Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

WikiProject template image

Some editors object to articles being tagged with this WikiProject's banner due to the use of the skull image in the template. Personally, I have no objection, but its use is obviously causing distress to some. This leads to edit wars with the project's template being removed/readded to talk pages. I've noticed this particularly on aircrash articles, most recently the Algerian Il-76 crash article.

Obviously, a WikiProject needs a relevant image in its template. Death is often personified by the Grim Reaper. Therefore I suggest that the image in the template be changed from File:Caucasian Human Skull.jpg to File:The death.svg. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Pigsonthewing, Jim Michael, Martinevans123, Daniel Case, Gamaliel and Johnuniq, who were all involved at Talk:2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This objection by a tiny minority of editors is ridiculous. If they hate seeing a symbol of death, then they shouldn't be on the talk pages of articles about fatal accidents. Everyone who has an unreasonable objection to the skull picture will likewise object to a picture of the grim reaper, so that won't solve the problem. Jim Michael (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
distress to some. This has indeed been raised at other times, by people who were not creating the project or dealing with the subject or the details, there used to be quite extensive conversations in earlier years about wikipedia is not censored, yet this was raised.
The need for a relevant image is unusual, as the image has stayed unmodified as is for some years. Why such an euphemistic and culturally bound item as a grim reaper is required, then perhaps those who play with the template image without deferral to this project will find something even more disturbing to some than a skull as a response.
There is a minimal level of offence from a skull compared to what could be used. Death is a constant, if people cannot cope, maybe they could consider not reading or utilising articles, or talk page about it.
There is a vast array of quite not very comforting and unpleasant articles about things other than death on wikipedia, have they been changed or modified to not offend? JarrahTree 08:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed - many WP articles show corpses of people who have been murdered, as well as corpses of people who have been killed in war. Objecting to a clean, undamaged skull is ludicrous. As I've said before, anyone who's squeamish about death wouldn't be on talk pages of articles about fatal accidents. This complaint about the skull on the Death banner has been raised on here a few times before and on the talk pages of several articles. It's ridiculous, because a skull is extremely appropriate as a universal symbol of death. Jim Michael (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, a WikiProject needs a relevant image in its template. — It's not "obvious" at all. On the contrary, the fact that {{WikiProject Death}} has an |image=no option, and that {{WPBannerMeta}}'s |IMAGE_... parameters are optional, is proof that the project does not need an image at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree. When I see the collapsed heading for WP:Project death at Talk:2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash, I kind of understand that it's been deemed relevant to WP:Project death. What benefit do I really gain, if I choose to open that heading, to then see an image of a (clean Caucasian, presumably adult) skull? But I guess this is true for all the Projects, including the ones with attractive icons. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Many project banners include a relevant image or symbol. It's illustrative of the subject. What reason is there to not have an image? Jim Michael (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
When I say "a relevant image", it means one relevant to the Wikiproject's scope. You wouldn't expect to see this image being used for WP:DEATH any more than you'd expect to see this image being used for WP:MILLS. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
For years the project has existed without this sort of conversation - I see nothing from anyone that suggests anything needs to change. There is nothing from the comments above, that suggests there is any need to change. Most projects have related portals, and a symbol that connects project and portal is a very useful link image wise. To suggest the project does not need a symbol is patently absurd. JarrahTree 12:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Over 99% of people don't have a problem with it, but on several talk pages the banner has been removed and I've been berated for 'putting pictures of skulls on talk pages', when what I actually did was put the Death project banner on the talk pages of relevant articles. Jim Michael (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The Death portal symbol, although smaller, is perhaps worse. It's a skull and crossbones? Something to do with pirates perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Haha - I am a member of the defunct pirates project - forgot about that. It should be changed perhaps...
For one there should be consistency - but Jim Michael shows the problem - the actual number of events/issues arising - appears to be so statistically small,I see no reason to change anything - it would have to be a much larger number of sensitive souls scared out of their seats to justify a change - there is no wider epidemiological issue in evidence to date to require a change, imho JarrahTree 12:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess some might be saying, "For the love of God, can't we camp it up a bit?" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that would be more appropriate.
The point about the crossbones is relevant - they should be removed to avoid confusion with pirates. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
shiver me timbers, please do so! JarrahTree 13:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's bizarre that a tiny number of editors are repeatedly removing the Death project banner from the talk pages of some articles, simply because they personally don't want it there. These are experienced editors who are doing this, they know they're in the wrong and they've been told repeatedly - yet they tell me to 'stop putting skulls on talk pages'! Jim Michael (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That is quite off putting - I suppose with the way protocols are these days ( the kill the portal system debate shows some quite astonishing misunderstandings of what wikipedia is about ) there are insufficient means or measures to keep skull phobic editors under control JarrahTree 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Those few people who are wrongly removing the banner should be told not to. I've tried, but they keep doing it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not "skull phobic" (as far as I know). And I've not removed anything. But the skull image is probably something I'd enjoy spotting, if I were aged about 9 or 10, with the aid of my I-Spy Book of Wiki Projects. I hope some editors get good value out of the projects, Good for them if they do. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Project banners aren't about enjoyment. If there's a more appropriate picture than a skull, say what you think that would be. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sorry to brashly use "the E-word" there. We all know Wikipedia isn't ever about that, don't we. I've no objections to the image suggested by Mjroots. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Wikipedia can't be enjoyable. I'm saying that enjoyment isn't what decides on the picture within a banner. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that 9 or 10 year-olds with I-Spy books get to decide either. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't get to declare objectors wrong just because you say so, and WikiProjects don't get to override local consensus. Why is an image necessary at all? I'm unclear as to why you're so stubbornly attached to a silly picture of a skull that is obviously creating offense among other editors. The picture is meaningless and unhelpful. A simple solution would be allowing editors at a local talk page to set the template to |image=no if they find it offensive and unhelpful to have a skull starin at them every time they view the talk page. The picture factually adds *nothing* of value to anything so omitting it where deemed undesirable seems entirely straightforward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
They are wrong because the banner is definitely applicable to fatal transport incidents. There's nothing silly about a skull - it's a very common symbol of death. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The banner may be applicable, yet the image is obviously offensive to some people. Therefore, setting the template to |image=no allows the banner to remain but removes the offensive image. I'm unsure why you would object to this simple solution other than just power-tripping over a template. WikiProjects have no special power to override local consensus where present and this seems like an elegant compromise which requires you to make no permanent changes to the template yet allows local page editors to satisfy their desires and concerns. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There are some people who are offended about all sorts of things, but Wikipedia is not censored. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia not being censored does not permit you to insert material in an article or a talk page absent consensus for that material to be there. You're a longtime user and you should understand that. Not being censored is not a license to do anything and everything you personally want to do and fuck everyone else because "who cares." Other people obviously care, and respecting their viewpoints and beliefs is an important part of editing collaboratively. The onus for inclusion is on the person requesting inclusion - so if you can't demonstrate an affirmative consensus for including that image on every single talk page it exists on, you don't have a policy foundation for including it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(a) There is nothing in wikipedia that says project tags on talk pages require a page by page check to 'clarify' re inclusion or not
(b) All projects in wikipedia have no policies for inclusion or exclusion of project tags, it is not how wikipedia works. JarrahTree 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing in policy that says WikiProjects get to override local consensus, because they don't. So do you have a consensus to include the image on the talk page in question, yes or no? If not, then there is no consensus for inclusion and it should be excluded. WikiProjects don't get special authority to ignore fundamental policy for inclusion of content on any particular page. At many pages, there may not be an objection to the image, and that's fine. But where it's objected to, if you really desperately want a silly skull picture in your banner, you're going to need to get consensus for its inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not true. Your claim that consensus is needed to have an appropriate project banner on its talkpage is ridiculous. You're talking like there's some harm in having it there, which there isn't. You're also claiming that having the banner there is violating a policy - which it isn't. As I've repeatedly said, there's nothing silly about a skull - it's a very common symbol of death and is therefore extremely appropriate. Consensus for inclusion is about article content, not which talk page banners are present - no consensus is needed for those. Jim Michael (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion: Would it perhaps work to have several different images available? I'm not going to argue the point about the skull since it doesn't bother me one way or another, but I still think the banner should have an image. Maybe something like some gravestones, or the Grim Reaper, could be available as an alternate if editors think the skull, even hidden in nested banners that have to be individually clicked on to be seen, too ghoulish? Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If (as suggested in earlier posts) only a very small number of editors don't like the skull image, we could just suggest to those editors that they disable that specific image for their account, so that they don't see it. This puts the onus on to those editors, and solves the problem for them without affecting anybody else. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing the image won't change things, because anyone who objects to a skull is almost certainly going to object to the grim reaper, a headstone, a corpse etc. for the same ridiculous reason. It's bizarre that anyone who's phobic of death would choose to be on the talk page of an article about a fatal event. I agree that those few editors who object should change their own settings to not show the images. Jim Michael (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If those invited to discuss here could at least agree to change the image, or at least agree to have a trial of a change, would that not help solve the immediate problem? Offering a choice of images might even help? We could just give our own views here instead of second-guessing how others might react? I think that's what Mjroots was hoping for. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but only one of the objectors has contributed to this discussion, and he hasn't suggested an alternative image. Jim Michael (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the WP:POINT-y suggestion in the OP, the worst failing in this discussion is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and the resultant misrepresentation of peoples' views. People are pretending that the objections to the inappropriate use of skull images on articles about recent tragedies are merely people choosing to take offence. But it has already been explained in previous discussion that that is not the case. I urge everyone to read those discussions, before commenting (or commenting further) here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That discussion didn't result in anything like a consensus to not have the banner on appropriate talk pages. You're assuming that survivors and relatives of those killed in accidents, massacres etc. will choose to read the talk pages of those incidents and be traumatised by seeing a picture of a clean, undamaged skull. Why do you make that absurd assumption? A skull is a very common symbol of death - it's not a bullet-ridden corpse or a video of a beheading. Jim Michael (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You are offering those as the only sensible alternatives, yes? Sound effects too perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting them. I'm saying that I'd understand people finding them excessive and offensive, but not a clean, undamaged skull. Jim Michael (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There was nothing POINTY about my suggestion. It was made in good faith in an effort to remove the discussion from the aircrash talk page to an appropriate venue. What I did see and hear at the aircrash talk page was a minor edit war and discussion that was not aimed at improving the article, unlike all other discussions on that page. I took care not to just say "the image is causing a problem" and leave it to be argued about. I also looked for, and proposed a solution to, the perceived problem. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think you deserve thanks for that. Seems very sensible to me. I was hoping some kind of compromise could be agreed here, not just repetitive stonewalling. Martinevans123 (talk)
"the resultant misrepresentation of peoples' views" QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Some editors object to articles being tagged with this WikiProject's banner due to the use of the skull image in the template - Is not a misrepresentation of the situation. Some object, most do not object. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Good job I didn't claim that that phrase is, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I could imagine the project banner without any image, - people have different images in mind when it comes to death, and don't to be pointed at only one. When a user died, we don't put a skull on his or her talk page, but a candle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
A candle isn't universally associated with death. Candles are frequently used on birthday cakes, and it is common for a user to send a picture of a candle-laden birthday cake on the recipient's birthday. Candles are also frequently used in many religions. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry that I was obviously not clear enough: repeating - and wouldn't know how to say it better: I could imagine a project banner without an image. A skull - or a candle - doesn't increase understanding for what the project is about. I feel the same thing about many such project images, and usually use {{WikiProject banner shell}} to avoid them all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
An image is illustrative and therefore an improvement. Biographies could exist without a picture of the subject, but they're better with. Jim Michael (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If you don't understand the difference between an image of a person in the person's likeness illustrating a biography, and "illustrating" death, I will not be able to help (you). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think that image rather dominates the banner? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
No - it only consists of a few percent of the banner. Jim Michael (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a question of "percentage" for me. My eye is immediately drawn to the relatively large image, on the left, before I start to read anything. In fact, the second thing I see is the jolly old Jolly Roger symbol on the right. Well, that's my perception anyway. But I can see I'm really not getting very far here, in terms of reaching any kind of compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the crossbones should be removed from the symbol. My vote below is in regard to the main image. Jim Michael (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of talk, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere. Therefore I'm going to put it to a straight vote, for or against the original propsal to change the image. Discussion here, Votes only (no discussion or comments) in the relevant section. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that there should be three options to vote for
  1. No change
  2. Change to some other (yet to be determined) image
  3. Remove the image and have no image at all
Mitch Ames (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

While I don't see the need for an image on the WikiProject banner at all, it seems to be that if we have one, logically it should (in principal) be the same image as used at the top of the Death article. If a skull is the best representative of death, then surely it should be the image in the lead section of the article. If - per the current article - the Grim Reaper is a better representation, then surely it should also be the choice for WikiProject banner. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a proposal to change the image, and we were to vote for or against. Now that there are three options to vote for (no change, different image and no image), I've changed the voting section below accordingly. If change the image becomes the most popular option, we'll have to vote again to decide which image to use instead. Jim Michael (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Options

Change the image of the skull to grim reaper

Keep the skull image in the banner

Have no image in the banner

Discussion

Polling is not a substitute for discussion; and this is a particularly egregious example, as its effect is to split the !votes of those who think the skull images should not be shown in certain cases between two alternatives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It will give us a good idea of opinions. The poll started as merely whether or not to change the image; the third option of no image was added because a few editors want that. The banner should always be the same. It shouldn't vary depending on whether or not a small minority of people object to it in particular cases. I've never heard of this issue existing in regard to any of the other project banners. Jim Michael (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Other project banners don't use a skull? I also think Andy's right about the split vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that many people find a picture of a clean, undamaged skull to be offensive? A few people claiming that other people find it offensive is ridiculous. We have many much stronger images on WP, which isn't censored. Jim Michael (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess everyone who's interested in this project will see this discussion here and make their views known, if they feel strongly enough. But I'm not sure that the wider editing community will even be aware of this question. True, many may not find the image "offensive" but may still be prepared to make allowances for the sake of those who do? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. yes, it's lovely and clean, but there is slight damage to the nasal bone.
For the sake of those who find the skull offensive on a talk page, an allowance already exists: |image=no. --Geniac (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So what if those editors who don't find the skull offensive, edit war to put it back in? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No. Edit warring is bad. If there is disagreement between editors of an article regarding the display of the skull in this project's banner on that article's talk page, those editors should conduct a discussion on that talk page. --Geniac (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to bring many more interested people here, without anyone being accused of canvassing?
Making allowances for a tiny minority of editors on a small minority of talk pages is ridiculous. Jim Michael (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It could be listed at WP:CENT. Depends on how widely it is desired that this be advertised. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Any reason why it cant be changed to the skull and crossbones as used in the portal image. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Why do that? It would cause confusion, because the skull and crossbones have other uses, including poison and pirates. That's the reason that the crossbones should be removed from the portal image. Jim Michael (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
What's going to replace them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The portal symbol should be just the skull. That way, there will be no confusion with poison, pirates etc. - and it will match the main image on the banner. Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I cannot remember when the skull and crossbones got inserted into the template for the project, but I believe it should go JarrahTree 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The skull on its own would be much better for the portal image - the crossbones merely cause confusion. Jim Michael (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Request

Despite all the comings and goings above - and the relatively go no where result - could we please have some agreement that the skull and crossbones image in the project tag currently being used in talk pages be removed ?

  • Proposal - removal of the skull and cross bones image from the talk page project tag - until such time the portal RFC is completed. If portals remain, a further discussion after the RFC is any image is re-inserted could happen then. JarrahTree 09:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a look at what would be required to change the image. Bearing in mind that this is the first time I have looked at wikiproject templates, it appears there are two options. First, remove the PORTAL parameter from Template:WikiProject Death. That would remove the small box on the right (for example, at the top of Talk:Epitaph) so there would be no File:Kalebp skull.svg image and no "Death portal" text. The second option would be to remove or change the "death" line from Module:Portal/images/d. Changing it would involve finding an image to use instead of the skull and crossbones. If it is removed, the default image would be shown, namely File:Portal-puzzle.svg. An example showing that can be seen in the documentation just above Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment (scroll up or search for "Tulips portal"). A third option would be to edit Module:Portal and do something clever to make it show no image if the image name is set to something like "NONE". Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the trouble to check all that - the items further above on this talk page show a mess of ideas - it would be so good just to let it go blank until the RFC over portals is done with - if the portal still exists after that - the delay when nothing seems to happen at this project is typically quiet. I just hope some of the above return and agree to a neutralising the skull and cross bones for at least until things resolve portal wise JarrahTree 09:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
As I've said before, removing the crossbones only would be best. This could be done by changing the pic of the skull and crossbones to one just of a skull. The discussion about what to in regard to the main pic on the banner was abandoned without consensus, so it should stay. However, in regard to the skull and crossbones, no-one seems to want to keep it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Who said it was abandoned? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion took place from 13-16 April. It did not reach a consensus in regard to the main image. No comments for over three weeks. Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised there were so few inputs. And there's certainly no consensus. But I didn't see all parties agreeing that "we should abandon this question." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Only a tiny number of people have a problem with the main image on the banner, so there's little interest in discussing any possible change to it. The parties to the discussion didn't agree to anything other than to remove the crossbones. There wasn't a decision to abandon the discussion, but all parties stopped contributing to the discussion on 16 April - probably due to it being a stalemate. Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
How any active "members" of this project are there? Do they really have no view on this subject? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit conflict.
There appear to be 52 members, but I don't know how many of them are active. The large majority of them haven't commented on this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 6:29 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Perhaps they don't really care either way? Should some effort be invested in actively encouraging them to express a view? Martinevans123 (talk) 6:32 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Project membership currently is a very loose distinction - many editors no long feel the need to identify specific projects because of the way that they edit - and will edit aspects or parts of any projects they encounter. In most cases many projects original editors move on - loyalty to a project or subject can be very hard to find. In many cases editors who register as active participants in a project may not be anywhere near the project or subect articles.
As it is Geniac and I were amongst the cohort that created the project and we have expressed our opinions here - many others of the early days of the project have moved on in many ways. As to the conversation between Jim and Martin - interested and involved - you may well be the active part of this project in the strictest sense. In Afd and other administrative areas on wikipedia - an uninvolved editor or admin may step in and make a decision as to when stalemates occur. It depends a lot on whoever is watching this page.
According to page statistics [1] - 95 editors have this page on watch, and 22 have visited recent edits. Also see for April 13 - April 15 on the graph that pops up at the heading Page views in the past 30 days (750) [2]

Patience is always worth the effort. JarrahTree 10:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think there might be a useful discussion to be had on how soon it's appropriate to add the Project banner to the Talk page of disaster articles. Patel Dam failure now springs to mind. I have no strong view. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
A very valuable tool for any page in wikipedia is when you go into the page revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death&action=history there is the line that indicates
External tools:
Revision history statistics
Revision history search
Edits by user
Number of watchers
Page view statistics
Fix dead links
'Number of watchers' has the most valuable 'internal extra info' and tools. This the indication of this talk page - details - as opposed to the page with information about who signed up to the death project 8 years ago or more JarrahTree 10:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
How many of those 95 watchers are active editors? Jim Michael (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
No idea - - take a look though at the popup graph - 200+ pageviews on the 13th or 14th april (???) - JarrahTree 11:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The number of people who viewed it would have been much fewer than that, because some editors would have each viewed the page several times during each of the four days of the discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity in the Congo Free State

Crimes against humanity in the Congo Free State, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:BOAC Flight 712#Katz which members of this Wikiproject are invited to contribute to. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

CfR Nom

Hi there! I have nominated that the page, "Category:High school students who committed suicide," be renamed. Please see the CfR nomination here to comment. Thank you! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Assisted Death in the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing—Assisted Death in the United States—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The page "Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease" needs to be deleted

As stated in the header, Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease needs to be deleted or a MAJOR overhaul needs to be done on it... Why? Because it is 100% wrong. Simple answer is, no one DIES from Parkinson's disease, PERIOD!

If whomever created this category understood the disease, it never would have been created because it is absolutely 100% based on false information. People NEVER die from Parkinson's disease, it just makes other conditions worse...

Contact any doctor who specializes in Movement Disorders and ask them that question, they will laugh at you and tell you emphatically no, no one dies from the disease. Check any website connected to Parkinson's disease research and it will tell you the same thing.

From the Michael J Fox website...

Will I die from Parkinson's disease?

Most doctors say that Parkinson's disease itself is not fatal.

https://www.michaeljfox.org/understanding-parkinsons/living-with-pd/topic.php?prognosis

Jwersan (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Parkinson's is stated as a cause of death on thousands of death certificates every year. It's often not the sole cause, but it often causes death - even if it's not the direct cause. Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

resources for responsibly covering suicide

As copycat suicides are a real thing, and growing evidence suggests media coverage can influence risk of other people killing themselves, I've added some resources to the Suicide task force. It seems there is dearth of resources on this WikiProject that address how to create good articles that responsibly cover death, dying, and suicide, without glamorizing or perpetuating suicide. As Wikipedia allows even relatively small issues to be amplified the world over, we as editors should be concerned about the risk that poorly crafted or curated articles might actually influence a real person's likelihood of taking their own life. Input is welcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Skull and crossbones on project tag

it is still there and it is an insult to the intelligence of the project - skull and cross bones are not relevant to this project - how come we still have it for the portal link - at all... maybe I missed something somewhere higher up this talk page, but I suggest whoever lurks, that we get it removed? JarrahTree 05:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is no response in a reasonable time - could we please have the skull and cross bones symbol out of the template? It really is quite annoying to think that nothing has been resolved re the removal. JarrahTree 05:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Better still, just remove the crossbones. The skull matches the main image & is a widely-recognised symbol of death. The crossbones merely cause confusion & make it look like it's something to do with pirates or poison. Jim Michael (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you offering to create a new image? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I personally would prefer no image at all considering how endless the bloody conversation goes with no resolution. We just need to agree to get it removed and move on - it is so incredibly frustrating to see how long this has stalled. JarrahTree 00:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Surely it's not difficult to remove the crossbones - that doesn't need anyone to create a new image, merely to remove the crossbones from the current one. Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that the template is protected and that template editors like to know and see that there has been a consensual agreement of participating editors before acting on a request - the conversation above seems to have gone nowhere JarrahTree
My comment at 09:30, 9 May 2018 above explained the technical alternatives. One involves removing the portal link; another requires an alternate image. The third requires tricky module work. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Why cannot we simply have a blank? surely the template format allows for that? JarrahTree 10:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
See my earlier comment regarding the default image. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, if I read your comments correctly you can do it, as there has been no support for the skull and crossbones, why cannot we just go totally blank on the right hand side of the template? JarrahTree 12:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've not seen anyone state that they're in favour of the crossbones, so I don't see what the barrier is. How about replacing the skull & crossbones with a smaller version of the main image? Jim Michael (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Template person(s)

Please could someone remove the skull and crossbones form the project tag for talk pages - this is about the third time or more - please could someone remove it, it is embarrassing for this project to be encumbered by such a childish and irrelevent item JarrahTree 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

and as for the prolonged silence - and the general lack of support for the skull and crossbones - surely someone is capable of eliminating the fiendish impediment towards a reasonable and sensible project tag? JarrahTree 12:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
waiting for months and weeks for something really wrong with a template - surely there is someone out there prepared to help? JarrahTree 13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Evad37 and Samwilson: please could you (seeing that I have had no objection to my request to remove the skull and cross bones - try perhaps for a link to the portal - something less confronting like a simple image of coffin instead ? -

It would be much appreciated if it was at all possible to change as interest in discussing this has been lost in time - and it makes the project look totally absurd with such an improper representation. JarrahTree 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

These 2 edits by CFCF changed the Death portal icon from File:Skull 2.svg to File:Kalebp skull.svg. The images you have suggested won't work well as very small icon images ( ). Perhaps File:Emoji u26b0.svg or File:Purple tombstone icon.svg would be better a choice. - Evad37 [talk] 14:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure the purple tombstone would be very suitable for some deceased. But I'm not sure about that other icon. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
File:Emoji_u26b0.svg looks the least likely to cause offence or disrespect across suitability criterion, or any cultural boundaries - whats our chances ? JarrahTree 23:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've requested the change: Template_talk:Portal#Template-protected_edit_request_on_14_September_2018. Sam Wilson 01:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to those who helped solve the unnecessary image - it is much appreciated. JarrahTree 23:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a separate page for Suicide Terminology to which terms like "Suicidal Gestures" can directly link

Hi,

I just edited the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the "suicide" page. My motivation is that my 10 year old son has been in therapy for suicidal ideation for 5 years and just made a "suicidal gesture" last weekend.

I believe that the term "Suicidal Gesture" should have its own page with a single sentence describing it and then a link to a well built page for "Suicide Terminology"... it has been very frustrating to determine what level of "Suicidalness" my son has and I'd like to help create wikipedia resources that quickly and easily help emotional individuals.

BTW... I can't figure out how to change my email address so I created a new login: peterkbertinejr. If it's best that I use my old login: petebertine - please advise me on how to change my email Petebertine (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Category talk:Suicide

I asked a question at Category talk:Suicide.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-transport, non-terror, non-natural, fatal disasters

Are fatal disasters which are neither natural, nor transport-related, nor terrorism-related, within the scope of this project? For example, an explosion and/or fire in a building which is caused by a gas leak, or by a dropped cigarette or match? Another example is a chemical spill or leak. Jim Michael (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"Died by suicide" vs "committed suicide" again

I skipped through the archives and saw this has been brought up through the years, but I think it's time to revive the discussion with a fresh. I am seeing the phrase "died by suicide" fairly regularly now in news articles instead of "committed suicide." I believe the AP Stylebook and NY Times have adopted this usage. It doesn't really seem weird to me anymore, but, the categories here now stand out as looking outdated. I think any official change would mainly involve category work, all those "artists who committed suicide" categories to "artists who died by suicide." How would we determine what the correct phrase is? —МандичкаYO 😜 08:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be addressed. The Categories would still look inappropriate. But "died by suicide" still looks odd to me. Perhaps that's a Brit English thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on administrative reverts of good edits (based on behavior) at World Suicide Prevention Day

You may be interested in this RfC. Or you may be not. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Assassination attempts, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Comments please at Talk:Laocoön and His Sons/Archives/2023/December#Darwin's comment

Where there's an ongoing discussion. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to split up list article Deaths in 2003

For some time now I have concerned myself with the Lists of deaths. Via a semi-automated process I am checking the Deaths-by-Month articles for consistency and errors. I started in December 2005 and intend to work my way back to 1996. Before 2004 the deaths lists are not organized by month but per year. Currently the Deaths in 2003 article has become so long that it should be split be up into lists per month. I would like to perform that task. I have these questions:

  • Should I just go ahead and do it or do I need approval/establish consensus from WikiProject Death first?
  • I identified following areas the will need updating after the split into month articles:

1. Article Lists of deaths by year, subsection 2003
=== 2003 ===
{{Main|Deaths in 2003}}
Should be updated to:
=== 2003 ===
{{See also|2003#Deaths}}
2. Article Deaths in 2003 itself
The article will have to be redirected to Lists of deaths by year#2003
3. Existing redirects to Deaths in 2003
I found 26 redirect pages to the article I intend to split up. F.i.:
- August 2003 deaths
- 2003_in_memoriam
Twelve of them will be used as the new Deaths-by-Month articles. This leaves 14 redirect pages to be updated
Am I missing something?
NB: I added the same question to Talk:Deaths_in_2003.
Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The article Deaths in 2003 has been split up in separate deaths per month articles. Mill 1 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

List of deadliest animals to humans

This would seem to be of interest to our readers, and easily sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Incitement to suicide in the workplace

Could someone please create Incitement to suicide in the workplace, or at least add a subsection about it to Workplace bullying?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on American Veterinary Medical Association on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of a American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) literature review on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § American Veterinary Medical Association. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of United Religions Initiative document on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of "The Urgent Need for Prevention of Genocide of the Assyrians and Yezidis of Iraq", a document presumably published by the United Religions Initiative, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Moors murders

Discussion on preferred version after edit war and lock of article. See Talk:Moors_murders#rfc_on_consensus_version_to_return_to Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest

A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Also this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Death has been nominated for deletion

Portal:Death has been nominated for deletion.

The discussion on whether to delete it is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Death, where input from member of this project would be welcome.

The debate will draw on Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, with which editors may wish to familiarise themselves before commenting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Individual reassessment of Pitru Paksha

Pitru Paksha, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC regarding manners and causes of death.

Some of you may be interested in this question about the "Deaths in 20xx" pages. Some of you may not. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Climate Apocalypse feedback requested

Thanks to anyone who can comment on the talk page of this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Suicide in 2019

Shouldn't Category:Suicide in 2019 include all the notable individuals who have died by suicide in 2019 so far?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured List candidate - List of cyclists with a cycling-related death

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive1. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case article

More eyes are needed at O. J. Simpson murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It has gotten progressively worse in recent months. In this section, I stated, "The article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail. This is per WP:DIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not meant to give a blow-by-blow/day-by-day account of the trial. It's meant to sufficiently summarize what happened." Despite this, the article continues to be expanded with any and everything by one editor in particular. Different types of issues abound. I took the article off my watchlist, and have occasionally checked back. Like I stated, worse and worse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Committed" versus "died by"

In English the preference has changed to use "died by suicide" instead of "committed suicide." I noticed that most of the suicide category pages such as American politicians who committed suicide, use the old language. Has there been any discussion about updating these categories to use the more accepted language? Wreckingballheart (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For older subjects, when suicide was still a crime, isn't the older form more correct? Dies this English preference include all modern examples in jurisdictions where suicide is still a crime? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The recommendation is due to the effect saying "committed" can have on people who are thinking about suicide or who want to talk about suicide. The recommendation is that committed should not be used, even when discussing historical suicides because of the influence language has on current attitudes around suicide. I would argue that all articles should say "died by suicide" and then if there is proof the person/their estate faced legal ramifications related to their suicide that information should be added on its own. That way Wikipedia can follow the recommendations of suicidologists while also maintaining accuracy. Here are a couple of sources about the language change: Source 1, source 2.Wreckingballheart (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I must have missed the discussion where the evidence, or at least advice, from suicideologists was presented, evaluated and !voted on. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
One of the article authors, Dr. Sally Spencer-Thomas is a well-known suicidologist. The resources on the Suicide Task Force page, Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide, Bloggingonsuicide.org, and Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals, all specifically recommend saying "died by suicide" and against using "committed suicide". Wreckingballheart (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Presumably none of these make explicit statements about historical suicides. Or perhaps these was implied, but have not yet been acted on here at Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this isn't a topic that has been addressed on Wikipedia, which is why I posted. While it is a very niche topic, there are likely a few thousand pages on Wikipedia for people who have died by suicide, resulting in an unknown, but large, number of people seeing the phrase "committed suicide" each day. I believe it would be most responsible for Wikipedia articles and categories to avoid using "committed" as per the recommendations. Individual articles where criminal proceedings related to the suicide/attempted suicide are involved can be updated with that info. Like I said above, I think this would preserve the accuracy of articles while following the expert recommendations. Wreckingballheart (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, have the suicidologists given explicit advice about how historical suicide should be described? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The recommendation to change the language is a blanket one. That being said, I'm not sure why you are so focused on historical suicides when that wasn't the original topic of discussion. My question is specifically about category names on Wikipedia, not individual pages. Wreckingballheart (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
There are category pages that don't use "committed" in their title, such as Male suicides and Suicides in Massachusetts. It seems to me that this is also a bit of a Wikipedia style issue, as there currently isn't consistency in naming the categories related to suicide. Wreckingballheart (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
"Died by suicide" is an incredibly awkward, linguistically inelegant way of describing death via suicide, and I would argue as a phrase is not fit for purpose for scholarly articles in an encyclopedia. Technically, you can't die by suicide, you die via suicide. So Cato the Younger did not die by suicide. He died by slicing opening his abdomen and ripping out his intestines by hand - via an act of suicide. There are better ways to describe this if we don't want to use the word committed. For instance: "Cato killed himself by...." Or "Cato died in an act of suicide when he..." Or "Cato suicided by..." Or "Cato took his own life by...". PS, I would have got consensus here before starting to make changes in existing articles. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Wreckingballheart: Please don't take the lack of participation here as a sign of lack of opinion. This topic comes up routinely, usually resulting in edit-warring and page protection because someone comes along and wants to make this change. There are probably some less specific searches that would yield more hits, but this one is a start. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, Wreckingballheart, that "committed" is not acceptable and that we should where possible use newer better language. Unfortunately a sizeable number of wikipedians disagree. It may be possible to start using the newer language in UK articles, especially for deaths after the 1968 act, but be aware that you may find strong push-back, especially if you attempt to introduce this language into American articles. I checked the CDC and while they have a list of "unacceptable terms" they don't include "committed" in that list, and they do use "committed" themselves sometimes. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/self-directed-violence-a.pdf DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Should "Suicide in $COUNTRY" articles include a section detailing how that country defines suicide?

There are lots of articles about individual countries, eg "Suicide in Ireland" or "suicide in Lithuania". Almost none of these articles include a description of how suicide is defined in those countries. This means readers are missing information. For example, in England the Office for National Statistics says "The [...] definition of suicide includes deaths from intentional self-harm (where a coroner has given a suicide conclusion or made it clear in the narrative conclusion that the deceased intended to kill themselves) and events of undetermined intent (mainly deaths where a coroner has given an open conclusion) in people aged 15 and over.", and also "In 2016, the suicide definition was revised to include deaths from intentional self-harm in children aged 10 to 14. Previously we did not include suicides in young children due to the very small numbers involved (see Table 3). However, after discussions with Public Health England and the constituent countries of the UK, it was decided that it was appropriate to include them. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent in 10- to- 14-year-olds are not included in these suicide statistics, because although for older teenagers and adults we assume that in these deaths the harm was self-inflicted, for younger children it is not clear whether this assumption is appropriate.". But in the US the CDC says "Death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior." It can be seen that there's some difference between these two, causing an over-reporting in the UK and an under-reporting in the US. This means that statistics cannot be directly compared. This is important information for Wikipedia readers to have. I think all "suicide in X" articles should have a definition in them somewhere. DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree! Normal Op (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kyoto Animation arson attack GA review in progress

Please consider helping out with fixing the items listed here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The article passed and was promoted! Thanks to Dekimasu for helping out and MX for pointing out areas of improvement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Katyn massacre FAR

I have nominated Katyn massacre for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Eisfbnore (会話) 07:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 

== {{Infobox death}} ==

Hi, I've created {{Infobox death}}, I thought I might come here to get some opinions on it! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks handy. A tad predisposed to violent criminal deaths. Maybe you should document possible values for each field?--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Pestilence - the violent criminal death is not statistically the broader reason for death in the world...

It would be very useful to have it as something that distinguishes types of identified causes of death - accidental, criminal, disease, old age, unknown - or any other general fields - would be really good if possible to be able to clarify the difference in the causes JarrahTree 06:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation to indicate somewhere prominent the community's attitude on "committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide"

Hey all, I arrived here while looking at a bunch of categories that say "committed suicide" vs. the new trend of "died by suicide" or similar. Fortunately, I noticed the discussion circa November 2019 at the top of this talk page where Flyer points to this RfC, which indicates the community's preference to keep "committed suicide".

Short story: I think there should be some sort of permanent notice at the top of the talk page, or potentially elsewhere, where this information can be easily obtained. Like "Per this RFC, the community prefers the usage of "committed suicide" in categories." or something that's phrased better than my lazy attempt. My thinking is that someday the discussion at the top of the page will be archived, but the information should still be available. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This List is within the scope of WikiProject Death. If any WikiProject participants wish to weigh in on the FLC it can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive2. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain/Archive 1#Requested move 27 July 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD for (Death of) Regan Russell

Please check the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Russell. (Deceased person; some are suggesting change title to Death of Regan Russell.) I'm the nominator for the AfD. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Title for article on (death / killing of) Luo Changqing

Your comments on the page title about a notable victim of the 2019 Hong Kong protests will be appreciated at Talk:Killing_of_Luo_Changqing#Nonconsensual_page_move. Deryck C. 21:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death/Archive_4&oldid=1215066025"