who died at the age of 77 (b. June 23, 1934) is a Gujarati comedy actor born in Navagam village of Saurashtra as son of Girdharlal Bhimji Mehta. Whereas the totally DIFFERENT person who is described in the article is a theatre personality born in 1923 in Jhang Maghiyana as son of Pyare Lal Mehta. What's wrong is that the death notice is attributed to the wrong person. Wikipedia has no article about the man who died, the man in the article is still alive.--62.158.96.138 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, now I understand what you are saying. I don't know how to link it here when there are similar names. Does anyone else? It should be noted as well at the Ramesh Mehta page that they are different, but I would say there would be an edit war on that page. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the Wiki article back to the one who is alive and added a note to check here. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I fixed the link on this deaths page. It seems from his obituary article that he was a comedian, first and foremost ... above and beyond being a playwright, director, and actor (as originally listed in this article). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks, Joseph A. Spadaro. I completely forgot about adding something to the name to differentiate. (It's been a lonnnng weekend!) I also added an arrowed editor's note on the main page for others who may try to change it again. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Great ... thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
RfC
Has there been any resolution to the RfC above? It began on April 12, a full month ago. Is there any conclusion – one way or the other – about the citation format to be followed in this article? Can an administrator "close out" the RfC and resolve this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since this request has been here for six days, and nobody has shown any interest in responding to it, I will make a few remarks. I will, however, leave the request for help open for a little longer, on the off chance that someone else will be able to give a more useful response to it.
- The discussion is so long and involved that I am unwilling to read it all, and I expect other administrators will feel the same way. However, a quick glance at it suggests that no consensus was achieved, in which case the answers to your first two questions are "no" and "no".
- There is nothing here that specifically requires an administrator. An administrator is no more able to assess consensus in a discussion than anyone else. An administrator is usually needed to close discussions which are likely to require administrative action, such as deletion discussions, but that is not the case here.
- If, as seems likely, no conclusion was reached, then it would not be helpful for an individual (whether an admin or not) to come along and announce that a conclusion of some sort has been reached. To do so would be for that person to unilaterally decide to impose a decision of their own. It would be possible to close the discussion as "no consensus", but it is not clear to me that doing so would have any advantage over leaving it as it is.
- The only way such a discussion can be closed is by an uninvolved outsider who is willing to read the whole thing and weigh up all the arguments. My guess is that the likelihood of finding such a person is low.
- The conclusion of all this, it seems to me, is that the best thing is to leave the discussion and accept that it led to no conclusion. That may be disappointing, but if it is the truth then it is best to accept the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's why it's so hard to change anything around here. No consensus means status quo. Even when the current system is completely unsupported by policy, and the only argument against bringing it in line with MOS is "we can't be bothered". DoctorKubla (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- If consensus is applied properly, it's not a vote. If the other side's argument really is "we can't be bothered", as you say, then consensus supports the change. James said he didn't read the discussion, so he likely just tallied up the votes to get a rough idea. I don't blame him for that. However, as he's aware (and said himself), that doesn't put him in a position to gauge consensus. Someone will be along eventually to close it down. In the meantime, we're getting a few new people to comment here and there, which isn't a bad thing. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've listed this at requests for closure. Danger! High voltage! 22:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Links on individual days on deaths list
Eg 14. Why have these been removed? They are a handy link for seeing what else has occurred on that day in history, and I don't see the harm of them being there. If no-one objects I will restore Martyn Smith (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmains went on an edit roll one day and removed them. You might ask why on their talk page as they may not see this here. Frankly speaking, I never noticed the blue day links. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to whoever reinstated them :-) Martyn Smith (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- You're welcome! I concur with your original post. I think that the article is better served by including the linked dates, also. And I see no reason to eliminate them. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 15 May 2012
For the sake of consistency, please change the entry for Arno Lustiger from "German-Jewish historian and author" to "German historian and author". Lustiger's religion is irrelevant in the death notice. It likely does have a rightful place in his biographical entry, since he wrote largely on Jewish-related topics and his life was clearly shaped by his experiences as a Jew under the Nazi regime. Mention of a person's religion is relevant in a death notice only if this person was a religious figure and the religion was therefore directly related to the reason for his or her prominence in the first place (e.g. a pope, a televangelist, a lama, etc.), or if the person's prominence was related to being a secular leader of a community defined by its religious affiliation in a civil war or other conflict situation (e.g. Shi'a militia in Iraq, Protestant militia in Northern Ireland, etc.). It is not stylistically appropriate in other situations (unless all the death notices include the person's religion). Several weeks ago I had proposed changing the entry for the 02 May death of Zvi Zeitlin from "Russian classical violinist" to the more accurate "Russian-born Jewish-American classical violinist", and someone wrote back to explain that Zeitlin's religion was irrelevant in the death notice. Since then, the entry has been changed to "Belorussian-born American classical violinist" (after it was discovered that he had in fact been born in what is now Belarus). A comparable entry for Lustiger could be "Upper Silesian-born German historian and author". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.219.15 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed it to "Polish-born German author of Jewish history" since he was born in Będzin, which is in southern Poland. — WylieCoyote (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2)
Already done This was apparently changed to "Polish-born German author of Jewish history." Is that acceptable? Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- To WylieCoyote from the original poster: Thank you for your effort, and I think the way you chose to incorporate the words "German" and "Jewish" is very accurate, but alas, you've opened up a historical can of worms that has been the cause of wars in Central Europe in times past with your use of the word "Polish"! With the ever-changing borders of the region, one must always check not just the location, but also the date, to determine the country. Upper Silesia was a historical point of contention between numerous countries over the centuries, including between Germany and Poland in the 1920s. Hitler's invasion of the place in 1939 was a continuation of this process. I've tried to ascertain in Wikipedia if Będzin was technically in Germany or Poland when Lustiger was born in May 1924 and - as a vivid illustration of just how complicated this question is - was not able to find a clear answer! It probably was de facto in Poland, even though the majority of the population had voted in a plebiscite in 1921, after numerous uprisings, to be a part of Germany. Given the fact that Upper Silesia has had a distinct and turbulent history of its own, apart from that of Poland or Germany and often in antagonism with both, I still think that to say that Lustiger was born in Upper Silesia is more accurate than to say that he was born in Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.219.15 (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Sorry it has taken so long to respond. (These topics get buried at times) But I have changed the entry to reflect your request, even though Upper Silesia is now a part of the Republic of Poland, hence the "Polish-born" listing. On June 20, 1922 Germany ceded, de facto, the eastern parts of Upper Silesia, becoming part of Silesian Voivodeship of the Second Polish Republic. Arno was born in June 1924. After 1945, almost all of Upper Silesia that was not ceded to Poland in 1922 was transferred to the Republic of Poland. As for your proverbial "historical can of worms", no one else in the Wikiworld has mentioned it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"Terrorist"
{{edit request}}
WP:TERRORIST: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided"
- Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has "a Libyan citizen, alleged former intelligence officer, former head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and former director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli"
- Yet Wikipedia deaths has "Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, 60, Libyan terrorist, convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103, prostate cancer." This should at least be changed to "Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, 60, Libyan citizen, convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103, prostate cancer."
-
-
- You left out the rest of that Wikipedia policy statement, which continues: "... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". I imagine that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has, generally, been referred to as an act of terrorism. (I am sure that we can find sources to that effect, if we were to look.) He was convicted of that act of terrorism; hence, he is a "terrorist". Not a stretch. I don't think we need to be that politically correct so as not to "offend" terrorists – convicted ones, at that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- A follow-up: Below are three reliable sources that describe the subject as a "terrorist" and the incident as "terrorism".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "The reliability of a source depends on context".
- All three sources have UK addresses. The UK is clearly heavily involved in this case, as is Libya, the US and so on. That the Daily Mail in particular, with its emotive headline "NHS patients are refused 'too expensive' prostate cancer drug good enough for Lockerbie terrorist al-Megrahi", should be regarded as "reliable" in this context is questionable.
- That the Abdelbaset al-Megrahi page does not, and has not, used the word "terrorist", that even the page of a figure as notorious as Osama bin Laden does not use the word "terrorist" and that Deaths in May 2011 does not use the word "terrorist" when referring to his death (preferring the much more specific "Saudi founder of Al-Qaeda"), strongly suggests caution should be exercised.
- "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The material is questionable, "terrorist" being one of those vague words thrown around much too often without any clarity concerning its meaning, therefore, as the guideline states, it "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That it has been allowed to remain for more than 24 hours contravenes this basic principle found in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Such a lack of ability to identity what a "reliable source" is and what a "reliable source" is not should be a great cause of concern for any vigilant editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.180 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Also worth noting is the source used to back up the statement on the deaths page doesn't even use the word "terrorist" to describe its subject. It opens with "Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing above Scotland which killed 270 people, has died at his home in Libya." How this fits in with "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" is a puzzle. That even the BBC exercises caution, despite being based in the UK where the incident occurred, suggests it is imperative that Wikipedia also exercise caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.180 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not sure what the problem is ... or what your point is. In a very quick 30-second time span, I found (and offered) three reliable sources that called him a terrorist and/or called the event (of which he was convicted) a terrorist act. I am quite sure that I would be able to come up with many, many more if I were to spend more than those 30 seconds of research time. I stopped at three, thinking that the results were obvious. Is there really any question that this was a terrorist act? Can other editors please weigh in on this topic? Particularly since the above editor identified that he/she has a conflict of interest in this matter. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- No indication of conflict of interest. This is a protected page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.208 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Your original edit request indicated a conflict of interest. This box (below) is exactly what appeared in your original edit request. The very first line of the box states: "It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below does not want to make because of a conflict of interest."
-
-
-
- {{edit request}}
-
-
-
- Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hi. I've disabled the above COI Request edit template, only because it appears there is no actual request attached to it (as opposed to the edit request higher up in this thread). Since this page is Semi-protected, if you'd like to submit a request, it might be better to use {{edit semi-protected}} Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- To 86.40.111.208 ... click this link (Template:Request edit) to see what your original edit request looked like. That will explain why I stated that you indicated a conflict of interest in editing this article. Perhaps you used an incorrect template? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Serial killer
20 May — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.180 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Geoffrey Evans, 69, serial killer, illness. [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.180 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- Appears to have been added by Joseph A. Spadaro — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, correct. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Archive - The Term "Term" in Question
Recently I have been noticing someone changing the length of Congressional and State Representatives terms. Instead of John Doe (1999-2012), they are being changed to "since 1999." I noticed in the notes that it was done because it "implied" they were out of office before their death. I have 3 questions on this matter- First, wont this mess up archiving? If say you look back in 2014 to the deaths in 2011 and see a "since 1999" wouldnt that be odd? Secondly, who cares what is implied? The length of their term was 1999-2012. If you need more specifics cant you just open their article? Isnt this about facts and not implications. Third, if its not suitable then maybe something on the order of 1999-Death or 1999-Day of Death. Would be interested in other thoughts on the matter. Not a huge deal either way, but I think the "since" is a weaselly way around pure facts. Sunnydoo (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. You seem to be hung up on the word "implication" or "implied". So, perhaps, I could have said it better by using the term "convention" instead. By convention, John Doe, Senator (1999-2012) means that Doe was a Senator from 1999 until 2012 and that his term ended prior to his death. By convention, John Doe, Senator (since 1999) means that Doe was a Senator from 1999 until his death. In other words, the first scenario indicates that some other reason (besides death) terminated his position as Senator. The second scenario indicates that he only stopped being the Senator because of his death. The conventions are used to distinguish whether or not he was still the Senator when he died. So, perhaps "convention" is better terminology than "implies" (although, it's really all the same thing). To answer your questions. (Question 1) How will it mess up archiving? You ask: "If, say, you look back in 2014 to the deaths in 2011 and see a 'since 1999' wouldn't that be odd?" No, it would not be odd. The reader knows that the person died on such-and-such a date. So, the term "since" means "since 1999 until whatever present date of death entry you are currently reading". The reader knows that the subject has died and knows the date of death for the subject. So, if the person died in 2011 (per your example), a person reading the 2011 archives in the year 2014 would not think that the person was still alive in 2014. If the subject were indeed alive, they would not be listed on the "deaths" page. (Question 2) You ask: "Who cares what is implied?" I addressed that above by changing terminology that you seem uncomfortable with (i.e., switching "convention" for "implication"). Also, to answer your Question 2, of course, a reader can always open an article and read it. (Question 3) Your question is simply proposing a new convention. There is already a convention in place. I think that the present convention is more succinct, compact, elegant, and readable. Your proposed (new) convention is wordy, awkward, and clunky; it doesn't add anything. It doesn't fix any problem ... as indeed there is no problem that needs fixing. Finally, you proffer that "the word 'since' is a weaselly way around pure facts". I disagree. In fact, using the current convention gives the reader more information, not less information, about the subject and the time frame. Your convention (i.e., 1999-2012) gives the reader less information. So, why would an encyclopedia strive to offer less – as opposed to more – information to its readers? And finally finally, I noticed that there were a lot of inconsistencies in the article. I only made one or two changes. But I made the changes so that the list was consistent. The above is my opinion and position on this issue. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Otis Clark death date
Sources say that Otis Clark died May 21, but he's listed under May 22 on the Wiki Deaths page. Please fix.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I moved it ... but there seems to be quite a few discrepancies about his date of death ... various sources state May 20, 21, or 22. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Wesley A. Brown
Wesley A. Brown recently passed away. B-Machine (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added him in. Any editor can feel free to "tweak" the entry. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)