Talk:Deaths in 2012

Policy not followed

Apparently the policy of keeping the previous month visible for the first seven days of a new month was not followed in the most recent edit. And some people will still die during 2011 in the coming hours. (It is now 6:32 PM on December 31st where I am.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a copy of the December 2011 deaths list to this page. By policy, these should remain until seven days have ellapsed. It appears that this policy has been followed except in January, out of inconveniences resulting from starting a new page for a new year. But it's still policy and the reasons for it remain the same. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot maintain two different versions of the same article, Deaths in December 2011. It is completely unworkable. Deaths in December 2011 can never exist as part of Deaths in 2012. Besides, it was never policy, just consensus that works well for month to month rollovers, but not for year to year rollovers. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the intention here - it would be convenient to have a quick link to recent deaths in 2011 (the main page link is "Recent deaths" after all). I also agree that we can't have two articles with the same content - that is impossible very difficult to synchronise. So, as a compromise, I've added a quick link (For recent deaths in 2011, see Deaths in 2011) near the top of the page that can be deleted in a week or so. Wikipeterproject (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is completely unworkable." Wrong. The link from the frontpage is recent deaths, so the last 7 days should be here. By the time the usual suspects here have argued amongst themselves, it will be the 8th of January. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "completely unworkable" means that it will be very difficult indeed to mirror the information accurately on the two pages, because the information needs to be entered twice. My understanding is that at the end of a month (other than Deember) the information for the entire previous month is to over to the new page for that month for seven days. That means that the information only appears once (not on two pages). In this case, it doesn't make sense to have 2012 information in an article that relates to 2011, so the new page, which includes January, needs to be started immediately. I think the quick links the top of the 2012 page helps a lot to navigate from the main page "Recent deaths" to recent deaths in 2011, while staying ensuring 2011 information is in the 2011 article and 2012 in the 2012 one, without having to try to mirror anything. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a mirror article is unworkable because it creates content forking which is against Wikipedia guidelines. WWGB (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Recall the policy: The previous month is to be visible on the recent deaths page until seven days of the new month have passed.

Now the problem is: How shall we implement the policy? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What you proposed on 1 March 2009 was "A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends". [1] But Deaths in December 2011 can never be deleted from Deaths in 2012 as it does not belong there in the first place. There is no article called Recent deaths (a redirection), just deaths in a particular calendar year. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This shows why out-of-context verbatim quoting is fallacious. Read the whole posting rather than that one sentence. Your argument, if viewed in context, rather than in the out-of-context way in which you present it, is an argument against having a page called "deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I merely pointed out the "policy" as you wrote it in March 2009 [2], compared to the different version written above. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you pointed out why context matters and out-of-context quoting is fallacious. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Making Deaths page editable by registered named editors only?

Any support for this? I see some idiot hiding behind a number has falsely reported the death of Clint Eastwood earlier, no doubt to satisfy some sick humour kick...Martyn Smith (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly warranted, but it's also a pain in the @ when there are ongoing edit requests from unregistered users. WWGB (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Less of a pain perhaps than the regular 'someone famous has died' joke, or the 'my best mate is dead' edit, seemingly so beloved of idiots here. Just a thought. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good suggestion to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The protection for the 2011 page seemed to work well enough, certainly better than having to be constantly vigilant for false edits. I've only glanced at this page a couple of times today, and already removed an entry by some bored teenager about his mate, and seen another bizarre anti-semitic entry removed. Chances are we'll get several of those a day, all year, unless there's some protection on the page. EJBH (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Oppo falsely reported the death of Donald Knuth, both on the recent deaths page and in the article about Knuth, on Thanksgiving Day, 2004. At the time, I didn't know of that happening to anyone else besides Yassir Arafat, whom millions of people hated. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't 2011 Deaths categorized with "Pages checked by Checklinks weekly"? Or is that something totally different? — WylieCoyote (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

After today's bout of vandalism by unregistered editors, admin Mkativerata has semi-protected the page indefinitely. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alexis Weissenberg

The reference page does not exist claiming the death of Alexis Weissenberg. In addition, I can't find anything by googling that suggests he has died. Anyone else got any proof? Might be a hoax. (Musicmaker (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

This, in Spanish. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lou Rawls

Singer Lou Rawls passed away January 6. Although the wiki entry for him has updated, there's been no update to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.59 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lou Rawls died in 2006, as presumably you are aware. This is Deaths in 2012 - go figure. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And is respectfully listed at Deaths in January 2006#6. Dru of Id (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And at January 06#Deaths (in 2006). Dru of Id (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

If we're going to list her here at the date she was legally declared dead, shouldn't we list her with the age she would've been on that date? At the moment she's listed on a "Deaths in 2012" page, as an 18 year old, yet she was born in 1986. Doesn't look right, in my opinion. EJBH (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. She died (circa) May 30, 2005, at the age of 18. Legal restrictions (i.e., a waiting-period of seven years) dictated that she be "legally recognized as dead" on January 12, 2012. Thus, regardless of the legal waiting-period, she nonetheless died at the age of 18 in the year 2005. To claim that she died in 2012 -- or that she died at the age of 25 -- is a fiction and does not make sense. In other words, it is more important to record when she factually died (albeit, presumably) ... not when she is "eligible" (through the legal requirements) to be "considered dead". (See Death in absentia.) The legal requirement is, essentially, a fiction. It does not change the fact of when she actually died ... nor does it change the actual or factual date of her death or her age-at-death. Furthermore, I think that the entry listed here on the "Deaths in 2012" page for January 12 contains parenthetical information (i.e., "declared legally dead on this date"), which clarifies any ambiguity or confusion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

88th year = 87 in some cultures....??

Is it the case that in some cultures, the newspapers would report that someone who had died in their 88th year, really was 88 even though in most western cultures today they would be said to be 87? I was thinking of the recent death of Rauf Denktaş announced in the press from Turkish cultures as being 88 even though we now have him down as 87. 80.249.48.109 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think, technically, if someone dies before their next birthday, then they are within that particular year of their life. In Mr. Denktaş' case, he died two weeks before his 88th birthday, making him 87 and in his 87th year. If most editors, who add the ages to this article, would do the math rather than take the numbers from sources, they would be more correct. Yes, I understand some who have died don't have articles and the sources are all we have for the age. Hope this helps! — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. If someone dies at 11 months, they are in their first year (0). The rest compiles numerically parallel. Dru of Id (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is puzzling though, the phrasing. On television, they would say he was 87, yet he was in his 88th year. I'm not losing sleep over it, until my 88th, when others can talk about me all they like. (Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.) — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Senator (tree)

Whilst of course mostly for human deaths, animal deaths also appear here. But trees? This has to be a new one...

Is it appropriate to have a link to a page about a tree?--Q-Jux Q-Jux Q-Jux (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A year or two ago, I asked whether notable trees should appear on the deaths list, but was greeted with sarcasm and ridicule for posing the question (which was never answered). Such is the level of public discourse these days. Derrick Chapman 13:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

Recent deaths reports "a list of notable deaths". No restriction to humans or animals there ..... WWGB (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, i think listing animals and trees is fine, but the categories for death by year indicate its for people. This page is fine as categorized, but IF we are including animals and plants, shouldnt they also be categorized at their articles? and if so, shouldnt the description of the category group be expanded to include them?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenever an animal which has it's own Wikipedia page dies, it gets included on this page, so surely this tree, which is also noteworthy enough to have it's own Wikipedia page, should also be included. It's no more ridiculous to include the The Senator than it was to include Paul the Octopus, or any other number of animals that have been included on these pages, and yet they go unquestioned. At the end of the day it was a notable living being, and it has died. Either all non-humans should be included or none of them, because there's no reason why animals should be included but plants shouldn't. Burbridge92 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

On Sarig

On Sarig died on January 19th. The article should be moved to his real name, Shraga Gafni.Tushyk (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno

Note: Please defer to Talk:Joe Paterno for ongoing discussion of reports.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

is there any RELIABLE source that confirms his death? all the reports i see is that he is in serious condition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.77.37 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

At least one major sports source had reported his death -- then took it back. As it stands right now (Sat Jan 21, 9:25 pm EST) according to online sources such as Yahoo!, CBS Sportsline, USA Today, ESPN, CNN-Sports Illustrated and SportsNetwork.com, he is apparently still alive, but in very serious condition.

I would monitor the front pages of all six above-named sources until every one has a definitive report!

Fgf2007 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

CBS reported it, but both brothers have said he is still alive now via twitter. Apparently an email was given to all the players and to the student university newspaper that reported his death. Sunnydoo (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/22/us/paterno-false-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Now the premature report of his death has become news itself.Sunnydoo (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Whom would know better about the fine art of premature obituaries than CNN! Every major source I have seen in the last 10-12 hours has reported him to have passed from severe complications. When reported by some of the more questionable news organizations, I stumble, but when Penn State itself and the Lions website both report his death, they'd probably know better than anyone outside of the family. 166.249.198.86 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicol Williamson

The on-line citation said the son announced today that Williamson had died on December 16th? Williamb (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have moved the entry to December 2011. -- Racklever (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Colin Tarrant entry

I removed the cause of death because it has not been confirmed (the source states "suspected suicide" based on a report in British tabloid The People), but I notice it has been restored. I do not think this should be stated in the article until a reliable source reports that it has been confirmed. January (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverse chronological order?

Is anyone else entirely baffled why this is in reverse order? It should start with January 1st, not end with it. --24.101.74.164 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I have raised this issue before. To no avail. I don't mind the reverse chronology so much for the current month (as it places more recent news at the top of the page). But, I do mind it for past months. That is, when the current month's page gets archived, it will perpetually be listed in reverse order. That simply makes no sense. Can this be changed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

This page links from the Wikipedia front page as Recent deaths. I guess casual readers don't want to scroll through up to 31 days to see who just died. It's probably more relevant to have the most recent deaths at the top. As for older months, I don't really care, but which wikignome is going to volunteer to reverse the order of every month? WWGB (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WWGB, my point is ... the current month is very ephemeral ... it is only a temporary and fleeting page. Once it gets archived (as an "old" month), then it stays that way permanently. So, while the reverse chronological order is good for the current month, it is nonsensical and "backwards" for the old/prior months. I think that the relatively light "burden" of scrolling down 31 days for the current month is a small price to pay. Keeping all of the old months in backwards order is a big price to pay for that minor convenience. Keeping our eye on posterity (the archives) should trump and supersede the convenience of maintaining reverse chronology on the current page, which ... by definition ... will only last for a (very fleeting) month. Once it's archived (sloppily, in reverse order), it stays that way forever! Don't you agree? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Furthermore, the casual reader does not necessarily have to "scroll through" 31 days. They can simply hit the appropriate "Table of Contents link" and be taken immediately to the correct date, without any tedious scrolling. Maybe there is a way to add a link in the Table of Contents (that says "take me to the END of the page") ... similar to links that take a reader to the "TOP" of a page? That may be a workable solution? Thoughts? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

My preference would be for reverse-chronological on the current page, and chronological on past ones, I think the nature of "recent deaths" makes that best. But as WWGB says, that requires someone to go and reverse all the archives. Any volunteers EJBH (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

François Migault

Francois Migault died on day 29. Put it. --Legal Fiel (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sadly he has died. I am still looking for a reliable source though, then it will be added. Maybe others can look for one too. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Readro has found one, so it's added. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

Hi, please may I request the inclusion of Curt Alchin's death. He was a multiple South African racing champion, killed in a stock car event on Saturday night 28 Jan - http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/motorsport/black-weekend-for-sa-motorsport-1.1222812

Paul Andrew Minnaar (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Mkativerata (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

General Samuel Jaskilka

General Samuel Jaskilka passed on January 15, 2012 and I would like to request that he be added to this list. Alex 14:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Alexcarter01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcarter01 (talk • contribs)

 Done -- Racklever (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding of new dates

Sure we've covered this before, but what's the policy for new days being put up? There's a blank section for Feb 1 on at the moment, and GMT still has 11 hours of Jan 31 to go. EJBH (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already 1 February anywhere east of Melbourne, Australia. People don't wait for GMT to die. WWGB (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How inconsiderate of them ;-)  An optimist on the run! 15:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012

Please add actress Silvana Gallardo who passed away January 2, 2012. [3] Please add actor Steve Adams who passed away January 23, 2012. [4] 90.230.160.42 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)