Template talk:Deceased Wikipedian

Edit request

Why does this template use the plural "their"? -- -- -- 21:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing as well. I am placing an edit request here. It should state "his or her", or have an option to switch between either. 75.53.212.159 (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. They, them, and their are widely used and recognized as singular, and it makes particular sense to accept that when referring to pseudonymous former contributors whose gender identities may be unknown. Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the singular they is fine, personally. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support use of his/her, if the user identified their gender here automatically via preferences. I was about to boldly introduce such code myself, but see that it's already been done just a few hours ago! -- Trevj (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  Can someone add a parameter in case they did not set their preferences? πr² (t • c) 16:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Category:Deceased Wikipedians

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Category:Deceased Wikipedians. -- Trevj (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Died vs. deceased

Obviously, this is a very sensitive template, particularly in times of active grief. The words "is deceased" were changed to "has died" here with a pointer to WP:EUPHEMISM. However, that page is part of the Manual of Style intended to help avoid the introduction of bias into our articles. Bias is not a concern with the use of this on user talk pages or user pages.

I think we need consensus prior to such a change, particularly as I am myself concerned about the impact of the starker wording. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The impact on the person being described is zero, as they remain dead. Euphemism is an unencyclopedic force; we should use the simplest and clearest words for things, both in the mainspace and in user space. The idea that it is somehow easier on the bereaved to say "deceased" than to say "died" has no foundation in fact and should not play a part in our work here. Can I also recommend WP:DRNC for your reading? --John (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to be encyclopedic in user space. And the concern is not the impact that it will have on the person who has died. I should have thought that would be obvious. And regarding your WP:DRNC, I didn't - you might have noticed that I said "I am myself concerned". This is, of course, entirely in accordance WP:BRD. You boldly made a change, and I disagree. Hence, I have reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is reached. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So you haven't looked at the history then. Interesting. I recommend you do so in future if you are going to talk about WP:STATUSQUO, as it will be less likely to make you look like a fool. --John (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one for you, User:John: WP:CIVIL. This template has said "is deceased" since November of 2013, a status quo of nearly half a year's standing. Prior to that, it said "has passed away". It did not say "has died." Your justification for changing it refers to the manual of style for articles. I do not agree that it applies. We restore the prior version pending consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have CIVIL, and we also have WP:CIR. So often, as here, the two are in tension. I recommend a closer look at the history before you embarrass yourself further. --John (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm more astonished by your hostility than anything. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. :/ Is this how you approach every disagreement on Wikipedia, or do you have some personal grudge against me of which I'm unaware? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let's be in a mood not to argue right at the moment: we're mourning the loss of two great Wikimedians, and now is the time for all to be giving and kind—in memory of these wonderful people. If I had to make an on-the-spot call here, I'd go with the softer wording (even though my personal inclination is to avoid it generally). Tony (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit late to this discussion, but I agree that the MOS does not and should not apply to this template, and "deceased" works just fine. And there really is no need for hostility. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected request 17 December 2014

Please apply this template to these user pages. Doing this will allow me to modified the template to filter out User_talk: pages from the categorization transcluded by this template. Thank you very much. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Done all apart from User:Ig2000, which I just added the category to. It seems strange to add the banner on a redirect page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: also, could you ping me after you've finished making your changes here? This template should probably be fully protected, for the same reason we're fully protecting the user pages themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. Stradivarius, I certainly can, but don't you think  Template editor would be sufficient? Thanks for your help. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Detecting gender automatically

I've made a proposal that would have the effect of this template automatically detecting gender (when supplied by the user, of course) unless told otherwise. Please offer your input at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Deceased Wikipedian. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Bold change

Just made a bold change on the template. Specifically, the image at the top had a white border, however, to it's left was a black border that appeared to be part of the image that had a lit candle on it, so the effect was small black border | white border with text | image with black background | white border. It looked somewhat off, so I changed the padding on the left so that the entire border is black, the entire background is white (except for the candle image). I really think it looks better this way. KoshVorlon} 18:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobots

With this edit of 3 April 2018‎, JJMC89 removed the 'nobots' inclusion of Template:Bots that was intended to prevent bots posting to the talk pages. The edit summary says: 'transclusion doesn't work'. However, the documentation at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines states that using this template ('Deceased Wikipedian') includes 'nobots', but I think this statement is now wrong. Should some way of including it be found, or does 'nobots' have to be added manually (as was done recently here? I have no idea who could answer this question, so with apologies I am going to ping Pine and The Blade of the Northern Lights who most recently updated the guideline page. (PS. While on the topic, what was the reason for this edit)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I can answer the parenthetical; if a user doesn't have a gender selected in preferences the template reads "Their userpage" and "their memory" unless you put either "Example male" or "Example female". Especially in this case, it looked odd to refer to someone using his real name as "they". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had opened both versions in the page history, but failed completely to spot that difference. Proof-reading fail! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Carcharoth: while I don't have time this week to look into the situation with nobots, I have a suggestion. You can probably place the template in a sandbox talk page, and then subscribe a frequent newsletter such as Tech News to post to that page, and see what happens when the next issue of the newsletter gets published. I think that the results of this test may answer the question about whether nobots needs to be added manually. ↠Pine (✉) 19:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Template:Bots#Important notes: Most bots will NOT understand these templates when they are indirectly transcluded. Prior to my removal {{nobots}} would have been translcuded into pages that have {{Deceased Wikipedian}}, but it would not have the intended effect of preventing all bots from editing the pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

Please change [[WP:Deceased Wikipedians|This Wikipedian is deceased]]. to [[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians|{{#ifexpr:floor({{NAMESPACENUMBER}}/2)=1|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|This Wikipedian}} has passed away.]]. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:883D:A785:7DD9:415 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Bestagon ⬡ 18:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion from someone who's not a newbie, plus you failed to explain why I would even need consensus in the first place. This isn't a controversial change. Thank you. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:29EA:D31F:C849:434E (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please be nice. I don't think invoking their username is appropriate or necessary, especially when in most cases it's not their real name anyways. I don't see a problem with the template's current state at all. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just calling a spade a spade, it's clear they don't know what they're doing and neither do you. So there needs to be a problem with the template for an edit request to be successful? Have you ever read WP:EDITXY? Is this how you editors treat IP addresses, being dismissive and refuse to answer concerns? Until that is addressed, please do not say you "answered" my request when in reality you and the other editor have done nothing and most likely know nothing about what I'm trying to request here. I'd very much appreciate that. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:8C26:41A9:43ED:5BD3 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This template was created in 2008 with the simple message, "This wikipedia user has passed away." It was changed about a year later to, "This Wikipedia user has died." In the summer of 2010 the name was changed from "Template:Dead wikipedian" to "Template:Deceased wikipedian". For years editors went back and forth, to and fro among "has died", "has passed away" and "is deceased". In April 2014, the wording was changed for the last time to "is deceased", and there it has stayed until now. So the long-term, seven-year consensus is to use "deceased" over any other wording. Consensus can change, and anybody, registered users or IPs, can try to garner consensus for change. Such a consensus is needed before using edit-protected templates. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with previous responses, consensus is necessary. Per WP:EDITXY, edit requests can be completed without consensus for "uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos, grammar, or reference formatting; improving the reliability or efficiency of template code)". Given the prior discussions on this page and the sensitive nature of this template, I'm inclined to lean more on the strict side of what constitutes an uncontroversial improvement and decline this request for now. If you'd like to see this change implemented, please explain clearly why you think the change is a good idea and continue the discussion here (or elsewhere, maybe WT:RIP - that page appears to be monitored by a lot more users than this talk page). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you for the clarity. If you want to keep the "is deceased", that is perfectly fine by me. However, I think it would be respectful to the deceased to say the name they contributed this project with besides "This Wikipedian". Back then, the edit I'm requesting now was most likely not possible, now it can happen, and I don't find this controversial as it somewhat does provide reliability, by actually saying the users name. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:8C26:41A9:43ED:5BD3 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If you mean what I've just placed in the sandbox, then yes, I'm all for it. Compare it on the test cases page. I also think that WT:RIP might be a better, more visited talk page, so any attempt here to garner consensus for this or any change should be advertised there in a neutral way. Again, thanks for all this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad to improve something whenever I see fit. A few minutes ago, I made a post where you told me to go, so we'll see how this goes. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:8C26:41A9:43ED:5BD3 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per previous; you should raise this point at another more widely watched place and gain approval for it before re-instating this request (or ideally, gain approval and let one of the editors there do the edit themselves). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Last edit

I'm nowhere near competent enough to mess with this, or I'd fix it myself. Something about the last edit to this by Tamzin seems to have accidentally broken the |example male and |example female parameters. Anyone know what happened? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be fixed now: Special:Diff/1097124374. First positional parameter to override the username had been brought back. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Setting aside individual userpages, it looked strange to see parameter usage examples all showing the same thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Sorry about that! Thanks for fixing, Andrybak. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Manually specify pronouns

Is there a way to manually specify the pronouns to be used in the message, for cases where the user's preferred pronouns are known, but they didn't set it in their profile (so {{their}} doesn't work)? – Joe (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

{{deceased Wikipedian|Example male}}/{{deceased Wikipedian|Example female}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Add death-year

User:64.229.90.172 has made an interesting proposal "Perhaps the user page deceased box, and the one on this talk page should include the year of death (and for all user/usertalk pages of deceased users). Users may figure out why a ping did not happen". I agree this idea has merit, perhaps as an optional |year= that adds "as of year" to the displayed message? DMacks (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Support adding the parameter - saying "This Wikipedian is deceased back in (year)", or similar, would tell us how long ago that happened, if the year was known. We know, at the talk page of the user talk page linked, that Ronhjones stopped editing in 2019 and the RIP announcement was a year later. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. I've just seen the suggestion on Ronhjones' user page and think it would be useful information where known. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Support per DMacks and Iggy.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  17:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

Please implement my change in the sandbox.

Rationale: This adds a parameter to allow the image to be changed. Because what may be considered secular for one might not be considered appropriate for another. In those cases, changing the image to something more culturally appropriate just for that user will be needed. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 02:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Changing appearance of template for consistency with RETIRED and other "gone from Wikipedia" templates

I am working in the sandbox on a potential rewrite that might be more neutral and secular than the current appearance. It removes the flame and the mbox and uses a red border and a black background, similar to {{retired}}. Do you have any thoughts for further changes to make this more secular? Awesome Aasim 00:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the picture of the candle, the current template is a default-formatted grey {{mbox}} with default-formatted text. I don't think it gets more neutral than that? The {{retired}} style is comparatively quite garish and strikes me as inappropriate for a death.

Also, what's non-secular about a candle? – Joe (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The original message btw about several years ago had no candle or anything. A candle is very secular, yes, but it is not entirely secular. We can have a gravestone but that can turn out to be very cartoony and inappropriate. I think having the customizability of the image parameter as well as having prefilled options might be more appropriate as well. Awesome Aasim 19:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The {{retired}} style is comparatively quite garish and strikes me as inappropriate for a death. – yeah, I'd rather {{retired}} was turned into a regular {{mbox}}:

than the other way around. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

How about this for retired? [1] Awesome Aasim 20:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's much better, yes. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Object to all changes here. Both of these are fine as is and this is a solution in search of a problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the most Wikipedian message I've ever read. – Joe (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)