Talk:Deaths in 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Death (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Biography (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 List  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Years (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Current events    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Current events, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Nationality of footballers in the United Kingdom[edit]

There is nothing incorrect about an entry that states "British footballer". The first word refers to the person's nationality, the second refers to the reason for notability. The expression "British footballer" has nothing to do with the competition in which the person played. I am aware of the Wikipedia provision that "British" should be replaced by English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh, but only if the person self-identified more with one of those groups. By all means change a player's nationality away from British if he identified more as English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh, but not because of the competition in which he plays. Using that logic, Cesc Fàbregas is an English footballer since that is the competition in which he plays! WWGB (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to ask someone who has died where he 'self-identified'. Equally, Willie Polland's own article describes him as a Scottish footballer. Why is that ? He played for Raith Rovers and Hearts, his home town is cited as Armadale, West Lothian - how much more Scottish does he need to be. Trust me, as an Englishman, most (nay, all) Scots hate to be described as 'British'. The differential becomes even more profound, as if it needed to, if someone gains international honours. The UK/British footie team winning the FIFA World Cup, anyone ? I watched Wales beat Scotland today in a rugby union classic. Do the players concerned think, "who cares who wins, we are all British" ?? It's bollocks.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Fabregas is undoubtedly a Spaniard, and is part of the Spanish national team. He merely lives in England and plays for a London team, most of whose players are foreign. I think Vinnie Jones should be described as British, as he played for Wales, though the extent of Welshness is that one of his grandparents was Welsh. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think with most sports, English/N Irish/Scottish/Welsh is better, regardless of whether the player actually reached international level, because those are the teams (i.e. nationalities) 'that they were trying to represent'. This is a pretty good rule of thumb for sports where the four nations compete separately, or for individual sports where they are the nations recognised - so footballers, rugby players, golfers, cricketers and snooker players are all best described as English/Scottish etc. Sports where the team is usually GB or UK, then British is more appropriate - tennis is a good example, horse racing another (which is why I think the Dick Francis entry should read "British" not "Welsh"). There's only very few examples where either could be used, athletics being one.
Re: Vinnie Jones, that's a complicated one, because he's probably known as much for his post-retirement work as he is for football. On the former he'd be British, the latter Welsh. EJBH (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Determining a player's nationality as a consequence of their national team is a slippery slope. FA rules allow a footballer to play for a nation where he attended school regardless of place of birth or family history. So Ryan Shawcross is eligible to play for England or Wales. What next ... English-born Welsh footballer? WWGB (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If he gets selected for one team or the other, problem solved, if he doesn't he's "Welsh-English"? Using "British" seems anomalous to me when these are sportsmen for whom the ultimate goal is representing one of the Home Nations, and there isn't a British football team to play for. I suppose part of the problem is that currently internationals get the distinction, and non-internationals don't, which itself looks anomalous. So maybe the best solution is to tag all of them "British", and if they played internationally include the country in the notable team list. So for example, if Ryan Giggs were to die his entry would read "British footballer (Manchester United and Wales). No doubt you'd still get some pedant pointing out the "if they identify" rule, though... EJBH (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Shawcross' article says his parents are Welsh, so he could be described as English, English-born Welsh, Welsh, Anglo-Welsh or British. It is complicated; the nationality issue is much debated on many talk pages and edit-warred over on many articles. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
<sigh> Wasn't life so much simpler when we just used British on this page ... WWGB (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To make matters worse, the term "British Footballer" could mean a player of Football for a British team OR it could mean a Footballer who happens to be British regardless of the team he plays for. Also I'm reminded of the Greg Rusedski story where he's Canadian if he loses and British if he wins, not that it's important to this discussion :-) Personally I agree with listing them as what they self-identify with and if they haven't self-identified before becoming famous and before dying after becoming famous then we have to assume that the country identity they're known for is the one they identify with. (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this is more straightforward than you're making out. In the vast majority of cases it will be blindingly obvious which nationality a player is. Nobody in Britain would describe David Beckham, Kenny Dalglish, George Best, etc as "British" footballers. In some cases (ie an English born player who plays for Scotland, Wales or NI) it may be fairer to use British, to avoid controversy and to reflect their dual identity. Even in some of those cases, however, the person has made a clear self-identification (eg Andy Goram). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand deaths[edit]

Hi I just wanted to advise that lists 99% of all New Zealand deaths, days, if not hours after they occur. This may be a good link for your readers. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for being listed on Deaths article[edit]

Is the notability criteria for Wikipedia articles the same notability criteria for Deaths in year? For example, the guidelines disqualify articles about the oldest living x; yet I've seen the death of x's in the Deaths in 2010 page. What's the real story? Derrick Chapman 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a country's oldest person usually qualifies them to have their own article and to be listed in articles such as this one. Even world's oldest dog or cat qualifies an animal to have its own article. I guess that is because documenting the boundaries of longevity is a subject of medical and scientific study. Oldest shop assistant or oldest construction worker would not, though. Jim Michael (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease[edit]

should alzheimer's be cause of death?Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is what a reliable source says the subject died of. Some people who have Alzheimer's die of it, some die of other causes. Jim Michael (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Charlie Crowe entry cites BBC: He had been suffering from Alzheimer's Disease for more than a decade and passed away in North Tyneside General Hospital on Saturday night.
it doesn't say he died of Alzheimer's. He was in his 80s so it would presumably be a natural death?Eugene-elgato (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We can't presume. Due to the fact it takes years for Alzheimer's to be fatal, many sufferers die of other causes. The fact that the BBC article does not mention him having anything else wrong with him, along with the fact he had the disease for over a decade, strongly indicate that Alzheimer's was his cause of death. If a ref that specifically states his CoD can be found, that would be better. One thing to point out is that deaths from Alzheimer's are natural. Jim Michael (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But on the issue of presumption, I disagree. To make a presumption, that is rebuttable on evidence is not the same as making assumptions and original research; on the contrary, it is surely right to presume one thing until evidence emerges to state contrary? A presumption is merely a starting point, sometimes precariously arbitrary but nonetheless something to go on.Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We had this argument last year! I ought to know, as I was the one who instigated it. The consensus back then was that Alzheimer's disease can be a cause of death if the citation states it. Ed (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead of page[edit]

The lead of the page says "this is a list of notable deaths in 2010". Should it be "this is a list of notable people who died in 2010". "Notable deaths" could include non-notable people who die in a notable way, thus encouraging inappropriate articles on said people. Unless of course this page is intended to include such cases. Apologies if this has been asked 1,000,564 times before.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is not just about "notable people", but also notable animals (eg Daddy, Deaths in February 2010#19). Maybe the term "notable deaths" was adopted as shorthand for "deaths of notable people and animals", but I can't remember. The concept of "non-notable people who die in a notable way" is interesting. Joseph Stack is considered non-notable despite his mode of death. He died one day before Daddy but does not appear in Deaths in February 2010. In recent times, the presence of a Wikipedia article about the deceased has been the determinant of notability. WWGB (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm almost afraid to ask (for fear of perceived silliness), but a sequoia or oak tree (which is historically significant or has some other notability) would not be qualified for listing here. Right? [Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not perceived, it's demonstrated! WWGB (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Mine was intended to establish--before someone posts a Famous Trees death--just where the line is drawn. (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) and (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC).
I'm not getting into a revert war over your deletion of my contributions. Don't you feel that your 28 April 2010 remark to me crossed the line of civility?Derrick Chapman 00:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talkcontribs)
Vine comment restored. My comment was not directed to you but to anonymous contributor [1] WWGB (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Death notices for those without Wikipedia articles[edit]

For those death notices for which a Wikipedia article haven't been created, what happens to them. I have noticed they get removed after 30/31 days. Do they get moved to a different page or deleted. If they do get deleted, why not leave them there for future reference! --HJKeats (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The entries are deleted, despite the fact that many of them should have articles. Some of them have articles on Wikipedia in other languages. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted ... because notability is arguable without access to an article and the opportunity to challenge notability through speedy, prod or afd. There is no option to establish the notability of a redlink, and it has resulted in edit wars in the past without a structure. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not keep those which reference articles in a different language, notability should not be a problem there. Why not leave all of the notices as is. They survived a month, so no question of it's validity to be there! People put some effort into capturing the notices and providing a reference, the notices could at least be kept for a year and allow some time for the articles to get created.--HJKeats (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It is strange that an entry on this article for an undoubtedly notable person who has a substantial, referenced, article on German Wikipedia will be deleted a month after the subject died. Could an exception be made for entries who have reliably sourced articles on Wikipedia in other languages? Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well if it has a well sourced article in German and nobody's bothered to wrote one in English after a month, it's unlikely that it'll be created any time soon. The best thing to do is to create the article- even if you just add one sentence (as long as it's enough to establish notability) and work on it later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent suicide[edit]

There is something about the term apparent suicide that bothers me. I suppose that it's borne from the definition of the word apparent: readily seen, obvious, evident. When one adds this adjective before suicide, the adjective doesn't add anything to the meaning of the term. This adjective is equally meaningless in front of other terms like, for example, heart attack. How do you feel about this? Ed (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some people say we should wait for an inquest verdict to declare a suicide, even when reliable sources describe it as such. There has been edit warring over this matter in regard to Raoul Moat and Alexander McQueen. There was never any reasonable doubt over McQueen's death, but an inquest is mandatory in England and Wales in such circumstances. The same goes for Moat, some insist we wait for the inquest result. On the other hand, what is initally thought to have been the cause is sometimes proved wrong. Michael Jackson's death was intially reported by many media sources as a (suspected) heart attack, before being shown to be due to a drug overdose. Jim Michael (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Suspected is a different matter, as that word casts doubt about the matter. At least that word has a meaning. I have used suspected in some c.o.d.'s myself, and I have no problem with the use of that word. Ed (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to say no article, no entry?[edit]

I think it might be time that we start requiring an article be written before somebody's death gets an entry on this list. Many of the red links would be deleted under A7 if they were turned blue, many more would be AfD'd and deleted. Not everybody whose death is reported in the media is notable. I could go out and find dozens more names to add this list by looking through news websites and adding in all the people whose deaths are reported but whose name is only mentioned in passing. The rules state that we leave red links for a month, but none of those would ever have an article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in twothree minds over this proposal. As regards redlinks, on the one hand, over the last two years of monitoring the topic, I've seen it used as a catalyst and incubator for new articles; on the other hand, it is arguable that a death reported in a WP:RS is of a person of some note, if not necessarily within our standards. On the third hand, we do get some no-hopers on the face of it, which is why we tend to allow a month for an interested editor to create an article, and then delete undeveloped entries as non-notable. In the second case, we perhaps should not interpret lack of interest as lack of notability, because it may be that interested editors are lacking; that's why the month moratorium seems to exist, as far as I can tell, and I think the present system works reasonably well. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the system we use at the moment is fine. There's really no hardship in leaving redlinks for a month, and these redlinks are undoubtedly the catalyst for some decent articles to be written. Some people are notable even though, regrettably, it takes their death to alert Wikipedia to that fact. Having a few redlinks for a month, even those who will clearly not merit an article, is a small price to pay for the good articles that are prompted by this practice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but on the other hand, which makes at least four minds and counting, perhaps Wikipedia's stance on this issue relates back to a time (maybe, three or four years ago) when 'notable' people might reasonably not have had an article of their own. The issue of allowing an editor to think - "oh, let's create an article for someone because he/she/it is dead" is possibly starting to become a lamently lame excuse for inclusion. Surely, after this length of time, we need to move beyond utilising the 'Deaths' page as a potential font for new articles. I know this general issue will run and run, and probably metamorphise in a ANI, AFD, FFE, CU (whatever, I do not have a clue or any involvement) issue, but broadly I am in agreement with HJMitchell. If Wikipedia currently does not deem someone notable, she is not. Or he... you get my drift. A month does not make someone more notable.
Plus, do not get me started on racehorses, dogs etc., who are not notable 'people' by any definition - sorry, I digress.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is treating someone's death as an acceptable excuse for inclusion. Articles created upon someone's death are judged in the same way as any other article - if it passes the notability criteria it stays; if it doesn't it's gone. It's got nothing at all to do with a month making someone more notable, how does that even make sense here? Wikipedia does not suddenly deem someone notable because an article is written upon their death, that's nothing like how it works. Just because someone does not have an article, it does not follow that they are not notable. It simply means that their notability has not been tested by an article being written. Or do you believe that, now that Wikipedia has existed for a few years, that all notable people now have articles?
And, as is very clear, this is not a list of notable people who have died. It is a list of notable deaths. Surely that's not hard to understand. If these racehorses and dogs were not notable then their articles would be deleted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think what we're hitting against here is WP:DEADLINE. There is a hardcore of editors (yourself and myself included) who will create articles regardless of of the life status of subjects, and that doesn't depend on their deaths being reported here.; it depends on notability. However, I still regard this page as being a valuable catalyst for new articles, simply because it alerts editors to the possibility of a viable article. If I remember correctly, Graeme Moodie arose from a report here, and which I wrote. I wouldn't necessarily have been aware of that otherwise. Consider whether a report of the death of Alan Bown or even Andy Bown wouldn't have led to an article. As for notable animals, I regard that as beyond argument, and the proper venue for that is at WP:N, not here; we do reject non-notable animals as a matter of course. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of interest. I looked at the deaths reported one month ago (19 June). Of the 15 deaths reported for that date, six (40%) had Wikipedia articles created after the subject's death. So the death of a notable person is certainly the catalyst to write a WP article, which can only be a good thing. WWGB (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't buy that. I can't tell you how many times a person who makes the news because they were shot/killed/whatever ends up on here for no other reason than it was reported on the news or they have a friend with a WP account. So we get a lot of NOTMEMORIAL violations, and people who just don't meet GNG, which is why we end up with so many "X" articles getting renamed to "murder of X".
The quality of the articles is also very poor - too many people see a status symbol in creating an article, and create awful articles just for the sake of creating them - Jack Tobin (anthropologist) is literally a slight rewrite of the one source used (the obituary) in the article. So the fact that articles were created after death is not a sufficient rationale to allow that to be done. This is not to say that we can't do articles on the deceased, but there's no objectivity when notability is based on the media blitz and the fact that online news gets disseminated everywhere. I think if these individuals are "found" later in some other manner, that's a different story, because there's more objectivity involved in establishing notability. The problem is that being on the list seems to be justification for an article, and that's not appropriate. MSJapan (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There are many people (dead and alive) who easily pass the notability criteria, yet do not have articles here. Often, such people have articles on Wikipedia in other languages, but no article here due to them being little-known in the Anglosphere. Is the notability criteria the same on each version of Wikipedia? If so, people with articles in other language Wikipedias who die this year should be listed on this article regardless of whether or not they have an article here. If their notablity has been established on another Wikipedia, why delete their entries after a month? Jim Michael (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
MSJapan, there is and can be no bad reason for creating an article. If this list prompts someone to write an article, it is not assuming good faith to then condemn this practice as creating very poor articles. Are you suggesting that, for a certain period of time after a subject has died, an article can't be written about them? When an article is written, for whatever reason, the notability criteria and the usual checks and balances will decide if it's worth keeping or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Jim Michael's question... Is the notability criteria the same on each version of Wikipedia?... No. The different versions of Wikipeida do not have the same criteria. so having an article in one version of Wikipedia does not mean the person is notable here. Also, please remember that we do not require our sources to be in the English language (although we do give English language sources preference).
In reply to Bretonbanquet... if someone is not notable in life, their death rarely makes them so. The event that caused their death may be notable, but usually they are not. Yes, there are a few people who have gained notability due to an event (Mary Jo Kopechne comes to mind), but these are rare. We have to be careful not to confuse notability with notoriety. Shortly after an event, those involved in the event will often be notorious (ie noted in the news and around the office cooler for a while, but soon forgotten)...I do not believe they are notable. So... for those who were not notable in life... I would say some time does have to pass before we can consider the person notable in death. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) My point is that the checks aren't made, and criteria are not being applied in favor of "I dun created thuh article! WP FTW!!!! LOLZ!!!11!!one!!", by which I mean the ability to create is valued over the need to create. When we can have two articles on the same guy with the same content created 5 minutes apart by an IP where there's only a slight difference in name (Henry Sapoznik and Hank Sapoznik), or we have numerous case of deceased high school athletes with articles because they got shot at a party (pick one), the criteria are clearly not being applied, and checks are not being made. If they were, we wouldn't have so many HOAX and NN articles coming up at AfD. If things are slipping through the cracks, as they clearly are, then we need to seal the cracks.
There's also a need to address the fact that media blitz hype is not long-term - we've had purported BIO articles on people involved in incidents that are almost wholly about the incident, and when the week of coverage is up, we have no more information. The multiple repetitive news sources restating the same facts on the same day always seem to indicate notability in spite of the criteria we have in place. this can take years to fix - the ex-article on Kristi Yamaoka is a good example of this.
So we need to ensure that an article is really based on multiple sources, not one article, or 25 obits that say the same thing. If a deceased person is really objectively notable, they'll still be so a month afterwards. If not, they won't. So yes, an article moratorium may be a good idea, and we should dispense with the keeping of redlinks for a month. That flies in the face of NOTMEMORIAL, because it encourages media blitz hype articles on otherwise nn people. MSJapan (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Blueboar, I have never said that someone's death makes them notable where they had otherwise not been so. Both your point and MSJapan's point should not be addressed by a moratorium on articles simply because the rules aren't being applied. The answer is, for God's sake, to apply the rules - as you say, "seal the cracks". That's what the rules are there for. Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? To remove a valid outlet for article creation just because a few unacceptable articles are being created is nonsensical. If you have a stretch of road where some drivers are breaking the speed limit, the answer is to enforce the speed limit, not ban all cars. I would support, for example, a speedy delete criterion for articles on recently-deceased subjects, specifically designed to weed out poor-quality articles like those you mention. Policing this would be very straightforward - there are only a few deaths per day on this page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am largely happy with the system that we have now and I think that it works. I find it amazing how many people have full-length obituaries in publications like The New York Times who didn't have articles. I have created several hundred articles using an obituary as a starting point, most of which have gone on to be featured at DYK. An obituary doesn't make someone notable in and of itself, but it does provide a framework that summarizes an individual's life and provides material that can be used to create an encyclopedic article and points the way to other sources written during the person's lifetime. While we do get some borderline or questionable entries here, the process of removing red links after one month allows adequate time for articles about genuinely notable people to be created while cleaning out entries that don't make the cut. I don't see a problem here, let alone the need to "fix" anything. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Alansohn; there is no need to fix what is not broken. If some editors find obituaries to be a useful framework on which to build an article (as I have done previously), then we should continue supporting that. I think having a few redlinks visible for four weeks is a very minor issue if the links provide a resource for content creation. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I please beg to differ with the article heading this section? It is true that some of the names mentioned in red may be non-notable people who never get their own article,but this is not always the case. I heard on the BBC Radio Four News earlier this year (at the start of March) how Rose Gray had died, checked her entry in the list then, and saw it was in red. Since I considered how Rose Gray, being notable enough to have been mentioned on BBC News, was notable enough for an article, (the edition of BBC News broadcast at the start of March noted how Rose Gray, co-founder of the River Cafe, had died aged 71), I started an article, and I saw how others worked hard to improve my brief attempt very quickly. (Chefs are not my area of expertise - my job is to teach and to research Psychology). I give this as an example of why I would oppose the initial proposal. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people added as redlinks are notable enough for their own articles, but no-one has created them yet. Many of them are not well-known, and most creations of articles and editing of them is done by people who are interested in the person who is the subject of them. Jim Michael (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Recent deaths have a serious WP:OVERLINKing problem. There is absolutely no need to link the nationality for every single person, and there is no need to link every occupation, especially basic ones like actor, author, footballer, politician, musician, etc. Nor do I see any need to always link heart attack, stroke, murder, or cancer every single time. Can we please change the standard format of this page to avoid this absurdly unnecessary overlinking? Thanks, Reywas92Talk 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have probably been guilty in the past. See earlier comment at Talk:Deaths in 2008#Overlinking. Perhaps we should make a fresh start with Deaths in September 2010 and only add "links that aid navigation and understanding"? WWGB (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I never did much linking until I kept finding my edits reedited with little acerbic comments in the summaries. Williamb (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I really like the look so far and hope we can continue this new format through September. BurienBomber (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave a hidden comment though, at least until August is off the page... I almost went in and readded the links, thinking it was vandalism... good thing I checked the history... Canadian Paul 02:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
So we should not link any nationality and profession anymore? And Do we remove links from previous months?--Andres arg (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I see this as a good opportunity to "trial" less linking in September, but I don't think we should undo years of the previous format. As for what is linked (apart from the deceased's name), my opinion is that we should not link terms that would be understood by the majority of the readers. So we would not link American, British, French etc but we might link nationalities like Burkinabé. Also, terms like actor, musician, cancer, car crash don't require linking but econometrician or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis probably would. WWGB (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that is OK. but so many people do not read this discussion. And honestly, i have not had the impression that there would be "overlinking". It is a habit as you now see again on the page... all is linked again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrec (talkcontribs) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to suggest that we drop links for nationality at recent deaths, but never got around to making the suggestion because I assumed it would be shot down. I think recent deaths has been overlinked for way too long and the new improved look will prevail once we all get acclimated to it. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed—this type of overlinking problem has been addressed in featured articles for some time now; other parts of the encyclopedia are catching up. WWGB's suggestions make sense. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
My initial response is that the limited linking is working really well, and certainly creating much less work for the Wikignomes. I do have one question: should we link lesser known nationalities like Belarusian and Angolan, or is that condescending? Should NO country be linked? What do other editors think? Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree that it's working well, and it's nice to have the high-value wikilinks not be lost in a sea of blue. I think we ought to link the lesser known nationalities; it's more helpful than it is potentially condescending, and that's how country and nationality wikilinks are handled at featured-article-candidate discussion, from what I can see. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As a basic Wikignome, I like the new look. I have enough to do as it is. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the obvious way to do it, to link only the first mention of British, American, or indeed Malawian or Nauruan. Then you have a policy which shouldn't leave things too cluttered, but shouldn't upset touchy Nauruan Wikipedians, or lead to endless arguments of how well known Hungary or Nepal is. It could even be extended as a policy to link only the first mentions of footballer, heart attack and so on. EJBH (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And just what would the first mention be? If American Adam Aarons dies on the 1st then "his" American gets linked. Then if Eric Aardvark dies on the 31st, "his" American should be linked instead, which just makes more work for someone. Besides, if someone does not know what "American" means they are unlikely to be reading an encyclopedia. WWGB (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Giving murderers and terrorists recognition here[edit]

I firmly stand by and believe that murderers and especially terrorists when they die do not have the right to appear on this page. don't get them any sort of recognition WHATSOEVER! they're scum and sub human, don't give them any satisfaction even after they die! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. All notable people are reported here. WWGB (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That's your opininon, however Wikipedia does not work like that. Please see WP:NOT. DrFishcake (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
As is made clear above, Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool. Not listing news events because you feel they damage the interests of what you perceive as "good" or enhance those of what you perceive as "bad" is propaganda. So yes, murderers and terrorists will keep appearing in the deaths section. If we didn't list them, what's to stop us censoring out dissidents? Politicians of the opposition? That guy whose movie you didn't like? We must keep in mind the consequences of our actions, and the consequences of the proposed action would be disastrous for Wikipedia's credibility and, more importantly, objectivity. (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been brought up a few times. If a person is notable enough for their own article, they should be listed. Whilst I understand that some people object to the publicity given to criminals rather than their victims, it is the case that John Wayne Gacy and Fred West are notable, whereas their victims are not. Victims only have their own articles if they are notable for something other than their murder, e.g. John Lennon. No-one listed here can gain any satisfaction from being included, or feel they have gained some level of status from it, as they have died before they are added. Anyone's inclusion does not mean they are being celebrated or praised - entries are neutral. Jim Michael (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Any reason why the article has inline external links when most other pages dont have external links in the body. Should these not be proper reference citations? I know it says This article uses bare urls instead of citations by consensus but does not mention where that consensus was achieved or could be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Deaths_in_2008#Bare_references WWGB (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks, the straw poll and discussion indicates that they was not a clear consensus at that time despite the page statement. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Has recent deaths tag been discontinued?[edit]

I looked at several names on this list recently, and noted that none of them had the "recent deaths" tag. Has this tag been discontinued? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that another user has been applying the usage criteria strictly, that is, the template should only be used on high traffic articles with frequent edits. Very few recent deaths would qualify for that, other than very high profile people. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the same thing just this moment (it's now a few days after the original post). Frankly, if they're noteworthy enough to be mentioned both in the Death Section AND have an article on Wikipedia, I believe that the tag is appropriate. I always found that little tag to be quite informative and I think it should be restored. But I'm anonymous right now, so some of the Wiki-snobs might just ignore me altogether. I think people like that lose sight of the original purpose of Wikipedia. (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"High traffic" and the "100 edits or more" rule are completly arbritary. Every recent death (IE a rolling 7-day death-cycle) should have the tag. This would have approx 50 articles in that time-frame with the tag. Lugnuts (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Was there a discussion regarding the use of the template that resulted in a concensus to limit its use? I'd be curious to see the reasoning as it seems harmless enough and does impart some useful information. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't see why an article should have to have 100 edits or more per day to have the recent deaths tag present. That would mean it would only be present on a tiny proportion of articles of people who have died within the last 7 days. If the point of it is to alert readers to the fact that the page is undergoing significant changes, then it should be present on an article with 50 or 20 edits per day. Jim Michael (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see that in some cases, it the tag is still used for some deaths - as of the time of Wiki-editing (Thursday 16 December 2010), it was used on Richard Holbrook until quite recently. Since my guess is that more people will be viewing the page on Blake Edwards than Richard Holbrook, I have just added it to the page on Blake Edwards. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You tinker ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding current page protection[edit]

Note that I have made a request to have the three month semi-protection shortened at the protecting admin's talk page and at the discussion that lead to the protection in the first place. Unfortunately it does not appear that they are willing to lift the protection. Apologies to the regular IP contributors who will no longer be able to edit the article, but please don't hesitate to add the information here on the talk page and an auto-confirmed editor will be able to add it in on your behalf (assuming it has a reliable source for verification of course!). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Admin User:Cirt refuses to lift the semi-protection since "most or all of the entries are just bare links" [2]. This despite the fact that no IP editor has recently vandalised or otherwise abused the article in any way. This is approaching an abuse of privilege. I trust the other Admins who regularly visit this page are taking note. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This is absurd. The page is extremely poorly formatted. With respect to WP:BLP, the page needs a severe amount of cleanup and referencing improvements. Bare-links are simply inappropriate and inadequate for an encyclopedia. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I respect your right to consider this absurd, however, there was an extensive discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2008#Bare references with no consensus to drop inline URLs. The point remains that your decision to semi-protect this article has nothing to do with this issue. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion from two years ago on a different talk page does not override multiple site policies including Verifiability and Reliable sourcing, for this page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead links and other link issues[edit]

  1. Checklinks tool reveals dead links, and expiring links.
  2. If the full citation to the news source were given, instead of just a barelink, then this would not be a problem.
  3. The URL could easily be removed, and the citation would still be verifiable and satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, with other verifying info, like title of the article, name of newspaper, date, author, and page number.
  4. There simply no reason not to do this.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPN notice[edit]

Please see relevant discussion, at WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Obscure, non-notable sports figures[edit]

Pointing out the constant loading of the list with no-name red-link sports figures who aren't even part of the English speaking world. This is the English wikipedia. Compare with the German where they are less permissive. They don't even follow the format, giving the cause of death. The page should be protected or a conscientious editor should cull them. (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are some English speaking people who do know who these people are. It's not fair to say they shouldn't be listed because YOU don't know who they are-- (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)