Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 1

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)

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)
 * That does seem logical! Just seemed earlier than I remembered seeing it up before... perhaps I'm visiting this page more! EJBH (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012
David Kelly, the Irish actor who died in February, has been added both on the 12th and 13th. One of the entries needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.190.152.160 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add actor Steve Adams who passed away January 23, 2012. 

90.230.160.42 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll leave Adams to someone more familiar with this page's conventions as his notability is perhaps not so obviously established. Imdb says he was nominated for an AFI award -- but this source makes it pretty clear it's a different Steve Adams. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. It's no doubt it's the right actor, the one born in Canada, who has passed. And, according to the IMDB and the number of roles he has played, he's hardly an unknown actor with no notability even by USA standards. How I wish the protection of this page was gone, so that I wouldn't have to beg someone totally unknown for assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.160.42 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Or open a user account so you can make your own changes. It's fast, free and simple. WWGB (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Title of page
Why is this page named "Deaths in 2012" if it's actually only about noticeable people? I actually thought I was gonna see a bar graph or something about how many people died in each country... Shouldn't we have a discussion about the title of this article? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What, after 15 years? (It's been that way since Deaths in 1997). WWGB (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The 15-year time-span does not necessarily render the title accurate. Nor does it preclude change via a new consensus.  The original poster does, indeed, make a good point.  And a revised title such as "Notable deaths in 2012" would indeed be more accurate than the current title.  What is the harm in changing the title to "Notable deaths" ... since the deaths on this page are, in fact, limited to exactly that (i.e., notable people's deaths only)?  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

Nationality separation of British people
Firstly, I must declare an interest: I am an English person, born and living in England, which is part of Britain.

Can somebody please tell me why it is that all English people in the "Recent Deaths" page are listed as being "British" whilst Irish, Scots and Welsh are listed as their own individual nationalities? England is a separate country within Britain and we are correctly referred to as "English". If you were to suggest to a Scots, Irish or Welsh person that they are "British" then they would immediately and forcefully correct you.

Please, either call us all British or preferrably ensure that our PROPER Nationality is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.218.236 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue has been raised, debated and disputed on many articles. On this article, some are listed as British, some as English and some as Scottish. Jim Michael (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the issue still remains. Not good enough. Then again, I blame my fellow countrymen, English and Welsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.237.118 (talk • contribs)


 * It's worthwhile reading Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Past consensus here was to use the term British unless the deceased identified specifically with one group, for example, a member of the Scottish National Party. There seems to have been some slippage lately, and I agree that it seems left to the whim of the contributing editor. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Death by "natural causes"
Are we allowing them again? I thought we only listed circumstances other than NC? Unless people don't/won't/can't read the "Please Read" section at the top of every Edit. — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a position one way or another. The page prompt states "Causes of death such as "old age" and "natural causes" should not be cited unless stated in the reference", and the relevant references do give natural causes as the cause of death. WWGB (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Actually, it doesn't bother me that much. I suppose it's best to list them, rather than check someone "younger" who has died and no COD is listed. And some COD's don't even get cited by the articles. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding referencing style for older "Deaths in XXXX" articles

 * Do you really think that people are going to link back to a discussion page from five years ago? Would it not make more sense to simply have the discussion here, on this page?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As immediately above - I am going frigging dizzy. Surely a discussion surrounding the referencing style of the current 'Deaths in 2012' (and then, granted, previous versions thereof) must logically be on the article's present talk page.  I do realise the implications may be far wider, but ....


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To Derek R Bullamore — yes, I agree 100%. It just makes sense ... common sense.  I actually went ahead and "copied and pasted" the discussion from the 2007 page onto this 2012 page.  Then, the editor  Good raise  reverted my addition, with an edit summary of "let's keep this discussion in one place, shall we?".  So, he apparently thinks that it is better to have a 2012 discussion on the 2007 page.  Which, from the looks of it, has produced no discussion as of yet.  I simply don't know what to say.  Really.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Following links is an ability all Wikipedia editors posses, so I don't think that's an obstacle. Frankly, I'm astonished that an issue is made out of it. That said, I don't care where we are having the discussion, as long as we are having it in one place. The point you're both missing is that the discussion is not about the 2012 list. It's about lists of 2007 and older.  Good raise  00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whichever site this discussion finally lands upon, can I suggest this approach. That the current long standing, broadly consensus approach, to referencing is maintained for the month in question.  I believe it has been fully proven over a lengthy period to be easier, more user friendly, and accessible in the very short term, for editors to create and copy edit in that manner.  For historical purposes, it should then be converted via Reflinks to a Wikipedia long term sustainable styling, at the end of the current month (accepting the usual six days beyond the end of that month etc).


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The page Deaths in 2003 commences with January. From Deaths in 2004 onwards, January is at the bottom. If any change comes about from this discussion, I strongly urge that changes start with 2004, rather than some arbitrary year like 2007. WWGB (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SAL actually has something to say about that. Anyway, we can start wherever you'd like. Makes no difference to me.  Good raise  00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)}}

Citation style for older "Deaths in XXXX" articles
I'm suggesting that we allow references in older "Deaths in XXXX" articles to be converted from [url] format to format and subsequently to full citations as they are given just about everywhere else on Wikipedia. In previous discussions the prime objection to a format change was the increased workload on the recent lists. Although this is the talk page of "Deaths in 2012", no change to that particular list is being proposed here. Two questions need to be answered. A) Should the style of any of these lists be changed, and if so B) how long should new "Deaths in ..." lists be exempt?  Good raise  02:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand
Isn't New Zealander the correct demonym for the country of New Zealand? When the deceased is from New Zealand, shouldn't the listing include the demonym (New Zealander) and not the country (New Zealand), as it does with the listings from all other countries? Any thoughts or insight on this matter? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Compare: He is a New Zealand chicken sexer with He is a New Zealander.
 * We'd never say He is a New Zealander chicken sexer, and we'd never say He is a New Zealand. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's no different from the distinction between "French" and "Frenchman", or "British" and "Briton". --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think nationality is reported here as an adjective rather than a demonym (name). Hence, John Key is a New Zealand politician, whereas John Key is a New Zealander. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Old Zealand? Dont we need to list its death? User:Arkitan (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Deaths of animals
Are we now listing deaths of animals in reference to that racing horse that died? Who cares of a horse dies, even a notable one? (Any horse that makes alot of money at the track would be a notable horse) It just becomes food or glue in the end! This is a list of notable humans that died, not animals! Any thoughts? Arkitan (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I second that. Animals should be on a separate list. The fact that we always had some animals doesn't mean this is the right place for them. Status quo is not good enough reason for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.89.236 (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We've always listed notable animals who have died. Examples include Travis the Chimpanzee in Deaths in February 2009Crboyer (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is about notable deaths, not notable people. There is no consensus to change what we have done for years. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The list has also included notable plants in the past, although The Senator (tree), originally listed under 16 January 2012, seems to have disappeared from the list - any particular reason? - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed here. Dru of Id (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've notified the editor, and note an earlier discussion Talk:Deaths in January 2012. Dru of Id (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, has The Senator (tree) death entry been added back into the article? Or not yet?  If not, for any reason?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Table format
I am curious what others think about reformatting this page as a (sortable) table, rather than as a list. I assume that there are both advantages and disadvantages to each format. I have provided an example (below) of how the March 1, 2012, death entries would appear, if formatted as a (sortable) table. Please leave any comments, input, ideas, thoughts, suggestions, and feedback below the table. Thanks.
 * Deaths for March 1, 2012:

One advantage is that this new format would (at least, somewhat) address the issue of "reverse chronological order" that has arisen in the past (and was discussed above). See Talk:Deaths in 2012 (above). That is, when the page is created (and subsequently archived), the deaths will appear in chronological order from March 1 through March 31 (as opposed to reverse chronology). However, during the current month, readers are likely more concerned with the most recent deaths (i.e., a reverse chronology of the month). This can easily be achieved by the reader simply sorting on the "Date" column in descending order. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple of initial observations:
 * 1. The table is very wide, I wonder how it will look on narrow screens, especially handheld devices?
 * 2. The table uses the sortname template to achieve alpha order, I think this will be beyond many of the contributors to this page.
 * 3. The full repetition of the date on every line is annoying.
 * 4. Overall, I think this format will require a lot more work from the wikignomes to maintain the consistent quality of this page. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Just from an aesthetic point, I think its a little bit busy with the repetition of the date (and yes I understand why its there, I just dont care for seeing it over and over.) I also dont care for all of the lines but again that is an aesthetic point. One positive is that it highlights the areas for people to add into as we seem to have been slipping on CoDs of late as people enter them in. Sunnydoo (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Deaths for March 1, 2012:

Just a thought. (Try sorting.)  Good raise  05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To Goodraise: Thanks.  I have never seen that feature before.  I want to make sure that I am understanding it correctly.  When the table is unsorted, there is a single listing of the date in the first column.  However, when any of the columns become sorted (say, age, for example), then the first column (date) receives a separate line (row) entry of "March 1, 2012".  So, in this specific case, that first column of one row entry (the date of March 1, 2012) somehow transforms into a column with 14 separate row entries (whereby the same date is repeated 14 times, once per row).  Is that how all of this works?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much.  Good raise  14:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * List form. I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's much easier, the way it is (list form), for those who don't know how to add to tables, inserting all the markups and such, to just simply type a name in the respective date, age, COD if listed, and a bracketed source. But that's just my opinion. I actually LIKE tables on some pages, but not here. Nice table work though! As for Sunnydoo's comment about the "slipping on CoDs", I myself haven't seem them listed in most sourced obits either, or the sources don't follow up on them. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Visually, it is an improvement and, in an ideal world, would present a more professional appearance. (Granted it might look better in some arenas than others). However, I do somewhat agree with other comments here.  We seem to have enough difficulty getting some editors to follow a simplistic  alphabetical format as it stands, without introducing sortname templates and the like in to the equation.  For me, it tallies with the ever ongoing argument regarding the formatting style of references, in that it introduces further complication for users.  Ultimately, if gnomes spend more time trying to retain the format, than the perceived benefit, it does not appear to be a step forward.  Good effort from Messrs Spadaro and Goodraise  though.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input. It seems like consensus is against any change, in this regard. So, I am glad that I asked first. Thanks again. Thanks, also, for the above compliments on my "good table work" and efforts. I appreciate the feedback. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How about introducing something like this to older lists only?  Good raise  21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be great to see the previous months formatted with this new table format, while the current month (only) retains the current list format. But, that seems like an awful lot of work for someone to undertake ... no?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Using suitable software (e.g. Vim), most of the work would be quick and painless.  Good raise  21:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! I never heard of that software, and I certainly don't know how to use it.  But I, for one, would not object to prior months being re-formatted.  And, it appears that consensus dictates that we keep the current month as is in terms of list format.  Thanks.  Are you planning to reformat the older months?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We're talking major changes to a large number of pages here. First, I think, we should further refine the format. This might be a step in the right direction:


 * Once we've agreed on a format and reached consensus to implement it, we should do so on one list only and try to bring it through WP:FLC. At the very least, we should wait for the outcome of the RfC below. Being allowed to use footnotes would be great for a format like this. Anyway, I'm not planning to do anything at this time. I'd rather not put the (still considerable) effort into this, only to get reverted. If it finds consensus though, I'd gladly help out.  Good raise  01:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Great job! Three immediate thoughts of mine: (A) – I don't like how you list the date as an abbreviated "1st" or "2nd" ... personally, I would prefer "March 1" or "March 1, 2012".  And (B) – you will still need a "Notes" column for things like "death reported on this date" or "foreign language source", etc., which are relatively common on this page.  (In the current month, there are already some 50-odd parenthetical notations, and the month is not even half over.)  And (C) – I think if the first column (Name) were left-aligned (as opposed to centered), it would give the table a neater presentation.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Replying in order: (A) With that table, I was just throwing out ideas. Nothing set in stone. Unfortunately, the feature I mentioned earlier seems to conflict with using row scopes, which are called for by MOS:DTT. So apparently, we can't have both. (B) "Death reported on this date" could be denoted through a marker, like † (dagger), and noting what language a source is in should be done inside the footnotes. (C) Would be fine with me.  Good raise  01:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Next attempt:

An asterisk (*) denotes dates on which a death was reported.


 * How's this? By the way, if something like this should find consensus, I'd also create a template to go along. In the article source, the last line of this example would then look something like this:   Good raise  05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it looks great. But, I am a little confused.  Is all of this predicated on the premise that we will start using footnotes (i.e., via the RfC below)?  Or not?  If not, then isn't your Table exactly like the very first one that I proposed up top (except for, maybe, the column widths)?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * All of what? I'm just trying to fine tune the design before converting dozens of articles. As far as I'm concerned, these tables don't look all that different from one another. I'm just working on the assumption that footnotes will become allowed here, because without them, featured status will be out of reach.  Good raise  17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks. By "all of this" ... what I meant was: "all of these changes to the Table are predicated on the article using footnotes". I wanted to clarify if that was your assumption, and you indicated that it was. Your Table looks good (and, I agree, all of the Tables are, more or less, the same basic idea). However, I still think that there is a problem with the parenthetical notations. I honestly don't believe that they can be "swept" under the inclusion of an asterisk or dagger notation. My only idea is to use a separate column (as my very first chart above exemplified) ... other than an extra column, I am not sure how to incorporate the parenthetical notations. The problem with the asterisk or dagger is that there are several (valid) side-notes that may be added to an entry (not just the one note of "death reported on this date"). Just off the top of my head, I can recollect four such parenthetical side-notes to entries: (1) death reported on this date, which is quite common; (2) body found on this date, also quite common (and distinct from #1); the foreign language notations (which need to be addressed in some way, whether we have footnotes or no footnotes); and (4) I remember in the Natalie Holloway case some notation such as "legally declared dead on this date" (to distinguish that she actually died seven years prior). These are merely four that I personally remember; I assume that there have been – and will continue to be – others, as well. Anyway ... my point is that there are several valid side-notes (with four examples listed above). And all of these are probably not able to be contained in a single asterisk/dagger notation. Any and all valid side-notes would need to be accommodated (when we create a generic chart template). And there are many valid parenthetical side-notes and variations, other than the single asterisk note of "death reported on this date". So, we need to address that point. I don't know of any other way to accommodate them all, other than by adding that "extra" final column at the right-end of the table. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly how common are these anyway? There's lots of ways to deal with such issues apart from devoting an entire column to them. One way would be using a second group of footnotes .  Good raise  16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, they are relatively common (several dozen per month, I'd estimate).  So much so, that they need to be addressed and accommodated in some way.  I am not married to the idea of having an extra column in the table.  I am just saying that they need to be anticipated and incorporated into the generic template in some way.  Whether it is via an extra column or via the extra footnotes that you propose, either way, we'd need to figure out what to with the (very commonplace) side-notes.  I think both methods have advantages and disadvantages.  The main advantage of an extra column is that the information is readily apparent to the reader, without having to scroll way down to the bottom of the page to check the footnote.  And, if we are already adding some 300+ footnotes to the bottom of the page (one reference per death entry, if the RfC below dictates) ... then, I am not so crazy about adding even more footnotes, on top of that, to accommodate the dozens of side-notes!  These are my thoughts at the moment.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the past 3 month, I see about 3 per month. If it's this few on most pages, I'd say a second group of footnotes is the way to go. If several dozen per month is typical, I'd go with markers (* and such). A whole column would only be justified if at least a third of the entries is in need of some sort of note. I'd rather not have to count them on every list; are you sure you're not overestimating their commonness? Either way, making the template accommodate these notes should not prove difficult.  Good raise  19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that, whatever route we decide, making the template accommodate these notes should not prove difficult. However, I am not sure that you and I are talking about the same thing.  I am "counting" the foreign language notations; perhaps you are not?  And, in the current month, there are already some 70-odd parenthetical notations ... and the month is only half over.  (A very quick count of the present month yielded 67 foreign language notes, so far, as of April 16.)  I think you mentioned that the foreign language note would be "absorbed" into the footnote (if the RfC ends up that we use footnotes).  If the RfC ends up that we do not use footnotes, we still need to accommodate the foreign language notation.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed I'm not counting them. I don't think notes on the content should be mixed with notes on the sources.  Good raise  23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. But, a note is still a note ... whether it's a content note or a source note.  And, either way, the note would still need to be "noted" somewhere ... no?  So, I am not sure why you are not counting them (i.e., the foreign language notations)?  Where are you proposing that they be listed, under the new Tables format?  Let me know.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we're just talking past each other here. I'm not counting them, not because I think they don't count, but because I can see (without counting) that there's a lot of them. Of course we need to put them somewhere. And if the RfC should indeed turn out against footnotes, we can just as well cram all notes into a dedicated column. Just featured status will then be impossible no matter how pretty and accessible we make the table look otherwise.  Good raise  23:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. So, I guess we will just wait and see what that RfC brings.  Thanks!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012
Peter Martyn-Hemphill, 5th Baron Hemphill http://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths/147770/hemphill-5th-baron-peter-patrick-fitzroy-martyn

Alexander Leslie-Melville, 14th Earl of Leven http://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths/147831/leven-melville

46.246.221.39 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Alexander appears to already be listed, and Peter Martyn-Hemphill doesn't appear to meet WP:N given that he doesn't have his own wikipedia article, which I believe is a requirement for inclusion in this list. If you need any further help, please feel free to re-enable the requested edit template. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, maaaaany people are listed without having an article. Also, every member of the peerage is automatically notable, whether they have an article or not and that's a policy.--46.246.221.39 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Common practice is to add anyone with presumed notability whose death has been reported; any who remain redlinked after 30 days are subsequently removed. Dru of Id (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I know that! Can't you just put him until the end of the month?--188.4.225.249 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We're currently discussing whether non-notable entries should be included to the end of the month. I don't believe this practice complies with policy. The best thing to do right now is to find reliable sources which indicate that he's notable. That would allow us to include him either way. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since others have addressed this, I'm going to change the answered parameter on the template to "yes" to help clear a backlog. 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable entries
I removed entries without wikipedia pages on the basis that they are non-notable, but I was reverted. The explanation I was given is that consensus has been to leave the entries for a month, and only prune them then. Such a policy doesn't make sense to me, and is opposed to our general guidelines for including notable content. If an entry is very definitely non-notable, then leaving it in for a month won't help anything; the individual has died without attracting enough attention to warrant a wikipedia article thus far, so he's almost certainly not going to end up becoming more notable after his death. There will undoubtedly be exceptions to this, but we can easily insert those exceptions after they are shown to be notable by documented reliable sources. This opposite approach leaves us in a guaranteed perpetual state of having non-notable entries which don't meet our inclusion criteria. For instance, take Wataru Mori: we don't have so much as a claim of notability, and no working reference to establish that he even existed. Leaving him in for a full month in the hopes that he'll suddenly become notable isn't doing us any favors. I'm happy to discuss further, but it seems likely that we should standardize our inclusion criteria on this article with our criteria elsewhere on-site. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are several editors who have regarded redlinks here as a 'to do' list of sorts, and many initially redlinked articles are created fairly quickly, more before they would be removed. Most redlinked entries do meet the inclusion criteria, but creation of articles has not reached the maintenance stage yet. There are still sports figures who do not have articles, general officers who have led national military branches, as well as state Speakers of the House, let alone representatives. Dru of Id (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that. But those entries can be added after notability has been established. Across the rest of the site, notability must be established before content is included. I don't see any reason this article should be different. If editors are looking to make a to do list, there are other places to do that outside of mainspace. This talk page, AfC submissions, sandboxes, userspace, etc.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying what was said above (whats with all the redlinks) and our historical precedent for the Deaths in XXXX pages. I think where you are getting caught up is that if these were actual articles there would need more evidence of notability.  As they are merely redlinks on the Deaths in XXXX table, the fact that they have a cited obituary are often an indication that they are (1) claiming notability and (2) providing a citation in support of that.  We also want to be as considerate as possible when dealing with recent deaths.  A general rule of thumb of a month grace for redlinks (honestly, here I'd never prune them as long as the obits are linked) seems a decent interval. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, yea... I understand that editors are saying there's precedent to do it this way, but I'm asking whether that should be the way things are done. After all, WP:CCC. An obituary doesn't indicate notability - most deceased members of my family have a published obituary, as that's just a standard practice in my area. My hangup is that 1) this method is contrary to the rest of the site, and 2) it guarantees non-notable entries in the list, which is a violation of the inclusion criteria. If specifics are easier, then put another way, why should we include Wataru Mori?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed Wataru Mori, as his/her link was dead, with no prejudice to his reinstatement. I assume my failure to find a link is due to Japanese only sources and my American English search engine.  Claims for people on this page need to be considered at face value - politician, probably notable... race car driver, possibly notable... your uncle Billy who was a great man and loving father and is survived by his 25 grandkids but who otherwise just wrote insurance policies for his career probably not notable.  I don't agree that the way it has been done guarantees non notable entries in the list.  I'm also not inclined to debate it further.  If you wish to delete all the redlinks, feel free to start a RFC or delete them all or whatever.  Just don't edit war if someone other than me reverts you. Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the current policy is "any editor can add an entry, and that entry can't be removed for 30 days", then how wouldn't that guarantee non-notable entries? I see that you've moved on, Syrthiss, but I'll leave discussion open for a bit longer before reinstating the edit. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been 4 days, so I just pruned the list again. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus to remove the redlinks. I suggest restoring them per previous consensus to keep them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's no consensus to remove, the only reason is because of lack of discussion, which I'm trying to spur. This issue has been brought up again and again. No strong consensus exists, AFAICT, to include non-notable entries against the stated inclusion criteria of this article. I'm happy to discuss this further, but I'd appreciate it if others could actually participate in the discussion rather than just voting that they agree or oppose. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I made the change to spur discussion, but was reverted by someone who only said "red links stay for 30 days", with no follow-up here or further reasoning provided in edit summary. I re-reverted and asked the editor to discuss the matter further here. If you'd like to revert again, I have no problem with that, just please discuss the matter here and not simply refer me to previous consensus. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I quote - "Guys, I'm not trying to be hostile here". Nevertheless he thought he would "prune the list again". I can not help but feel said editor is playing agent provocateur, and then innocently wondering why, when he throws a grenade into the trench, everyone therein cries, 'there might be casualties'. I would suggest plenty are participating - it is just that you do not like what you hear. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't helpful, Derek. This isn't a battleground. I opened this section to discuss the matter, and have been doing my best to spur discussion since then. I don't see how anything above is me "getting answers and just not liking what I hear". I got input from two editors, one of whom didn't follow up, and another told me to reinstate the edit. WP:BRD specifically mentions making a bold edit to reopen discussion, and that's what I've done. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, I'd very much welcome it. The big question I have (which is outlined above) is why we should create an inclusion criteria for this list, and then insist that it be violated with non-notable entries. Why are entries like Wataru Mori acceptable here? What useful content are they adding?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please allow redlinks to remain for 30 days, as previous consensus agreed. This gives project editors at least some time to create the article after the person has died. the red link serves to encourage creation of articles of truly notable people if someone sees it and has time to create the article before the person adding it. I try to add then create basketball notables as they occur and sometimes others are able to get to it before me. Red link states that "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Not sure what drives deleting them immediately instead of helping the project grow - especially since there is a working process to prune them and an established consensus to keep them unil then. Rikster2 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to propose a change to the existing process, have the discussion then enact the change after the new consensus is reached. I would also say what's the big deal deleting redlinked articles that either don't have a reference or that you can ascertain truly aren't notable?  I don't get it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Someone deleted all red links. One cannot add an article. Why? Then make a list with all red -to be written- articles. I personally added two and now they are gone. This is rude! And they were of today and yesterday. 30 days should be the time to react. NEVER less. Please!

Will somebody re-instate the entries? Who decides here? Some "God" from above? Please advice, otherwise I will refrain from contributing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrec (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Rikster. Thanks for the comment. As I mentioned above, I reinstated the edit for the purpose of spurring discussion, as WP:BRD suggests. Syrthiss suggested I reintroduce the change, but I left it for 4 days hoping others would contribute to no avail. Remaking the edit seems to have done the trick. AFAICT, you're saying essentially the same thing as Dru above, which is that this article should serve as a to-do list for editors rather than as information for readers. There are lots of places on-site to-do lists are more appropriate, however. These areas reside outside of mainspace, so as not to interfere with the content we're delivering to our readers. If those areas aren't sufficient, I'd be more than happy to help organize an effort to create a project or resource for that purpose. Mainspace, on the other hand, is intended for content which already meets our inclusion criteria, which for this article is stated as a person who is notable, and already has an article. If a subject is notable but doesn't yet have an article, then we can create one and then add him to all the lists and categories to which he would apply. How about we discuss what kind of resource would be most appropriate for editors to skim through and create articles. Would something in WikiProject Death do the trick, or a separate list in the WP namespace? Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is information for readers. It tells them when a (presumably) notable person died.  Which might spur you to create the article (deaths and obits are often triggers for article creation).  The 30 days also serves as a clock to motivate whoever added the article to actually do it as opposed to procrastinating, so it serves a purpose to keep the encyclopedia growing.  Have you done an analysis of how many redlinks were notable vs. not?  Because you're making an assumption that they aren't notable - seems like if you suspect a specific redlink isn't notable you could just scan the obit and figure it out pretty quickly.  Delete any you run across that don't either have a reference or don't meet that initial scan.  I know I only add people who are notable - whether they have an article or not.  And 90% of the time I create the article within a week.  I have redlinks to create sitting on my user page that have been sitting there a year.  And in those 10% of articles I don't get to - well somebody just goes through and deletes them in 30 days which clears out any not created.  The process works.  Why create some new holding area when you can do it here and at least give readers an idea of who has died on a given day?  If we change the process due to consensus (though I don't see a consensus forming around your proposal so far), I'll probably just stop contributing to this page in general.  I can always add the relevant basketball figures to the deaths section of articles such as 2012 in basketball and work from there.  Though I'd probably figure I add about half the basketball figures who die in a given year to this page, it won't bother me to skip that step and let some other editor keep track of it.  Wiki politics like this pretty much kill my enthusiasm for this site, truth be told. Rikster2 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How about WP:REDDEAL, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article". Clearly a bunch of editors have reached consensus to keep such links, with the full knowledge that many articles evolve as a result of the deceased appearing on this list. You really are testing the patience of many responsible editors with your "bold" editing against consensus. Oh, and the redlinks have started to appear again. You had better get back to them soon. The price of boldness is eternal vigilance! WWGB (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfectly crappy thing to do. A lot of us spend time digging through articles from around the world looking at notable people in various aspects of society. Some people may just not have links yet but still are important. How about a scientist who changed the world in the 1970s or 1980s in a fundamental way that was overlooked by the recent internet people. And you want to do this because it wont load on your blackberry or is slow to load? Unbelievably insensitive that the work goes on can be affected by the problems of 1 person. Sorry if I am being snarky, but I dont think you get it. There are a whole host of people who bring info to this page to have others work on it. This type of thing and the individuality behind it instead of for the collective is the thing that makes me want to quit. And not trying to attack you, but how many articles have you contributed to the Deaths for in 2012? Are you even in the Top 20?(Sunnydoo (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * @WWGB Ah, thanks for reminding me of that. I meant to respond to it earlier. WP:REDLINK is speaking of wikilinking text in the page already. It is not saying we should add new content which doesn't meet our inclusion criteria in the hopes that it will meet our inclusion criteria down the road. For that, WP:CRYSTAL applies. I'm not against keeping redlinks in the article; I'm against including content which doesn't meet our criteria for an extended period of time, even when it can be shown to be non-notable. I'm not trying to test anyone's patience, WWGB, but this persistent hostility isn't helping. I left discussion open for an extended period hoping for input, but didn't get any. I'm following policy and WP:DR to the letter here, and I'm going well out of my way to civilly engage everyone collaboratively. I'd really appreciate the favor returned.
 * Again, you make the assumption that every redlink is a non-notable person. That is not a valid assumption and redlinks for notable folks would be entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy.  The issue isn't just about adding people who don't meet notability standards.  I think very few if any would argue with deoeting links of truly non-notable individuals. Rikster2 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Rikster, I created WP:Requested articles/Deaths with the list of each entry pruned from here. If you're not familiar with it, WP:Requested articles is set up specifically for the purpose you've mentioned. I check it occasionally for good article candidates. Hopefully that'll be a good place to add and search for candidates. We could easily keep it updated with anything added from here that doesn't yet meet our criteria. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Screw it. I'm out.  I'm not a "death" guy I'm a basketball guy.  Somebody else can try to ensure that notable basketball figures make their way to the page.  Would just like to point out that consensus usually requires more than one person to achieve.  Have fun, kids. Rikster2 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am done too sorry. This is a horrific change and its a shame one person can ruin everything. I cant go on helping with the project. Good luck guys! (Sunnydoo (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Rikster, regarding your post above (I hit an EC posting at the same time as you), I'm happy to go through the list and prune individual entries as well. I assumed this would be done after the existing non-notable entries were pruned. An alternative approach would be to modify the existing inclusion criteria for the article. All I'm noting is that the inclusion criteria (which I had no part in crafting) says "entries must have these characteristics", yet no editor is enforcing that entries have those characteristics. If you're not invested in the article enough to continue discussing, then that's fine. It's a shame, but maybe I'll see you on another article some time. I posted to your talk with some appreciation for your contributions here. Hopefully the WP:Requested articles/Deaths list will be useful to others who are looking for a to-do list related to these articles. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to get drawn into this discussion too deeply, since I really don't have a preference on the red links, but the premise of the argument (as stated by the name of the section and the edit summary "Clean up non-notable entries" when removing) and the rationale for the removal of the red links implies that the entries are non-notable, which is in at least some cases demonstrably false. For example, the only red links that I add to the list are Olympic competitors, which are notable per WP:ATHLETE as is anyone who has "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". So well I have no opinion on including the red links, the implication that they are all non-notable is far from true. Canadian  Paul  02:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul, that's probably true. I assumed the problem was that a lot of drive-by editors were adding non-notable entries (interspersed with maybe a few good ones). Then, how about we do this... I'll create a new section with some of these entries, and we can figure out which ones are appropriate and which should be pruned. Wataru Mori, for instance, was a clear candidate for removal, and having looked through the list there are clearly others as well. After we've cleaned the list out a bit, then WP:Requested articles/Deaths can be used to encourage editors to create articles for notable entries which stick. We'll have to adjust the inclusion criteria of the article as well to allow entries without articles, since that seems to be the wishes of a lot of editors here. I have some things to take care of tonight, but I'll try to get to that list quickly. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an excerpt of the message I posted on your wall that pertains to this discussion- If you look at the notability requirements, you can understand there is some vagueness to them. If I am in Denver and the Communist Leader of India dies, but he does not have his own wiki article, what makes him less notable? It may not be notable to me, but it may be to someone else who did not realize he didnt have a page. We find a lot of these issues with foreign notability types. It is published in a credible world newspaper and by the BBC. What makes him not notable? Secondly, people do fall through the woodwork. I worked on a scientist that died this month who didnt have an article yet she developed the Whooping Cough Vaccine. You think that wasnt notable? It probably saved well into the millions of lives.

I think you are looking for an end product and that is fine to you. We are looking at it as a living resource pr a clearinghouse. There is no problem with leaving the names up for 30 days and then disposing them. That has worked well in the past and although it takes a little work on the back end, it saves a lot of conflict on the front end over who is arguing who is notable or not and who ultimately decides that they are in fact notable. If someone sees someone they think is notable they can fix it right away. We have some editors who arent that technically proficient at toggling through screens and looking at additional resource entries attached to the lists. Some people in fact dont realize they exist at all. Having this one list with all of the information there and presented for everyone to see and work on puts it all in one place. Occam's Razor states other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.

The only issue that you have presented is with lag because of an "excess" of notability. (Sunnydoo (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * The argument that the person isn't notable because they didn't have a bio before they died is a falsehood. There are tens of thousands of notable people on the planet right now who don't currently have a Wiki article. Reporting a recent death acts as a launchpad to fill in the gaps. Canadian Paul has already stated the points about missing Olympians, which I try to then add the biographies as the news reports come in. I also try to create other notable entries, esp. ones for actors and film directors. Many of these "non-notable" people are not British/American/Canadian/Australian, but already have a biography on their respective language wiki. I noticed a glut of dead Dutch politicans recently - are they all non-notable too? WP is a work in progress and by the definition of not having a biography before they died would mean anyone who died before 15 January 2001 shouldn't have an article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the things having the redlinks in this article may do is attract new editors (Wow! I can't believe they don't have an article on him! I could do that!). Looking at the Requested articles/Deaths, it highlights for me how Anglo-centric English Wikipedia still is, since the numbers of still-needed articles for English-speaking countries (regardless of the race or immigration of the subject) is disproportional to their populations, and their occupations more so; some of that is availability of sources, some is editor interest, and some is language barriers. I see few descriptions on that page, however, that I would challenge a presumption of notability; we mention candidates in election pages (and link them, presuming they may become notable later), long before they meet guidelines for separate articles. I don't know how many are in the articles of politicians who later became notable for something else but who still have no article, but they may never have met our current guidelines. Unless separately challenged, I think the redlinks here should remain, and 30 days is a reasonable time; they could then be moved to the Requested articles/Deaths page, which I think would be useful. Dru of Id (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs
I spent considerable time converting all the bare urls in the article to references using the standard template, but was reverted. The editor's edit summary didn't give a reason for the revert, or indicate why we should be using external links inline in the article. Using external links inline in this manner is contrary to the MOS; see WP:Citing sources. I'm happy to discuss this further, but in the future, if there is a problem with an edit which must be reverted, it is usually helpful to provide a reason in the edit summary for the revert, rather than simply asking for discussion. IIRC, this is covered in WP:BOLD. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

UsebareURLs
 * --Racklever (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Racklever. Thanks for the response, but that doesn't really address anything I've said. I read the two discussions you linked to, and actually read weak consensus to change to references per the MOS, not to keep bare urls inline in the article body. The primary argument against it, even in that discussion, was that "we've done it this way for a long time", which isn't an argument. I'm happy to discuss further, but as I said above, I'd appreciate it if editors who oppose following the MOS in this case actually discussed the issue, rather than repeatedly asking for discussion (which I'm trying to provide).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion could go along with the "Table" discussion above. What you need to understand is that a safe bet would be that a large percentage of editors might not know how to DO templates. I've had to fix numerous references on television articles, because editors take the easy way out/like to keep things simple. It's MUCH easier to just put brackets around a sourced obit reference than take the extra time to add all that the templates call for for someone who died that may not be all that notable. It may not be MOS, but simplicity sometimes is better. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so if a new editor comes onto the page and puts in a new entry with a bare url, we thank them for the contribution and just change the link to . That's what we do on every other article on wikipedia. I'm sure it was a consideration posed before the MOS guideline was created, so I'm not sure it's a reason to break convention for the whole rest of WP just for this page. There are also reasons not to use bare urls - which is why the guideline was created - including that the target of the link is not obvious, the convention is non-standard for anyone who's viewed any other article, the author and access date are lacking for reference, and it's prone to link rot.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As was stated by others on topics like these, if you (or someone else) wish to go behind each and every person to add Cite Webs, have at it. Current obituary references total: 125. Have fun! — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've still had to fix some Cite Webs on other pages where someone doesn't probably do them. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well yea. I did that. Someone reverted me...  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Racklever put it in fine print, but this was discussed four years ago. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, I saw that, as I indicated above. I responded to it in my second post. The TLDR gist is 1) the prime argument, even then, was that "it's been done that way for a long time", not a reason to break the MOS, 2) consensus appeared to be for changing to, 3) even so, WP:CCC, especially after 4 years.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My vote: Don't allow. I won't add any future deaths if it becomes that involved. I've been on Wiki for the past 4 hours and have grown weary from adding/changing "cites" in other articles. Thank the gods for "copy/paste" for the same refs on different articles! But to stay on topic, it is rude to revert someone's hard work w/o stating why in the Edit Summary. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't have to use the template. You can still keep adding links inline if you really want. But, another editor will then come by and fix them to proper references. If you find the cite templates hard to use, there are a number of tools which might help. Reflinks is one. The cite templates really aren't that involved; they're used on every single other article on wikipedia, and there's a reason for that. Did you read my posts above? Among the problems with bare links, I listed "the target of the link is not obvious, the convention is non-standard for anyone who's viewed any other article, the author and access date are lacking for reference, and it's prone to link rot." That's why the MOS says we should not use them. I don't understand why this article should be different than every other article, and why we should simply ignore the manual of style.   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My last comment on the matter: MY Reflinks usually does the dates as yyyy-mm-dd so I still have to fix them. Deaths appears to be a hotly-viewed/used article so the simpler the better. I've seen other articles that simply use ref brackets from those non-compliant editors and I leave them be (unless they are on articles I care about). Like I said, the repairs from fixing proper Cite Webs may be more trouble than their worth for a simple monthly resource like this one that, once it's past and backlogged, won't matter. And I wonder who the "other editor" here will be to fix all the problems? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we're making a pretty big deal out of very little... using is as simple as surrounding the url with  . If that's too hard and you don't want to do it by hand, then there's tools (like Reflinks) to do it for you. Yes, they use standard conventions (such as dating formats). If you have a problem with how reflinks formats the date and really feel compelled to change it, then do so, or find another tool, or leave it for other editors to change. You have lots of options. None of this is the least bit comparable with the very serious problems associated with providing bare external links inline, which is why it's against our broad, site-wide, community-driven content guidelines.   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Jess, who is going to "come by and fix them"? Certainly not this wikignome. Are you here for the long haul? If so, I suggest you go back to Deaths in October 2004 where the current system more or less began. Then you can work your way forward, slowly and surely, converting every month to footnote citations. That would be a demonstration of good faith and strong intent, and show us that your way is better. Pleaae don't just make an ad hoc change at Deaths in April 2010 and expect everyone to fall into line.
 * Just to summarise some of the reasons why we use the current method:
 * 1. As stated, many editors contribute to this article and are unfamiliar with footnote referencing
 * 2. Having the citation at the end of the line allows immediate verification of the death and its circumstances
 * 3. Long pages with many footnote citations take much longer to load.
 * 4. This is one of the most visited pages in Wikipedia, over 60,000 visits per day. Clearly, we must be doing something right and providing a useful article. We really don't need clumsy inconsistent entries until someone "comes by to fix them". WWGB (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WWGB, placing the responsibility of getting every related article up to compliance with the MOS on my shoulders is both unfounded and inappropriate. For one thing, I already made the change to this article to put it in compliance, but someone reverted me. Saying that I, personally, have to stick with a whole category of articles for you to be willing to abide by our content guidelines is ridiculous.
 * 1. This is true of every article on wikipedia. WP:BOLD indicates that contributions don't have to be perfect immediately. This is the nature of wikipedia.
 * 2. So does having a reference at the end of the line. Additionally, the template allows the user to see what page they're going to before clicking the link, prevents link rot which may make the link unavailable, as well as solving other usability issues. Adding references is more usable, which is why it's a content guideline. See the relevant policy page I quoted.
 * 3. Negligibly. This is not a reason why this article should ignore the manual of style when all other articles abide by it. Many articles (e.g. Intelligent design) have many more refs than this one. ID is a featured article. It never would have been featured if it didn't conform to the MOS
 * 4. See #3. Our featured articles all, without exception, abide by the MOS. None use external links inline like this. If we're going by precedent of the best articles, then a small list-class article isn't the place to look.
 * Look, I can start on RfC on this if there's enough opposition to it, but I'm fairly certain the community will conclude that we should abide by the established community standards for content outlined in the MOS. To say otherwise, I'd have to see a compelling argument for why this article is fundamentally different than the rest of wikipedia, which as of yet I haven't seen. I'm happy to discuss this further, but if anyone thinks getting broader input from an RfC is the way to go, let me know. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The precedent here is other dynamic articles, not static articles that achieve FA status. This page changes every few minutes on average. Very few articles have such an edit history over time. Other dynamic articles also do not use web cite templates, possibly for the same reasons. See, for example, April 2011. One of Wikipedia's Five Pillars is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Seems relevant in cases like these. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Featured articles get edited a lot. Many times by new editors. Do you have any FAs watchlisted? Nothing in the MOS says that it doesn't apply to lists, but let's assume for a second that articles are different than lists. Take a look at any featured list (e.g. List of United States hurricanes, List of snow events in Florida, List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes). All follow the MOS. Some featured lists get edited heavily. IAR is applicable only insofar as there is a reason to ignore the rules; Read WP:IAR. The only objection raised so far is that making references is hard. That's a consideration that was taken into account when the MOS guideline was created, and is not unique to this article, and as such, is not compelling to me. Would you feel more comfortable getting broader input from an RfC? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, you are free to take this matter to other forums. In my humble opinion, the small group of wikignomes who maintain this list will not take kindly to having changes forced through. This ever-changing list has survived in its current form for more than seven years. There has to be a message in that. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This list about deaths in 2012 has survived for 7 years? Wikipedia has changed a lot in 7 years, and policy is pretty clear. You haven't responded to anything I just posted, so that makes discussion hard. I'm not forcing changes through, which is again trying to pin responsibility on me for sticking to our established guidelines; I opened discussion on this talk page (BTW, I'm the only one of all the editors involved to do so, about all 3 issues). I obviously didn't do that to "force" anything. I'll start an RfC to get broader input from the community.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've spent a few days mulling this over, and only object to doing so in the most recent deaths, where there would be a constant mix of bare urls with cite web; any previous months & years should be changed to cite web as comprehensively and systematically as possible, but the mix in most recent deaths would be an eyesore on a highly visible page. Dru of Id (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Linkrot
So what's the big deal about URLs and linkrot in this article? A deadlink is still rotten if it has ref and /ref tags on either side of it. Take this example from 16 January 2012: The only function of this link was to confirm that Current died. Any other information can be drawn from his article. In what way would a footnote ref be more helpful? WWGB (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike Current, 66, American football player (Denver Broncos, Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers), apparent suicide by gunshot.


 * Read through WP:LINKROT and WP:CITE, which were both cited above a few times. When author/publication/title data is provided in a cite, the cite can still support the reference even when the online copy has gone offline. Additionally, that data can be later used to find another copy. When a bare url goes offline, we have no data about it, so it doesn't adequately support the statement, and since we don't know anything about it, we can't effectively look up another copy.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with those articles. My question relates specifically to this page. How is Mike Current's death entry, for example, enhanced by having the deadlink written as a footnote? It's only purpose was to confirm that he died. The information about his age, nationality, football teams etc is readily available from his main article. If a reader wants to confirm his death, they just need to enter his name into Google and, hey presto, up comes other references like . Even if a reader does want the exact source, it is already known that it comes from the Statesman Journal on or about 16 January 2012 (the date of his death), so that would enable it to be easily found in print format or in a web archive. So, I ask again, what benefit is served in this article by having footnotes? WWGB (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The same that's served by any other, and covered in WP:LINKROT. It's good that his article is linked, and if it includes other sources, we could copy those over here. All we need is one good one to back up the entry. A dead link does nothing. Sure, readers can make assumptions about what it says and when it was published, but I'm not sure what help that is. A proper cite, however, backs up the entry in the same way that a print source does (we do use those, remember), which helps us meet WP:V. The additional info also helps correct the dead link if there's trouble finding it in archive.org or another cache (which does happen). These aren't unique problems for this article, and I'm not sure how this article would be somehow unique when it came to sourcing.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:15, 16 April 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)


 * Totally agree, most recent should be first, and the oldest further down the page. People do not want to waste time scrolling and scrolling to find the most recent day of that month. Stopde (talk) 14:38, 1 March 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))


 * ↑ This. ↑ Maybe even perhaps a handy "Chrono button" like I've seen on some tables (of some proficient movie stars) where those who don't like scrolling or notice that handy TOC can click to list the "older" dates? I, for one, like the "recent deaths" (current setup) and check it weekly, if not daily. As for fixing the previous backlogged ones, I have enough "fun" fixing everything else on here that I come across as noticeably improperly formatted, i.e. references, et al. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:09, 5 February 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)


 * I tend to agree. However, I don't think we need to ask for a volunteer to reverse all the archives.  That seems like a huge task!  Perhaps, the volunteer can start the reversal process with the 2012 months.   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC))


 * That would seem reasonable for me, I fear there may be some continuation freaks who'd dislike an incomplete policy though! Perhaps anyone who doesn't like this compromise could be asked to begin the backdata work... EJBH (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My own personal preference would be to keep this as it is, so that the top of the list gives the names of the most recent deaths. If one wants to see who has died in the past few days, as my guess is that many people who view this page do, then this would make sense. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)