Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StuZealand (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 26 June 2023 (→Animals: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Animals

Why do horses, pandas, or any other animals get to be included? There should be a simple rule that pages on notable deaths only include humans and exclude (all other) animals for which there should be a separate page, so that those interested in deaths of notable animals could easily find all of that information in one place. I mean, it really looks ridiculous the way it is now, that a horse is listed in the alphabetical order with humans. The least we could have as a rule is that such cases are listed at the very bottom for each date. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have had this discussion many times before, at least once every year (check the archives). There is a long-standing consensus to include the death of all notable living things including, but not limited to, racehorses, domestic animals and trees. The article is simply "Deaths in ...." and not "Human deaths in ....". Co-mingling of the species only seems to offend a minority of readers. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look I’ve been in that mindset before, thinking it didn’t make sense but that’s just not the case. Dying isn’t an exclusive human thing, and I can’t see how it’s insulting. I can’t imagine a person listed here is floating out in the ether or wherever feeling offended they happened to die the same day as a notable cheetah. If that were the case I’d say they should probably focus on more pressing thoughts. Either way, death is death. As for separate articles, that’s needless. If separation is really something you need I believe there’s a separate deaths category for animals specifically. Rusted AutoParts 07:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a fan of including non-human deaths, but I have seen a long-standing consensus for keeping them, so I would support that consensus above my own opinions. Ref (chew)(do) 09:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Deaths in 2023 page serves as a list that allows readers to engage with Wikipedia and explore our articles in greater depth. Being more inclusive of what deaths are listed on the page, in my opinion, better serves the varied interests of readers and potential contributors.-- Ponyobons mots 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I can see nothing wrong in splitting the human and animal lists in two and including a link from one to the other on their respective pages Topcardi (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a common enough occurrence to require a separate page. Splitting the two would also require a second set of archiving by month. That's extra maintenance eating up volunteer time with no benefit to the reader.-- Ponyobons mots 20:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths in May included three racehorses and one tree. Such a small number must surely only annoy hardcore anthropocentrics. WWGB (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it more stems from this idea that racehorses - essentially the pets of the ultra-rich - are more notable than the average college professor, simply by virtue of being owned by people with money. It's a really ugly commentary on the way Wikipedia treats social class. KarakasaObake (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the pets of the ultra-rich - are more notable than the average college professor" Perfectly true. People have actually heard about these pets, and have written texts about them. Nobody has heard about the average college professor, and a nobody like him/her should never have an article on Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything about Wikipedia, it's about WP:SIGCOV. A racehorse that performs well and wins will receive much more coverage than an average college professor. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a living being is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it gets to be included on this page when it dies. That simple. StuZealand (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Weil

This is not a big deal but looking at Weil's own article, the song "Through the Fire" is not mentioned. I am at the other side of the Pond, but songs such as "Don't Know Much", "I'm Gonna Be Strong", "Looking Through the Eyes of Love", "On Broadway", "Somewhere Out There", or "We Gotta Get Out of This Place" seem more relevant. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That is an unremarkable song that charted poorly. Weil wrote many better notable songs. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the latter four would ring a bell better with me as far as Cynthia's output goes. "Through the Fire" is not immediately familiar to me. Ref (chew)(do) 17:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, I have replaced "Through the Fire" with the double Grammy winner, "Somewhere Out There". Thanks for the comments above - only a matter of time therefore before an editor changes the threesome, but at least there is this small discussion to refer back to. (I would have gladly given up an arm, and a leg, to have songwriting credits on just one of her output). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the string 'ill'?

Greetings; looking at the "source" of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2023&action=edit) occasionally next to the name of the notable person there is the string 'ill'.

Does it indicate that the death was due to "illness"? Thanks for your attention; Greetings from Raffaele Bonacchi. Bierre73 (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it is short for {{ill}}, "interlanguage link", because he has no article in English yet --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that they are included here as an aid to creating an English article (if appropriate) for subject entries which are currently redlinks - however, they are restricted just to the subject name, and are not used for supporting notability credits such as jobs, membership of organisations and the like. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 07:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major change request

Should we turn this article into my draft? ElWeyMamon (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's better than categorizing every sourced death of a notable individual. It's the same format as what the listings at year pages used to be. I say no. Rusted AutoParts 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well, i say yes ElWeyMamon (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that's the idea, i want it to be exactly similar to "the same format as what the listings at year pages used to be" ElWeyMamon (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's antithetical to the purpose of this page. There can be an argument for an individual's inclusion on a year page based on their worldly notoriety. Why would we implement that here, a page meant to chronicle all deaths of individuals with Wiki articles? What would the criteria be? It defeats the page's purpose. Rusted AutoParts 03:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We report around 700 deaths every month. What would be the possible benefit of having one article that reports over 8,000 deaths? It would take forever to load. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no - and it's not the done thing for the proposer to then hammer home his point by voting, as it's assumed the proposer would be entering a yes vote anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 07:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely No. It's an awful idea on so many levels.--Folengo (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Rusted AutoParts has already said everything I would have. The draft is not an improvement on this page, and does not contain the same amount of information that this one does. Doc Strange MailboxLogbook 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "traffic collision".

Is there any specific reason to why all traffic related deaths are described simply as "traffic collision" instead of specifying what kind of traffic collision, like "car, motorcycle, bicycle" etc? DrKilleMoff (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A traffic collision occurs when any vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or other moving or stationary obstruction, such as a tree, pole or building. Using a standard term avoids ongoing discussion about whether a specific incudent is a collision, a crash, an accident, a wreck etc. It serves us well. WWGB (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Injuries which can cause death during a traffic collision are manyfold, and searching for the exact one which caused the death seems futile, as it was the traffic collision which initiated the dying process. Terms like "car crash" tend towards sensationalist slang, so should be avoided, I think. Also, whilst the deceased may have been in one form of transport, that with which they collided may be of a different type, and that again seems a pointless differentiation to focus on. Ref (chew)(do) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table Format?

Would it be possible to have the death list in a table format? Like something that can be easily exported to excel. 50.230.98.226 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this idea has been visited many times before, and due to extreme technical difficulties is impractical and almost impossible to update efficiently. You don't say why you would prefer it that way when the majority seem happy with it as it is? Ref (chew)(do) 19:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And - wow - suggesting copying Wikipedia verbatim into a personal program? Ref (chew)(do) 19:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And - yes - while in college I took a few computer classes with one being GIS. We had a pile of projects that came from us finding data online(inlcuding wikipedia) importing it over to excel and using the data in a multitide of ways to find paterns, forcast future population or expansion of cities/waterways, and make our own GIS mapping based on real places. In this case, we copied data into two personal programs.. Excel and ArcGIS.. so yes I would suggest doing it for the thousands of students needing data for school projects 50.230.98.226 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what all goes into updating these pages, but I have seen plenty of other wikipedia pages where the data is in table format and is incredibly easy to export to excel. I was unaware that I was to come prepared with a arguementative essay as to why a table format would be better.. it was only a suggestion 50.230.98.226 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of work goes into it, made so much easier each day by the bullet/lines format rather than trying to pick out correct sections of a table format to edit so that it stays in alphabetical and day order, etc. You should also realise that Wikipedia does hold copyrights and other legal entitlements - despite anyone's wish to copy-and-paste/import large chunks of it for their own use, editors are always mindful of those legalities when dealing with the encyclopedia, and even though we know millions of people do copy it blatantly, we wouldn't expect anyone to come out and admit it in a talk page. Please glance at this page to understand more about rights and usage. Thanks for your suggestion though. Ref (chew)(do) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of three application

I had seen one of Glenda Jackson's three film credits removed as her political term is there. But does the political term count towards an Ro3 credit? It’s more of a political position. Just seeking a bit of clarity to the extent of Ro3 application. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I remember seeing the rule of three applied is within a category of notability; I don't think it's intended to encompass all areas of notability. So in this case, I think including three film roles + political career is in keeping with the guideline.-- Ponyobons mots 21:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter should apply, as implemented in obituary lines for similar past entries. Another film can be added, as far as I am concerned. Ref (chew)(do) 21:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a term in office equates to a credit. If we were discussing a book she wrote that would also be a credit. Had Jackson won three Oscars, we would list those three years as well as three notable films. WWGB (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does hall of fame status come before occupation, but no other awards do?

At the moment there is an entry for Manabu Kitabeppu, 65, Japanese Hall of Fame baseball player (Hiroshima Toyo Carp). Why does it say it like that? Would it not make more sense to say Japanese baseball player (Hiroshima Toyo Carp), Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame inductee (2012)? That way it is clear which Hall of Fame the individual is in (say, a Japanese player who exclusivly played in MLB and ended up in their hall of fame would look the same as this player) and there are no other awards that are arranged in this order (the entry for Glenda Jackson does not call her a English Oscar-winning actress, it puts the award after her occupation. OZOO (t) (c) 12:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which Hall of Fame is always linked in the wording, so the reader is one click away from finding out which one (or alternatively, one hovering of a computer mouse above the phrase to show the tooltip description). The main reason for putting the phrase in the pre-eminent position is to avoid clutterage in the end section of the one-line sentence, but it's also to do with how grammar is employed to create a succinct but economical use of the English language, and to avoid accidental ambiguities. As you know, Wikipedia editors are always open to alternative suggestions, but what is suggested must always improve on the existing, or fix a problem, and can only be adopted by consensus. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why it's Hall of Fame X but never Oscar-winning X or Olympic medalist X; are the latter two not also clutterage? I don't think expecting the reader to go on a second click to find out details of the Hall of Fame matches with WP:TRANSPARENCY. OZOO (t) (c) 16:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of other credits towards notability which appear in a subject's obituary line require a second click (or a mouse hover) for absolute clarity, so I don't see why HoF links are any different to those. It's also to do with using the minimum possible number of words to achieve the passing on of the information required in the entry, and some of those Hall of Fame titles are so wordy the line could go on forever. You're already getting the phrase Hall of Fame alongside the activity or job for which the subject was noted - if you combine the two it should be a little more obvious which HoF it's going to be. Anyway, I'll let someone else have their say on this. Ref (chew)(do) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's about reducing clutter. "Hall of Fame" has 10 characters, whereas "Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame inductee (2012)" has 40 characters. We must remember that these entries are death notices, not obituaries. They are not intended to tell the whole story. Further detail about the deceased can always be found in their article, or associated links. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths needing a better source

I've added a few hundred missing deaths over the past month. There are a few for whom I couldn't find a non-social media source. Perhaps somebody else here might have better luck? (feel free to edit below if a source is found or add to the list if it's helpful) Star Garnet (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalance of rules/standards between Deaths in 2023 and Main Page

I've recently come to the conclusion that we should list deceased individuals on the Deaths in 2023 where the source is an official Facebook or Twitter page of a band, organisation, studio, agent, sports team etc. There are some users on here who are wholly opposed to this, others more sympathetic to my leaning.

Seems a good time to bring this into debate now that we have a major inconsistency on the site. Dave Viti is currently listed on the Main Page in the "Recent deaths" tab, despite the fact that the only source thus far is a tweet from the official Hamilton Tiger-Cats Facebook page here. He should technically be added under "June 16" on the Deaths in 2023 page with the addition of "(death announced on this date)" to the end of his entry, but I'm certain if this is added, someone will no doubt scrub it with a "no Facebook sources" comment.

With this in mind, time to redraw the rules on here? Personally I'm for allowing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram sources if it can be determined that the account in question is the official page belonging to that organisation/business. We're now entering a time when a lot of announcements are not added to "news" tabs on websites (nobody reads them) and thus Facebook, Twitter etc. become the only channels used in some instances. I'd like to propose we relax this on the Deaths in 2023. Would like to hear what other users have to say. Thanks, Jkaharper (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly and simply, as before, I would say NO sources from either Twitter or Facebook, because accounts are generally difficult or impossible to verify as official, and those in charge of the social media accounts are usually virtually anonymous and unnamed. The same goes for Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, et al. Veracity is almost uncheckable with these. Reliable sources usually indicate which editor or reporter wrote the article or snippet which confirmed the death of a subject. All of the above do not generally include this key indicator. This is one can of worms I advise everyone to look inside thoroughly before voting for social media posts to be adopted as "reliable sources". (My ascerbic quote marks show you exactly what I think personally.) Ref (chew)(do) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of social media sources as cites is explained at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Social networking websites. It is only an essay. WWGB (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Talk:Jimmy Justice (musician). You will note that 'we' know this individual died in November last year, but because of the reliable source criteria, Wikipedia is still showing this former musician as alive. Thus the case mentioned above is not unique. As User:Refsworldlee states, mainstream media does not always report deaths as they used to. Then have a glance at User talk:Derek R Bullamore under the 'Sadly...' sub-heading.
Whatever we may prefer, it is totally non-sensical to report deaths on the main page but not here. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there's no easy way of synchronising the main page and the deaths page. I believe it's a non-sensical situation which would be almost impossible to fix by consensus all round. The main crux of this section seems to be either to campaign for the use of social media sites or oppose them, rather than to focus solely on the synchronisation of this page with the main page. For synchronisation to occur would certainly require editors here to relax their stance on social media to the same level as those who edit the main page. Ref (chew)(do) 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Stockhausen

Doris Stockhausen is reported as having died on 20 June. It was entered in the German Wikipedia without a reference, and the article still has no reference for her death. While I believe it is likely that somehow who knows placed it there, I was told in a similar case (when I knew that a person had died from the person's son) to wait until anything official was published. I still don't see anything online, and would not be surprised if the "ref" we cite took it from the German Wikipedia. - I wrote her article, and would nominate her for RD but am not sure enough, -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We never use Wikipedia, in any language, as evidence of a person's death. As always, a reliable source is required. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE. She is now listed here, with slippedisc.com as the source. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new. That's is exactly what I tried to say: Slippedisc probably has it from the unsourced German Wikipedia, WWGB. I don't trust it, and find suspicious that there is nothing else on the internet that I see. I'm traveling now, and won't be back until tonight. Please keep an eye on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am personally far from a fan of Slipped Disc and Norman Lebrecht, it is in no way tagged as a deprecated source, and so there's little debate to be had about its use as a reliable source for the Doris entry. Personal anecdotal evidence is another matter - sources have to be published and not be verbal hearsay, unless you yourself can create a reliable published account from whatever information you heard. Ref (chew)(do) 08:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I still have doubts about the death of a notable German woman reported by not a single German source, but the German Wikipedia and Slippedisc, the third day after she allegedly died? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We all have doubts about a myriad of things. Of coure you can. Ref (chew)(do) 21:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We now have French news. I don't read French, - it could be an echo, coming with an author name but reading like a translation of Slippedisc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly draws from Lebrecht's editorial in my view, so I would advise against using it, especially as guidelines say use English sources where possible if they equal or better foreign language ones. Ref (chew)(do) 07:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Shay

Anna Shay died on June 1, not June 5 82.132.186.52 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Times, Los Angeles (2023-06-09). "Anna Shay Obituary (2023)". Legacy.com. Retrieved 2023-06-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)[reply]

 Done. Thank you. Renewal6 (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2023&oldid=1162069048"