Talk:Deaths in 2024/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

Can we please keep the joke listings to a minimum this year... or better yet, not have any? Look, last year's shenanigans were fun, but they also caused the article to be semi-protected, meaning those of us without accounts couldn't edit it, which is actually coming into play right now as I'm a NASCAR fan (RIP Cale Yarborough) and I don't have an account... NOBODY ADD ANYTHING ABOUT TRUMP OR PUTIN, PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.225.115 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's already had so many reverted hits that the same protection is now in place as last year, and will probably happen again for 2025 too. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

They need to stop ruining it for the rest of us! It's pissing me off to no end, and if they protect it for 2025 without any good reason... 68.41.225.115 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Cale Yarborough died on 31 Dec. Jay 💬 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Jay - Cale has been listed at Deaths in December 2023 already. 68.41.225.115 - there's always good reason to protect Deaths pages, as you just found out. By the way, I'm not understanding why you cannot or will not create an account, get autoconfirmed and start editing Deaths? Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

For best that would be fixed by auto-protecting all the Deaths in... article by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and non-AC may not edit. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 13:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe admins have been approached about supplying auto-protection in previous years and have declined to offer it. Edit: I should have mentioned, the rationale being that each year's "Deaths" title is different by year date, therefore technically a different article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Deaths due to Covid

Is the Covid-related "See also" section at the bottom of the page still necessary in 2024? What does the community think? JimboB (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm neutral on it, to be honest, though I would never have thought about introducing it myself. It's not outside the scope of the subject we deal with, and even now sometimes has relevance to the article within which the link lies. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No longer warrants inclusion. More people die from other causes than COVID. WWGB (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Gonna wait one more day to see if there's anyone else willing to say something. If not, since I got one answer in favour of deleting it and another neutral, I'll delete it (it also sounds unnecessary to me at this point). JimboB (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel it served a purpose in 2020 and 2021, but with COVID now back in the overall numbers of many things that can kill someone, the link seems superfluous. However, I would wait a little longer to potentially solicit more opinions. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it was added to this page on the 14th. A good faith edit, but it definitely shouldn't be kept. We have five suicides, five vehicle crashes, and six COVID deaths. It isn't an especially remarkable COD anymore. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleted it. It seems consensus is pretty much formed. Thanks to all. JimboB (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Causes of death

Hi. A lot of "suspected" and "possible" causes of death were entered into various subject entries today, and this happens quite a lot generally in actual fact. If you have nailed a certain cause of death, why not enter the reliable source URL into the edit summary and shut people like me up with good reason? Just saying. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And further thanks to whoever spotted the plethora of "cardiac arrests" that hadn't been confirmed either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization or non-capitalization of job titles

Hi. We currently have one editor reverting our attempts to be consistent in our naming of job titles - that is, our belief that, irrespective of country or individual article titles editing, WP:JOBTITLES advises that all such namings should be delivered in lower case, except portions which include proper nouns requiring capitals to start. I have invited said editor to contribute here, via edit summary, and would encourage others to do the same. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"all such namings should be delivered in lower case"

No, it says to do so when used generically.

This is name name of his office, not a generic description.

"They are capitalized only in the following cases:

When a formal title for a specific entity ... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description."

"write minister of foreign affairs OR, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs" Braintic (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You've now had your say (and your maximum three edit reversions, by the way), so let's hear from others, if you would be so kind. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing here I had not already said.

Where is a comment from you about the number of edit reversions by the other guy?

Where is his input here, given that he requested this?

(He has made another reversal since my comment)

Is his claim that capitals is "self-aggrandising" valid?

Why is it that this and similar job titles is in capitals in the ALL individuals' Wikipedia pages, yet people have a problem with it only here? Surely if it is about consistency then it should be consistent with these other pages.

ALL online reference to this job title in non-Wikipedia sources have initial capitals. Braintic (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You've made seven (sic!) reversions so far, which is completely unacceptable. Beyond that, you should keep in mind that no one is obligated to satisfy you with their responses here. Renewal6 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Renewal6 If anyone wishes to create or reiterate a consensus here, it would be so much better if other editors WOULD post here. I've just restored the pre-talk version of the contentious edit (reverted yet again by same editor) so that the consensus can be achieved. Silence is not an option. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The only reason you haven't made as many reversions as me is because a couple of others have jumped in and done the same. Without them you would also have seven.

I see that you have not addressed ANY of my comments here.

That means you have no interest in any of my arguments, and are simply waiting for someone else to jump in and agree with you, most likely also without arguments.

Given that YOU were the one who requested I post here, yes YOU are most certainly obliged to respond here. Otherwise what was the point of the request? And after saying that no one is obliged to comment here, you then have the gall to tell others that "silence is not an option". Clearly you do not understand the concept of "consistency" which you claim you are trying to apply here.

Let me ask again:

(i) Was "self-aggrandisement" with regard to a deceased person a valid argument from you?

(ii) Is "Minister for Water Supply" the formal title of his office or is it not?

(iii) What does the page I linked to say about unmodified formal titles? Or have you not bothered to read that?

Given that you don't know how [sic!] is to be used, I don't think you should be making decisions about proper English usage here. Braintic (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already made my statement on the matter when I opened this section for you. It's now for others to give their opinions rather than just myself, yourself and one other. Please don't try to bait me, because it doesn't work - let's keep it civil at all times. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You have ignored my quotes which show that what you believe is "advised" was taken in the wrong context. Braintic (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the current usage of lower case to report job titles on these pages, a long-standing convention consistent with Wikipedia MOS. WWGB (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the usage of lower case, as well. Besides I believe the formal office title is "Minister of State for Water Supply," while "minister for water supply" is the conventional form describing the person's occupation... if that makes sense. ThylekShran (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Info removed apparently without a cause

What's happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2024&diff=1201124358&oldid=1201124232&variant=en

3 deaths removed. --Agnellino (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

30 days is the standard period before redlinks get removed. Rusted AutoParts 08:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts OK, thx. Imho may be better write a note for each edit. --Agnellino (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No need - the one month removal of redlinks and redirects is a long-standing standard task which needs no explanation to editors who contribute regularly here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee Not everyone is a regular contributor!! The removals may appear as vandalism! This is just my thoughts. --Agnellino (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good thoughts - however, the regulars here are satisfied that things are being done properly and within the rules of Wikipedia, and admins are also content with the redlinks removal. Thanks for your concern though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It only takes a few seconds to write an edit message ("no article after one month"), and it is good manners. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh! Edit summary note! Of course - only lazy editors don't leave one. I see what you both mean now. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Funeral home obituaries - self published?

So I've seen pushback over edits I made to Jesse Jane. The obituary of her boyfriend, who died with her, was published recently, with a DOD asserted as the 24th. I added it in, but it was refused with the reasoning being funeral home obituaries fell under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Giving we utilize these kind of sources all the time, I'm looking to see if this is accurate. I've personally never seen pushback over this before, and combing through SELFPUB I just don't see why they'd fall under it. Rusted AutoParts 07:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A better forum for this would probably be WP:BLP/N. I'm not aware of a common practice of citing funeral homes for death details, but for truly notable individuals there's usually a newspaper obituary at least. Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published websites should never be used for third-party claims about living (or recently deceased) people. As I've already explained at your user talk page, Business, charitable, and personal websites are examples of self-published sources per WP:USESPS. In any case, the boyfriend's obituary doesn't even mention Jesse Jane. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Consequently, as Legacy.com relies on funeral homes for some of its content, I assume not all of its obituaries will be allowable, if they are based on funeral home information? This job doesn't get any easier. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a funeral home obituary counts as a sps. Funeral homes don't usually write obituaries. They just publish them. Sure they are a business, but the implication there is not to use a business' page for information written by the business about itself. (As for the above comment, I believe legacy.com was already discouraged in the past because anyone can post to it, but I don't see it at RSPS so don't take my word for it.) Nohomersryan (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nohomersryan - I must have missed that discussion, I suppose because we see Legacy obits being so often included without argument. Another visit to that issue required at some point perhaps? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that this page deals exclusively with deaths, and obituaries from funeral homes have been a valued asset here that is now being called into question, I felt it best to broach the topic here to see where the usual editors here stood on the matter. Rusted AutoParts 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's a matter of personal opinion - I am all for keeping reputable funeral home obituaries purely for factual things like birth and death dates, though I do understand the potential issues which may arise when family give specific information about anything else to those homes. Legacy I tend to respect because it's not a wiki platform, it clearly states its sources on the majority of occasions, and it also serves as a workaround when publications like the NY Times bar non-payers from viewing its content. Just my window on those two things. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what counts as a reputable funeral home when it comes to accurate information about the deceased. Especially considering that their business is comforting bereaved families, not providing a historical record for the public. If it's true, as another user said, that funeral homes don't usually write obituaries, then the information is only as reliable as the source they got it from. In which case we should probably just cite that source if it's a reputable media organization. If it's just a statement from the family, then it's definitely WP:SPS and one with a conflict of interest to boot. As for editors' jobs not getting any easier, Category:2024 deaths already exists based on verified information in individual articles. We don't need a list of Deaths in year X at all AFAIK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, a category page can't duplicate a list article (see WP:NOTDUP), if that's what you're trying to say. Renewal6 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is the reversion/revision off this page being discussed here? Everyone knows this page must bend "the rules" in order to be informative and relevant. If we followed Wikipedia's "rules" of order, this would be a very different page. All we should worry about are perennial/deprecated/blacklisted sources, social media gossip, and whether someone's dog is relevant. Wyliepedia @ 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just seeking clarity about the funeral home citations part. If that was something that applied to SPS, I just thought it might have an impact on what could be used as a cite here. Rusted AutoParts 22:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Periods galore!

Why do we have periods at the ands ends of so many (all?) entries. That is certainly not normal in any list. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean "the end" of entries. It's a collection of bullet-pointed sentence fragments, which allows for the use of periods (full stops) according to the Manual of Style. Instead of listing single entity words, each sentence takes the form of a prose structure within itself. It's been the subject of several consensus challenges over the years, so you are welcome to bring this up yet again on the talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the talk page (here) - and thank you for helping me correct my typo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: typo - just making sure of your context for all who read this section. Yes, you've broached the subject, but have only asked a question in this section. You would need to assert that you think this is a wrong call to get any debate going, as the past consensus has remained WITH the period/stops, and probably won't change following our fairly neutral comments here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it looks unusual, very odd, that all the entries on this particular list end with periods, and I wonder what motivation has been given in previous discussions for such an oddity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The key to the decision comes exactly from what I mentioned above regarding bullet-pointed sentence fragments. They're treated as lines of prose and therefore require full stops/periods. Again, if you think this is wrong, state that you wish for a review of the consensus. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

More specific info, please! According to whom or what policy or WP guideline or academic source are they "treated as lines of prose"? I've been a pretty-well-updated English teacher & author since 1969 and I never heard of such a thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

PS You can stop telling me what to do. If you don't wish to answer my questions, or cannot, that's OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As you are not happy with my tone or approach, I think I'll leave it to others to go into the specifics. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is weird, no doubt. And, like the weird way references are formatted here, it's also normal in context. Also, our archives don't exactly "work the way they should", so specific lines of prose regarding the origin of this norm or that are hard to come by. They did occur, though, I truly figure. It sucks and is something most of us have gotten used to. Or something to which most of have gotten used...it depends. There're also bits about when to use serial commas that I don't understand and tolerate just the same. It may take you a bit longer, since you've been reading, writing, learning and teaching for longer, but good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there are two archived discussions from 2020 (Terminal punctuation and Full stops?) for comparison purposes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Coroner Date of Death vs. Published Date of Death

Just a general question: When listing someone's death, do we go by when the coroner announced the date of death or when it's posted online? Wikivisitor2022 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would assume that a reliable source would report the coroner's verdict, though these decisions tend to take a long time coming. If a reliable source quotes a family member or other verifiable person in stating a cause of death, that can be used until the coroner's verdict comes in. Sadly, many news outlets do not follow up on deaths they report, so there may not be an obvious news report of a coroner verdict at all in some cases. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Formatting inconsistency

Looking at other "notable deaths" lists on Wikipedia, they seem to start with the first of the month and work their way down to the last day. Is there a reason that this list is upside-down? It feels impractical and inconsistent with other pages, as well as inconsistent with the way events are typically documented chronologically in a timeline fashion. Ap1015 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The most recent deaths are at the top, so you don't have to scroll past 30 days on the 31st to see the latest updates. When the page is archived and moved to the specific months (see Deaths in January 2024) the order is reversed. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And thus should it stay. I don't want to roll right down to the bottom just to see the most recent passings. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ap1015 It does look pretty strange. Also the use of bare numbers for the individual dates makes it difficult to navigate on mobile, because you can't see which month you're in. Musiconeologist (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Musiconeologist: Mobile user/editor here. It's usually always the current month, which is given in a Level 2 heading at the top of the page and in the table of contents (given on the right or in the browser margins (depending on your Wikipedia setup)). The only time it should be "difficult" is the seven-day grace period we have before moving the previous month to its own dedicated page and, thus, the page refreshes to the current month, once again. Wyliepedia @ 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@CAWylie Ah I see. I didn't realise the pages only ever cover about a month. That makes more sense. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Translating or not translating titles

Just what makes it inappropriate to translate the title of an Irish parliamentarian into English when any Norwegian Stortingsmedlem or Austrian in the Nationalrat (for example) is rendered as "MP" without batting an eyelash?...and just where is the semantic distinction between a "deputy" and other forms of "representative" or "councillor"?71.105.190.227 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated in this edit summary, we use the preferred national title, as designated for Irish assemblymen (see the lead there), just like their upper house members are "senators". The Storting (and Bangladeshis) has no such abbreviated designation and are therefore called "MPs", due to it being the supreme legislature. Does that help? Wyliepedia @ 08:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My message was a reaction to that edit summary, which appeared to be designating the Irish as a special case.

I have also seen edit summaries stating that Country X does not have MPs but deputies.

It seems confusing (in the latter case it would often be a translation to English and in the former it is not, as well).71.105.190.227 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes the title MP is too often used when in a particular country it is easily translatable (or popular, or institutional) the office of legislator as "deputy", "congressman/congresswoman" or "teachta dála". Or even "member of the Storting", which is not particularly long, since often when adding legislators from a US state there is no problem in adding, for example, "member of the Idaho House of Representatives". "MP" is more commonly used in the Anglo-Saxon parliamentary system and should not necessarily be used in a generic way. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's also a bit of an editor's personal preference to abbreviate understood offices, in addition to reducing page load times towards the end of months where we have upwards of 700 entries. As a visitor, I would much rather see a linked MP abbreviation than "member of a lengthy government office". Wyliepedia @ 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As I hover these abbreviated links (on computer), I get a tooltip pop-up which invariably tells me what the full title is. So easy, at least with a PC. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Olympedia

Cases like Toldi's is why I wish Olympedia didn't have to cease operations. Rusted AutoParts 04:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Clarify? I can't find any news outlet (or the site itself) which says it is ceasing operations? Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

In their Feedback tab, they state as of January 1, 2024 the site wouldn't be updated. I had only stumbled onto it myself a few weeks into 2024 as I'd been looking periodically to see if any new names would be added on their list, but so much time went by. Eventually I found one of the founders on Twitter stating "our contract with the IOC is not being renewed. The OlyMADMen will no longer update Olympedia after today, 29 Dec. We do not know if the IOC will continue to keep Olympedia online, but we do not expect them to update it." A very frustrating loss of a resource for sure. Same with Pro Football Archives being shut down around the same time. Rusted AutoParts 02:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I wondered why death details seemed to dry up not too long ago. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cole Brings Plenty

Why is Cole even on this page? He isn't a celebrity or any sort of significant individual!? Doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Cflisthebest (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

His death is widely reported by reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5]. An independent biographic article based on these and no further coverage would be inappropiate, but certainly not its mention in an article dedicated to notable deaths. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We usually list redirects that have been created, either upon an entry's death or long before. His notability can be discussed elsewhere. As for his entry here, per the FAQ above, he will be removed in due time, if his article isn't expanded. Wyliepedia @ 23:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the existence of his redirect means he should be given the one month leeway for an article to be written. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

His entry has now been removed due to the one month redlink/redirect rule (at last check it represented only a redirect to a show). Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Jim Price: Dead or Alive?

Looking over this list, should Jim Price be on it at all, as even his article doesn't indicate he's dead? A brief search doesn't turn up anything to confirm that he is either 2A02:8012:227B:0:18DE:830D:C096:71A (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The person who added his name here indicated his death was stated via forums and social media. In my opinion it's okay to leave him here given that. Unless something comes up in those areas saying the announcement was wrong or something. That's the purpose of this thread, to catalogue deaths needing a strong source that have been at the least verifiably deemed deceased in the means we can't utilize. Rusted AutoParts 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. Jim Price is supposed to have died in Pasadena in February 2023. We have a James William Price born in July 1945 living in Pasadena on TruePeopleSearch. If he died more than one year ago I think he wouldn't be on TruePeopleSearch anymore. What did you think? --Danielvis08 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I would not know whether TruePeopleSearch is deemed to be a reliable source. What I do know is that it seemingly is not available to view by Europeans. I suspect that 'James William Price' is hardly a unique name, so we can not be certain if it is he. There were 'death notices' posted on social media and web forums (all not reliable) around the time of his demise. They may have all been bogus, and that is why I did not edit his article nor post his 'death' here. It seems to me that he had a sizeable contribution to rock/pop music in the 1970s, so it seems logical that his death would have attracted media attention, but these days mainstream media seem to focus elsewhere. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to add a belated PS. here. If editors would care to take a look at the Jim Price article's editing history, you will see a few unsourced efforts, largely by IPs, trying to insert 'death details'. If this was purely vandalism, I would proffer that choosing a 78 year old to 'kill off', would gain considerably less kudos than reckoning Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga, or whoever is the latest pop sensation, had suddenly popped their clogs. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have hundreds of unlisted deaths on my profile page. I can't find time to add them all, so please have a look if you want to get your numbers up.Nukualofa (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Laws

After a little prompting, I discovered today that the above Chicago blues musician had died on March 28, 2021 ! So rather similar to the above 'Deaths needing proper citation', it shows again how deaths of some 'notables' can take a long time to emerge with a reliable source. I have edited his article along with several associated lists accordingly, but I am certain that this type of scenario will grow as time evolves. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have corrected the URL in the death source being used in his article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-notable and notable

Dear Editors, I want to address recent concerns regarding my contributions to the Deaths in 2024 article. I understand there have been issues raised about the notability of some entries I added. I want to clarify that my intent was not to spam the page with non-notable entries but rather to contribute relevant information. I acknowledge that I may have difficulties understanding the concept of notability as it pertains to Wikipedia standards. I am actively seeking to improve my understanding and differentiate more clearly between what constitutes a notable entry and what does not. Moving forward, I will take greater care to ensure that my contributions meet the criteria of notability outlined by Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate any guidance or feedback that can help me improve in this regard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to contributing positively to the community. Sincerely, FerasWebsite FerasWebsite (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for engaging - hopefully you saw my comments on your talk page. Easily the best way to establish the very slimmest of notability is to do a Google (or other engine) search of the name, and basically see how many mentions come up about the person from reliable sources. This cannot be obituary links alone - there must be some kind of fame or infamy, as highlighted by the links in the search results. If the person is from a non-English speaking country, an Inter Language Link (or ILL) is very desirable, as it indicates a notability in a foreign Wikipedia. In closing, I'd say remember this - "if in doubt, throw it out". If they ARE notable, there are many other very experienced editors who will make sure they get added. Thanks again. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

IMDB

Didn't wanna unilaterally revert if there'd be a consensus forged somewhere I didn't see, but is @Dimadick:'s inclusion of IMDB as an external link copacetic? Just seen it added to so many of the previous Deaths pages. Rusted AutoParts 02:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a convenient way to locate names in chronological order of death. I have been using it for years. Dimadick (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I get that, I have some saved pages with similar lists to check for any potential missed names needing listing/sourcing. It’s just you’re making a lot of additions to over three years worth of pages, and I’m not sure if that’s a choice others necessarily support. Rusted AutoParts 03:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

IMDB may be used as an external link, but not as a reliable source. See WP:IMDB. I was also inclined to revert, then noticed that it is OK as an EL. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of suicidal methods?

For notable individuals who died by suicide, should we remove the methods used from the list? 73.208.44.57 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? You do not say. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying I decide whether or not the method, if known, is listed. I am worried about a potential edit war with Bryan Krippner over this. See this revision. --73.208.44.57 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not generally worried about an edit war with anyone here. If the method of suicide is reliably sourced, it will always get included in an entry here. Other years are for others to work out amicably and civilly. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why "Professional wrestling" is different

Some hours ago Refsworldlee deleted the designation of a professional wrestling performer as such and asked in the edit summary why the "professional" should be included. There has never been an issue in denoting the practitioners of rugby union or rugby league or Australian rules football and I don't think there should be one for freestyle wrestling or Greco-Roman wrestling even though the latter are both honestly competed sports as opposed to the theatrical presentations known as "Professional wrestling"...even the rules for competitors at the Sumo World Championships are different from those observed by sekitori. To treat the "kayfabe" show performers as a subset of legitimate athletes is misleading and should be avoided. 71.105.190.227 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

So there's the question presented formally - it just needs for interested editors to add their thoughts. If "professional wrestling" is indeed considered a dedicated named version of wrestling, it may need to be included. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is not a sport competition, it is scripted entertainment. I support its inclusion to differentiate it from true competitive wrestling. WWGB (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. Not a fan of it either. Case proven. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, it is a documented term and has a wiki about it (albeit one full of OR). But for balance and clarity, I usually add what type if competitive, similar to weight classes for boxers. Wyliepedia @ 11:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been called professional wrestling for decades, maybe a century, so not sure why anyone would think they get to choose not to use the established term. 81.103.202.116 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

What is the rule of three? תיל"ם (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The number of credits for a deceased person is limited to three. For example, if a football player has played for 5 clubs in top leagues during his/her career, only three of them are mentioned. Marbe166 (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And to further clarify - total statistical credits (not including other linked offices, positions, awards, etc.) can only add up to three within the whole line for the subject description. For instance, if the subject is a sports player and manager, you could post two team credits as a player and one as a manager, or vice versa, as long as the total equals three maximum. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think the reason for this question may be the death of James Darren and his list of three performing credits (currently one as a singer and two as an actor). I fully understand that many (including me) would expect to see The Time Tunnel in the list, but the rule of three means something has to give way - and it's never worth trading edits on this, to be honest. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting how these pages have evolved. When I started editing Recent Deaths in 2006, there were no "credits", just entries like "English footballer" or "American politician". It has been interesting to watch the page evolve over time through discussion and consensus, while still maintaining its high standard and readership. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My go to example when it comes to why Rule of three is employed is when someone such as Stan Lee passes away, the options for what to list are just so massive because he created so much that had different levels of importance to different people. We were able to simply cite Marvel as a whole in his case. But whenever the day comes for a Steven Spielberg or a Stephen King, those are going to be hard one's to pinpoint. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Typically you would choose the awarded credits first and then the rest. For Spielberg, its gonna be Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List because he won Oscars for Best Director (his profession) for those. The 3rd Credit would either go to Band of Brothers, Taken or The Pacific to represent his Emmy. Steven King will be a mess however, because he writes in so many different genres and has won Edgars, Stokers and Hugos...my guess would be Carrie (Hugo), Misery (Stoker) and the Green Mile (Stoker)- although I could understand a case for Salem's Lot being made.SunnyDoo, 16:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Title question

Generally, is the current month's deaths article titled as Deaths in Year with a redirect to the other months? I would have thought that Deaths in X would be a list of the articles of Deaths in Month Year, and then the current month would be, for instance, Deaths in September 2024. Granted, it seems that there is no article for just Deaths in 2023 or 2022 or so on, but one article List of deaths by year, so maybe there is no precedent. If there is a precedent for the current styling then I wouldn't argue against it, but I'm not sure how to check that. VETBAITEDLV (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The current month's death entries are indeed always titled "Deaths in Year", but there are no redirects to other months - you will notice that previous months are listed in link form below the list itself and just above the References section. There were at one point articles for "Deaths in 2023" and "Deaths in 2022", plus many other years before, and all following the same format as used in the current year. When the necessary archiving takes place on December 31st each completed year, they are added in monthly link form to the article Lists of deaths by year. The new year is then set out in the format you see for 2024. You are welcome to re-open this discussion of course but I must warn that it has been debated many many times over the years and always resulting in a consensus to keep the current form. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

We might want to add an explanation about this to the FAQ. It's come up a couple times with editors who are not familiar with how these pages are handled, because it is a unique circumstance on Wikipedia. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

External links section

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 7 entries. Three seems to be a broad community acceptable number. Of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth. [[tq|The sources of the four listed below, latimes.com, nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, and smh.com.au.}} I am pretty sure would normally be considered reliable sources. I am not sure (didn't look) about the first two of the three still on the article, theguardian.com and telegraph.co.uk.. I can not imagine that the chicagotribune.com is not reliable.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them

I moved the excess links here to see if there might be a discussion to add some to the article as sources or swap them out.

• Obituaries, Los Angeles Times
• The New York Times, obituaries
• The Washington Post obituaries
• The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) obituaries

Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my view, these links are invaluable for searching out the recently notable deceased, but they don't all report the same deaths - each obituary source differs greatly sometimes in its content and focus. Just because the "excess links" were at the bottom of the link list, it doesn't mean they are any less valuable than the ones you have left in, so if a reduction is agreed there will have to be priority choice as to which ones actually stay. For instance, it's an anecdotal fact that the New York Times researches more thoroughly and therefore includes more salient information (such as date of death and age at death), and should probably stay - but has initially been removed.

Although I am not a fan of paywalled sources, and some of the external links are exactly that, I would prefer to see the existing ones (including those you removed) left in, but not increased at any time. I think limiting the external links to those seven is the sensible way to go. I leave it to others to comment further. Thank you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The three remaining ELs proposed by the OP are strange: two from the UK and one from Chicago. The range of ELs should have a geographic cover of English-speaking nations and not include paywalls. I don't think the long-standing arrangement of seven ELs is excessive. Removing a few lines seems more pedantic than rational. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Otr500: This list page is maintained by several Wikignomes who have helped maintain its relevance on the overall website. If you look above, the page has been in the Top 25 Most Viewed pages every week (and higher on a recurring basis). Therefore, while no one should claim ownership, I personally think removing or changing anything consistently established on it should be discussed here before doing it in the article. This page doesn't follow standard MOS guidelines (notice the shorter references for each entry), so EL guidelines should also not be followed. Those news links are quick links for other editors to check for numerous reasons (relevance, updated obits, new entries, ages, CODs, etc.). Not to be rude, but I myself am tempted to revert your removals. Wyliepedia @ 03:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a badly ignored section (and subject) so far. I would strongly suggest that, if there are no further comments here within a few days, the removed links be restored to the total of seven on an interim basis. A swing of consensus towards restricting them to c. 3 in total would then enable a more careful selection of the three most reliable sources which should actually remain, if that be the outcome. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply: I have thought about this. By-the-way, I am in agreement with prudent local consensus on say the number of external links on an article that is arrived at by consensus, be it three, four, and maybe more, except when inclusion of a link violate policies and guidelines. I would like to go on about my proverbial rat killing. I have some issues though, of course and seriously, not trying to be rude:

• 1)- An editor, apparently or maybe also speaking for "several Wikignomes", that suggest that other editors be acceptable that it was in some form, maybe totally informally or maybe just happened, but somehow decided that MOS, WP:sourcing, and now the "External links" section can be summarily exempted from following policies and guidelines on a local decision.
• 2)- That "Links normally to be avoided" #1 and #6 are only a content guidelines and can be usurped.
• 3)- A site that is inaccessible to a substantial number of users (#7) might also be relevant.
• 4)- That WP:ELREG (Sites requiring registration) is only a simple suggestion, certainly exempted when a local group or project decides it is expedient. Are there exceptions, I would say there can likely be exceptions for a lot of things on Wikipedia, unless it goes against the more broad community consensus

For the record, and hopefully to prevent a really unnecessary WP:RFC, I hope some prudent thinking is at least considered. I have not looked in a while and consensus may have changed as well as the standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. I bolded guidelines since that is a majority of what is relevant. I wasn't the one that mentioned "no one should claim ownership", and for some odd reason I would imagine that would include more than one person. There is also the external links noticeboard that can be utilized.

I agree 100% that the "External links" section is a "badly ignored section". I am straining to jump to "let's restore the contested links", because the section is "badly ignored" or they have been on the article a good while, regardless of the more broad community normal practices. When a site is included, regardless of policies and guidelines. That could give the appearance that the website or links on the page might be important, advancing advertisement, or otherwise promotional.

• • Maybe it was missed: The above mentioned WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them, so a rationale for the task used, and involving other editors by seeking actual consensus, and not feeling like a pot, tar, and feathers could be a result. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would only add to that last comment that the links you removed are not disputed as reliable sources, therefore don't fall correctly under that brief. The NUMBER of links are being disputed, but none of them are specifically being disputed as a source of reliable information. As I suggested, there is no real reason why the five links cannot be restored until such time as this matter is resolved. If a reduction to two or three is required, the ones to go could then be selected by consensus for removal. Arbitrarily removing any of the five over the others was a flawed move in the first place, as I see it. And, as I say, there has (astoundingly) been no movement on opinion or consensus for over a week, and in all it has been a good deal of time since this matter was first raised. I await your observations on what I have just written. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger Browne

Not questioning Roger Browne's passing as his family confirmed it on his official instagram, however how reliable is Spaghetti Western.net? The source that is supporting his entry on this page is simply a list of deceased actors, almost like a database. Just curious about what others think about the reliability of this source? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As the Spaghetti Western Database site says in its Contribute section: "The Spaghetti Western Database is a community effort. It works a bit like the Wikipedia, which means many enthusiasts edit and improve it." So I have removed Browne from the list on that basis. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: – on your reversion of his addition to the Deaths in 2024 page, you said SWDB is a wiki (it isn't). Above you're saying you removed it because their "about" section says it's compiled in a similar fashion to Wikipedia. Well, which is it? Either it's a wiki or it isn't. To run a website and depend on input from other visitors does not mean it is open ended for all users to edit by themselves (and in this example it certainly isn't the case). Other examples of websites that depend on the contributions of people informing them of updates include Aveleyman (now sadly defunct), Pro Football Archives, Olympedia, Glamour Girls of the Silver Screen etc. etc. – you've never objected to these being used in the Deaths in 2024, and as far as I can tell, none of them violate WP:RS. So why are you now being inconsistent with another site that occasionally updates their site after receiving tip offs from a wider community? --Jkaharper (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just quoted you the tagline stated when you follow their Contributions link - but I'll do it again: "The Spaghetti Western Database is a community effort. It works a bit like the Wikipedia, which means many enthusiasts edit and improve it." How much more obvious can it be than that to realise that it IS a wiki, and not an updater with the help of information supplied by other people? It's a self-admission of wiki activity and for me, the case ends there. Reinstating the entry with that source in use will go against what has been established by consensus for a long time, but go ahead and try it if you must. I don't edit war any more. By the way, if you expect me to police absolutely EVERY source in use in the list of entries at any one time, there are other load-bearers here who do a sterling job in that respect too. I called that particular one out because it was on the list of missing sources on the talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I ask interested editors to take a look at this source. Another editor has asserted it is a university website, and therefore acceptable as a source for a death. I maintain it is a personal blog, and is therefore unacceptable under WP:BLOGS. Here is the death where it has been used. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be a university appears to be the University of California, Santa Barbara, and if so it's on their web servers - but it is not an official blog sanctioned by the university, if such exists. I have marked the entry for a better source as I'm not convinced of its veracity. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Source has been replaced by a better one. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue this to resolution as a better cite has been found. However, I will just make the point that the hosting of personal comments by a university website does not add reliability to such comments. The comments in the professor's "blog" are unchecked and not endorsed. Anyway, enough said. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's happened again, for what it's worth. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to examine these on a case-by-case basis. In this case it is a website maintained by Peter Woit, who is a colleague of Hamilton's at Columbia, so I'd say it's reliable. Of course it can be argued that there is no WP:DEADLINE and we should err on the side of caution and wait for a formal obituary or news obituary to be published - if they do get published, that is. Connormah (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Connormah:, looking at things on a case by case basis is the logical approach. Unfortunately, there seems to be too many puritans on Wikipedia and the word "blog" is a dirty one to them. Now BBC News have a blog, The Guardian has a blog, and likewise many academic institutions run blogs, and they have sub pages and sites where their academics run "blogs". These are not the same thing as a random Blogger or Word Press page with an author who appears to have no direct relation to a subject. I totally understand why we deem them to be unreliable, but operating a blanket ban on anything that uses the word "blog" is deeply unhelpful and is going to cause similar problems in the future. @WWGB: – I left a message regarding this on your talk page and you ignored it. I would have appreciated it had you tagged me in this conversation. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

rolling dates

Should this page be 'rolled', i.e. delete the last entry when a new one is added.

Because deaths late in a month don't get as much air-time (only a week for a death on 30-sept), which is bias. Darcourse (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The list is not based on "airtime" and never has been. The lists are also intended as a full and permanent record of notable people who have died in a particular month of a particular year, and are not a tickertape exercise. So all entries (bar redlinks proven to be non-notable after one month) are retained in perpetuity. I think you need to re-examine your perception of bias, to be honest, as the situation you quote certainly does not violate any Wikipedia recommendations on bias. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

But late red links don't get a month, only a week. Darcourse (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken - all redlinks get a month's grace in the rolling date fashion you are proposing for all entries. Check it out sometime - myself and one other editor tend to do the lion's share of redlink removal each day, so it's a fact, my friend. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

All notable red entries get 37 days actually, unless added in December 20XX, then, at the end of the year, they roll over to the monthly page where their shelf life is even more limited. Wyliepedia @ 03:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias as in Bias_(statistics) Darcourse (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As you will see from that article (and it's an article, not a Wikipedia guideline), the four main focuses are source, collection method, estimation and method of analysis. As this list is actually employing a method of display, I don't think it relates to that type of bias at all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In the subsection 'Interpretation', there is a link to Reporting bias, which covers this type of presentation warp. Darcourse (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

And that is also an article, not a guideline - and not even a Wikipedia essay on the subject. I see no difference. Whatever we might individually think as to bias, the purpose of this section is actually to see whether a consensus exists to change to a rolling date model, so I'll not comment further on the bias aspect. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyedit time?

A little honesty is called for in the initial statement of basic format given the longstanding practice of deleting the "country of citizenship at birth" if it is "not a current citizenship" even if the successor state had never existed when the subject was born.

Aaron Kaufman's producer credits are piped to themselves...what's the point to that?

If WP:PEER WP:PEERS applies to Lord Hanningfield why is it not applied to the Marquess of Lothian who died on October 1st?..."Ancram" wasn't even his actual family name (of which family he eventually became Chief of the Name) and in Parliament the Lothian title was eventually used.71.105.190.91 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the practice described in your first sentence. If someone was born in East Germany then migrated to the USA, we should describe them as "East German-born American", not "German-born American". If they were born in East Germany then remained in Germany after the reunification, I'm happy with just "German ..." rather than the convoluted "East German-born German".

Link to WP:PEERS corrected, but I haven't addressed the Lothian issue.

Kaufman  Fixed. 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking more of Soviet/Czechoslovak/Yugoslav people born into a world that had never seen a particular Czech or Bosnian etc. state being retrospectively assigned to a "birth" nationality rather than the one in which they may have held office or played on national sports teams (since we delete those birth nationalities why say that all birth nationalities are equally part of the format?...my query was phrased as in "declare the actual policy" rather than "change the policy").

The link I meant (cribbed from the edit history relating to Lord Hanningfield) was WP:PEERS about alphabetization (I acknowledge the North/Eden exception cited there but I think that despite the article title Lord Lothian was being referred to more by his title after the need for the pseudonym had ended and press coverage was moving to a "that's what we used to call him" mode on "Michael Ancram"...and going to the usual practice is best for the historical record.

If you were making a semi-serious allusion to the West Lothian question relating to the "Midlothian question" applying to the still-recently-deceased Earl of Rosebery the Rosebery title was clearly primary and the Midlothian title did not need to be referenced in his case.71.105.190.91 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I note that Lord Lothian's entry has now been hived off to Deaths in October 2024 without this being addressed.71.105.190.91 (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to open up a specific discussion there, because this topic is a general one and will be archived at the end of November. Wyliepedia @ 05:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)