Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premature obituaries/archive1

List of premature obituaries
This is a particularly interesting & unusual list, to the extent that it has already been cited by the New York Times and Daily Telegraph. It also appears to be by far the most comprehensive list of premature obituaries in existence (others being limited to a handful of entries). I am the main contributor to it.

One slight issue with the list currently is that there are about a dozen entries lacking a reference, which I've marked as citation needed. I've done a bit of a Google search for each to try and find an online reference, without success. I don't know whether it's best to leave them unreferenced or whether they should be moved to the talk page (which might be over-zealous, assuming that they are probably mostly true). Alternatively I could try contacting the people who added each of the unreferenced entries, but I don't know a convenient way to identify them short of a laborious trawl of the edit history (as the relevant entries are not recent). Ben Finn 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now contacted all editors who I could identify as having added unreferenced entries (most but not all of them). Hopefully they will be able to provide references in due course. Ben Finn 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Image:Bhope.jpg and Image:Bakert.jpg need fair use rationales. Also any other fair use images do, I only quickly scanned the page and those were the ones I noticed. VegaDark 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do this in the next day or so. (Incidentally all the images I used were ones already on Wikipedia - I didn't upload any except for the CNN incident screenshot - but I will check them all.)Ben Finn 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another user (PD_THOR) has made some image cuts & changes based on fair use policy - I assume this probably makes the article legit now regarding image usage, but I'll have to look into this policy further I think so as to understand what can & can't be included, and hopefully to put some replacements in for images that were cut. I am new to image usage. Ben Finn 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, there are 11 redlinks still which is a tad high for a featured list IMO, but it is still good enough. VegaDark 03:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've just delinked a few non-notable red links and created stubs for a few others.Ben Finn 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Great and unique list, but the images captions are far from appropriate. They somehow made me smile but their tone is not suitable for an encyclopedy article (An actor called Tom Baker died - but it wasn't this one. Common! ;-)). For example, do not use "killed" or "died" as a metaphore (Bob Hope, twice killed off by news web sites or Paul McCartney is one of several who have died at the hands of radio DJs). I feel that all the captions should be modified. In addition I didn't have the time to read the whole list, but if the same tone exists in the body consider revising it. CG 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do this in the next day or so. I believe this tone is pretty much only found in the captions, but will revise the body text too where necessary. Ben Finn 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now amended the captions as requested. One or two (e.g. the Fidel Castro one) are still quite humorous (or rather, 'wry') but due to their subject matter rather than their tone. I think this is OK. I've also amended the tone of the body text in a couple of places. Ben Finn 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - How can you be sure the list is comprehensive (per criterium 1b)? Tom pw  (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't be, but this list is a 'dynamic list' under criterion 1b, i.e. it will never be comprehensive (because new premature obituaries will continue to occur). The requirement for dynamic lists is that they don't have any major omissions. I personally believe this list doesn't omit any major premature obituaries, simply because I have looked at quite a few sources which would probably have contained them (and also have done some very general keyword searches on Google). If anyone knows of any significant gaps please let me know.Ben Finn 14:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in which case, it should have Dynamic list displayed. Tom pw (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added this. Ben Finn 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good, but I'd also like to see a reference for those statistics of the causes. The definition of what can get on the list needs a little clarification too. Some nutters reported Gordon Ramsey dead, but it wasn't taken over as true by the regular media. Somehow, the fact it needs to be reported by reputable news sources needs to be included. I'd move the unsourced ones to the talk page now you have the dynamic list thing in place. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't a source for the stats - it's a comment (mine) on the explicit causes given in the list. As the proportions are self-evident (just from counting the list), I don't think it needs a source (or counts as original research). I've just reworded it which I hope makes it clearer that it is merely a count of the causes that are stated in the list.


 * Re reputable news sources, the article says:
 * This article lists the recipients of incorrect published, broadcast or official death reports (whether or not a formal obituary was involved), and published accounts of incorrect death reports - but not mere rumours of deaths.
 * By 'published, broadcast or official death reports... but not mere rumours' I meant to imply by a somewhat reputable source; though they aren't necessarily news sources as such - some death reports are in books, for example, and a few on IMDB (more of an information source). If you think this wording should be altered/clarified, let me know. Ben Finn 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the point. You don't specify what sources are reputable. IMDB wouldn't be for example. Also, since you did the count yourself, that would be original research. I'm not sure if that's all that much of a problem as it can be easily checked, but at least it should be stated where it came from and up to what point it is accurate. New additions to the list will make those stats outdated.- Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I have revised the wording to be more specific about which types of source are included. (I don't think it is important incidentally that the sources of the premature obituaries are 100% reputable, as long as the criteria rule out mere rumours of the verbal/email kind, which are not worth documenting.) Do you agree then with this revised wording?
 * This article lists the recipients of incorrect death reports from publications, media organisations, official bodies, and widely-used information sources such as Internet Movie Database (whether or not a formal obituary was involved); but not mere rumours of deaths.
 * Re the proportions of premature obituaries with each cause, I gave round number %s to imply that they were approximate (to cover future additions to the list), but have now made it generally more explicit. Do you agree with the revised wording on the page? Ben Finn 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see Circeus has removed the percentages (as original research) but left the other text (as intro material). Though I think the percentages were interesting (and barely research, being merely a restatement of information from the list), I'm happy with this solution. Ben Finn 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tons of highly-warranted cite needed tags, and switches between footnotes and external jumps. -- Kicking222 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are now about 10 cite needed tags - as mentioned above I have just contacted most of the people who added the relevant entries to obtain source information, so will either add references if provided or move remaining uncited entries to the talk page shortly. Also, I've just turned the handful of external jumps into footnote references as requested. Ben Finn 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the remaining unsourced entries to the talk page - with one exception (the second Abe Vigoda one) because assuming it is probably true it is particularly notable that it would be Vigoda's second premature obituary. I have left the citation tag on it in the hope that someone will be able to provide a source. I've added more information about the incident from the editor who added the entry. Ben Finn 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too many unnecessary year links.Circeus 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the year links because I was under the impression that dates should be linked to so as to be automatically formatted correctly for your region (e.g. January 1, 2004 vs 1 January 2004). However maybe this doesn't apply to partial dates - I'll check the policy and amend as necessary. Ben Finn 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The date policy says that there is no consensus as to whether years in partial dates should be linked. However months in partial dates should not be linked. I will remove both types of link. Ben Finn 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now done. Ben Finn 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Just fix that fact tag and I'll happily support.Circeus 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are the objectors satisfied with this yet? I see there is still one "citation needed" template. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. Unless it's forbidden to have any citation tags, I'd rather keep this particular one, because if that second Vigoda entry is true it is particularly notable (being a rare case of two premature obituaries), and moreover having it in the main article may encourage someone who sees it to fill in a reference. (I also expect incidentally that this entry is true, given that user DanTD who added it has recently given me various specific details about it, and has suggested some places that might be able to verify it, albeit not readily accessible to me. It is also consistent with Vigoda's claim that he wasn't just believed dead on a single occasion, but was widely assumed to be dead throughout the 1980s.)


 * The only other thing I had in mind to do with the article in the light of feedback above was to try to find a few more pics given that PD_THOR removed some (no doubt correctly) on fair use grounds. But assuming the pictures that are there are good enough for now I may leave this as something to do in the medium term. Ben Finn 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Unless it's forbidden to have any citation tags, I'd rather keep this particular one"
 * Are you joking???? Where were you when we battled for verifiability in Wikipedia article?? Circeus 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not familiar with the strict rules, but the page you linked to says:
 * Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation... If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution.
 * Which is the policy I have followed - namely moved almost all the referenceless entries to the talk page with a comment requesting attribution, and tagged the one remaining one with the template. The featured list criteria does say claims should cite sources though does not quite say that absolutely all claims must - it refers to  which says 'All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source'. (You may think I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think the second Vigoda claim is particularly controversial or likely to be challenged.)Ben Finn 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look at WP:BLP. Both Valoppi and WWOR might not like finding that reference in a featured list.
 * Besides, since featured content is supposed to be "factually accurate", that is "claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge." Sorry, but until that goes, my vote won't change. Circeus 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it's not such a big deal, I will cut it to the talk page. (Though WP:BLP at least seems to be about contentious/defamatory material, which this is not.) I will try to obtain a citable source for it in the longer term. Ben Finn 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now done. Ben Finn 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * support Quirky and informative.Circeus 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nom Ben Finn 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)