Talk:Deaths in 2013/Archive 3

FAQ about moving this page
I've been reading the "Deaths in 20xx" pages for a while, and it seems that every so often someone proposes moving the page to "List of deaths in 20xx" for much the same reason. Given that, should there be an entry in the FAQ on the Talk page about "Why isn't this page titled 'List of deaths in 20xx'?" or something similar summarizing the (repeated) discussions? That way the next time this comes up, hopefully the person proposing the move will have a new reason why :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The shifting sands of Wikipedia conventions means that, at any given time, it may become unpolitic to retain the title "Deaths in 20XX", in favour of "List of deaths in 20XX", for some perfectly valid reason which evolves over time. The purpose of an FAQ is not to discourage the challenging of a convention, which is what you appear to propose, and which is what the outcome would be, I'm sure. In my opinion, that FAQ has too specific a purpose, and is also answering a question which is not being asked, nor is likely to be, without some kind of prompt. Ref (chew) (do) 23:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Observation
Before I started looking at this list regularly last night, I assumed that all of these deaths would be due to disease or self-destructive behavior like alcoholism or overdosing. It's shocking to me how many of these people are murdered and face violent deaths or commit suicides. I wonder if this is the normal % for the population or if it is higher for notable people. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From editing the annual pages for almost two years, I know death's brush has a very broad stroke. —  Wylie pedia  05:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A high proportion of notable people are entertainers. The rate of bipolar disorder among entertainers is far higher than among the general population, which partly accounts for their high suicide rate. Jim Michael (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured article?
Can someone tell me why, when patrolling recent changes for featured articles, this non-featured-article shows up? Jinkinson  talk to me  21:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm? What are you using to patrol?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Featured_articles. Jinkinson  talk to me  21:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. That's because this article is linked at the bottom of Featured articles (it's at the bottom: "Content listings" -> "deaths this year").  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability
At this edit, WWGB made the following edit (removal of the portion shown here as struck out) for the second time: The first time, WWGB's edit summary was simply (format). I responded by re-adding with the summary: Kennedy is mentioned in _the_title_ of this and many other sources, as is routinely done when any of their extended family is reported on. WWGB responded with the second edit: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person", see WP:NLIST#Family".
 * Edmund Reggie, 87, American politician and Louisiana municipal judge, Ted Kennedy's father-in-law.

This policy says that the relationship does not in itself make the person notable, not that it cannot be part of a larger weight of evidence, certainly in the case of making it clear who someone is in a short blurb like this list. Just try finding a headline or sub-title in this search that doesn't mention Kennedy. The cited source was Edmund Reggie, former Crowley judge and friend to the Kennedys, dies at age 87.

Similarly, in WWGB's second edit, they removed: The cite for this one is Diane Disney Miller, Philanthropist and Daughter of Walt Disney, Dies at 79. This search routinely mentions the Walt Disney relation, too. Almost every paragraph in the WP article is related to Walt.
 * Diane Disney Miller, 79, American philanthropist and daughter of Walt Disney, complications from a fall.

In both cases, the struck-out portions provide needed information for the average reader to know who the person is and why they are being noted. Despite the rule WWGB cited, I doubt either would be considered notable without that relation, and the relation should therefore be mentioned. What harm does it do?

Comments? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 18:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to side with WWGB, in part. Listing relations does attach recognizability to a person, but should not marry with notability. That said, if family information guidelines for the person's infobox in their article state that only immediate family members should be listed, "daughter of Walt Disney" should be allowed here, too. Obversely, fathers-in-law aren't immediate family members. —  Wylie pedia  19:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What we publish here is "reason for notability". If Disney Miller had been a suburban housewife in California would she have a Wikipedia article or be listed here? Clearly not. Hence, she is notable because of her philanthropy, and not for being a relative of another notable person. So, the standard here is met because of her philanthropy, which is what we should publish. The same situation applies to Reggie. Why is one relative more "publishable" than others? Aside from being "Ted Kennedy's father-in-law" is he not also "Victoria Reggie Kennedy's father"? Is there some kind of "notability hierarchy" that favours a male (Ted Kennedy) over a notable wife and female (Victoria Reggie Kennedy)? Listing the deceased as having a notable relative (and a chosen one at that) seems little more than celebrity fawning. WWGB (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that I don't appreciate having it to stand on, why is "family information guidelines for the person's infobox in their article state that only immediate family members should be listed" the governing criterion for this page?


 * With all due respect, I contend that, sans her connection to Walt, Disney Miller would not be notable. The article seems to agree, mentioning her family connection throughout. Plenty of people with million-dollar incomes are philanthropic in many ways during their lives without being notable or recognizable names. More importantly, it's an element of her identity that is useful to the reader. Still more importantly, the majority of sources agree – it's what they use in their headlines.
 * With Reggie, I thought about using father of Victoria but she is a less recognizable name than Ted. Like it or not, the Kennedys are the closest thing we have to royalty in this country, and it's not fawning to acknowledge it, any more than relationship to English royalty is in England.
 * When Edsel Ford II dies, I'll be making the same argument for "great-grandson of Henry Ford", which is the very first thing in the lede of our article and will no doubt be in every headline.
 * I don't understand what purpose the exclusion serves. Who/what does it help? Why is it better for the encyclopedia? You can always find some kind of policy statement that is sort-of related to a particular stance, and I could probably counter with some other almost-on-point statement, but, if you step back and ask what the reader needs to see and look at what the rest of the world does, I believe my stance is correct. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 04:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to help. I'll know better next time. After the above, I don't care if the son of Wikipedia's creator dies and the father gets mentioned or not. —  Wylie pedia  05:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Diane Marie Disney indicates that interested contributors found her to be notable for reasons other than her name. The purpose of exclusion? Because the inclusion of relationship is arbitrary ("was related to someone really, really famous"). I note that Charlotte Zolotow died on the same day as the above two. Should we also include that she was married to Maurice Zolotow? If not, why not? Not a Kennedy or a Disney? WWGB (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @CAWylie: I don't know what that's about – I posed a legitimate question, and intended nothing more.
 * 1 – No. 2 – He's not well-known.*** 3 – Right. The "well-known" line is obviously a gray area, and can't be precisely defined, but I don't think it has to be. A certain amount of editorial discretion is reasonable. In addition, we can refer to what reliable sources do, as we do routinely for so many things.
 * ***I know her son, Steve Zolotow, but I wouldn't include him in her blurb either, even though he's well-known in the poker world, since it's not likely to help most readers know who she is. I'm talking about much more well-known names.
 * —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for help at DRN. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 09:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)