Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 2

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

TBC

Is this replacing "Death announced on this date?" Not a bad idea, having them grouped at the top. But what does it stand for? BurienBomber (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m for a section to add the ones with unknown death dates as well. As @WWGB: said in regards to Steve Ditko, no exact date of death is known. So in my mind it’d be incorrect to file him on any date. Even with the tags at the end there’s people who still perceive that person’s dod to be the day they’re listed under. I feel an Unknown section is beneficial in that regard, and make those without DODs more visible and grouped together so seeking for potential reliable sources to confirm their death date is a bit more streamlined. Rusted AutoParts 18:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The section has since been removed because the death listed there was sourced to Twitter, but if I had a guess, TBC meant to stand for "to be confirmed." Vycl1994 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If so, I'd prefer "Unknown date", "Date unknown" or some such thing. "TBC" makes it sound like the death itself is awaiting confirmation. Could also suggest the cause or age is in question. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
"Announced" is just one of a range of similar statements, including "body discovered on this date". Why the need for change? If it is to prevent these addendums being 'wordy', how are we going to clearly abbreviate or shorten without any fear of misunderstanding from the casual visitor? Ref (chew)(do) 23:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And it occurs to me that the Rusted AutoParts suggestion will knock alpahabetical order for six, as has the much-used "list of victims" or "list of executed" when being entered as dying through a common event. The word "complicated" immediately springs to mind for me. Ref (chew)(do) 23:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
How so? How is it complicated to have a section where those whose death dates aren’t known to be put in their own little subsection? I see the practice used on the German wiki’s deaths page. That doesn’t seem to complicate anything. Rusted AutoParts 23:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I tested the concept out, both as it's own section as well as a subsection. It really doesn't look that bad in my eyes. Rusted AutoParts 23:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the edit. The first thing that strikes me is that each entry loses any context of a fixed point in time. The date-attached nature of an "announcement" tag may prove to be important to many more than just me. And the list at the bottom seems starkly disembodied. Not a fan at all. Ref (chew)(do) 00:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Some people die months or years before their death is discovered or announced. For example, see Joyce Vincent. She died sometime around December 2003, but her body was discovered on 25 January 2006. The current process would have (BDOTD) under 25 January 2006. If we used Deaths in January 2006#unknown, it would create a false impression that Vincent died in 2006, and not 2003. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
”each entry loses any context of a fixed point in time.”? “Starkly disembodied”? This is some serious overthinking for a simple section with a list of names of people missing their death dates. What other context is needed in that situation? We don’t know the dod so that’s why they’re there. It wouldn’t be so difficult to click the links to get more context if needed, but I don’t seem how anyone comes away confused or with a false impression. Rusted AutoParts 02:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Those are personal impressions - I don't know why you'd think I wouldn't give my reactions as I find them. It's not overthinking either, it's absolute first impressions. As usual, I'll go with consensus, so keep banging away. By the way, we're not in the business of asking folk to click links to articles in order for them to get some idea of the timescale of a death. Your idea gives no anchor of time, and I'll not shift off that standpoint because it's what hits me in the face immediately. Ref (chew)(do) 05:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I just personally don’t think people are looking for when their death was announced if they were to see the death date was unknown. It’s the same principle when certain details are taken out to avoid entry bloat, people get told it’s material they can view on the independent wiki article. What’s important is noting the person had died, and if the date of death isn’t known is listed in that unknown section until it’s determined when they died. Rusted AutoParts 14:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Over to anyone else then? Ref (chew)(do) 20:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I like how the old way provides at least a clue. If a death is announced on August 1, it's less probably an August death than one announced on August 29. Both might still be from 2003, of course, but having an upper limit at a glance is a bit nice. I don't think (and I may be underthinking) the extra five words are too much clutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I dont think it is such a big deal in this day and age. All unattended deaths in the Western World and most of the developed Eastern have protocols in place for autopsies, which generally give a good definitive answer (sometimes it takes a couple of days) on when a person died. Now there are oddball circumstances that do occur and sometimes families for whatever reason dont want to disclose that information, but really we are talking at most 1-3 deaths per month...is that really worth the effort to start a whole new category every month? If anything, if you dont like the tags, that should be a red flag for you to attack and research a source to get the info...and as most of these deaths we are talking about will be Blue labels, you could even file a freedom of information act in the States to find out that information and attach the death certificate to the main article- either as a photograph or as a file.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Another tip, you can sometimes find out that info using Legacy.com or by going to the website for the funeral home that is handling the body and service- again usually in the States...dont know if that will work for the rest of the world. All funeral homes in the US carry State licenses and have a standard of service they have to adhere too. Therefore their websites have to be maintained with accurate information that they know can not be false or misleading.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Good for the States - unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily exist in the rest of the world, and anyway it still glosses over my point about having to click away into extra hyperlinks and other websites in order to get some kind of information on the timescales involved. It's certainly an idea potentially wasteful of the web surfer's time. Ref (chew)(do) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Professional Titles

After reflecting upon it tonight, I feel DJ should be removed from any further use in names. I entered DJ Ready Red earlier in the day under R. Someone later in the night sorted it to under D. I originally changed it back, but then thought about it. We dont sort under any professional titles here and only use a few usually in relation to Crown services (Lord, Sir). PHDs, Doctors (Dr.), and other professional titles are excluded, so why would we use DJ at all? If we decide to use DJs for being part of their names, then we should probably add the other titles, like the Canadian medical researcher who died earlier this month and all the other doctors as it is part of their persona and name too. The professional service of DJ is covered in their description anyhoo and as Wylie would say...no need to over do or duplicate titles. I will update either accordingly after discussion. Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

DJ is not a "title" in such cases, it is part of a stage name. Wikipedia recognises such names: see DJ Khaled, DJ Premier and DJ Snake. It is the same with other stage names like Dr. Dre, Lord Alfred Hayes and Professor Tanaka; none of these are honorifics, they are part of an assumed identity. WWGB (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
If you may also have done DJ Loutka under L, then you're wrong on that, and I changed it to D for DJ Loutka. We have only ever alphabetized proper surnames, not nicknames, stage names or other invented names. However, if the musician was better known as Ready Red (a DJ), for instance, then you'd be justified in putting him under R. Ref (chew)(do) 05:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
But I disagree on this point if it is a stage name...dont you know your Dr. by his name? Dont you refer to him that you are going to see Dr. Brown at his office today. In many cases when I a doctor is a friend or when he wants you to use his first name...its still Dr Daniel or Brian or whatever. I just dont see the difference as you refer to each the same way why 1 is the one way and the other isnt. Where is the difference in going to see DJ Ready Red (at a concert) and going to see Dr. Brown (at an office)...that is how it is referred to in both cases.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Big difference. Honorific titles are bestowed by an independent body (medical boards, the military, universities) when certain requirements are met. "Stage titles" are bestowed on oneself, or by management, in order to create a stage persona. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Aye. Reverend Billy Graham was an relatively legit superstar and honorary Doctor of Divinity, but nothing like Superstar Billy Graham or Dr. Jerry Graham. Likewise, "WWE Superstar" and relatively legit Doctor of Philosophy Xavier Woods may have the honor of overseeing the Most Subscribed to Celebrity Video Gaming Channel, but he's no Professor X the Overseer, Doctor X or DJ Woody. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
How is "Dr. Brown" a stage name? The only doctors "performing" in their field are usually those you cannot see. (You would usually be under anaesthetic during their operations.) That's the worst analogy. Ref (chew)(do) 12:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sunnydoo: Please stop using my name to suggest or justify any change to a page- or Wikipedia-standard. Nothing in your OP reflects my opinion. — Wyliepedia @ 04:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Visualizing Deaths

Since this article is consistently among the most viewed articles in the Top 25 weekly report, I thought of ways to better summarize those pages, and make them more readable. So I took a shot at visualizing one of the months, and the result is as you see on the right,

Deaths July 2018
Deaths July 2018

I was able to extract the age, and the nationality at birth of each of the persons, with minor errors. I also realized that this visualization can also be made for other dimensions of the report:

  • Later nationality (where applicable)
  • Reason for notability
  • Cause of death

So we would end up with four visualizations for each of the months.

Suggestion

Although it is possible to extract these elements, it's not straightforward and can easily lead to problems, because we don't have all these elements for each reported death, and they don't all appear in the same order. The simple solution I suggest is to display the data as a table, and make sure that unavailable data are clearly labeled as such, so making the visualizations would be consistent and straightforward. It would also give a chance for readers to sort using those elements and have a better experience reading. I think it would be better to somehow automate the process by looking through Wikipedia. If someone is notable enough to have a page with minimal requirements on Wikipedia, then their death would be notable enough to be included here as well.

If this makes sense, I can go ahead and produce this for the last few months. If we want to go with a table format, I'll be able to do them for the other elements as mentioned above. Thanks! --Beauty not Love (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, it feels kinda....morbid to take tallies like this. Rusted AutoParts 00:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
True, but that's the same as the objective of the page, keeping track of who died. Just like in the news, when they announce that X people of nationality Y died yesterday. --Beauty not Love (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It's actually not what this page is about, in essence. It's a list, clearly just that, and doesn't require deep analysis. Some subject lists do, but not this one I don't think. I don't think you'd get a consensus to include it if you did it, to be honest. Ref (chew)(do) 00:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I see your point. Actually it's not for the analysis, but more for reading. I start reading the first few lines, then the list is overwhelming. It's sorted by date, which isn't really informative like the nationality, occupation, etc. of those who died. --Beauty not Love (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to visualize the Western (American?) bias, however, the aggregation and analysis of deaths data constitutes WP:OR and is therefore outside the scope of Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned above this is more to better navigate the page, and yes, some analysis will naturally come out. So, since there is not external data, and the visualization is fo the stuff on the page itself, would that still be considered OR?--Beauty not Love (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
WWGB How do we go about getting consensus on whether or not to go ahead with this? What's the process? By the way, you make a very good point about American / Western bias. In every one of the last seven months, the first is American and the second British. The source is usually obituaries from American and British publications. In several cases there were more deaths from countries with a population less than 10M than there were from China. Possible of course but highly unlikely.--Beauty not Love (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is achieved by discussion on this page. I'm not seeing consensus to add the table, which you did on four pages, and which I reverted. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, so your main concern is achieving consensus. You don't seem to have any issues with my other ideas (or at least you didn't respond). What exactly is needed? Would the four people in this thread agreeing on this be considered consensus, or do we need a certain number of people agreeing on this? Yes, I saw the reverts, and I thanked you for them. Please see my note below. --Beauty not Love (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate all your feedback on this. Thanks! --Beauty not Love (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Everyone loves a well-balanced argument and a great idea, especially when put in such a reasonable way. To be fair, it does look good, but I would still stick to my personal opinion as far as handling Deaths affairs goes. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 05:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

However, the inclusion of one of these graphs recently in the Deaths in July 2018 (this edit) page was not agreed upon and was rightly removed/reverted.Ref (chew)(do) 12:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. So, here's how I see it. I got three question, and I addressed them. Two of you didn't respond, and you did. After reflection (and maintaining your original position that you don't think it's a good idea), you hinted it might be a great idea, well balanced, and that the chart actually looks good. So, I thought, why not?
Just to clarify my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Consensus is required when there is disagreement on a certain edit, it is then discussed and finalized. But consensus is not required to make an edit. This is self-evident, with all the "edit" links everywhere. Anyone can, and is encourage to make any edit they want. Of course assuming edits in good faith, with a genuine desire to improve things. I hope it's clear that I'm not providing wrong data, trying to vandalize the page or make it worse in any way.--Beauty not Love (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Please don't underestimate the requirement for consensus. Inclusion of the (already claimed to be) original research graph in these pages, which are so carefully managed and have been for years, does require a consensus by discussion on this Talk page before proceeding. Any major changes or additions need that, and not just in these pages. Just because X number of editors have not seen fit to give an opinion does not add or subtract from any consensus. However, editing against the wishes of the majority will always elicit responses which sometimes appear unwelcome. I've merely given a compliment above for the aesthetic look and feel of the graph produced - I am still not of the opinion that it is right for this list. Feel free to edit, but expect to be reverted when consensus is not prerequisite. Ref (chew)(do) 06:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
As a WikiGnome of this page and its forks, I submit the decade-old argument that anything added to pages such as these, outside of its/their purpose of basic death information, causes lengthy loadtimes; hence, the nearly bare URL sources. So, a table added giving metadata attention to the entries, I believe, will cause additional load lag with 600+ entries. Plus, if anyone really wants be that interested in how many <insert nationality here> deaths there are, they can just page-search it. I, for one, am not. — Wyliepedia @ 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
And that sage point from our ever-diligent Gnome is probably the best reason why we should resist this particular enhancement. Thank you. Ref (chew)(do) 20:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does a continental championship require every country compete?

In Archive 1, it was (somewhat) decided that champions who played for teams in continental leagues were worthy of acknowledgment here, but we didn't nail down what a continental championship entails. I believe we should, since we're at war again.

We should also figure out whether second-place in Europe counts as any sort of championship, regardless of competing nations, because we're at war again. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, McDonald was denied for the NHL not including Mexico. Leather was approved despite not playing against Monaco, Yugoslavia the Vatican, Norway or Spain (among many others), and despite twice cleanly and clearly losing to the Soviet runner. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The European championship was and is open for all European countries, including Monaco, Yugoslavia, Norway and Spain. Leather didn't meet any from those (except Yugoslavia, she beat Milica Rajkov in the qualifying heat in 1958), but that was because none of them were good enough to qualify for the final. The NHL is for ice hockey what the English Premier League is for football/soccer. A national league of the highest quality with openings for the best teams from neighboring Wales. It's full of foreigners, but it's still a national competition.
As for medals, I would say all medals from world championships or the Olympics should be listed, but I would agree that a continental silver or bronze could be left out. Nukualofa (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Likewise, Mexicans naturally suck at hockey and have no market worth expansion. It's not like they're formally ruled out, and it's silly to pretend the US and Canada are one nation (unlike pretending England and Wales are part of some "United Kingdom"). I'm down for Olympic and world silver, too, and am glad we can agree that losing isn't winning on lesser stages. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure climate is the defining factor. Isn't the Las Vegas team quite good? Nukualofa (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Aye, and the city's cash flow is ridiculously good. Elephants, the Taj Mahal and Celine Dion would seem as out of place as indoor ice in most other irradiated sin deserts, but somehow Vegas makes it work. Anaheim's Ducks were imagineered straight out of a children's movie by a company centred on a giant talking mouse, the Coyotes manage despite a statewide lack of natural water and the Lightning are based near where bright people and shiny things are routinely sent to space (and near the giant mouse's other palatial estate).
Practicality has never been an impediment to profitability in the land of opportunity. It's a superpower with legitimate superpowers and an insatiable lust to master all things foreign, even the seemingly impossible. Mexico is (somewhat) content being Mexico. Good attitude to have, I think, but not one about to set the hockey world on fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Money is often a more potent factor. In the UAE, cash manufactured a cricket ground in the middle of a desert. Copious irrigation (money again) keeps the grass relatively green and lush. I witnessed a Champion County match between the MCC and Yorkshire at the aforementioned Sheikh Zayed Cricket Stadium in late March 2015. Nature can have the last laugh though - rain stopped play ! Thus, it is not only the US that can aim to conjure the seemingly impossible. Nevertheless, the UK can not produce a viable venue for cricket in early Spring - the climate then is simply too wet and cold. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Aye, Abu Dhabi and Dubai make Vancouver and Los Angeles look like crap and Liverpool, respectively, insofar as "living the dream" goes. No besmirchment intended. Just meant the US is particularly adept at this form of stage magic in a "New World" context. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems settled, but it seemed that way (to me) last time, too. Do I readd McDonald's four consecutive years at the top of his field and assume that Mexico's absence from that field is uncontroversial and understandable, or do we need an NHL straw poll? For my part, I think Option A is quicker. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Not settled. All those countries are in the same boat as Mexico, insofar as lack of ice and a reluctance toward cultural appropriation go. They are different from Mexico in rarely if ever being seriously considered part of North America. If we're at least agreeing now that the NHL is top-level in the field of hockey, can we agree that it's at least a bit unfair to deny elite hockey players while allowing Grammy and/or Juno winners, who also needed help from a team and only took home indisputably national gold? If McDonald had won four IIHF World Championships, nobody would give a shit about Barbados or Grenada's absence. What's the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I hereby announce a Great Straw Poll to determine the future remembrance of yet-living NHL champions forever shall commence on October 2 and run till midnight on October 30 (or sooner if there's a blowout). No weighing arguments, no measuring continents, no points for bluster and no looking to precedent, just Yes against No, nice and objective-like. As the Swiss say, be there or be square! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"notable deaths"

The lede currently reads "The following notable deaths occurred in 2018". Surely it would be better to say "The following deaths of notable people occurred in 2018". It's the people that are notable, not their deaths. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This list is not limited to people. It includes animals, trees and other previously-living entities. WWGB (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"notable deaths" still doesn't make sense. Given that every subject listed needs to be notable, it would be better to just have "The following deaths occurred in 2018". --Michig (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Then we will have people listing the dead local library cat. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is likely or a good argument for sticking with the status quo. --Michig (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree.  Fixed --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, makes better sense after the change. We will simply remove said library cats as NN, like we always do. Ref (chew)(do) 18:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I dislike the word "individuals", but if it's going to be less controversial to call a horse an individual than a person, I can live with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Great Straw Poll

Happy October to everyone! As some trees change this month and some trees don't, so will or won't some customs. I've chosen three, but can't decide which pile they fall in. Can you? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Simple poll (yes or no on each or any)

A When a strange term (like xiangsheng) is used twice on one page, should we only Wikilink the first one?
The two (or more) uses of the same seldom-used term could be a page-length away from each other (a long way away indeed, towards the end of the month). I'd say No - both (or all). Ref (chew)(do) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, one entry is a redlink, the other isn't. Problem will eventually solve itself. — Wyliepedia @ 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure most readers do not read the list from top to bottom. So, every occurrence of an unfamiliar term should be wikilinked as that may be the only occurrence of that word encountered by a particular reader. WWGB (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
We should wikilink both. A list like this isn't like a regular article. So no. Nukualofa (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No, not everyone reads the whole page or remembers what they learned a month ago (if they clicked the first one at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
B Shall hockey players who've won the prestigious Stanley Cup be recognized as champions when they die?
"Should", surely! The honour does not suddenly get taken away because they died. They go down in annals of history, don't they? Ref (chew)(do) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No: my stance still remains that an award such as the Stanley Cup, or the Super Bowl, are group achievements. The recipient officially is the team. Stanley Cup winner: The Washington Capitals. Their names get engraved on it sure, but it’s still ultimately through the efforts of everyone on the team. Individual achievements, like the Vezina Trophy I think are fair to include because the recipient is solely the individual. Rusted AutoParts 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The SC is international (unlike the Super Bowl), so yes. Let's say someone dies and was the MVP of said hockey event, that's notable; being a member of a 50-player national team isn't necessarily mentionable here. — Wyliepedia @ 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly notable to win competitions like the Stanley Cup, but that sort of information should be in the article of the person, instead of this list. The same with Olympic participations. While the NHL is a very good ice hockey league, it's more a joint US/Canadian league than a true international event. You got other multi-national leagues, such as the Alps Hockey League and the BeNe League. Few would argue that wins in those leagues should be included. Nukualofa (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes The only thing a hockey player can do is help his team, and the single greatest thing he can do is help his team to the Cup. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
C Is "traffic collision" still adequately descriptive for all forms of traffic collision?
It contains the words "traffic" and "collision", so Yes on that one. Ref (chew)(do) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
If it involves a motorized vehicle, yes. — Wyliepedia @ 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
A traffic collision "occurs when a vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or other stationary obstruction, such as a tree, pole or building." Covers everything. WWGB (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
While it might be correct, the phrase traffic collision is limited and is missing useful information if the collision is something other than a car crash. Most people think of two cars crashing when reading the words traffic collision. For other cases, more information should be added, for example "pedestrian-vehicle collision". Nukualofa (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm a person who thinks of two cars crashing; "single-vehicle collision" and "hit by car/truck/whatever" work for those situations. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Complex discussion (if needed)

While the Vezina is awarded to an individual, it is never won alone. Any goalie facing a five-on-zero rush for sixty minutes a night literally won't survive into the playoffs, let alone qualify. And he'll rank dead last against goalies who had defenceman and forwards to help. Same deal on Art Ross and Norris champions, they'd get smoked by themselves. That's just the nature of team sport, by design, no more shameful in context than the year's best jockey relying on a horse or a champion javelin thrower's crippling javelin dependency.

As RAP says above, the Cup is won ultimately through the efforts of everyone on the team. If everyone on the team wins the Cup, it should be impossible to believe anyone on the team didn't win the Cup. But somehow it isn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Like I said it's awarded to the team as a whole, the team is who gets the recognition. I feel we should stick to accolades the person directly wins on their own. Rusted AutoParts 17:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • But they're inextricably linked to a team award, and forever a part of it. Possibly, without their team input, the award might not have been won. There should not be such a bias against team achievement here. Ref (chew)(do) 17:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • But then there's also those on a team who didn't put in exemplary amounts of input into a given team achievement. Regardless of what efforts the person deals with to get a Vezina, or an Art Ross, they still singularly win it for themselves. Academy Award winners all need aide but we still mark them as Oscar winner because they did win the award. And yes, technically a player on a winning team is an X champion, but the noted winner of the award is listed as the team. That's my core point. Rusted AutoParts 18:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what list you're basing that on, but the list engraved on the Cup (and this one) is a bunch of players who won it. Granted, they can't all be MVPs, but if they play their utility role as it was intended to be played, they can certainly be champions. Without third and fourth-line assistance, the big scorers, heavy hitters and fast skaters would be overworked, sore and sluggish (i.e. losers).
Of course it's sweet to lead the league in individual regular season stats, but come playoff time, if everyone on the team doesn't play better than their counterparts across the ice, nobody gets to hoist the one grand prize which all that combined scoring, saving, skating, training, checking, passing, fighting and coaching was meant to add up to in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess we’re taking my use of the word listed very literally. The seasonal award section of each NHL season only offers the team name in where the winner is placed. The players win the game and the cup for the team. It’s not an award given to one singular individual. Everyone works towards getting their team the cup. For me that speaks to me as the team as a collective being the winners and it not necessarily being something that we should mark down for entries here. They can hold the cup and have their names in it, but the organization collectively is the winner. Rusted AutoParts 18:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, everyone works toward getting the team the Cup, and everyone on the team is the team, so the team works toward getting everyone the Cup. It's not presented to a single individual precisely because no single individual can win it. It's handed to the captain, who hands it to the alternate, and so on down, till each gets to triumphantly raise it in public and spend at least one night doing strange things to it in private (or normal things, depending on personal preference). If all belonged to the intangible franchise, there'd be no need for solid golden rings. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
My point is clearly not getting understood. I’ve said my piece, I guess we’ll see how this plays out. Rusted AutoParts 19:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate more of what you said than I don't, so it's not like you wasted your time. I think you just see the final award aspect of excellence as the important thing, while I put more weight on the underlying accomplishment. When I force my brain to imagine life as a destination rather than a journey, I get the same answer you do, so you're (presumably) not crazy or stupid or wrong, only different. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Results

  • A When a strange term (like xiangsheng) is used twice on one page, we should not only Wikilink the first one (4-0).
  • B Hockey players who've won the prestigious Stanley Cup shall be recognized as champions when they die (3-2).
  • C "Traffic collision" is still adequately descriptive for all forms of traffic collision (3-2).

If anyone here knows of any reason this Great Straw Poll should not conclude today, type now or forever hold your peace. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Legislature doors close for the winter at 4:30 pm EST, if anyone's looking to slide one in right at the horn. To Old World viewers, that's thirty-six minutes from now. In the event of a tie, there will be a single twenty-minute sudden death overtime period, followed by each side attempting to guess how many fingers the other side is holding up (be honest). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Then by the powers vested in me by an encyclopedia anyone can edit, I now pronounce these three things the way things shall be for the foreseeable future. Good game, everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Mel Ramos

It's blocked in Europe. Someone seems to think it isn't. Here's the grab:

451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
Sorry, this content is not available in your region.

Tag therefore inserted and re-inserted - and I have been looking for an alt source with diligence. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's what is available online, from my purview:
✗ Fail: SF Chronicle
 Pending (current): artdependence.com
? Maybe: artnews.com, artforum.com, artnet.com
— Wyliepedia @ 05:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Whatever. My point is, please do not assume that everyone all over the world has access to all websites in order to check facts and sources - the European privacy access block is ongoing and unresolved by a host of US news outlets online, and all I am doing is flagging them up IF I can't find a decent (or a single) alternative source to replace the "Euroblocked" one with myself. I do search first, and edit in good faith, not in order to be obstructive. Ref (chew)(do) 06:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I added the alternatives here as a collaborative testing ground, in case others have yet to search or can't, not as throwing shade on global access. But, "whatever"... — Wyliepedia @ 10:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Said not to you directly but to editors in general who might think Europe etc. is somehow a little brother which doesn't need to find things out for itself and can just take the word of big brother Stateside. It's a comment on content more than anything, not a personal attack, as I'm not into that. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I myself forget, being in the Appalachian Southern U.S., that someone across the world could see things differently (or not at all, in the case of sources), as when I create a European enwiki bio and add dates with the month first. It's easy to initially overlook, which is why, here, I'm not opposed to helpful templates to any sources (i.e. "unavailable", "subscr. required", etc.) in order to suitably aid any visitor. And, if no globally-viewed sources can be found right away, said templates should remain until one can. — Wyliepedia @ 06:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

To be honest and fair to you, you would need to route through a European VPN to be able to readily see which sites are getting blocked to us (apart from the sites you may already have noted are blocking Europe or parts of). So I'm never going to be too hard on anyone with that "blind spot". But unaffected folk are going to have to take the word of this pre-Brexit Brit on the matter if we're to keep the page truly "open" to all around the world. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 13:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there an app for that? (Rhetorical.) — Wyliepedia @ 08:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018

This person doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. We generally only list deaths (and births) when the person in question has an existing article. Sakura CarteletTalk 21:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I have added Burroughs with another citation that gives his age. For future reference, redlinks are allowed here on occasion. Please review the consensus stated in the answer to the second question listed in the FAQ box on this talk page. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely must correct Sakura Cartelet's misunderstanding of the inclusion policy long developed by consensus, and I also feel that the term "on occasion" is open to misunderstanding too. Sufficiently baseline notable people, who just happen to have redlinks purely because no article has yet been created about them, are indeed always included for a maximum of 30 days, after which they get removed if an article has not been written. Inclusion based on real notability, redlink or not, is not an "ad hoc" gift of the editors here, but something we have a duty to assess and carry out where proven. Ref (chew)(do) 23:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying that death pages somehow need to have facts about an alleged notable person before an article is created unlike month or year articles such as January 2 or 2018 which specifically ask to only add them once a page is created? Sakura CarteletTalk 01:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I said basically that subjects in the Deaths pages do not need an article (bluelink) to exist in the list and that they are not barred from the list merely by being a redlink (for the first 30 days anyway) - that's all. Any article created here needs to be about a notable subject or person, otherwise it gets speedily deleted or put up for AfD, as you will know. You have tried to read more into what I just printed than I actually stated. Ref (chew)(do) 07:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to move page to Deaths in November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The proposer misunderstands how the pages work. They are usually moved to month-listing after the passage of the month in question. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Deaths in 2018 → Deaths in November 2018 – This page is misleading the only deaths are in the month of November not the entire year. They are other pages that show deaths in months in 2018. If you like the name as is please make this page about every death in the year and not just November. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is what happens when a 16-year-old kid with 150 edits is allowed to edit Wikipedia. 124.169.5.169 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, now, there's no need for that. While it certainly would have been preferable for him to have discussed this instead of just going ahead with it, it's not necessary to try to demean that user. --Waluigithewalrus (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 110% Oppose for the same reasons outlined above. How many times on the 1st or 2nd do I look back to the last few days of the last month & see a name in there that gives a shock. Leave it alone. If it aint broke dont fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.217.122 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The main page of the English Wikipedia links here through Recent deaths under In the news. Recent deaths and its current landing page Deaths in 2018 receive about 3 million visits each month. It is critically important that the status quo not be altered. Deaths in all months of the year are accessible through the Table of Contents. WWGB (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I'm not sure what prompted this requested move. But there are a solid half dozen editors who are dedicated to keeping this page up-to-date and relevant and manage the moves and deletions at the end of the month. The system works well and if it's not broken, I don't see a reason to change it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose For the reasons listed above. Also, when a new month begins (except January), the previous month's listings remain displayed for 6 days. So your suggestion for the current month's deaths would fail for that reason. Erasmussen (talk)
  • Strong oppose - a subject page needs an overall heading, which in this case is (logically) "Deaths in [year]", after which sub-sections then break down into component months. The project itself as an encompassing entity is never known as "Deaths in [month][year]" - why would it be? Due to the sheer length of the lists of notable deceased, it is necessary to archive previous sub-sections into separate containers of their component months. Each component month is clearly and handily listed in a menu for easy access. There is no innate logic in relegating this main and up-to-the-minute page into just another component month, and the knock-on effects of dealing with the logistics of re-arranging menu linkings would also be counter-productive in my opinion. The maxim "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" fully applies here too, and I suspect there may be just a small few who are suffering boredom in editing the same old the same old. THAT is not a good enough reason to introduce change either, if true. Ref (chew)(do) 06:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
(By the way, Phoenix X Maximus, what you propose would lead to ONE page for the whole of 2018 so far, and that would be a page that, due to its massive massive length and heavy source coding, would NEVER load!) Ref (chew)(do) 06:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A suggestion

I have a small suggestion in the way the article is currently displayed. My suggestion is to introduce a navigation bar as done in the article Portal:Current events/October 2018 which, at the top of the page uses a navigation bar to select different months. If it is possible, please include arrows at both the sides which must point to next and previous years.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We have this at the bottom of the page with a header included in the TOC, but I'm not opposed to a clean navbox up top. As for pointing to previous years, those don't last long (see Deaths in 2017). — Wyliepedia @ 18:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
My only proviso would be that, whatever modified navigation device is inserted into the Deaths page, it does not shove the first set of entries even further down the page view than at present. The content is more important than the niceties, IMO. Ref (chew)(do) 21:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct, a navbox up top would be purely cosmetic. While the current TOC grows daily, it is tidier, doesn't affect page flow (except line wraps lengthier recent entries), and contains a page jump to previous months. Some people need further guidance, I suppose. — Wyliepedia @ 04:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We need more editor input on this, otherwise there's a danger of no consensus and no change even if beneficial. Ref (chew)(do) 15:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
My view is the present layout gives readers a methodology of moving to previous months / years, without comprising the entries themselves by being displaced further down the page. Generally, readers are far smarter than we compilers think. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, no change necessary. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be heading for no change on an opinion basis - any other comments from those who haven't already? Ref (chew)(do) 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Earlier months

I can understand the confusion with a title of "Deaths in 2018" that starts in November, would it not be easier to put the earlier month links at the top to make it clearer rather than hide them at the bottom? MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The solution would be to rename the page to recent deaths, as it's linked from the mainpage, and no-one is typing "deaths in 2018" into the search box. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
See above. — Wyliepedia @ 14:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
But as with other "encompassing" project pages in Wikipedia, which also chronologically contract into an archive, its title is an anchorpoint from which editors and readers start to explore all Deaths in the specific year. I honestly don't understand how there is the slightest misconception. It's not an article ABOUT deaths in the year, as such. It's clearly, to anyone who looks at it closely on first visit, an article forming a LIST of Deaths. As mentioned in the renaming consensus above, if you kept all deaths so far in 2018 on one page, the page would never load, being overly bloated by sheer weight of source coding. We very much make the best of a bad job in some ways, but the overriding logic coming from that discussion above is that it doesn't really work better in any other form that regular editors can think of. Ref (chew)(do) 16:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
BTW, how "recent" would "Recent deaths" be, actually? Another logistical parameter nightmare springs up through that change, if applied. Ref (chew)(do) 07:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I almost made a bold edit, changing this:

...to this:

...but stopped myself, because the "Wikidata; Reasonator" text looked a little too weird and out of place. Still, I think it'd be useful to direct readers/editors to Wikidata and/or Reasonator when we don't (yet) have an English version, especially on an article like this one, which is in six languages as of this writing. Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Not at all impressed. You said it yourself - "a little too weird and out of place" - plus, get a good few of those on the page and it would take ages to load. We're always trying to keep the page code lean and clean, and that would defeat that object to start with. Ref (chew)(do) 02:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I have never been a fan of inter-language links. Permanent inclusion of the deceased on this page is determined solely by the existence of an article in the English Wikipedia. Little blue tags do not change that position. Obviously, I do not favour expansion of such links. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ills yes, Wikidata no. There have been several times I have created enwikis based on an entry's foreign-wiki, just by checking that little blue link. It saves an extra step for anyone whose first language is English but might speak a certain second language. Wikidata isn't a little blue link. — Wyliepedia @ 14:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
[ The "reasonator" formatting has disappeared from the above example given by RobLa. Why would this be - and what possible use is there in archiving this discussion? ] Ref (chew)(do) 16:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The Reasonator and Wikidata links were produced by {{ill}}. Because an English Wikipedia article about Bennassar has been created, {{ill}} defaults to a wikilink. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, now I understand. Ref (chew)(do) 17:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I've now restored the interlanguage links, just in case discussion continues. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

checkY. Ref (chew)(do) 15:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Horse death dates

I’ve always felt that there’s a very high amount of horses being added whose deaths aren’t ever disclosed in the announcements. It’s always struck me as odd (and a bit annoying). Sometimes it makes me curious to the day they are announced as having passed also serves as the DOD. But I know this doesn’t hold any water as it’s only my assumption. Rusted AutoParts 19:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about nags, but are they not all deemed to be born on 1 January in whatever year ? If so, it probably makes the date of death less important. Mind you, if we did not cover horses etc. here, then it would not be an issue. We'll have trees listed on here next... hang on, we already have. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Related : heads up - article for Robin des Champs, an entry into December 4th, has an AfD tag on it. We know that if it goes red it comes out. Ref (chew)(do) 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
How about Human deaths in 2019 and Animal and plant life deaths in 2019 as of 2019? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Why split them when the current single page serves the purpose just as well? The inclusion of animal and plant deaths is infrequent and doesn't overload the current page by any means; I see no reason to split the topics.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Fixing things that ain't broke is futile when the number of notable non-human deaths is comparatively so small. Speedy deletions within Wikipedia will keep careful control of what can or can't be posted here in the field of non-human cessations, quite nicely "as is", I think. Ref (chew)(do) 18:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Group effort Olympic medals

Viktor Matviyenko's Olympic medal got removed for being a group effort. Didn't we reach some sort of consensus that NHL wins should be mentioned? That's a group effort. Shouldn't that apply to Olympic medals too? Nukualofa (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I have restored the Olympic team medal. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

sports vs music deaths

An indication of how skewed Wikipedia is in coverage of notable people is that there are vastly more sports people listed than music people. So far in December, 25 sports, 4 music. I often look up notable musicians, composers, etc., and find them missing. Sometimes I find them recommended for deletion. Xerlome (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This whole operation is based on finding reliable sources to add people in. If we don’t have a source then we don’t add them. This is such a bizarre nitpick/criticism. I could say how there’s no astronauts listed yet, but I don’t because either none have passed or no sources presently exist to add any. Rusted AutoParts 15:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I have chronic deja vu, because this exact same conversation started a couple of months ago in Deaths Talk. I see no reason in discussing it once again. Ref (chew)(do) 15:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It indicates a value bias of Wiki writers. A disparity of 25 to 4 is extreme. (I am sure there are other such disparities). I personally think the other way around would be more appropriate. I would have said nothing had there been at least half as many musicians as sports people. But there are three times as many football players alone than all music people listed in the past week, which suggests there must be more footballer than musician articles. Weird. There are plenty of music people dying all the time. Plenty of sources. I wish I had time to write articles, or to defend notable music people marked for deletion because someone is uninformed. I will at least go on pointing this out unless/until something changes. Xerlome (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry is this a troll? If any person of any occupation is notable then they get articles. How is this reflective of “bias”? Rusted AutoParts 20:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Wrong Talk page for this subject then! We report deaths here, article created or not initially - we don't decide which article to write about which person as and when they are included here, and certainly not to the exclusion of any other person in any other field. Now struggling to see your point in relation to what this page does for the wider Wikipedia project. Where's the bias in exactly what we do here? Ref (chew)(do) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The bias is that sports is apparently valued more than music by Wiki writers, to an extreme, with this result. Point taken about where to speak of it. Where would be best? Xerlome (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit blunt, but not here. I can't think where otherwise, as you are making a vastly generalised complaint. There must be somewhere. Ref (chew)(do) 00:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Probably WP:NOTABILITY. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
How many bands have a dozen or so people in them? Football (both soccer and gridiron) and baseball teams have more people on them than a rock group. There are different notability standards for all. As for entries here, all we need are reputable sources to post someone. Sports participation varies. — Wyliepedia @ 23:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
List of symphony orchestras has many with a hundred or so. But yeah, rock is another story. One with far less money. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles#Persons by time

Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Persons_by_time has Wikipedia:Requested articles/deaths in 2016. Shouldn't we be doing the same thing with every year, for all the red links listed here that we don't create?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of "we", you could maybe nominate yourself or someone else, but it's not something I'm going to personally feel compelled to do, as I don't see too much value in it myself, and this may be the case with many other editors (otherwise I think it would have already been carried on). Looks to me like someone had a "good idea" all on their own and just didn't see it through. Ref (chew)(do) 20:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
So my question is, when the red links get removed at the end of each month, where do they go? Simply in the edit history?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The answer is, they go to redlink heaven, that is, they are deleted and disappear. Without a Wikipedia article, notability of the deceased has not been established, and they have no place here. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
They go. It's as simple as that. Our responsibility towards those with unwritten articles and therefore a perceived lack of notability ends. The redlink 30 day allowance is actually a concession introduced at a time in the past when NO redlinks were allowed, period. So our dutiful attention to the redlink within the Deaths pages is already a bonus. It is for the wider Wikipedia editorship to go and create articles if notability exists among redlink subjects, and certainly not our responsibility to keep a permanent record or list of redlinks previously included as an aid to this end. Ref (chew)(do) 00:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2018/Archive_2&oldid=1073162298"