![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Deaths in 2021 was the most-viewed article in Wikipedia in 2021, with over 45 million views. [1] Congratulations to all contributors and WP:WikiGnomes on this marvelous achievement. WWGB ( talk) 02:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
And thanks to Prince Philip, Betty White and DMX, without whom only fewer millions would have been possible. Kudos to the runners-up for keeping us going in the months between those peaks. Most importantly, omnipresent dear reader (yes, you), for the daily backlit vigil and relentless refresh rates that literally drive this train, you once again truly deserve this award! InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the instructions say "country of citizenship" not "subnational entity they happened to be born in", someone from Trinidad and Tobago is not a "Trinidadian". It's like changing the citizenship of someone born in the US to "New Yorker" or someone born in the UK to "Great British". Or maybe more correctly, it's changing someone's nationality from Tanzanian to Zanzibarese - it undermines national identity in favour of an identity that existed before the two islands were united. Guettarda ( talk) 15:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that there is no joint adjective or demonym for someone from Trinidad and Tobago? By the way, according to Wikipedia's demonyms and adjectives for countries, Zanzibari would be the equivalent of Tanzanian. Editrite! ( talk) 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Rlink2: please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page to see why the citations are simply bare. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn’t we restrict this to humans? 2600:1700:B940:3750:21A4:922B:A285:C0C2 ( talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't allow horses on this list 69.174.130.69 ( talk) 18:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in descriptions between the use of "footballer" and "football player". One recent edit changed "footballer" to "football player" even though "footballer" is already frequently used for others. Although not a big issue it would be good if there was some consensus on whether both terms are acceptable (and therefore not changed unnecessarily) or whether one is considered more appropriate or preferable for some reason. Thoughts? Afterwriting ( talk) 03:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand the logic of limiting the number of terms that get spelled out for one entry to three (for space, ease of reading), but I feel like that should only apply to 4+ terms for a single office. Edits like this don't make sense to me; if anything, it makes the entry more confusing to me. Now, I think it would be justifiable to drop the membership and accompanying terms in this instance, but I don't like the format of the entry as it is now. Star Garnet ( talk) 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
...is a form of editorializing and should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. Nor should we invoke Wikipedia:Notability as a form of self-reference in article namespace. If we really need need a warning against indiscriminate additions, maybe this group would be better suited as a category than as a list article. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
what’s to stop an IP from adding their deceased family member over and over?. Evidently part of the purpose is to instruct readers/users. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
clarify the inclusion criteriawhen readers can clearly see that each entry starts with a link to the person's bio? -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.No, we should stick to the wording of WP:LISTN. Renewal6 ( talk) 20:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
My points apply equally to all list articles. Since this is apparently a common problem, I may have to start a more centralized discussion. But "all my friends are doing it" isn't a very good argument IMO. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Collective consensusis represented by MOS:NOTABLE, MOS:SELFREF, and other policies and guidelines I've referenced. A handful of pages that diverge from these guidelines represent at best local consensus. I never said there was any
collusion, only poorly thought-out arguments. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
It occurred to me that it would be a good idea to number the deaths, instead of just having those little black circles. (I forgot what they are called.) Of course, new deaths are always added to the list for that day in the subsequent days. But with today's advanced technologies, there must be a way of doing it so that the numbers would automatically adjust when a new name was added to the list. Tesseract12 ( talk) 03:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not mean assigning numbers in the order of prominence of the people. I meant that it would be a good idea to number them by the day, not by the month, in the same order in which they are now listed. Tesseract12 ( talk) 04:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read the last two sentences of what I wrote in my original post on this thread. Tesseract12 ( talk) 02:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello folks,
Did we stop adding cause of death to the listings? This was very useful information as we (maybe just me) ran a few basic analytics. Can we reintroduce that information? Thanks. Ktin ( talk) 00:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The mentioning of the European championship title Helmer Strømbo won in 1975 has been reverted twice. Are we not acknowledging this anymore? It's an international tournament at very high level. Nukualofa ( talk) 09:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Should positions that are not directly linked be added? For example, Mario Mettbach links second mayor of Hamburg to List of mayors of Hamburg and Marek Pasionek links deputy public prosecutor general to Public Prosecutor General (Poland). Seems like a stretch. Both their respective pages link to these pages, but should they? Thoughts? Nanerz ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Lists of dates should surely be earliest first, top to bottom? Having the newest date at the top is very unusual and unexpected. I would change this but I guess there might be some script used to maintain this page so thought I'd best ask here first. JeffUK ( talk) 09:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to do a "search" of old Talk Pages for these "Death" articles. Do I have to search each month's archives, one by one? Like, for example, "Deaths in September 2012" (or some such)? Or is there some archive somewhere that aggregates all of these monthly death Talk Pages? Where would I go? This Talk Page (above) has a "Search Archives" box ... but it only seemed to go back to the Year 2022. I looked on a few Talk Pages of "old" months ... and dd not see a "Search Archives" box, as appears here on this page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Given an edit was made today removing the word "notable" again (reverted pending fresh discussion), it would appear that the above is about to become an issue again, even though discussion has already been had and a halt to consensus made with no change at that time. The archived discussion is here - it cannot be re-opened there, so a fresh discussion would need to take place here. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I see the exact description in the information containing the word "notable" has been altered on the main page. I'm happy enough with the edit, as it's factual and retains the word, more importantly. Now who is going to go through all the other pages matching up the description to the current one? Ha. Ref (chew) (do) 10:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There is too much instability in the lead, with editors changing to their preference. I have reverted to the long-standing description until a different consensus emerges. WWGB ( talk) 11:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Just a thought ... what do other language Wiki's do? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This started out as an exercise in consensus-building for the retention or removal of the simple word "notable". I do not know what it has become right now, because it has veered right off that straight line. Ref (chew) (do) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
So, what's the conclusion of this above discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 02:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we treat Wikileaks as reliable and independent? Editrite! ( talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Another editor has added the rock band Viola Beach, all of whom died in a traffic collision on 13 February 2016. I was set to delete it, but thought the concept of a “dead band” was worthy of a discussion here. Thoughts? WWGB ( talk) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Not deaths, even if they were notable as a group it would go in events. JeffUK ( talk) 07:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, Rusted AutoParts reversed the order in which the musician's two bands are listed, from a chronological order to the reverse order. I reverted, and was in turn reverted here with the edit summary: "S&C [Seals & Crofts] is the band he's known for most. Also afaik being alphabetical was never a necessity." I didn't know that popularity or (assumed) public knowledge was a justification for the order in which these things are listed, and would never suggest that the order should be alphabetical. I thought it should be chronological, as seems to be done in other cases (such as film titles, as far as I know). Am I wrong? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC) PS: For clarity, the fact that the chronological order is also alphabetical is coincidental, and irrelevant. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Blanket changes to demonyms were recently made in the article, for "consistency" - that's not a good enough reason. Demonyms for the UK are determined by individual countries within Britain (English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh), unless the notable occupation of the deceased involved international considerations, in which case they would indeed be British. This point has been argued before, and it is not a matter of consistency where the UK separate identities are concerned. Editors should stick to the descriptions in the individual deceased person articles, or change them before demonyms are changed at the Deaths article. Ref (chew) (do) 05:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it normal to include the titles of people who have died? I'm thinking in particular of Miles Warren ( Deaths_in_2022#9) and Olivia Newton-John ( Deaths_in_2022#8). Thanks, Kiwipete ( talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
So then shouldn't it say Queen Elizabeth II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B4FE:A900:A950:AD31:9EFD:2913 ( talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Sayings like "Can't see the wood for the trees" or "Too many cooks spoil the brothe" come to mind.
In my view, if somebody (or some animal as the case may be ... there are some horses in the listing) is in red, then they don't have a Wikipedia page and have no place in this listing. I see that people from a few countries put in more of their compatriots than others do.
I would go further and suggest that if someone doesn't have a Wikipedia page in at least one other language, tney are good to be deleted. TGcoa ( talk) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
How is it that the Recent Deaths section has no women listed, or at most 25%? Stasikat ( talk) 12:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
List Doesn't need horseys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.130.69 ( talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey c’mon can we make a separate list for non-human animals already? It’s just jarring having Holocaust survivors and former prime ministers next to horses and f*****g panda bears Carbonara4 ( talk) 01:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Is being members of these notable and/or worth mentioning here? For example, the Chinese Academy of Engineering has over 900 members as of 2020. Those numbers are dropping fast, judging by the amount of deaths this past week. Wylie pedia @ 14:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Why are so many people from this organization dropping dead all of a sudden? So far it's twelve in six days posted on here. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not apply at the end of December. This is because Recent Deaths on the main page of Wikipedia will point to Deaths in 2023 from 1 January. Accordingly, deaths from that date onward need to be reported on Deaths in 2023, rather than staying on Deaths in 2022 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway). WWGB ( talk) 06:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Deaths in 2021 was the most-viewed article in Wikipedia in 2021, with over 45 million views. [1] Congratulations to all contributors and WP:WikiGnomes on this marvelous achievement. WWGB ( talk) 02:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
And thanks to Prince Philip, Betty White and DMX, without whom only fewer millions would have been possible. Kudos to the runners-up for keeping us going in the months between those peaks. Most importantly, omnipresent dear reader (yes, you), for the daily backlit vigil and relentless refresh rates that literally drive this train, you once again truly deserve this award! InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the instructions say "country of citizenship" not "subnational entity they happened to be born in", someone from Trinidad and Tobago is not a "Trinidadian". It's like changing the citizenship of someone born in the US to "New Yorker" or someone born in the UK to "Great British". Or maybe more correctly, it's changing someone's nationality from Tanzanian to Zanzibarese - it undermines national identity in favour of an identity that existed before the two islands were united. Guettarda ( talk) 15:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that there is no joint adjective or demonym for someone from Trinidad and Tobago? By the way, according to Wikipedia's demonyms and adjectives for countries, Zanzibari would be the equivalent of Tanzanian. Editrite! ( talk) 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Rlink2: please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page to see why the citations are simply bare. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn’t we restrict this to humans? 2600:1700:B940:3750:21A4:922B:A285:C0C2 ( talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't allow horses on this list 69.174.130.69 ( talk) 18:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in descriptions between the use of "footballer" and "football player". One recent edit changed "footballer" to "football player" even though "footballer" is already frequently used for others. Although not a big issue it would be good if there was some consensus on whether both terms are acceptable (and therefore not changed unnecessarily) or whether one is considered more appropriate or preferable for some reason. Thoughts? Afterwriting ( talk) 03:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand the logic of limiting the number of terms that get spelled out for one entry to three (for space, ease of reading), but I feel like that should only apply to 4+ terms for a single office. Edits like this don't make sense to me; if anything, it makes the entry more confusing to me. Now, I think it would be justifiable to drop the membership and accompanying terms in this instance, but I don't like the format of the entry as it is now. Star Garnet ( talk) 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
...is a form of editorializing and should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. Nor should we invoke Wikipedia:Notability as a form of self-reference in article namespace. If we really need need a warning against indiscriminate additions, maybe this group would be better suited as a category than as a list article. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
what’s to stop an IP from adding their deceased family member over and over?. Evidently part of the purpose is to instruct readers/users. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
clarify the inclusion criteriawhen readers can clearly see that each entry starts with a link to the person's bio? -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.No, we should stick to the wording of WP:LISTN. Renewal6 ( talk) 20:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
My points apply equally to all list articles. Since this is apparently a common problem, I may have to start a more centralized discussion. But "all my friends are doing it" isn't a very good argument IMO. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Collective consensusis represented by MOS:NOTABLE, MOS:SELFREF, and other policies and guidelines I've referenced. A handful of pages that diverge from these guidelines represent at best local consensus. I never said there was any
collusion, only poorly thought-out arguments. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
It occurred to me that it would be a good idea to number the deaths, instead of just having those little black circles. (I forgot what they are called.) Of course, new deaths are always added to the list for that day in the subsequent days. But with today's advanced technologies, there must be a way of doing it so that the numbers would automatically adjust when a new name was added to the list. Tesseract12 ( talk) 03:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not mean assigning numbers in the order of prominence of the people. I meant that it would be a good idea to number them by the day, not by the month, in the same order in which they are now listed. Tesseract12 ( talk) 04:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read the last two sentences of what I wrote in my original post on this thread. Tesseract12 ( talk) 02:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello folks,
Did we stop adding cause of death to the listings? This was very useful information as we (maybe just me) ran a few basic analytics. Can we reintroduce that information? Thanks. Ktin ( talk) 00:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The mentioning of the European championship title Helmer Strømbo won in 1975 has been reverted twice. Are we not acknowledging this anymore? It's an international tournament at very high level. Nukualofa ( talk) 09:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Should positions that are not directly linked be added? For example, Mario Mettbach links second mayor of Hamburg to List of mayors of Hamburg and Marek Pasionek links deputy public prosecutor general to Public Prosecutor General (Poland). Seems like a stretch. Both their respective pages link to these pages, but should they? Thoughts? Nanerz ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Lists of dates should surely be earliest first, top to bottom? Having the newest date at the top is very unusual and unexpected. I would change this but I guess there might be some script used to maintain this page so thought I'd best ask here first. JeffUK ( talk) 09:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to do a "search" of old Talk Pages for these "Death" articles. Do I have to search each month's archives, one by one? Like, for example, "Deaths in September 2012" (or some such)? Or is there some archive somewhere that aggregates all of these monthly death Talk Pages? Where would I go? This Talk Page (above) has a "Search Archives" box ... but it only seemed to go back to the Year 2022. I looked on a few Talk Pages of "old" months ... and dd not see a "Search Archives" box, as appears here on this page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Given an edit was made today removing the word "notable" again (reverted pending fresh discussion), it would appear that the above is about to become an issue again, even though discussion has already been had and a halt to consensus made with no change at that time. The archived discussion is here - it cannot be re-opened there, so a fresh discussion would need to take place here. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I see the exact description in the information containing the word "notable" has been altered on the main page. I'm happy enough with the edit, as it's factual and retains the word, more importantly. Now who is going to go through all the other pages matching up the description to the current one? Ha. Ref (chew) (do) 10:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There is too much instability in the lead, with editors changing to their preference. I have reverted to the long-standing description until a different consensus emerges. WWGB ( talk) 11:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Just a thought ... what do other language Wiki's do? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This started out as an exercise in consensus-building for the retention or removal of the simple word "notable". I do not know what it has become right now, because it has veered right off that straight line. Ref (chew) (do) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
So, what's the conclusion of this above discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 02:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we treat Wikileaks as reliable and independent? Editrite! ( talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Another editor has added the rock band Viola Beach, all of whom died in a traffic collision on 13 February 2016. I was set to delete it, but thought the concept of a “dead band” was worthy of a discussion here. Thoughts? WWGB ( talk) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Not deaths, even if they were notable as a group it would go in events. JeffUK ( talk) 07:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, Rusted AutoParts reversed the order in which the musician's two bands are listed, from a chronological order to the reverse order. I reverted, and was in turn reverted here with the edit summary: "S&C [Seals & Crofts] is the band he's known for most. Also afaik being alphabetical was never a necessity." I didn't know that popularity or (assumed) public knowledge was a justification for the order in which these things are listed, and would never suggest that the order should be alphabetical. I thought it should be chronological, as seems to be done in other cases (such as film titles, as far as I know). Am I wrong? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC) PS: For clarity, the fact that the chronological order is also alphabetical is coincidental, and irrelevant. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Blanket changes to demonyms were recently made in the article, for "consistency" - that's not a good enough reason. Demonyms for the UK are determined by individual countries within Britain (English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh), unless the notable occupation of the deceased involved international considerations, in which case they would indeed be British. This point has been argued before, and it is not a matter of consistency where the UK separate identities are concerned. Editors should stick to the descriptions in the individual deceased person articles, or change them before demonyms are changed at the Deaths article. Ref (chew) (do) 05:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it normal to include the titles of people who have died? I'm thinking in particular of Miles Warren ( Deaths_in_2022#9) and Olivia Newton-John ( Deaths_in_2022#8). Thanks, Kiwipete ( talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
So then shouldn't it say Queen Elizabeth II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B4FE:A900:A950:AD31:9EFD:2913 ( talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Sayings like "Can't see the wood for the trees" or "Too many cooks spoil the brothe" come to mind.
In my view, if somebody (or some animal as the case may be ... there are some horses in the listing) is in red, then they don't have a Wikipedia page and have no place in this listing. I see that people from a few countries put in more of their compatriots than others do.
I would go further and suggest that if someone doesn't have a Wikipedia page in at least one other language, tney are good to be deleted. TGcoa ( talk) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
How is it that the Recent Deaths section has no women listed, or at most 25%? Stasikat ( talk) 12:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
List Doesn't need horseys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.130.69 ( talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey c’mon can we make a separate list for non-human animals already? It’s just jarring having Holocaust survivors and former prime ministers next to horses and f*****g panda bears Carbonara4 ( talk) 01:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Is being members of these notable and/or worth mentioning here? For example, the Chinese Academy of Engineering has over 900 members as of 2020. Those numbers are dropping fast, judging by the amount of deaths this past week. Wylie pedia @ 14:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Why are so many people from this organization dropping dead all of a sudden? So far it's twelve in six days posted on here. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not apply at the end of December. This is because Recent Deaths on the main page of Wikipedia will point to Deaths in 2023 from 1 January. Accordingly, deaths from that date onward need to be reported on Deaths in 2023, rather than staying on Deaths in 2022 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway). WWGB ( talk) 06:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)