Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Intro explainer.

I've been tweaking with it a bit without discussing. Sorry if that pissed anyone off. How's this sound? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What I didn't explain in the edit summaries was that "deaths in 2015 of notable people" is clunky. "Deaths of notable people (etc.) in 2015" would sound right, but that couldn't include the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Your comment seems to assume that we need to include the (exact) title as the introductory sentence. That is certainly not the case. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't need it. I'd just assumed that since we already had it bolded that way, we wanted it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Also added "(if applicable)" to the new country field. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Tweaked a bit to add they must be notable even if redlink, keeps out the "local heroes" that no-one else has ever heard of. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. Don't need 40,000 men and women every day (or whatever). But I re-tweaked "notable people" to "notable humans", because we're contrasting with non-humans who must have an article first. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Surely "people" and "humans" mean the same thing? Never heard of a non-human person! WWGB (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, like I said in the edit summary, many people don't think like you. Many do. One side is never going to convince the other. This way, neither has to. Everyone's happy? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Took out "established" from "cause of death (if known)". If a fact's established, it's known, and vice versa. I don't mind which one goes, just picked one. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A nit-pick, but a valid one

I have noticed recently that this page lists deaths such as "world's oldest living man" or "oldest living Irish person", etc. Shouldn't statements like that have some type of qualification? Such as, for example, "oldest verified" or "oldest confirmed" or "oldest recorded" or whatever? Nobody can truly assert who the "oldest person" is. Am I right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles for "oldest living people", etc., usually make a big deal about using qualifying words like "confirmed" or "verified" or what have you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Presumably they would be the oldest confirmed unless otherwise stated.Correctron (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Referencing

I have a question about the referencing style that seems to be considered standard for this list. In any other Wikipedia article, a bare-URL or "URL and title only" citation would be considered an incomplete reference — a reference tag must always tell us exactly who published it and when, or else it is incomplete and thus not adequate as a reference until the rest of that detail is added. So why is a non-standard and inappropriate form considered the default style here, such that if I add a properly formatted citation to support an inclusion on this list somebody strips it back down to a format that would be inappropriate in any other article on the entire project? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A full month contains over 500 deaths (and hence 500 references). Applying the "cite news" template so many times in one article makes it incredibly slow to load towards the end of the month. There was previous consensus (WP:CITEVAR) to use the abbreviated citation method that does not require the repeated use of cite templates. As an aside, many contributors struggle with the full citation mode, meaning that the wikignomes here were constantly cleaning-up after them. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
For what it is worth Bearcat, I have always agreed with you and one of the reasons why I dont handle references at all because what occurs on this page is tantamount to plagiarism. While I understand some people are willing to trade the proper way of doing things for brevity, it is not a trade I will make (which irritates a few folks). The people we rely on for this information have a tough enough time these days trying to make a living and not giving them proper credit doesnt really help the situation at all either in the secondplace.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the citeweb template should be mandatory in all reference tags — there are ways to include all of the necessary reference details without using the template to format it. (I'm frequently lazy enough, in fact, to just do a reference the purely manual way — i.e. <ref>[http://link "Title"]. ''Publication'', Date.</ref> — instead of actually copying and pasting the citeweb template.) But the problem with using a bare-URL or an "URL-and-title without complete citation details" as a reference is that if the page that's been linked to ever dies, the information becomes unreferenced because the incomplete details render it unretrievable. A complete citation with a dead URL in it can be URL-stripped, and still be a wholly valid text-only citation that leaves its content still referenced; a deadlink citation that didn't have the publication and date explicitly given inside the ref tags renders the information unreferenced again.
The URL is a convenience link to a copy of the content, but it's a purely optional bonus in a reference tag — "title-publication-date", with all three details present in the reference, is the absolute be-all and end-all of whether the information is "referenced" or not, not the presence or absence of a weblink. An URL is optional in a reference; title and publication and date, with none of the three being absent, is the mandatory part. So if it's really that critical that references be kept as short as possible because of loading speed issues, then a text-only "title-publication-date" without an URL is the way it needs to go — because an URL without publication and date is not a valid or complete reference by itself, while "title-publication-date without URL" is a valid and complete reference. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris Hyndman

The news story linked says that Chris Hyndman's body was found at 11pm on the night on Monday the 3rd and there were no signs of life. His death was made public on the 4th, but the exact official date of his death has not been confirmed. I don't know how to fix the entry on the page but I think sometimes something like "death reported on this date" is used when the date the person actually died is unclear. 99.192.76.158 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Source? Rusted AutoParts 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The source is the CBC news story linked by his entry already on the page. That story also reports his age as 49 and the entry just says 40s right now. I think the story was updated since the entry was added. 99.192.76.158 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: The story (now) reads: "Toronto police told CBC News on Tuesday that Hyndman, 49, was found without vital signs in an alleyway near the intersection of Queen Street and Broadview Avenue in Toronto shortly after 11 p.m. ET Monday." 99.192.76.158 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Natalia Molchanova

Should we list Natalia Molchanova now or wait for further confirmation that she is dead ? --Racklever (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless declared legally dead, no adding. Rusted AutoParts 19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

'Rule of 3'

What exactly is the 'Rule of 3' and how does it apply to Cilla Black? The reason I ask is because I fail to understand why the song 'Anyone Who Had a Heart' has been removed as one of the songs Cilla was known for and replaced with a Lennon-McCartney original she recorded? While the latter made it to the UK top 10, the former was her first UK #1 and I would have said it was a song that people know her for more than the replacement. I suspect the reasoning for the change is the same as why 'You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling' was removed as one of the songs she was known for because it was a cover? Why should that make any difference? David French (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

See Rule of three (writing): things are "supposed" to be more satisfying in groups of three (stop, look, listen) (eat pray love) etc. Some editors take that as a cue to "force" three works into the achievements of the deceased. That just leads to arbitrary decisions that Work A is more notable than Work B. In my opinion (yes, just pov) Black had two undisputed hits in "Anyone Who Had A Heart" and "You're My World". Adding anything else is personal preference and arguably disputable. That's why there are so many edit wars on recent deaths because there has never been a consensus guideline on which works should be listed. WWGB (talk)
I definitely agree that in Black's case, "Anyone Who Had A Heart" and "You're My World" need to be included as they are her biggest hits. The 3rd song could be any of her lesser hits. BurienBomber (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think R3 should only be used for an entrant who had multiple yet similar careers, as in actors who have been in films, TV shows, and on stage, but I'm a simple guy. — Wyliepedia 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I only use rule of 3 to prevent editors from overflooding the entry. For example if someone has a lengthy and prosperous movie career with numerous recognizeable titles, Steven Spielberg for example, it'll be an absolute hell agreeing what to add. Simply, it's to prevent:
that from happening. Rusted AutoParts 21:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Aye, he's going to be a pain. Stephen King and Steven Tyler, too. If they outlive me, put me down for E.T., Pet Sematary and "Sweet Emotion". I don't think I've ever heard a Cilla Black song/cover. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata recent deaths report

There is now a report on Wikidata that lists recent deaths in English and foreign language wikis: Wikidata:Database reports/Recent deaths. This makes it easier to discover articles to add to Deaths in 2015.--Racklever (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Bill McAfee - September 12

Following his addition here as "journalist and politician", which included his political office, I added his longest job in journalism. InedibleHulk came behind me and added his shorter jobs. The source given states this (paraphrased):

Bill began his public broadcasting career, for which his is best remembered, in 1960, at radio station, WCGA ... He considered this to be one of the most enjoyable experiences in his media career path. Bill then moved to other radio stations, WBHF... and WCHK ... In 1963, he moved to Channel 9, WTVC ... Bill was with Channel 9 for 12½ years when he moved to Channel 12, WDEF.

Personally, I think it's overdoing all the jobs he had (3 jobs in three years), regardless of how he was "remembered", which is borderline too local. Had I known that all the others would've been added, I would've let his entry stand and his notability be his political office. — Wyliepedia 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I was mainly just aiming for recognition of his radio work, not only TV. The details are secondary, and yeah, quite local. Not particularly attached, but the one best radio station should stay. WCGA, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That ping didn't work, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: That's because it's not a @Ping:, but merely an identifier. I do know what I'm doing, yanno. — Wyliepedia 22:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I won't question someone with "pedia" in their name, but sometimes that gives me a "Buddy mentioned you" notification, and sometimes it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Has been condensed. @InedibleHulk: Thanks. — Wyliepedia 10:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that pinged. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Suicide: Cause?

One minute I seem to be alone in this world, and the next there is hope. But then a silent return to despair.

In plainer talk, suicide is a manner of death. It can go with any cause an accident or homicide can, but it's nothing more substantial or informative than "natural causes" by itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that suicide not a cause of death, as opposed to "self-inflicted gun shot wound" "suicide by hanging" or similar, as this is what I was taught in forensics[original research?] and which is verified elsewhere. I self-reverted myself however as I thought I may be being overly pedantic and assumed it wouldn't harm to discuss it here first.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And I reverted you because I assumed foul play before considering the usernames. Edit suicide is far rarer than normal suicide, but appropriately meta, in this case. Still, poor call on my part.
Not too pedantic an issue at all. The two concepts are fundamentally different, despite having death in common. Like how length and width are "close enough". Or ethnicity and citizenship. Maiden names and middle names. All connected, but so are time of death, place of death, informant of death and the rest. Far different from the old fruit/vegetable debaucle/debackle. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright, so it is a manner of death, but how is it wrong to report it? This is an encyclopedic webpage, and information about a person's suicide, whether or not how it was done is known, is relevant information.Nukualofa (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The relevant information is "Name, age, country of citizenship at birth, subsequent country of citizenship (if applicable), reason for notability, cause of death (if known) and reference." InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That for sure is overly pedantic. Now you have to start removing all films etc mentioned on this page, as it is surplus information according to that list. Nukualofa (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
No, those are reasons for notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It has been acceptable here over many years to include execution and suicide in describing death. If we did not, we would surely have Robin Williams and Saddam Hussein departing life with the same cause. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm definitely for including the manner, when it has a cause to complement and distinguish. But on its own, it's about as descriptive as plain "blue". Did you think I meant the sky? Not even close! Same as here. Puts just enough of an idea in people's heads for them to fill in the blank. It's not as bad as blatantly misinforming them by supplying our own guess, but if we don't have the actual answer, begging the question at all seems irresponsible. At the very least, it's a half-truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Two of four doesn't seem like a majority. Unless I'm missing something, in a tie, we should keep the status quo ("typical entry" stuff). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The majority definitely haven't had their say here. You are the only one removing it, and all other poster, as far as I know, still posts suicide as a cause, even when they don't know by which method. You are the one overruling a standard that has been here for years. It is pretty clear that most posters here find the information relevant, as they keep adding it, even if you don't. Anybody else want to have their saying?Nukualofa (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If listing manners is standard, the bit at the top of the page about "cause of death" (which didn't just put itself there) needs to be amended. Do you suggest it be changed to allow homicide, suicide, accident and natural or just suicide? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If that's what it takes to get you to stop your one-man war against listing it, then yeah, put them all up there. For the rest of us, common sense is enough. Nukualofa (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That'll need consensus, too. More of "the rest of us" are against "natural causes" and "accident". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
We are here to inform readers. An overly pedantic interpretation of the wording, that results in the withholding from them of relevant and important information, is contrary to our remit. We do, incidentally, use terms like "traffic collision" (not "accident"). Should we be saying something like "blunt force trauma", rather than indicating they may have been hit by a vehicle? No, we shouldn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
We're here to inform readers of certain things. Survivors, funeral arrangements, city of birth and other important stuff is also routinely provided in sources, but if these types of information aren't called for at the top of the page, they're not relevant. In the decedent's article, sure. You're on board with allowing manner when we don't know a cause?
And we're apparently not supposed to say people were hit by vehicles. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with "cause or manner of death". I really don't see any point in being over-prescriptive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I also see no problem in reporting "natural causes" either, if that is the only information the source gives. Nukualofa (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I still think "natural causes" is unnecessary. At least things like "suicide" are a bit more descriptive. All natural causes says is that the person died in a natural manner & I could see entries getting cluttered up if we started reporting "long illness"/"illness"/"natural causes" and such. If there's a clearly defined cause then that's what should be listed. Connormah (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's anyone duty to detail MODs. I'm looking at you, suicide. The mention alone will draw those interested to the entry's page to find out the details, if they're not fans/stalkers and already know. Same goes for those with any COD given. Even if we list the full method (specifically, suicide), they will still go read, correct? — Wyliepedia 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The only time we don't mention the cause is when we can't find a source. So readers shouldn't be able to find it, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Database reports/Recent deaths

Above a database report from Wikidata. Maybe it interests to you. Jura1 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know. — Wyliepedia 15:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. The above and the other report are essentially the same.
At Wikidata, there is also d:Wikidata:Database reports/Recently deceased at Wikipedia. It lists persons reported as dead in Wikipedia, but not yet at Wikidata. Jura1 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The "rules"

The FAQ notes correctly that people often as "There are many "rules" associated with this page. Why?". "Why" is not the question though. The questions are "What are the rules, and what is a matter of choice?" and "If any rule is obviously stupid, can we change it?". There needs to be a set place linked in the FAQ to state exactly what is a "rule" and what is not. And that page needs to have a talk page on which consensus on changes can be ascertained.

Because otherwise, we'll still have instances like the inability to recognise the Knighthood exemption to the rule 'list people under article names'. That one tends to come up every few months. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The "rules" do not actually exist, as you seem to indicate so obviously by your use of quotation marks. What does exist is a style convention, especially where a set of lists is concerned, such as contained in this page and its siblings from previous months/years. In my opinion, if you traverse these pages often enough, and examine in enough detail each entry in the lists, you will know exactly what the convention is off by heart, and therefore equally what is not acceptable, or the given norm. It's honestly not rocket science.86.113.142.39 (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not rocket science, but also not as simple as reading a list of rules/conventions/tendencies could be. There's the one about Sir as the exceptional honorary title, suicide as the exceptional manner of death and notable works coming in threes, off the top of my head. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And how all causes involving traffic and collision are "traffic collision"s. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And people who take a while to die die of "injuries from" the thing that injured them, not the thing itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2015/Archive_2&oldid=1079563105"