Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 1

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

Page protection

Hi. Although the protection padlock does not appear at the top right of the page this year, the page HAS been protected indefinitely by administrator MilborneOne and cannot be edited by either non-autoconfirmed or IP users. Ref (chew)(do) 13:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's there now. — Wyliepedia 17:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I presumed one of the bots would add it as they normally do. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Cushty, and thanks once again. Ref (chew)(do) 20:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Most-viewed page of 2017

Yes, Deaths in 2017 was the most-viewed Wikipedia article in 2017 with 37,387,010 page views.[1] Congratulations to all contributors and gnomes for keeping up such a high standard. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done. It's a quality list. Nukualofa (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

PoD field proposal

It occurred to me yesterday that people die in space and time, but I can't recall an old discussion on whether we should include a place of death. I think it'd be useful at-a-glance info, either for researching patterns or simple further context. Almost every death notice already has the info. On the other hand, it could entail a lot of retroactive work, some linewraps and potential bickering about where cities end and suburbs start. Good idea, bad idea? You decide. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Think I will pass on this idea. First off you will have endless arguments for any aircraft that goes down where exactly it took place and in whose territory. And what happens if it crashes into the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean...you going to put Atlantic Ocean for the PoD? Not really descriptive. Secondly what do you gain from this info? So a guy dies in New York or Jakarta. It doesnt really have relevance on notoriety or notability.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Notoriety and notability is covered by name, game and claims to fame. This was only intended to illustrate the death itself, like the date, age and cause. I find it interesting when people die abroad or cross-country, not much when a New Yorker dies in New York. This would let me know it's one of those stories or not. I'd go with North or South Atlantic, like Titanic Astor's article does; not sure about the exact middle, but that's rare. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No thanks! The subject entries are already "fat" enough without that. A wholly relevant inclusion as far as reporting someone who died is HOW they died, which is why I (generally) support the idea of CoD being included. The place of death is irrelevant to the fact they died, in my opinion. Strongly against. Ref (chew)(do) 18:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No, thanks. Age, profession and CoD are really enough.--Folengo (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see a real necessity there. In regards to death the subject occupation and COD (if known) are really the only immediate details I imagine the reader would require. Knowing whether or not the person died in Nashville or Las Vegas or Tokyo or wherever seems unnecessary outside of their own individual article. Rusted AutoParts 21:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Although seeing "<country>-born <other country>-died" here does seem an outrageously novel idea. </sarcasm> — Wyliepedia 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
There is some merit to that. Not all places have the same citizenship laws as the United States and you aren't necessarily a citizen if you are born in a country in some places. Additionally, immigration is a phenomenon. There are many reasons for it...some fascinating others not that much, but regardless, it adds a dimension in a short synopsis. Also there is a group out there of folks that are proudly patriotic and loyal to people of their country. For an example, I am still amazed at the loyalty and fandom of Polish folks and Frederic Chopin almost 200 years on. He lived his entire adult life as a Frenchman and never returned to his home country.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
But there's no merit in causing all entries to average out at two page lines long each, which is what would happen under a relentless quest for more and more frankly irrelevant info in the descriptions. Bluelink articles and good reliable sources fill in the bits we don't feature. Ref (chew)(do) 00:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
My comment was in reference to Wylie, not the original. There would be endless edit warring if Chopin's death were on here and it wasnt listed as- Frédéric Chopin, 39, Polish-born French (or alternatively Polish-French) classical composer and pianist, tuberculosis. Thats an extra 10 characters that adds volume of information about his life and its notoriety.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to visualize what the addition would look like.

That to me doesn't look very good. Nor is it really vital information as i've said. Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And I think we are in a consensus on that matter opposing it.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't argue that. I'll just say I would've put the PoD after the CoD, and piped it to exclude the extra comma. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Right on cue- Togo D. West Jr. died in non-territorial waters between Puerto Rico and Barbados in the Caribbean Sea.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
So in layman's terms, precisely "on a boat". As opposed to "under the sea". Piece of cake. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Afraid I will have to edit that to Davy Jones' Locker. What the sea has to do with the Monkeys and why is his locker somewhere in it? I will never know but that is the expression the kids are using these days. (I kid, I kid).Sunnydoo (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Do disappointed kids still enjoy sending entire dynasties of bewildered Sea-Monkeys down the drain to "sleep with the fishes"? I see the show has long since "gotten the axe", but nobody's "pulled the plug" on the browser suite. I guess I could as easily answer my own question. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Max three credits, or three credits per job?

An unfortunate businessman recently lost his real life and all six of his Wikilinked companies. I thought our Rule of Three meant three examples of each job, each their own little parenthesized unit. WWGB thinks not. What do you think? If most of us think like WWGB, I'll say go with the three most profitable during his tenure, whatever the industry. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I left him with three careers...Waste Management made him rich, and he was a cofounder via merger; Blockbuster LLC was a later investment that made him more famous and was in a different line of trade; and as a sports team owner included the two teams he founded. Others have included other businesses or teams. A TOTAL of 3 can be too limiting. LE (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
He founded teams, too? This guy's constantly amazing me since I heard of him. Go with your idea, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

We just use three examples of anything, not three examples of each thing. It’d be way too lengthy. If his team ownership is more notable, include two and then one business or vice versa. Rusted AutoParts 05:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't even linewrap, by my screen. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s also just a means of consistency I find. There’s certain individuals who have their fingers in multiple pies or have multiple notable aspects of their career. Imagine the entries for Steven Spielberg or Stephen King or John Williams if there wasn’t a means of limiting the amount of credits that can be added in. Rusted AutoParts 06:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Those three are still limited to three movies, books or tunes, by (what I thought was) the normal way. Unless I'm missing some notable crossover work. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In Spielberg’s case he’s done quite a bit outside of just directing. There’s his producing, some acting if it were to be listed. My point was just in general if there wasn’t a rule of 3 cap in general then his entry could see many of his films being added in. Same goes for King nd Williams, who hold many notable titles under their belts. Rusted AutoParts 15:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Stephen King was even a film critic for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Said it tallied with the times. Not sure what that means, but I know what you mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
We often see a deceased person with a multitude of roles, such as "painter, sculptor, filmmaker and author". If we allow three credits per role, we are facing 12 or more credits for a single person. Such detail belongs in the main article. We are, after all, writing a death notice, not a biography. Three elements are sufficient to encapsulate someone's notability. Do we really need bloated listings that look like this?:
WWGB (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Lennon's a one-off. (Well done, though!) It's common to see a three-thinged dead person, but rare to see linkable articles on three of each thing's...things. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
We may not need those listings,but I'm certainly not bothered by them.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Governors, Senators, and Mayors

Is there a consensus/discussion where we override MOS:JOBTITLES, in order to list entry jobs? Titles alone should usually be lowercase. (Source: English and business-education teachers.) — Wyliepedia @ 10:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What about "senator" vs "Senator"? Not much of a discussion, but it's something. Ref seemed up for anything, I'm still down with lowercase. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's always been my understanding (from the mists of time) that we use lower case to refer to a generic position, and upper case to refer to a specific position. For example, "Barack Obama was an American president" versus "Barack Obama was the President, 2009–2017". Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. I think our lists should use caps, since they (usually) refer to an office holder in a specific period. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In actual fact, there is a tendency for people from the USA to Capitalize a vast range of jobs and positions, where they would instead be lower case when written about in the UK. Something I have long noticed. Ref (chew)(do) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
(Ergo, if the subject of the entry is American, I would not interfere with President, but if the deceased was a Brit, I would try to make sure it read president.) Ref (chew)(do) 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, in my zombie state from lack of sleep, I failed to see the typically "generic" lowercase suggestion in the MOSes. Obviously, if someone is added here, they're not usually generic and neither are their common offices/statutes. — Wyliepedia @ 23:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"Generic" doesn't refer to the person or their office, just the usage. "Proper" usage means using it as a proper noun, in place of the name or tacked on. Here, we don't replace their names; when we say " Senator (2000–2004)", it implies Ramo Deleon Guerrero was a senator from 2000 to 2004, not that he was Senator Ramon Deleon Guerrero in particular during that time (though, of course, he was). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Race horses?

Why does this article contain race horses? I thought it was for people/humans? If also horses then where do you stop? All animals? I don't understand why someone has put race horses on here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.222.42 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Because they are noteworthy enough for a stand-alone wikipedia article, also true of other non-humans not just race horses. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
See the FAQ at the top of this page. — Wyliepedia @ 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Not to blow your mind but there's at least one case of a tree being listed. (January 8, 2017). Skudrafan1 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving old deaths

Please note that the agreed time to move last month's deaths is AFTER SEVEN days of the new month. The transfer took place this month before even five days had expired. Please show a little patience and co-operation in the future. You don't get a medal for starting before the gun. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wasn’t seeking adulation. As I explained to @Nukualofa: I thought that yesterday was the 6th and today the 7th. But I realized I was incorrect. I’ll remember for next time, no need to get confrontational. Rusted AutoParts 00:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
All news to me. For the past few months, it has been moved on the 6th of the new month - I mistakenly thought THAT was the norm. Ref (chew)(do) 03:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I used to change over around 00:00 UTC on Day 7. Let's call it "sevenish". — Wyliepedia @ 19:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"An author is an author..."

Since, per Refsworldlee, "an author is [just] an author," I will change future singers to just "singers", as well. Who cares what kind of singing they did, correct? — Wyliepedia @ 23:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Genres are fine by me. Whether she wrote novels, short stories or webcomics is good to know, too. Plain "author" is too vague. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
However, the use of wikilinking for a genre which is either very very well known or can be deduced easily ("historical romance") is well over the top. I think really unusual specialist genres are worth including with the title author, and anyway I don't make the rules - I only have my opinion. As we all do. Ref (chew)(do) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Refsworldlee: But you removed the entire description, rather than unlink it. By your reasoning here, authors (and thereby, as I said, singers) only need genres added if they're "unusual". — Wyliepedia @ 06:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
My second point. Revert it. I don't think myself that the authored genre is particularly notable within literature to deserve its own blurb, and certainly not a grandstand wikilink - that's the personal opinion I'm on about above. I don't edit war, so I'll not be troubling that entry on that point again if you want to change it back to a more subtle form. Ref (chew)(do) 17:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't redo what has been erroneously undone by others, unless they're new wikieditors unaware of policy. The wikilinking wasn't "grandstanding" on my part, at least not in the way you think, unlike the allowed "Hero of the Soviet Unions" and "Meritorious Artists" of late that are strictly national awards given to thousands. Personally speaking, I don't care for those linked notabilities, just like an author's genre is snorted over. — Wyliepedia @ 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations

To editor CAWylie: My biggest point is that you don't revert me without good reason. You failed to provide a good reason and I have begun fixing your error so now would be a good time to discuss the matter. Chris Troutman (talk)

By the end of the month, this page has more than 500 entries. Use of the "cite web" template slows the loading of the page as the template is "called" more than 500 times. The consensus on this page is to use simple cites (permitted by Wikipedia) to avoid this problem. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, WWGB (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no "consensus" expressed either on the list's talk page or WikiProject Death's talk page. Where can you show me this "consensus." Chris Troutman (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a start: Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1#Simple references? Or "cites"?. I will find more, given time. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: The origins (click "Show" and settle in). — Wyliepedia @ 00:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@CAWylie and WWGB: Thanks for the explanation and answer, but I find this insufficient. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it's not too much to ask that you leave your fellow editors some indication (outside of the html comment) that this is being done. I'm sorry to cause drama over this, but you need to understand that just because you typically might only deal with a handful of editors, folks like me will show up time-to-time to help prevent link rot. Both of you could try using decent explanations in your edit summaries, too. Again, Wikipedia is collaborative. Why not include a link to Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 2#RfC: Should we use references in your FAQ on this page so more people know? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
It's in the editor notes when you click the Edit button at the top of the DI page; that never changes from year to year. "(4) References should be in <ref>[url & title]</ref> format, as full citations make the page too slow to load, and too big to edit."— Wyliepedia @ 00:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Had you read my comment where I say "leave your fellow editors some indication (outside of the html comment)" you would realize I'm criticizing you because your prior efforts have been insufficient. BTW, using reFill doesn't require that I hit the "edit" button, not that I consider an html comment an expression of consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
(final comment) But any reference bot still gives the full page preview, which shows the preview of entire page, including hidden editor notes as a guideline. — Wyliepedia @ 00:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As a long-standing editor of the Deaths pages, I know there has been plenty of discussion about this for many months, if not years, and a consensus on cite web templates does exist. It's up to incoming editors to either research archives of Deaths pages or ask other editors about such consensus to discover the current one. It's certainly not likely that external (on-page) guidelines will be added for this or any other fine-tunings, as you'd end up not seeing any actual entries at all for at least the first half of a screen page, such would be the length of the "manual". Guidelines within the edit box are not hidden - they are there to read when an edit is intended. That's my take on it all, anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 06:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded the FAQs at the top of this page (#3) to include the use of simple cites. WWGB (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Who is the mystery "&nbsp"?

HI. Just wondering who it is keeps going into established subject lines and replacing just one natural edit space with the HTML version "&nbsp", and why? It's stands to logic that if just one space is to be altered this way, then all of them should, and that's just plain crazy. If, by some quirk, an edit space did not have the desired effect (failed to create a blank space), then I could understand it. Thanks, and reveal yourself. Ref (chew)(do) 11:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to tell on him. Don't know if it's the same editor every time, but the last person to do it was Philip Cross here. Nukualofa (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it cannot be me. I don't use "&nbsp" very often. I do use "
" for template sections and remove double spaces after full stops/periods. The latter might seem pointless since it has no effect on how articles are displayed, but I find the practice irritating. A leftover from using typewriters. Philip Cross (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I use it a lot in article space, particularly in biographical articles about people, whose vital dates in the lede section can tend to break over 2 lines. In general, I hate seeing, e.g. "<some event> occurred on 13" at the end of one line, and "November 1983" at the start of the next. But this issue never arises on this page, so I never use "&nbsp" here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not a trial, so no worries in general. I just can't see the point when the edit space always (as far as I've seen) does the job. (I must admit I do use it for one thing - the troublesome "better source needed" template, which will, for some reason, NOT allow an edit space between the source headline and the templated display following it, unless HTML is employed.) My main concern (a "tiny" one) is that every instance of HTML fattens out the code a "tiny" bit and makes page-loading just a "tiny" bit slower. Pedantry over. Ref (chew)(do) 11:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Slipped Disc

I’m curious as to what makes the website Slipped Disc considered unreliable? From what I see it comes off as Deadline.com but for strictly music. If there’s a pre existing decision about this fair enough I’m just wondering. Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Norman Lebrecht is plainly a blog writer, and hardly ever states his sources. As someone who expects to be believed without question, we can't be indulging him long-term in that when Wikipedia demands absolute accuracy and especially when dealing with deceased subjects. I can't remember anyone else questioning the general attitude towards his work which has long prevailed here, but it's certainly worth debating. Ref (chew)(do) 06:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ndashes

Hi. It's well-accepted that, in the descriptive text of the subject line, an 'ndash' (– elongated hyphen) should always be used to separate two numerals or groups of numerals, such as from-and-to ages and from-and-to dates. What we've never done, and should not do, is interfere with verbatim headlines used in references. So if a headline contains a shortened hyphen (-) when copied and pasted, that's how it should stay - it's meant to be a direct copyedit of exactly how the source is prefacing its page information. It's not our role at all to be editorial in that respect. (The same goes for replacing the actual headline with "so-and-so's obituary" - that's plainly freeform editing, not copyediting.) Ref (chew)(do) 07:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about this. We're free (and generally proud) to decapitalize SHOUTINESS in headlines. Is an elongated dash not just a similarly "big" version of a shortened hyphen? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The punctuation marks are clearly subject to formatting (as with the type of quotation marks, for instance, which can slope left, right or appear upright), and it's a technical requirement that the true inflections of formatting as contained in the webpage should transfer to the subject line source link tooltip. Altering SHOUTY headlines is merely converting from upper to lower case with no change of formatting (an automatic text type and size is employed by Wikipedia through style sheets); similarly, cutting tabloidistic words such as "Latest:", "Breaking:" and perhaps "Shock Horror!" does not disrupt formatting - but it does reduce editor irritability (or at least, with me it does!). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of full stop/period after each entry

The use of punctuation after the names of the dead journalists on 28 June caused me to rethink our position of adding punctuation after the listing of every death (before the reference). According to MOS:BULLETLIST, "no terminal punctuation is used with sentence fragments". The manner in which we write each entry is not a complete sentence, so is it rather a sentence fragment? If so, then we should not be adding a full stop/period at the end of each entry. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood that only the last list entry has the full stop the others before it do not need it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
In English (as I was taught it), that is absolutely correct - although a single line array of names would need commas (pause) to separate them, finishing with a full stop. However, even separation of names by new lines are often subject to semi-colons at least, culminating in the full stop after the last line. What caused me to add full stops in the instance quoted was the incongruous look created by the sudden end of a name followed immediately by the reference bracket link, abutting it. I actually don't mind either way though, and won't be revisiting this or the dead journalists list. Ref (chew)(do) 17:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I've always been somewhat troubled by the periods, but rationalized my fears away by reminding myself the dead person's name starts with a capital. It's not entirely logical and definitely not legal, but it's easier than deleting 100,000 dots. If removing them catches on, though, I'm happy with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
(The list now looks way better with some subject descriptions added, stops or no stops.) Ref (chew)(do) 17:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
As most annual gnomes know, this page is practically a WikiProject, meaning it's its own creature, judging by the amount of "that's the way the page works" winning arguments arisen from noobs or MOS-warriors brought up here. So, adding a full stop could be our thing. That said, cosmetically speaking, I think the full stops are necessary because they add a separator from the entry. There have been times during my pageloads when the blue source numbers cut into the entry (on my tiny device), usually due to the side-TOC, causing me to zoom into the upper entries to source check. Without periods, this might cause overlapping with wikilinks in entries and hinder accessibility for some. So !keep. — Wyliepedia @ 18:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The full-stops are a local consensus and I think they should go. They are just clutter. Spicemix (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Each entry is a sentence and should end with a period.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Shall we credit team players for championships and awards?

Seems unfair to give some people recognition for rising to the top of their field, but not if their greatness allowed other people to perform well, too. Would the Blackhawks have won the Cup without Emery doing what he did (17-1 in regular season)? Hard to say, of course, but the NHL says he did enough to be immortalized on the oldest trophy in sports. Worth noting here, I think.

If not, where to draw the line? Doesn't the Best Actress technically win for saying the scriptwriter's lines the way the director wants her to while lit by the lighting director and pieced together by an editor? Does it change if the film she's in also wins Best Picture? What about jockeys and their horses? Or co-winners of Nobel Prizes? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

With your Best Actress parallel, the winner is the person it’s directly awarded to. Same with Nobel Prizes. The winners of the Stanley Cup is the team. Rusted AutoParts 23:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Each team member gets a Stanley Cup ring, which represents the same thing the Cup does (when worn by a member who's named on the Cup, anyway). Does that work as a top individual prize for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
My point remains that the main credited party is the team. Winner of the Stanley Cup: The Washington Capitals. I guess “Stanley Cup Ring wearer” is possible but I think we’d should stick with their individual accolades. Did Emery not win the William M. Jennings Trophy? Rusted AutoParts 23:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's Emery credited as an NHL champion. Here he is again. Even in New Zealand. He won the Jennings along with his starting goalie, and that's not as good as winning a Vezina or a Stanley Cup. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I see your point, but it's not relevant in this deaths article - their reason for notability only should be mentioned - in this case, professional ice hockey player. Ditto your example of actors - they may have won a Best Actor/Actress Oscar, but their notability will be due to their career as an actor, not that one event. There may be a few cases where the reason a person is notable is mainly due to some achievement that was as part of a team (the joint Nobel Prize one is a possible example), but this isn't one of them. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree about the individual award noting. My only issue is with listing an individual as being the winner of a trophy that’s awarded to the team, not specifically the individuals. Rusted AutoParts 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you have an issue with "NHL champion"? Nothing about a trophy, just signifying his courage and skill under extraordinary pressure (relative to your or my job) giving Chicago the 34 points they couldn't have made the playoffs without, no matter how hard its skaters tried on their own. Sure, in theory, they could've winged it with some rando in net. But seventeen more times? That's pushing their luck. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

At Deaths in June, we have two basketball champions, a football champion and a rowing champion. In May, we have a footballer, a relay swimmer and a rower. In March, it's handball, volleyball and basketball. Nevermind April (with its handball and basketball), something's fishy lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A grey area will arise with Olympic medalists as well. "Champions" might also be part of a "team", if they're passing a baton. (See Hans Günter Winkler.) I know some editors, including our gnomes, eyeroll whenever mere participants get added. — Wyliepedia @ 00:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd caught Hans Günter Winkler using a performance-enhancing horse earlier, but didn't notice he sometimes had "real" help. I see the horses are mentioned in the medal tables. Are we sure they don't win physical medals? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeez this whole things gotten pedantic and silly. Wish I didn’t crack open this can of worms. Rusted AutoParts 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You heard him, he made a wish. That counts as forfeit. Unless he's turned anyone, stuff back the worms and we'll deal with Black Kite's problem later. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
And so the worms are stuffed for another day. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
That wasn’t an invitation to restore it. This discussion is still occurring, could you please undo your edit? Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me. You're burning your last wish on this? Fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Is this passive aggression? Why? Rusted AutoParts 01:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
We're talking about what you feel you want, because you prefered it to my lashing out. If I can't be aggressive and I can't be passive, I'm running out of options here. And I'm not granting you a fourth wish. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been gnoming these pages for more than a decade and I do not recall any consensus decision to exclude team-based achievements. Our guideline merely states "what subject was noted for". That could be either individual action, or in cohorts with others. Jack Sock's Olympic gold medal is the same shape, size and colour as Andy Murray's. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If that’s the feeling, alright. That’s mainly what I was seeking out, not unwanted passive aggression. Hulk, asking one to raise their concerns in a discussion isn’t “what I’d prefer”, it’s just a common sense thing. We disagreed on this so it made sense to lay out our views and gain input. Am I wrong for that? Am I deserving of this dripping sarcasm? Rusted AutoParts 01:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not just you. We have all been victim to Hulk's sarcasm over the years. He does have a unique commentary style, and it may be cutting, but it is never malicious. It often adds much-needed levity to otherwise mundane discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I chose Jack Sock because I find his name amusing. Did Mr & Mrs Sock not read Portnoy's Complaint before naming their son? WWGB (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not even sarcasm (mostly). You really did want Emery's championship gone for being a team thing, so I passively followed your lead. Then you suggested a nice talk "as opposed" to what you (apparently) felt was too active a reaction, so I took your suggestion. Naturally, part of that is going to be passively listening to problems and actively presenting counterpoints. When I (thought I) heard all this back-and-forth made you wish you'd never started it, I figured you were wishing for something you wanted and actively restored the page to how it was before it disturbed you.
Figured CAWylie and Nukualofa generally wanted that, too, because I saw them both adding championships. Figured Black Kite had passively accepted the way things were (in sports, Hollywood and everything), despite taking the opportunity to actively voice her discontent, so figured she wouldn't (terribly) mind going with the 4-1 flow. Then you come back, wishing for the can of worms to stay open after wishing it closed after wishing it open, and all my figuring's for naught.
That's the point where Hulk snapped and finally (mildly) smashed you with a sarcastic "You gotta be kidding me." (The joke being I know you're not funny like that.) Then I quickly shrunk back into an honest and sincere "Fine." You should've known it was legit by the way I again so quickly pleased to undo the manifestations of your mysterious will. If I was being mopily malicious about it and wanted to "cut" you, I'd have rhetorically asked why you couldn't do it all by yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I mean that’s what I’d figure would be done if you didn’t particularly agree. That was the sense I was getting from your edit summaries. Like referring to it as a Fuck you so I just interpreted it as not agreeing with its removal. I am familiar with your general nonchalant method of discussing it just seemed a bit more hostile this time around. Rusted AutoParts 16:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Roughly as angry (and calm) as usual in day-to-day disagreement, but I see how swearing can make it seem worse. Sorry for the acerbity there. And I get that you only wanted what any normal sane Wikipedian might, but you still wanted it. Desires don't have to be strange or twisted to be valid shameless points of discussion. You're alright in my book. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I sensed being summoned again. Just want to state for the record, that, at least for the better part of June, I was mostly the one who added the respective sports awards to the page. I usually do, seeing as how some entries just get the standard entry pulled from a wiki-bio or source lead. Now, Dragutin Šurbek reads as arbitrarily generic as expected: Croatian table tennis player. Goes against everything we I strive to do here. — Wyliepedia @ 04:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
So do the dead get their gold back yet, per the will of the living, or do I have to keep tapping my foot and pretending to look at my watch? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I lost track of what was said in this discussion, but I'll throw my opinion in anyway. I think medals from bigger international championships (Olympic Games, world championships, continental championships etc.) should be included regardless of whether it's individual or team effort, while national (NFL/NBA/NHL/Premier League/national championships etc) should be excluded. Nukualofa (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, go for it. WWGB (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The National Hockey League isn't national anymore. But otherwise, go for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tag team wrestlers

I don't have anything to add to the above discussion. Since we're talking about individual versus team accomplishments, this would be as good a place as any to start this discussion. I'm pretty sure I brought this up at WT:PW in regards to Jim Neidhart. Wrestlers who are primarily known as tag team wrestlers are better served by referring to their tag teams when articles exist on the tag team, instead of the usual alphabet soup of wrestling promotion TLAs which half the time fail to properly represent what exactly the person was notable for. I'm looking at Deaths in November 2012 where Buddy Roberts is described as such: "Buddy Roberts, 67, American professional wrestler, member of the Fabulous Freebirds, pneumonia". That's yet another example of recentism, seeing as how you missed mentioning the Hollywood Blondes, but that's a whole other matter. I'm pretty sure I changed the entry for Tommy Rogers from linking to a bunch of random promotions where Rogers had a cup of coffee to linking to The Fantastics. Obviously, there's no consistency in whether that's done or how it's formatted in the entry based on the examples I've provided. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, generally makes sense. I think you might have done that for Blackjack Mulligan, too. In Neidhart's case, though, that would forgo noting his none-too-shabby singles run in Stampede. On the other hand, we wouldn't have to imply his WCW run was near the same level as the big two. Probably safe to say most people remember him for the Hart Foundation stuff, overall, like it's fine to assume most people forget your version of The Hollywood Blondes. Not a matter of recentism, just one having the tape library and TV machine behind it (possibly forever). Suppose I'm not opposed in this case, but will preemptively discourage treating Rick Martel or Tito Santana like Strike Force (not that there's anything wrong with Strike Force). Paul Roma can cleanly be remembered for three, without further tarnishing The Four Horsemen. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure I agree. We have this curious habit of using the term "biography" for articles about wrestlers which more often than not are really articles about wrestling promotions, just like there are a ton of political biographies which are really articles about a political office. Stampede's legacy is way overblown. For one, their main arena and television taping venue was a 1,500-seat agricultural pavilion. Compare that with Montreal and Toronto, where wrestling events were held regularly in large arenas. For another, while Neidhart's early career was widely viewed due to Stampede Wrestling's broad syndication, it's entirely likely that those stations would have rather aired The Rockford Files but couldn't because of the quirks of Canadian broadcasting laws/regulations, so it was either Stampede or a Bruce Cockburn concert. The kind of money the typical wrestler was making in Stampede at that time was decent enough money for the 1970s, but it was probably less than what my father made in the 1970s working in a factory. As for WCW, it's plainly obvious that we're using the imagined prestige of the promotion as the reason for listing that. His stint in Mid-South Wrestling (mostly teaming with Butch Reed) far better defined the Neidhart most people remember than the Neidhart in WCW who was just another guy hanging around collecting a paycheck off of his reputation. Speaking of which, isn't Jim Duggan still wrestling at 60+? I haven't exactly noticed lately. If so, does that make him a HOOOOOOOOOOO for that money? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Every TV show wouldn't be broadcast if something bigger or cheaper were available. But it wasn't, and so Stampede made its mark. And yeah, Duggan is still HOOOOOOing strong. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

IMDb

Hi. I just know this is going to need discussing, as I've recently removed an entry whose source is based solely on an edit made at the Internet Movie Database or IMDb. The site is of course an unreliable source, and why is that - it's edited in exactly the same way as our own Wikipedia, by editors with sometimes unverified user accounts (though not by unidentified IPs as we allow). So, "anyone could post that", as can happen in Wikipedia, "potentially without a grain of truth". I did look for an alternative reliable source for the entry but couldn't find one. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 13:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, per WP:Citing IMDb and WP:RS/IMDB. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerning ill template redirects

(From CAWylie's talkpage and this edit)

I have never before had to repeat an ILL name as a suffix to the template when it has been absolutely identical for English and the target language. Where there are accents to some letters or other extraneous characters, I agree that a suffix name is needed to complete the redirect. But I can honestly say, having tried out the link several times after my edit, that it successfully and accurately redirects to the other language article as it stands today. How can you be "caught out" in any way? I'd appreciate an anser so that I can better understand your motive on that one. If you are in some way trying to "future-proof" the link, that won't work either, and ILL links are gone in thirty days anyway. (P.S. Be prepared to invest a lot of time in similar quests - every other "identical name" ILL link I have ever done has left off the suffix name, so have those by most other editors, and successful navigations have always resulted.) Ref (chew)(do) 12:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(And because I disagree with your premise, I will be maintaining my method of adding ILLs in future.) Ref (chew)(do) 12:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Template:Interlanguage link#Link to one foreign language. WWGB (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Refsworldlee: Apologies. My sleep-deprived brain must've thought you removed the {{ill}} entirely, as that happens with new trans-redirects. (I fixed it back.) As for me being "caught out", I have no idea what your talking about, as evidenced by my edit link at the OP top. All the rest you detailed and cautioned about, I already know and usually help out with. — Wyliepedia @ 14:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Your edit summary re-adding the repeated identical name stated that you had been "caught out" like that "undone by this" before., did it not? (Have a look if you don't recall it.) I still don't know how you could be caught out undone by anything when (I still maintain) the ILL using singular name works perfectly every time (for me). See the template guidance page linked above by WWGB where it shows {{ill|Sigmund Jakobsen|no}} - that single named example is no different in principle to the one we seem to be disagreeing about, and Wikipedia itself doesn't appear to want editors putting {{ill|Sigmund Jakobsen|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}} for no good reason. My position remains, as there is also a basic responsibility for us to keep all the source coding as "un-fat" as possible during our edits, re: the page loading times. Anyway, thanks for highlighting our discussion here and for the reply. Ref (chew)(do) 22:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Dude, chill out and read my previous comment, rather than sabre-rattling or thumping the board-room table to prove your point. It was a mistake on my part. You guys need to get laid or something. — Wyliepedia @ 23:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Just not all night long, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I won't talk for the rest of you, but I could really need that.Nukualofa (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sabre sheathed. Ref (chew)(do) 05:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hidden messages in page source/Being the last surviving x

There's probably only one good use for the source code hidden message (for example <!-- I've got something to say which could go on the Talk page if my edit is challenged -->) on the Deaths page, and that's to indicate the starting letter alphabetically of the correct familial name, where the familial name is sometimes the first or middle name. Perhaps one or two succinct instances also. Otherwise, our coding is going to end up "fatter" and our page loading times slower. In response to a recent example which I reverted. Ref (chew)(do) 05:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye. I even find the visible part ("last-known surviving WAMPAS Baby Star") too fat, while we're talking about it. At 104, you're bound to be the last surviving participant of a lot of things few (or no) readers remember. Last-known survivor of Children of Pleasure, too, as best I can tell. Trivia like that's for the confluent articles only, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, I tried to remove that claptrap earlier, but was reverted with the message "the last among a specified group is certainly notable". I still think it's not notable, simply a consequence of not dying sooner. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Some specified groups are more notable than others around here. Hell, even WAMPAS isn't a thing. Is the S a typo? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue I have with the death page, as is obvious, is the lack of consistency. The format I use is always copied from previous entry's - often times I go back a month or two if I am not sure. So, you'll understand my frustration when a format that was acceptable for months is now no longer acceptable simply because one or two editors now deem it no longer acceptable. I have brought this up several times now but instead of taking my concern seriously, I'm threatened with a ban - classy, right? Personally, if there is a defined number of people in a particular group, and all those people are identifiable, I see no reason why a "last surviving..." description isn't appropriate. As I've mentioned previously, Carlisle was the last living member of a defined group of actresses, all of whom have been identified. The response I received was that "living long is not notable..." Well, if that were true, the "last-living person born in the 1800s" or the "last living-person born in the 19th century" is not notable either as their only claim to fame is simply living long. The "last survivor of the Titanic..." - as one contributor wrote in this thread "simply a consequence of not dying sooner." So, there you go. It appears that contributors change what is and what is not acceptable every month where I am trying to maintain some consistency. I didn't realize consistency was such a dirty word.User:Shadow2700 (talk) 07:35, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
The last person from the 1800s and last Titanic passenger did more than not die. They garnered interest in their predicaments, to the point that when they finally did die, that's how the headlines and leads of their obits went. Neither Carlisle's notice here, any source in her article nor anything at all on Google News gives her credit as the last WAMPAS baby. If nobody in the real world cares, one editor can't just insist it's important here. Same principle behind why Teog Seng Khoon isn't remembered as the last surviving member of the 1949 Thomas Cup-winning badminton team. At least he actually did something in that specific group, wasn't just selected with a dozen others by some obscure marketing cabal for reasons lost to time. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I will just continue to point out each and every inconsistent entry and ask for an explanation. That's the least I can do if a few selected people (must like your obscure marketing cabal re: Carlisle) chooses one avenue over another depending on if it's Tuesday or Thursday! Cheers! Shadow2700 (talk) 17:23, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
It's not about Thursday, it's about original research, particularly synthesis. If something is, it's unwelcome and if it's not, it might be OK. Your idea is, so think of how much time and effort you could save by agreeing to agree instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Stats such as being the last of something need to be of significance. You can’t make the comparison that the last actress in a group of actresses assembled for some marketing thing is the same as being the last person to have been recorded as born in a previous century. Also drop the passive aggressive attitude, it’s not going to aid any. Rusted AutoParts 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that there's a natural progression to conversations, but if you reference my original section heading, why are we still talking about subjects other than "hidden page source messages" in this part of the Talk page? Beats me. Ref (chew)(do) 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Refsworldlee: I was replying to Shadow who used your post to vent about what they perceived as a double standard. Rusted AutoParts 21:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has somehow become a part of social media, where, the further a conversation gets from the OP, the actual "claptrap" it becomes. Regarding the OP, the only hidden messages that should belong in entries are the foreign distinctions before the names to aid in alphabetizing: i.e. <!-- *A -->; regarding "first/last" notabilities, I think it depends on the event survival (Titanic, Munich massacre), rather than living longer than others (Wampas). Being the oldest of a nationality most definitely belongs here. — Wyliepedia @ 23:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You made a good point, I said aye then WWGB didn't say nay. I figured that settled that. Now unless I've figured wrong, I'll add that List of surviving silent film actors should likely also be pipelinked in the winner's blurb (unless it's empty by then). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Cyclist versus racing cyclist

Here we go again - let's knock another subject on the head. Do we indeed (as has been the norm for a very long time) include the exact type of cycling activity in the description when posting a cycling obit? Probably no-one would object if I added "trick" to "cyclist" if it was helpful in describing the talent of a circus performer who had died, for instance. "Racing" is perfectly valid, to me, and as I noted in my original edit summary it is faithful to the exact description contained in the lead paragraph of the racing cyclist's own Wikipedia article. Thoughts please, before anything else gets changed. Ref (chew)(do) 13:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Without context, "cyclist" seems generic to me (I cycle daily). Armand de Las Cuevas, the subject is question, was known as a time trialist, which is a racing cyclist, sporting and sponsored. — Wyliepedia @ 14:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You could theoretically get even more involved by putting "cycling time triallist" then! I honestly don't mind which way it's decided in the end, but I was sure the consensus already existed for this kind of description (I've never ever been reverted on that before). Ref (chew)(do) 14:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I spotted something else about the revert to my edit. According to the editor's contributions record, he is a committed fan of cycling and/or a cyclist himself, and might have taken offence that many others of us don't cycle and/or don't share his deep knowledge of the subject. For us ignoramuses (ignorami?), the added descriptor definitely would help us understand that sphere of interest better, I think. Ref (chew)(do) 06:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
He's got a point that recreational cyclists will never be notable because of their cycling, but in general I feel it's helpful to know what kind of cyclist we're dealing with, whether track, racing, offroad, BMX, trial, freestyle or whichever type of cycling sport they competed in. Same with a guitarist, really. Describing someone as a guitarist is fine, but it's more descriptive to write jazz, rock or classical guitarist. Nukualofa (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FAQ neither logical nor true

The FAQ currently states,"A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere. A relevant time clock can be found here. The first sentence is illogical: there are I believe 21 different time zones in the eastern hemisphere, and therefore 21 different times at which a new day starts: the deaths article does not (thankfully) post a new date 21 times a day. The second sentence renders the first untrue: it identifies the Line Islands time zone as the trigger, and the Line Islands (and all waters within the UTC+14:00 time zone) are in the western hemisphere. Have changed to "A new date is added when a new day starts in the time zone that first starts a new day . A relevant time clock can be found here.Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. Kiribati is the first major civilization on the Western side of the line of demarcation. One of the reasons it is known as the Christmas Island and part of the "Line Island" chain...Line Island for the International Date Line which is just off the East Coast of it. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West...not the other way around. As I write this, it is almost sunset on Friday there....not Thursday like it still is in most of the US. As the first time zone that enters a new day on Earth, so it begins here as well. I think it is usually around 6 or 7 am on the US East Coast for the following day depending on DST and middle of the night for us on the other side the US.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"It lies 232 km (144 mi) north of the Equator, 2,160 km (1,340 mi) south of Honolulu, and 5,360 km (3,330 mi) from San Francisco. Kiritimati Island is in the world's farthest forward time zone, UTC+14, and is one of the first inhabited places on Earth to experience the New Year (see also Caroline Atoll, Kiribati). Despite being 2,460 km (1,530 mi) east of the 180 meridian, a 1995 realignment of the International Date Line by the Republic of Kiribati moved Kiritimati to west of the dateline." Is the Key part of that Kirimati article. And I dont get why you want to do 21 starts to the day....doesnt make sense in time or space. The articles usually tell us what day they died. We just add it to the list for that day. Earth only turns a new day once a day.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
On a sidebar, I cant wait for the first death in outer space to hit the list. There is no time in outer space as it relates to the sun. Will be an interesting debate...or even say the first death on Mars which would have its own definition of a day.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Minor point but time in space is normally GMT+0 or UTC+0 MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No idea why you find it necessary to relate it to anything to do with places or times in the US, nor what most of your comment has to do with what I said. Of course I don't want to do 21 starts to the day: please don't misrepresent me as a fool. I pointed out that saying "A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere" could apply to 21 different occasions every day.
You point out yourself that Kiritimati lies nearly 2,500 km east of the 180° line of longitude: ie it is not in the eastern hemisphere. The Line Islands span 162°W-151°W. Note the W in those coordinates, they are in the western hemisphere. Please explain why you have marked my comment as incorrect. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you need to do more research...see International Date Line #Eastern Kiribati (1995) for an explanation. Regardless of where you live in the world, Kiribati is ahead of you. Already well into Saturday there. There is only 1 International Date Line...and when it passes midnight, bing that is a new day which starts in the Eastern Hemisphere....sun rises east, sun sets in the west- as sure as death and taxes.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't be so patronising. The IDL does not determine what hemisphere a place is in. I await your apology. Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Really? Notice the longitudes- Eastern Hemisphere, 180th meridian.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I already cited the longitudes: 162°W-151°W. W indicates that it is the western hemisphere. Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

How is pointing out perceived errors "patronising"? Claims like that stifle debate, which is what is happening here in the hope that someone will build a consensus as to what the wording should actually be in that FAQ. This section certainly could do without any flaming up, guys. Ref (chew)(do) 18:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"The sun rises in the East and sets in the West"; "it is almost sunset on Friday there....not Thursday like it still is in most of the US"; "One of the reasons it is known as..."; "Earth only turns a new day once a day" : totally lacking in respect, and the same tone is continued in subsequent posts. Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the wording which WWGB did once upon a time was actually quite good before it was changed. Call it the Eastern Hemisphere, call it the International Dateline, call it the 180th Meridian, it does not matter...its all the same time line. I just dont understand why this has become such an issue. It is a pretty uncomplicated issue...its not like there are a lot of choice in the +14 GMZ time zones out there to choose from as far as time clocks go. It may not get a lot of coverage in Europe, but both Kiribati and Sydney are usually featured in the US as the first two major celebrations of the New Year.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Call it the Eastern Hemisphere, call it the International Dateline, call it the 180th Meridian, it does not matter...its all the same time line." No, they are by no means the same thing. The Eastern Hemisphere is half of the planet, it is not a line by any stretch of the imagination: it is a hemisphere. The IDL and 180° longitude are the same for a large proportion of their lengths, but they deviate in a number of places including, as already acknowledged, by c.2500 km at the place we are talking about. Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sports overwhelming

It is interesting (shocking? depressing?) to find out by this list how overwhelmingly Wikipedia creates a majority of its biographic articles about sports people, when there are so many other important things going on in human history which have received equally weighy publicity in reliable sources. Just one man's opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And I struggle to realise the context in which you intended to mention this. Words to the Almighty might be in order, as to why he chooses so many sportsmen to sit by his side? Ref (chew)(do) 21:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
And I'm eternally tormented by the bluelinked sea of every politician ever elected to anywhere, whether or not they scored a single point of legislation. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
This is Deaths in 2018, not Other Important Things Going on in 2018. — Wyliepedia @ 05:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree Serge, but this is consistent with the site policies, which do not, in general, seek to address social ills. It is sad that mass culture is dominated by frivolous matters with actors, sports figures and other time wasters but that's the current state of what is notable in society and so it's consistent that it should dominate here as it does elsewhere. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! What depresses me a bit is not the success of sports people, but the apparent lack of interest among WP writers, statistically (as per this list), to create BLPs about people whose accomplishments actually matter in the real world, though enough reliable sources (can we assume?) must exist for that to be possible. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Pick any redlink without its native wikilink and Google it, you'll have the answer. There usually are no English sources. — Wyliepedia @ 20:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel the same way about most Movies and people who act in them. But that is the great thing about Wiki, there is something for everyone here. That is what is great about Wiki as a source. As long as the person meets the community established guidelines in sport or movies or politics it doesnt matter.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
As for Inedibles comments regarding politicians, I challenge him to move to a communist or totalitarian state for a year...maybe North Korea. And lets see how he feels about Parliaments, Republics and Democracies after that. Writing legislation is a silly requirement for an article, when most of these people represent large blocks of the populace even on the state level. I dont think that people in Europe or Canada or several other locales appreciate the numbers involved in the districts of India, the United States, and several other locales where hundreds of thousands to millions of people can be represented by just 1 little person. A for instance example is California. Every State level Senator in California represents 931,000 people. The US Senators from California each represent 20 million voters.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Democracy doesn't bother me (in theory). Lots of talented and respected people are raised by their peers to great power, and many use it to do great things they otherwise couldn't have. Good for those sort, I say, let their tale go down in history. The hell of it all is just the continuous stream of bios here who were born to other people, affiliated themselves with existing parties, were chosen over one to four others by dozens to millions of existing people for the ability to have their name advertised (by still more people) in a certain colour at a predetermined election date, served out a fixed term and happened to eventually die. The voters and advertisers deserve all the credit, and get none.
No offense to Abubakar Habu Hashidu, but his only willfull noted deed is conceding with praise for an electoral commission. Mostafa Suja was "active in the Bangladesh Chhatra Union", but that's vague enough to mean nothing. Luis Gneiting divorced his first wife, like many regular people do after (implicitly) graduating from veterinary school. Compared to these three, even Delwin Jones driving around a 1995 Buick LeSabre and reminding people to vote seems like a distinctive and action-packed example of some sort of relevant, self-driven work.
Same goes for politicians who were appointed instead of elected, and then also did nothing at all to stand out from the crowd. This isn't the place to fix this problem, but this place is hurt by it when readers can't distinguish particularly notable politicians from politicians who merely showed up on time and left the seat how they found it. The Village Pump is backlogged and someone has to put a stop to this culture of inaction. Sunnydoo, I choose you! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What you say may all be true, but the part you are missing is that they are part of the process. What you dont see represented on Wiki yet is their voting record. Who were the people that put in Megan's Law, Kristen's Law, the Brady Act, etc etc? Just normal every day politicians that made a huge impact on society by providing protection to kids, young adults, and the general population. Just because they didnt write the bill or even promote it, doesnt mean they werent a part of it. Even outside of the big stuff, politicians may make hundreds of decisions a week that can influence your life from your roads to your wallet. It is important the work they do and the impact it has and that is what notability is about. Just because people listed on here (especially a lot of the scientists which is an underserved population on Wiki) arent every day household names, doesnt mean they havent made a difference in your life or someone else's.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I get it, they vote on ideas important policymakers make or champion. Same as how Average Joe votes on them. The overall process and various offices are "big time", but being a simple spoke in a wheel shouldn't be enough. Every other field requires some sort of verifiable significant accomplishment for a Wikipedia article before they're created, and it's bullshit how politician articles can coast in and just sit there, virtually empty, for years or ever, on the assumption that they probably did something because other politicians often do. Paul Kramer, Nicholas Mattiello and Chuck Schumer deserve credit for getting your exemplary balls rolling, and everyone else just said aye or nay. I don't doubt many work hard behind the scenes on local matters, but so do construction workers, bakers and taxi drivers. If you refuse to resist the double standard here on my behalf, I'm afraid I'll have to decline your invitation to vacation in North Korea. Deal? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I will disagree with you again. What you are advocating is the original idea of communism under Lenin. Every person has a voice and place in society and no one has a greater role than another as long as they are in the Party (which excludes Criminals and those of lesser life value). I dont agree with that as there is a lot more that goes into some jobs both physically and mentally than others. For instance are there jobs that are more stressful than others or more dangerous, etc. etc. Some jobs just cost more in terms of the human condition, I just dont see them all as equal. I think you may be happy in North Korea if this is how you feel.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
All I'm advocating is for politician bios on Wikipedia (commie or democrat) to need to pass the general notability guideline, not slide in by default. Something like a meritocracy, probably should apply to baseball and hockey players, too. If Lenin thought the same way, I guess I think like Lenin, but that's just a coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It's purely a matter of numbers. To take an example from a source I saw recently, in 1962 there were over 1,400 footballers playing professionally in England alone. A very large amount of those will have an article, and those players will at the minimum be 73 years old now. Expand that for all the countries in the world, and then expand it to all other sports, and take into account that sporting careers are generally short, and they are replaced with others ... you'll see why we have so many articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

And I always imagined Swedes were the life of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.161.233 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Deaths from North Korea

I know it is not exactly related to the topic, but when was the last time a death was reported from North Korea? In February 2017 Kim Jong-nam was killed in Malaysia, and that's the last NK death I recall. It did not happen in North Korea, though. Last one I remember got official obits from KCNA was Ryu Mi Yong in late 2016. Nothing since them. That leaves three possibilities:

1)No political/public figure has died in NK since late 2016. Hard to believe.

2)Obituaries are published but not reported/available here. Strange, I browse KCNA often and last thing I found was Riu Mi Yong obituary from 2016.

3)Government has forbid to publish obituaries. I would not be surprised, that's North Korea.

What is your opinion on the matter? Obviously nothing can be done, just asking. --Folengo (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite simply, we can only work with such reliably-supported info as is readily available. So when that all comes together well regarding a North Korean death, it can obviously be included in our pages. However, if there is some nefarious secrecy culture in play in that country (there probably is for deaths of certain personnel), we will be hard-pressed to justify using "second-hand" or speculative sources in support of a posting here. "If in doubt, leave it out." As always... Ref (chew)(do) 18:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hyon Ju-song is the only one I can find on Wikipedia:Database_reports/Recent_deaths. A few others are mentioned in the articles reference (North Korea 'executes officer who jumped gun on peace on peninsula').--Racklever (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
From what little I think I've learned from the other side of the world, it seems the place just isn't suited to raising or exporting celebrities. Any particularly popular person would run the risk of stealing thunder from the cult of personality surrounding Kim, Kim and Kim (you know the ones I mean). Not a lot of options for climbing the social ladder beyond becoming a high-ranking party member or defecting and hoping the United States takes notice. The greatest honour in some places is just fitting into society and not rocking the boat, which isn't the sort of role we typically see on this page. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the death example quoted by Racklever has been added to June 28 in last month's list by an IP editor - but again, due to lack of reportage, I've had to scale it back to "death reported on this date", as (typically) nowhere in the article does it state an actual date of execution. It's really really difficult, all the time. Ref (chew)(do) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Hopefully the situation is back to normal. --Folengo (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

Here's the message which greets all readers from most of Europe who try to access any of their content:

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."

All fine and dandy, but it does render the Tribune partially impotent as an effective source here. It's great that our American counterparts can reference it and confirm the validity of the information it passes on, but each editor would prefer to be able do that first hand. Some discussion here might be of value as to whether the Trib gets tagged with the dreaded "better source needed" template or not. I'm sorely tempted. Also, whether it should currently be included in the list of external obituary links at the bottom of the article, though I'm not bothered really. Ref (chew)(do) 05:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've been going through archived Deaths pages replacing some of the sources affected by this block. Where there are no other reliable sources for an entry, I've left the Tribune ref there for now. Ref (chew)(do) 09:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The BBC reports Tronc and Lee Enterprises have joined forces to flip you the collective bird for hoarding your secrets. This applies to a wide swath of sources, from podunk rags like The Los Angeles Times and The Orlando Sentinel all the way up to The Daily Meal. If you're going to tag them all, you'd better pack a lunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up - at least another two to look out for and find alternatives to! Lunch packed ready, and I'll change them where I see them as I go back through the years. (Why should Europe have to put up with such shenanigans without it having the tiniest of repercussions?) Ref (chew)(do) 05:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Aye, fight the power. Be warned though, Chicago is a much tougher opponent than the United States. Even TDKR Chicago is (perhaps coincidentally) pushing against you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: & @Refsworldlee:: Omg I had no idea the Tribune has this weird error?! I'm not trying to push against you fellow Wikipedian it is a coincidence, I found Harlan Ellison actually died on 6/27. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Fine and dandy, I say. But I've replaced your Times with a Hollywood Reporter, because the latter has a tweet from a friend of his wife putting the death on Thursday. The Times is generally decent, but I tried to get it to correct Doink the Clown's WWF departure year in his obit, and they still refuse to accept reality. If they can be off by two years for a wrestler, they can be off by a day (or even hours) for a sci-fi writer. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
As you pointed out on my Talk, AP also says Wednesday. And as I said there, that's good enough for me. You still get The New York Times, Ref? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I unpacked my lunchbox in the end. Life's too short. I'll just replace rubbish region-restricted sources as and when I come across them in future. Ref (chew)(do) 20:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I see Spanish Wikipedia grew bored of not working. Italian, Polish and Estonian also look busy again. When I checked Latvia's, it instantly greeted me. That was nice of it. Esi sveicināts(a) to everyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the divert page to their grandstanding was supposed to re-divert back to their language encyclopedia after a few seconds (that's usually how it works). But it was knackered. Ref (chew)(do) 15:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, TDKR Chicago 101, I just noticed your reply!! What error??? Since when has a deliberate and profit-based block constituted a "weird error"? They know exactly what they are doing in this Trump-inspired era, and will keep squeezing the monetary Euro-sponge as hard as possible to get their "worth". Think Trump and "tariffs". Well, I'll keep equalizing inadequate sources whenever I come across them (if they don't work in Europe et al, they don't work). What a jag. Ref (chew)(do) 15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

When one wades through all the silliness in this thread, the disturbing POV shines rather brightly. I'll put aside the politically motivated POV directly above and address my problem. You appear to be saying that the credibility of a journalistic institution matters none as to whether we call something a reliable source. Rather, it's whether or not readers have something to click on. That's a microcosm of the generally disturbing direction Wikipedia has headed in for quite some time, as witnessed by the vast array of content sourced to the weakest sources imaginable. The last time I came here, you told me that legacy.com is a reliable source. Editorial oversight in a paid obituary is geared towards the whims of the party paying for the obituary, which goes contrary to any known definition of a neutral point of view. Once again, all that matters is that readers have something to click on? I've more or less given up on contributing to this page; almost every interaction I've had with the regulars here has shown that this is a walled garden whose primary purpose is to cherry-pick sources and flood the encyclopedia with whatever factual accuracy or POV baggage they inherit from those sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. These links can often be reached via Google cache, but I don't know if a Google cache reference is allowed here. On french Wikipédia, we have the {{Lien brisé}} (broken link) template which shows some alternate archive sources (for example: I just put it on french Jack Costanzo article), but I don't know if it exists in other languages. Regards, Xavier 90.13.221.147 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2018/Archive_1&oldid=1074315023"