Talk:Deaths in 2013

Dumb question
What is the for beside some names? How are we supposed to use it in this article? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alphabetic purposes. It's a note for contributors to see that the particular entry should be listed under the letter S. We usually use the arrows for Asian or Middle Eastern names, where the last names (surnames) are used first. Thanks for asking. —  Wylie pedia  20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that totally makes sense. I see the pattern now.  Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unknown dates section for entires lacking an accurate date of death?
As you can see on the article, I added a section titled "Unknown dates in December", with names of the deceased filed in that do not have a set date of death. I feel this is beneficial not just for accurately depicting what we know about their passing, but to weed out the entries that are lacking important content. Someone's death is important, so it's our duty to make sure we dig around for info in regards to their passing, which includes the day. I feel it's incorrect to list an entry like this:

July 12
 * Wyn Roberts, Baron Roberts of Conwy, 83, Welsh politician, MP for Conwy (1970–1997). (death announced on this date)

Now, Mr. Roberts death has only been announced this day. But he could've died the 4th of July. But until we realize this, people can make the presumption that the 12th was his death date. What are other editors thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 04:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What RAP is proposing is an umbrella section at the end of the page that reports all unknown death dates in that month, per this change . Personally, I think this looks clumsy, compared to the previous method of adding "death announced on this date" or "body discovered on this date" directly at the end of the death notice. I have reverted several months of changes until other interested editors have had a chance to consider and comment on the proposal. WWGB (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain "clumsy". It's a regular sections with names in it. It's not a malformed table that's all over the place. It's pretty much exactly like the other days that are in a month on the article. Adding a (death announced on this date) tag is beneficial, yes, but we're still adding a possibly inaccurate entry to a day he/she may not have died on. Rusted AutoParts 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive taken a screen cap of the page to show it's structure, and it matches the structuring of "Earlier months". It's in a neat, billeted order, there's nothing "clumsy" about it. Perhaps it's the title of the section. We can easily just out "Unknown dates". And as I said before, we now know two names that need content improval, so that we can add them to their right DOD upon finding the right DOD. Rusted AutoParts 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm being overly nit-picky here, but how do you in which month somebody died, if the date of death is unknown? The only thing we know for sure is when the death was announced, so list it then.  Anyway, I think the page looked better the other way.  Just my $.02. Alexbook (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alexbook - which "other way". This way with the info at the bottom or with the "announced" at the end? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have been clearer. I meant that it looked better with the "announced" notes, not with the new "Unknown" section. Alexbook (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still inaccurate to list someone whose death was announced on a certain day on that day. It makes no sense as we don't know the DOD. Simply tagging it with a footnote doesn't change that fact. There are roughly five to seven names in a list without an official DOD. And with these entries being buried within the others, it's more difficult to dig around for sufficient evidence to the correct date. With the method I propose, you can simply see all the unknowns in one area so the process to finding out their correct DOD's is much easier as the names are right there. I honestly don't know the precise reason why people are so quick to shit on this idea. It's more productive in the way of improving the article accuracy. Rusted AutoParts 05:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1

 * Heinrich Boere, 92, Dutch-German convicted war criminal and member of the Waffen-SS.
 * Maria Mambo Café, 68, Angolan politician, Minister of Social Affairs (1982–1986); Governor of Cabinda (1990).
 * Maurice Cockrill, 78, British artist.
 * Richard Coughlan, 66, English drummer (Caravan), pneumonia.
 * Stirling Colgate, 88, American physicis. (death announced on this date)
 * Walter E. Ellis, 53, American serial killer.
 * T. R. Fehrenbach, 88, American author and historian.
 * Lino Grech, 83, Maltese actor, writer and director.
 * Edward Heffron, 90, American World War II veteran, portrayed in Band of Brothers.
 * Jerzy Matałowski, 65, German-born Polish actor.
 * Fernando Sabogal Viana, 72, Colombian Roman Catholic prelate, Auxiliary Bishop of Bogotá (since 1996).
 * André Schiffrin, 78, French-born American publisher and editor.
 * Martin Sharp, 71, Australian artist, emphysema.
 * Antônio Lino da Silva Dinis, 70, Portuguese-born Brazilian Roman Catholic prelate, Bishop of Itumbiara (since 1999).
 * Dany Vandenbossche, 57, Belgian politician, member of the Federal Parliament (1995–1999) and Flemish Parliament for East Flanders (1999–2009).
 * James von der Heydt, 94, American lawyer and judge.

For me, anyway, it's quite hard to locate that footnote while its hidden amongst a lengthy list of entries who have the sources backing up the person's death as December 1. So it would be harder for someone to look into the person missing the accurate DOD as the viewer is scrolling through, that footnote text could easily be overlooked, and therefore it remains a mystery. Rusted AutoParts 05:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we just need to look more closely for an exact d.o.d.. In Colgate's case, an exact date is known . If visibility is a problem, it can always be bolded or otherwise emphasised. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Colgate was being used as an example of how easy once can not notice the footnote. But I reiterate the it's false to have some listed as dying on the 12th, when we don't know for sure aside from them being announced as dead on that day. Rusted AutoParts 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose, only from a housekeeping/maintenance viewpoint. Not all editors/visitors will see the announced listings at the bottom and will add them in the date reported. Someone will have to move them when this happens. As a frequent editor of this page, my plate is full. —  Wylie pedia  06:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind doing that. Besides, it should say the section in the sidebar at the top of the page. Rusted AutoParts 17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dumb question #2
Is it acceptable to put "natural causes" as cause of death (assuming the source states it as such)? Just curious. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Natural causes" is such a bland all-encompassing term that it really adds nothing to the entry. All it does is rule out trauma, homicide and suicide. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That was sorta my thought... but when someone dies of old age, it would be nice if we could add something to acknowledge that. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources rarely state that a notable person died of old age. They often state that the person died of natural causes, but the two are not synonymous, because some nonagenarians' deaths are not due to their age, eg. Alistair Cooke (lung cancer), Rudolf Hess (suicide by strangulation). In addition, some young people die of natural causes. Jim Michael (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Change over to Deaths in 2014
Just a heads-up to contributing editors that the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not usually apply at the end of December.

The reason is that Recent Deaths on the front page of Wikipedia is pointed to Deaths in 2014 from January 1. This means that deaths from that date need to be reported on Deaths in 2014, rather than staying on Deaths in 2013 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway). I hope all of this makes sense. I just remembered that some editors were surprised/annoyed in the past when January deaths had no overlap with December deaths. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)