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.
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.
Q: There are many "rules" associated with this page. Why?
A: Recent deaths is one of the most-viewed articles in Wikipedia. The article Deaths in 2013 received more than 21 million views . It is important that such a high-profile article has factual information presented in a consistent format.
Q: Why are there redlinks (deceased subject with no Wikipedia article) listed in the article?
A: Many notable people die before a Wikipedia article is written about them. The regular editors of this page have agreed that a death notice without an article may remain for one month after the death, so that an article may develop. If there is no article after one month, then the death notice is removed from the list.
Q: Why are dead animals sometimes listed in the article?
A: Many animals (like Lonesome George) achieve notability similar to humans during their life. This article reports the death of any notable biological life, not just humans.
Q: I read on Twitter that a notable person has just died. Can I add their death to the list?
A: Material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced is removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (WP:BLP). Blogs and social media sites are generally considered to be unreliable. Every death listed must be supported by a reference from a reliable, independent source.
Q: A new month started five days ago. Why are deaths in the old month still appearing here?
A: It takes some time for deaths to be reported in the media and published here. Editors have agreed to keep the old month listed in the article for seven days after the new month begins. After that time, the "old" deaths are transferred to the article Deaths in <old month name>.
Q: Why is there sometimes a date without entries at the top of the page?
A: A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere. A relevant time clock can be found here.
Would anyone be against moving away from sticking the (death announced in this date) or (body discovered on this date) tags and moving on with notes we add to the end of each entry? Rusted AutoParts 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't like it. Just makes someone click to read the same thing, then go back up. If they don't know why there's a note, they might not click it and assume whoever died whenever, as normal. What's the benefit? InedibleHulk(talk) 02:33, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
Against. Although there won't be many additional "notes" for such entries, this would stretch the page even further and cause even longer load times, which is why we adopted the simpler referencing format. As InedibleHulk states, this also involves further navigation. — Wyliepedia 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose – There is no real benefit that I can see. Also, as pointed out above, a reader would have no inclination to scroll down the page to see if there are, indeed, any notes. Notes such as "date body found" or "date death announced" are vital to a page like this. Particularly so, since the page is set up according to the date a person died. Without a note (or with the note hidden and buried in some footnote way at the bottom of the page), that vital information is lost. And, as stated above, the reader will always simply presume that the person died on that date. Again, no benefit; great detriment. I strongly object to the proposal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose – Unnecessary device, tinkering for its own sake? Plus, usually "(death announced on this date)" tags are purely temporary inline messages, there for that purpose only, for a very limited time if we are lucky, and should remain inline. Let's also keep substance over effect please, to match the solemn subject matter within these pages. Thanks for listening. Ref(chew)(do) 22:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I was under the belief that "natural causes" could be listed as cause of death, if that's the words the article used. Am I wrong? I think it's better with a diffuse cause than no cause at all, anyway. Nukualofa (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I used to be against listing it as a COD, since, if none is listed nor reported, that is the presumed cause. I've become flexible with listing it, if in the source, so visitors won't question the COD. Still, "anything non-external" and "heart attack" are also considered "natural causes". — Wyliepedia 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Eh. To me it basically says they were not murdered, or anything "unnatural" of the sort. I think it's fine for the articles, but it's not really a death cause, rather a blanket term. Connormah (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads-up to contributing editors that the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not usually apply at the end of December.
The reason is that Recent Deaths on the front page of Wikipedia is pointed to Deaths in 2015 from January 1. This means that deaths from that date need to be reported on Deaths in 2015, rather than staying on Deaths in 2014 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway).WWGB (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I added an editor note to not remove this page until 1 Jan 2015 00:00 UTC. — Wyliepedia 10:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)