Talk:Deaths in September 2017

Serial comma

This issue was already addressed. See here: Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No consensus was reached there. The use of the serial comma is optional but should be consistent in individual articles. I see no consistent use of the serial comma in Recent deaths. WWGB (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was reached there. And I am (consistently) putting in the serial commas. If others choose to remove them, I cannot help that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you mean Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1#Serial comma I see nothing remotely like consensus for the universal use of the serial comma. The only agreement is that a list like "hamburgers, mac and cheese, and fish and chips" requires the use of the serial comma. Use in a list like "beef, lamb(,) and pork" is optional, but should be used consistently. I'm not aware that this latter usage has ever been agreed here. WWGB (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed the original discussion on serial murderers... COMMAS! (Commas, or pauses, whichever...) Having been back there to have a look, it seems to me that any serious discussion/argument/fit of pique dissolved almost immediately once an admin had come in to 'calm things down'. The final sub-section then clearly failed to reach a consensus, in my opinion, bearing in mind that "consensus" is never a case of "I said it my way the most times in the discussion". Quite sanely and rightly therefore, in my opinion, the use of commas should always be an open preserve for each editor, as the fancy takes them - though any other editor should be freely allowed to edit out, or in, any of the commas (or omissions of such) if they violate the MoS, or indeed common English grammar as taught in schools (at least, back in my day it was). In my opinion, of course. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Spadaro and I have a related discussion on his Talk Page, if anyone's interested. Briefly, I'd rather not see serial commas at all, but prefer consistency over inconsistency, so am willing to do it his way if he successfully convinces the rest of us it's the way. Essentially, I'm on whichever side wins, to avoid losing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not "my" way. This was stated in our earlier discussion seeking consensus. Quote: From the article serial comma, we have this. The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, the United States Government Printing Office, and most authorities on American English and Canadian English require the use of the serial comma. In British English, use of the serial comma is not usual, although some authorities (for example, Oxford University Press and Fowler's Modern English Usage) do recommend it. End Quote. I neither own, nor have stock in, nor oversee/direct any of those publications and/or organizations. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't blaze the path, but you follow it and recommend it to others. This make it your way in the same way people "have" countries, cigarette brands and religions. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We already had this discussion and "consensus proposal" way back in that earlier thread. See here: Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1. If editors did not choose to offer input then, I cannot help it. I very clearly stated: "It's been a good week or so. According to these discussions, I will be adding in serial commas where appropriate". After which, there was no objection. Nor were there even any responses (let alone, objections). So, either editors were apathetic; or it was an issue of little concern to them. I did what I had to do. I opened it up for discussion. And I followed through, accordingly. Why is everyone so up in arms about it now, a full year later? And, given that past discussion, what exactly would "you" (a collective "you") have me do? Everyone seems to want to eat their cake, and have it, too. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And, it goes without saying, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And and, being a British English citizen and language user, you'll forgive me then if I forego the serial comma wherever it occurs in a line of three or four items (for which the final item is preceded by either of the words "and" / "or") - as I was taught at school. The significant difference between the teaching of American/Canadian English and British English is one of the reasons that I STILL say the use of the serial comma should be up to the individual posting the entry, and not bound by rigid convention regardless. Another example of this Atlantic difference in teaching, and inevitably spelling, would be if an "American color coordinator" died. The word would be left alone as "color" by British English users because the subject was American. Now, if a "British colour coordinator" passed away, I would expect the "colour" spelling to be left alone, in deference to the British subject of the entry. So consequently it makes sense that the application of the serial comma can differ from entry to entry, nationality to nationality, in a similar way. One way of applying English cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the other - it ceases to be an international encyclopedia and instead becomes a global one overseen strictly by the set of rules of one faction active in the application of the English language. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Just so I am clear. What you are saying is this. It is "ok" to have inconsistency within the article. In one entry, we can choose to use the serial comma. And, in another entry, choose not to. Is that what you are suggesting? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What I am saying is what is clearly laid out above, and not in the over-simplified sentence you just attempted. Because a simple sentence does not fully explain the difference between punctuation/spelling useage on either side of the "pond". "Two nations separated by a common language", remember, and that's got to be taken into account. Merely to ignore one useage in favour/favor of another is neither equal nor fair. I think you know what I meant, and so, yes, I'm afraid inconsistency is inevitable, as it is most often with spelling irregularities developed between English-speaking nations over many years. (I used enough of my learnt English language setting out my rationale above, and if it doesn't hit home with anyone following that, then I'm lost on this issue.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Canada is on this side of the water, but we're just as British as we are American. I learned serial commas are superfluous from three Canadian English teachers, and our CBC (basically your BBC) writes things like "journalism, food retail and real estate". But we use it in "food retailing, distribution, and building and real estate development", because buddy would seem like a builder without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

When deciding which standard to use (if such a decision is needed), it's good to look back to the earliest form. Deaths in 2003 somehow begins in November 2001, where a "Dutch rock musician, painter and publicity freak" is our holotype. Granted, that page does a lot we don't anymore, but it's something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to claims, then, consensus certainly does not seem to exist supporting the undeniable inclusion of the serial comma; if anything, later comments are showing up the trans-Atlantic divide even more. I'm still inclined to follow my own nose on this - others can revert my style without fear of undo, though, as the whole subject is really not worth it, and "the serial comma can" is much more appealing to me than "the serial comma MUST" anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there is also an age gap component to this as well. Now in my advanced middle age, we were taught the old English way in my very Southern elementary school- that a list should have a serial comma. It has come up in my writings at work, and mostly pointed out by millennials- even to the point of joke status. But it is something that was ingrained and instilled at a young age in me (mostly with a ruler across the knuckles), so good luck getting that out. I agree with Ref- to each his/her own.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I, like Sunnydoo, was taught to use the serial comma — fortunately, no ruler was ever involved. I also agree that in addition to being country-related, the use of the serial comma is also age-related.

Stateside, and from family history (my family were educators who taught at all levels, K-postgraduate), the use of the serial comma was taught from 1923 to at least 2003. But I know that beginning in the late 1980s, the use was not stressed/required and became more of a 'personal' thing.

In addition, I was also taught that whenever a pause occurs during an oration, there MUST be a comma in the transcription (written/printed version).

I, too, like consistency in grammar, sentence structure, use of numbers, etc. in ANY writing; but with different Englishes and even the writing/style guides changing through the years/decades, it's an impossibility.

But remember, if you submit something to a publication, you MUST follow their writing style or you're not going to get published. That means there IS consistency WITHIN THE SAME WORK.

Since Wikipedia, in my mind, IS all "the same work," why shouldn't there consistency?

What really surprises me is the length that this discussion has grown to and how long it had been discussed.

All this over whether or not one more "," (aka 'keystroke') should be used.

Really?

And look at how many keystrokes have been used on this discussion.

If there is a consensus or Wikipedia writing style concerning comma usage — follow it.

If not — don't worry.

"A mountain out of a mole hill." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal choice over rigid style rules, and that's how I'm playing it on the comma, given the lack of any opposite consensus above. Nice short sentence, that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the cereal comma in Snap, Crackle, and Pop. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I finished it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I inserted a serial comma here recently because someone had chosen to remove it.

WWGB then removed it claiming this was interfering with someone else's editing (so how was the removal not that same interference?)LE (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I concede that the serial comma was there first. [1] WWGB (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Simeon Wright

The editor who piped Simeon Wright to another biography (for his cousin Emmett Till, who he is admittedly linked to in a past event) must know full well that doing so is not allowed at this particular list of deceased. One person cannot inherit another's notability, therefore I have reverted. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I created a redirect to the Till section that mentions Wright, just in case an edit war begins and statues are targeted. — Wyliepedia 01:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No sniff of an edit war, to be honest, but the redirect is fine as it doesn't interfere with da rools here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Holger Czukay

Hi. Please tread carefully when trying to establish the exact date of death of the above (reported primarily by Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger on September 5th 2017). A translation of that prime source reveals that, due to the nature of demise and the time over which his body may have lain undiscovered, the police investigators are not currently revealing a date/time or cause of death. That will probably require a post mortem, so for the moment I have marked the entry "death announced on this date". I've also made sure that his own article doesn't perpetuate current spurious claims on some websites. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved as it now stands - New York Times has cracked it, it seems. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

DeadPeople.com

I feel we should look at blacklisting the website DeadPeople.com. I saw it being used as a source on someone's article. All it is is them reading this page, seeing who's listed newly, then throw out a very brief article to "report" on it. I just don't wanna see people seeing it as a reliable source or people linking to it here, cause it is far from reliable. Rusted AutoParts 05:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of example: I registered the addition of S.K. Modi at 06:08 (which is 3:08 AM for me). At 3:14 AM, their Facebook page updated with this. So it is abundantly clear they're using us as reference. Rusted AutoParts 06:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need a blacklisting operation as such - there's usually no effective way of reminding casual editors about this kind of thing anyway, other than by policing the sources being used here and removing/replacing them with an alt source link. There are a few such websites which are "gleaners", constantly trawling the internet for linked content and re-reporting it in a frankly rough and puerile form. And, yes, they trawl Wikis too, which makes them totally unuseable for our purposes, as they form a circular reference link, ending up merely repeating what we claim already. Common sense is the only answer - such websites are so blatantly obvious that I would think any sane editor would avoid them like the plague, as I do. Certainly if I see them being used here, I will always deal with the entry in the correct way. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at their Facebook post the day Ian Brady died. A moment of silence, anyone? [2]. And sorry for the unattractive url. Nukualofa (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

They do that for every Facebook post. Quick faux sentiment followed by asking for likes and hashtagging. It's really scummy and weird IMO. Rusted AutoParts 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Can of Worms". (Posted by worms.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

Please change actor Frank Vincents age to 80, which is mentioned in a family statement: USA Today, NYT

Could some moderator at Wikipedia also stop this senseless editing of the birthyear and age back and forth? It is getting a bit tedious! Time for a protected page, maybe? Wouldn't it be easier to use both years in the article, I have seen that been done before with other actors and actresses? Besides, it is not the first or the last time that the birth year has been wrong when it comes to someone working in show business... 194.69.14.78 (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Like Rebel Wilson? WWGB (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done, but only on the basis that the source we are using at my timestamp clearly states 80 and mentions the variation of other sources as 78. Commenting on page protection other than within the Deaths page and posing general questions to moderators is wasted on this Talk page. We have enough trouble getting just the Deaths page semi-protected by moderators/admins each January as it is! And how would you get the millions of person biographies which can be subject to such date/age disputes put into protection as an automatic function? Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Vera Van Wagner

The above deceased (at the reported age of 113) has a blue wikilink which then redirects to List of supercentenarians from the United States. And yet she is not listed there, which is an anomaly that personally sits awkward with me. Does this puzzle any other of our editors? Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RightGot is an editor who creates and does such redirects, especially for those in that age range. The group who monitors pages such as LoSUS are particular about their additions, akin to the red tape of In The News candidates. I suppose they think supercentenarians are a dime a dozen and can cherry-pick entrants there, believing death to be an "event"? (Edit; She was listed among the living prior to her death.) — Wyliepedia 21:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My real point being, why would she deserve a redirect to a list she no longer inhabits? The correct article to link to, if there was one, would be "List of former/deceased supercentenarians from the United States". When you follow a redirect, you at least expect to see the subject mentioned at the other end. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated her "article" for deletion as it goes to a page in which she is not mentioned. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Who closes off the discussion there and when? Four deletes voted, no retargets and no keeps, and no further action so far getting rid. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Any article-space deletion discussions normally run about a week. — Wyliepedia 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mrs. Van Wagner (whose last 3 birthday parties I attended) was never quite the oldest person in the USA and died at 113 years 107 days.The article she was made a redirect to didn't have her in its lists.LE (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiarton Willie

I perceive a slight problem with the posting of Wiarton Willie in the Deaths article. The link appears to be to an article about a series of groundhogs which have been given that name - not just one - and may even focus more on the ceremonial event than a former living creature. From that article:

"Although the original Wiarton Willie died, the Wiarton Groundhog Day celebrations continue each year with successors of the original Willie, also referred to as "Wiarton Willie."

I suspect that another younger groundhog will be selected and renamed for the ceremony before December comes. What do others think about the integrity of the deceased animal, given that it refers to one of many and may crop up using that article link again in future? Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see it as similar to Lassie or Rin Tin Tin where multiple descendants play the same "character". As long as the animal continues to receive news coverage and the death is covered in multiple reliable sources, I don't see posting a link here when the most recent descendant passes every 10-15 years as being excessive. That being said, I have no concerns if there is consensus that such instances of generational notability should not be included.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Same as with any sports mascots that get named as such in succession. Has been discussed here before (example). — Wyliepedia 20:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see it as similar to the mascot animal dilemma. If the article is about that particular iteration than it could be submitted. If it's just the character it shouldn't. Looks like in this case it's the latter and I feel it should be removed. Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Purely my perception then, but thanks for the feedback anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This particular iteration of the groundhog isn't even mentioned in the article. So it fails NN regardless. Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned now. Hadn't realized it was so contentious when I readded it (to September 15, not 20). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That said, if I had realized it was contentious, I'd have still added it. He's a bonafide celebrity in the province, with significant independent coverage at least once a year, just doesn't have his own article for organizational reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see AutoParts has removed him again, now because he's a "footnote" rather than no mention at all. How much information would it take before he crosses this perceived threshold? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've requested that Rusted AutoParts undo their second revert as it's a violation of their 1RR restriction. Anyone else is free to add/remove the entry once consensus is reached here, however.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I again state that footnote or no the article is more about the character than the groundhog that portrayed it, sonregardless of any additions made it still won't meet the notability requirements. Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll still flesh it out a bit later, anyway. Those interested in groundhogs might like to know his story, even if those obsessed with death mightn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

Please move actor Bernie Casey to his correct date of death on September 19, 2017.[3] 194.69.14.78 (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Rusted AutoParts. — Wyliepedia 07:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@CAWylie: looks like someone moved it back to the 20th. However the NYT does have the dod listed as Tuesday as does THR, so it is the correct date. I have a 1RR restriction and I don't want to revert that edit within a 24 hour period so would you be able to move him back to the 19th? Rusted AutoParts 14:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Most sources, such as [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8] all say he died on Tuesday. The TMZ article cited is the only place that says Wednesday. Rather than edit war, can we get a consensus to change this? --Killer Moff (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, already changed. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Natili and Nicholson

Hi,

Could you please amend their dates of death on the main list and in the article to be a day before listed?

Natili was listed as dying yesterday on the 19th September by family friend and fellow racing driver, Emanuele Pirro - https://www.facebook.com/emanuele.pirro1 If you need a source: http://www.oldracingcars.com/driver/Massimo_Natili

Then the same site has Nicholson listed as dying on the 19th. The news first came through on Facebook on the 19th, but press announcements weren't until the 20th. But Nicholson couldn't have died on the 20th if he was already dead on the 19th! http://www.oldracingcars.com/driver/John_Nicholson

The site also has a place of death.

Thank you

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.238.28 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. My particular problem is that the website "Old Racing Cars" appears to be a wiki-based blog which won't pass as a totally reliable source on here. I personally will leave DoDs as is on those two, but other editors may of course disagree with my standpoint. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ORC is one of those sites that is almost always utterly reliable, but doesn't necessarily pass the criteria for use here. If by 'wiki-based' you mean it reflects Wikipedia content, it's actually the other way round. The guy who runs ORC does his own research. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that point then, but still not inclined to act. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this okay?

This is purely for confirmation sake, if so fine but the addition of Robin Gardiner to the deaths in July list has me curious. He is a redirect to a section about a book written by him and nothing else is said about him in the article. I don't feel this meets the criteria for listing. Or am I incorrect? Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

His thirty days are up, by my watch. Shouldn't get an exception for showing up late. He can still get an article, sources permitting, and it could be added then. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

William J. Ely

Someone recently removed the specification that William J. Ely was a lieutenant general ... claiming this was not notable. I believe that he was the longest-lived person ever to hold that rank (or higher) which to me would be his main claim to notability.LE (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

'Twas I who removed it. Where in the original edit does it specify he was the oldest anything? Liliane Bettencourt was the richest woman in history; it doesn't mean we should mention it here. To clarify, Ely was West Point's oldest graduate. Again I say "So?" — Wyliepedia 02:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Now we call Bettencourt merely the richest woman since 2015 (the Queen of Sheba might have objected). This and Ely's oldness both seem like things best left in their own articles to me. Oldest or richest human is a more clear-cut claim to fame, since there are many more of them. I'll preemptively object to "last surviving Munchkin" while we're here, because I think he'll bury us all. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace of Lee Yung-ping

Lee Yung-ping (died 22 September 2017) was born in 1947 in Sarawak. At that time, Sarawak was known as the Crown Colony of Sarawak. It was not part of Malaysia, East Malaysia or British Malaya. The correct term is therefore "Sarawak-born", just as we would use "Hong Kong-born" for another. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Factually correct, and I think it's pretty poor that one particular editor entered the arena here and started to edit war over this one issue. Even the Chinese language version of his article at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%8E%E6%B0%B8%E5%B9%B3 acknowledges his correct birthplace. Hopefully, that's the end of the matter. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Booth

The Telegraph is reporting he died on Monday night Sep 25. [9]. Also, shouldn't he be listed as 'Tony Booth' to match his article? BurienBomber (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)