Talk:Deaths in 2017/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tony Atkinson

There's people saying his passing is incorrect, but I haven't found a source disproving it. Anyone else know anything? Rusted AutoParts 03:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Who is saying that? I just see an unexplained removal. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Over on his page. There's even an unsourced "Alledged Death" section. Rusted AutoParts 04:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh whoops, didn't even think to look there. I doubt Krugman would be wrong but I guess it doesn't hurt for the media to check in before adding him. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

December

What happened to the cross-over period between months? Does it not apply for years? Edmund Patrick – confer 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it wouldn't make much sense to have 2016 deaths in this article, would it? Nohomersryan (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Edmund Patrick: See Talk:Deaths in December 2016#Changeover to Deaths in 2017. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan: as much as September in October, May in June, hopefully you get the idea. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying. The title of the main Deaths page never include the month so there's nothing explicitly tying it down (as there is here with the year) and the monthly articles don't include the cross-over period. Nohomersryan (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Put simply, it was decided way back when not to tack the previous year's December onto the new year's article featuring January. That's all really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Jill Saward

I understand that her notability comes from her unfortunate experience, but it is rather jarring to see her listed as "rape victim" as if it were a career. Is there no other way to designate her notability, as an activist or something? freshacconci talk to me 18:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't comfortable with it either. I've reworded it to "British campaigner for victims and survivors of rape and sexual violence," Kiore (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. If you hadn't heard of her (I hadn't), a simple click will give you the full story. freshacconci talk to me 21:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death

Not clear as to why "cause of death" is not given when it is stated in both the reference and the persons' Wikipedia entry (if they have an entry). 68.231.71.119 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you speaking specifically or generally? We typically list CODs with entries if given in sources, unless the subject is of age and dies of natural causes. — Wyliepedia 13:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My comment was aimed "generally," but based on a specific. I'd noticed that the COD was not part of the listing for Richard Machowicz (2 January 2017) at the time I made my comment, but it was right there in the reference title, and when I went to the article, the COD was there as well.

Just thought it unusual that COD in two out of three places with the one place it was not being the first place most people look for current year's deaths. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Machowicz's has randomly been listed since its initial entry. The problem with his entry here was that it was only reported on Facebook at the time and not in mainstream media. So the COD might have gotten lost in the BLP adding/re-adding. As for any others, we typically add them. All that said, feel free to register and add CODs till your heart's content. — Wyliepedia 14:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also sometimes, the sourced articles are updated after being listed here. COD might not have been available at first, but added later.Nukualofa (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism notices and semi-protection

Hi. Any reason that the semi-protection that was in place for the article earlier in the month/year has been removed? Predictably, we've already seen a sharp rise in disruptive editing by unregistered IP users. I didn't see a rationale or explanation stated anywhere in the article notes or on this talk page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ref, I think the template was a carry-over from Deaths in 2016 without any actual protection. I hope an admin will give this page the usual semi-protection as the bottom-feeders have already come out to disrupt. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And it can only get worse. Thanks, I did wonder about the instant protection at turnover of year. We'll get it in the end. They haven't twigged that they can run amok yet. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And as of today it seems that the continuing vandalism has proved more than enough for one admin - the page is now protected, as in previous years. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As a result of semi-protecting this section, I'm unable to add a death to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to have your account confirmed - this will usually happen automatically after you make a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia, to show that you are an editor of standing and good faith. If this is not yet possible for you, you can always request an addition to the list here, stating name of deceased, age, and description of notable status, providing a reliable source of course to back up your request. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What is policy on death of plants and animals?

I was wondering because a notable plant -- The Pioneer Cabin Tree -- died yesterday. SlowJog (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If they have their own article, they stay. If they're a redlink or a redirect, they go. Rusted AutoParts 23:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

When I checked earlier, it didn't have its own article. Looks like someone created its article today. SlowJog (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Then it can be listed here. Rusted AutoParts 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This used to be explained in the intro. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's in the FAQ above, though it appears many people miss it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Larry Steinbachek (January 12)

The link is not to him but to Bronski Beat, which states that he died in December 2016 but his death was announced in January 2017. The death listing should be moved to December 2016 IMO. 50.100.255.245 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't until a precise date of death is established. Rusted AutoParts 21:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a precise date of death anywhere. 50.100.255.245 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Page intro

Why does this page have that long intro? Most other death pages do not. Also, a Wikipedia article should be independent and free-standing. It should not contain references to Wikipedia itself. (See the section that I placed in BOLD, following.) The intro currently states: This is a chronology of deaths in 2017. Names are reported under the date of death. Names under each date are reported in alphabetical order by surname or pseudonym. Deaths of non-humans are reported here if they first have their own Wikipedia article. Notable persons without an article can be listed for one month after death to prompt creation of one. A typical entry reports information in the following sequence: Name, age, country of citizenship at birth, subsequent country of citizenship (if applicable), reason for notability, cause of death (if known), and reference. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEADFORALIST. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. — Wyliepedia 08:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What are you linking me to? And what does that have to do with my comment above? I do not follow you. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That link says that we are to avoid self-references. Exactly what I was stating in my above comment. Why are you using that link to bolster your opinion that the lead should remain as is? It directly contradicts that, and it directly supports what I was saying. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph at my previous link states "Don't leave readers confused about the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing as to what may be added to the list." That said, feel free to gut our lead and take on the housekeeping responsibility of removing family pets' and beloved high school janitors' entries. — Wyliepedia 13:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it says that. And then goes on to say, "However, do not use self-references." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I've said my piece on the topic. "Deaths in" is a WikiProject of sorts, taken care of and edited by several WikiGnomes. According to this and your recent contribs, that's not you, as all I have seen are punctuation changes and talkpage comments. As I said, feel free to change all you want to the page, but prepare for constant rvv from others and/or accepting more responsibility from the influx of non-notable additions, because I will not be the one to do so. — Wyliepedia 14:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@CAWylie: With that link, you are showing me the -- umm -- "history" of an article that is all of three days old. LOL. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Which directly supports my point... I would link DI2016, if the rollover hadn't occured. 2 edits (now) out of 247. — Wyliepedia 03:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. What's your point, exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Moot, apparently. — Wyliepedia 14:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Let's both move on. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm too late, I prefer the old way. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "old way"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

More temples should be dedicated to fire, just wars have warhammers and no TV will ever top analog TV, but this time, I just mean the way it was before you removed the part you did. Already this year, it's confused one person (that we know of). I don't see any harm in Wikipedia mentioning Wikipedia, especially above a list of Wikipedia articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You state: I don't see any harm in Wikipedia mentioning Wikipedia, especially above a list of Wikipedia articles. The "harm" is that it directly violates Wikipedia policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not always harmful, even if it were true. In this case, it'd merely not follow a guideline. Two editors have been publicly confused on the Talk Page. Wastes their time to come and ask, and wastes the respondent's time to explain. Wastes our time arguing about who's harming what.

I'd wager few people print out or copy a list of a month's deaths, at least relative to textbook versions of Henry David Thoreau or India. Of those few, even fewer are going to be jarred by realizing someone (probably themselves) got the list from Wikipedia.

Timely and rapidly-changing pages should put the interests of the online majority first. When the offline minority possibly doesn't exist, that's even more reason to not waste time right now. If you'd like to trim the preamble from past month's lists, that might do more good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Nicodemo Scarfo is listed under deaths on January 13 / he died January 15 as per his Wiki page and the source confirming. She-bert (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I first saw a blog post about it Saturday, saying he died Friday, attributing "underworld sources." Philly Voice says he died Friday. Philly Inquirer says they aren't sure when he died, but their source heard about it Saturday. So it looks to me he died Friday, as listed. Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Agree that sources say he died Friday, 13 January 2017. His death was reported on the 15th. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

bork

Would it be OK if we added Gabe the Dog to this list as he is viral for this video? He died yesterday. [1] 68.150.192.106 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

From the page guidelines (emphasis mine): "Many animals (like Lonesome George) achieve notability similar to humans during their life. This article reports the death of any notable biological life with its own article, not just humans." Gabe has no article, which is why he is not listed. Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference format

User:Jonny Nixon: Why did you change the reference format here please? Do we have a different format only for RDs?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Due to page loadtimes, we WikiGnomes decided a few years ago to go with the simpler reference format. — Wyliepedia 07:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been involved with the Deaths pages for a few years now, and I've never used "cite ref", as I am fully aware that the consensus went against it in past history. And thank goodness. The Deaths page does not need this over-elaboration. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I usually copy and paste the full reference into the relevant article, so it's less work.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the rest of us with the work of stripping them out to fit the consensus I've just outlined. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

OK will try to miscite for you. I didn't know. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tony Särkkä (aka "IT")

Hi. This entry for February 14 urgently needs a better source, as the forum reference being used does not have a source for its info at all. It could be viewed merely as rumour/speculation, and the entry in this Deaths page COULD be removed at this point because of that shortcoming. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I tagged the source for now with {{better source}}. — Wyliepedia 00:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A Facebook link has made this a slightly better situation so far. There is also a foreign heavy metal site quoting a Twitter Tweet regarding his death too. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed source-wise. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The date when Tony passed away is wrong. It was announced on the 14:th but the actual day of his passing was 8:th. The IT-page on Facebook has been updated. Wbr, Johnny — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTilgrim (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As a regular editor on this page, I would venture that we should indeed consider moving Särrkä from the 14th to the 8th, based on the Facebook post here, which purports to be his sister Desire as the updater; as it is posted from the official Facebook account for "It", should we not give this some consideration? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Kim Jong-nam

I feel it is misleading to describe him as a "politician" - he seems to have had virtually no political involvement. He was clearly notable, but it is hard to think of an appropriate description beyond mentioning his relationship to his father (Kim Jong-il) and his half-brother (Kim Jong-un). Should we find a better way of describing him? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed mentions of Kim Jong-un due to WP:NOTINHERITED, but cannot come up with a better description for Jong-nam. Though known for his travels outside DPRK, North Korean socialite does not seem to fit. There's also the Kim dynasty CFD of December 2013–January 2014 to consider, but it is also inaccurate to call him a royal. Vycl1994 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "North Korean ruling family member".... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - with suspicions for his death possibly pointing towards the existing main ruling family member already, I think it is inappropriate to include him in that family unit description, to be honest. I don't think there was an inclusive relationship between them, at least. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

But he was clearly a member of the family, even if other family members disowned him. If he were not a member of that family, there would be no interest in his death - it is the reason for his notability, not his supposed role as a "politician". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but there seems to be a subtle suggestion from the way that you worded it that he was part of the North Korean ruling process - and nothing could be further from the truth. I still say the exact wording needs working out. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It probably is just you. Clearly, he was not part of the ruling process - but he was part of the ruling family, and that is why his death is noteworthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's me, too. Part of the family, but saying part of the ruling family suggests it was the ruling part. Until I knew it wasn't, anyway. "Former heir apparent" work for anyone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really - there's no reliable basis for saying that was ever the case, and it certainly never had any official recognition. But he was certainly a member of the Kim dynasty. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a better way to say it. Many sources refer to him as a gambler, as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"That" meaning "member of the Kim dynasty". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"North Korean regime kinsman"... any takers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For me, either as it stands, or indeed "member of the Kim dynasty". But, to be honest, I've only been entering my opinion here. Whatever anyone wants (my OCD is very suppressed lately). Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: this edit - it's nigh on perfect as far as I can see. Thanks to Ghmyrtle for this stroke of genius. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If we have to mention politics, that's probably the best way to relay how he didn't actually do anything in the field. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot-maintained list of red-linked entries at Deaths in 2017

I have proposes that a bot be created to create and maintain a list of red-linked entries that get added at Deaths in 2017 (and future "Deatsh in ..." pages). This is aimed at increasing the numbers of new articles created. See WP:BOTREQ#Creating a list of red-linked entries at Recent deaths. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please tread carefully in its construction and operation. Most bots cause absolute havoc on this page. The "cite source" bot in particular was a complete pain, converting all the simple references in our entries 'en masse' - we don't use the cite source device, and it's likely to stay that way for the forseeable future. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Anatoli Komaritsyne?

Wikimedia Commons suggests Anatoli Komaritsyne, a Russian admiral, died on February 12. However, I can't find a single obituary in English--perhaps there are some in Russian?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Although the French Wikipedia article for Komaritsyne acknowledges his death on that date, it too remarks that a reference is needed. Our criteria tells us that we can't even enter the subject in our pages. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems strange we can't find a single obituary!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A waiting game. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Walter Morrison deathdate

Hi all, are you sure that Walter Morrison has died today, February 16, 2017 and not January 21, 2017?[2] Thank you if you have read. --Danielvis08 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There is still uncertainty over the date. His death only became public knowledge on 16 February, but some sources have read a Facebook posting by his apparently estranged daughter as meaning that he died ten days after 11 January. In contrast, Rolling Stone indicates here that he died on Saturday 11 February. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Rolling Stone article, it points to a Facebook post by his daughter. Albeit the post is slightly cryptic with choice of words, the post stated she posted On January 11 SELAH, then ten days later SELAH. That to me indicates his passing on January 21, thus corroborating the source Danielvis provided. Rusted AutoParts 19:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But it's not explicitly stated, it's not a reliable source, and other sources give other dates. Hence, there is still uncertainty. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times told January 21 also: [3] Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That leaves the Rolling Stone article as an outlier. I've tweaked his article on the assumption that the NYT article is accurate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deaths that need (better) sources

I've added seven of the eleven missing entries that were in Cat:2017 deaths, but I don't believe the remaining four have good enough sources. In you can find something better, great.

• Albert Stubblebine [4] Arlington National Cemetery Explorer should have an entry once he's buried
• Israfil Yilmaz Twitter
• Nick Dupree FB
• Morris Nettles

Star Garnet (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited

@Islandersa: has repeated included "mother of director Steven Spielberg" to Leah Adler's entry. In order to get the article unlocked we need to come to a consensus that notability is not inherited. @Nukualofa:, @DrKilleMoff:, @Derek R Bullamore:, @Vycl1994:, @EternalNomad:, @WWGB:, @InedibleHulk:, @BurienBomber: and @Rcb1:, are we in agreement that notaility is not inherited? Rusted AutoParts 04:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Rusted AutoParts 04:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• The fact is, she has zero encyclopedic notability outside of being Spielberg's mother [5], [6], [7]. No Wikipedia article would ever be created or stand on her outside of the fact that she is Spielberg's mother. If we are excluding the sole source of her notability, then why is she being listed at all here? If she has no notability (and she doesn't outside of being Spielberg's mother), then her name should not be in this article. She is definitely not notable as a pianist, and gave that up when she married Arnold Spielberg. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

And she could very well get an article based solely off her connection to Spielberg, but we just cannot simply list it as such in her entry per NOTINHERITED. I doubt she will get an article though, but the month time limit applies to her regardless. Rusted AutoParts 05:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"[W]e just cannot simply list it as such in her entry per NOTINHERITED." That's not true, and you are mistaking an AFD essay (WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) for some sort of policy regarding mention of the person in other articles. The entry (if it indeed merits inclusion here) should clearly state exactly why she is notable, and since she is certainly not notable as a pianist it is misleading to list her as such, or only as such. Her primary occupations have been: mother of Steven Spielberg; restaurateur; former concert pianist for a few years. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTINHERITED prohibits familial relations from being included in the entries, so we have to go with other occupations if usable. Being related to someone isn't what makes them unique. Being a concert pianist albeit brief is not misleading to use as she actually was a concert pianist. We can also include restaraunteur and painter in there. Rusted AutoParts 06:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

From NOTINHERITED: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar." That lead sentence applies to death list inclusions too. This issue arose for Cynthia Lennon. Rusted AutoParts 06:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. This is not an AFD. This is a discussion of how to list Leah Adler in the Deaths in 2017 article, and also whether she should even be listed. Since she certainly has insufficient encyclopedic notability apart from being Spielberg's mother, then the entry should be completely removed from this article. And if she is listed, the reason for her notability should be listed. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You're the one putting AFD in my mouth. Never once said it was. I'm just stating that being related to someone isn't notable and will not be added into death entries listed here. She may get an article, she may not. Either way the listing is entitled to remain for a month. Rusted AutoParts 06:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere is it stated anywhere on Wikipedia that being related to (in this case, the mother of) someone world-famous isn't notable, nor is there any policy that prevents someone's sole encyclopedic notability from being listed in a "Deaths in ...." article. The entry, as it is, is incorrect and misleading, and it does not provide the reader with the only information that is actually in any way relevant, which is that she was Spielberg's mother. Adding other non-noteworthy information to the entry still will not fix the problem. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

.....Its stated in NOTINHERITED. Just like Jack Lowden you're ignoring what I'm saying. If she were to obtain an article, yes we'd note her being Spielberg's mom in said article. But it would not be applied to her listing on the deaths list as per NOTINHERITED. I'm not interested in debating this further because I feel we're only going to go in circles again. Rusted AutoParts 08:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

While I understand the rule here and follow it, I just wonder what will happen when Roberta McCain dies? She has no career or any notability whatsoever other than being the wife and mother of famous people. What will we list here? I think her family connection will have to be listed. BurienBomber (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If American political figure doesn't work in a way similar to Kim Jong-nan (discussed above), American centenarian should, I think. Vycl1994 (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I learned she was even born just three days ago, at List of living centenarians, and I wondered what BurienBomber did here. Weird. She's pre-Titanic, but still five years shy of the List of oldest living people sort of fame. Put me down for "political figure" (unless we're in the distant future by then). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

When and why did NOTINHERITED become such a huge sticking point here? Like "we ABSOLUTELY CANNOT list the fact that she was Spielberg's mother because of... a section in a page about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." ??? If Leah Adler got an article (she won't) it would inevitably list the fact that she was Spielberg's mother, likely in the lead section. I really don't understand why it has such weight here. You're only going to (unintentionally) mislead readers. Notability may not be inherited, but there are some people notable simply for being related to someone. That's just how it is. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I follow from example and the example I've seen is that we remove familial relations. If that was to change I'd abide by it but that's more of a conversation for the guidelines article itself and not about this entry. All I'm wanting is for us to agree it's a policy and that for the page to be unlocked we must agree on that. Then we can discuss the guidelines merits. Rusted AutoParts 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

She was a painter as well according to the article in Hollywood Reporter. DrKilleMoff (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be listed. She was not notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I agree in that WP:WTAF should apply in this case, especially since it is borderline at best -- if there is no article on the person, and we are not even listing why they are notable, then there should be no listing. WP:NOTNEWS applies here as well. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Foe what it's worth I think that NOTINHERITED is a good guideline, but not something that should be a hard rule. It would be ridiculous to say that, for instance, Prince George of Cambridge's notability has nothing to do with his inheritance but it's sensible to list people according to their prominence rather than those of their ancestors. In the present case the issue in any case is not inheritance but whom they begat, and I note that she doesn't have an article. When I reverted, I was more worked up by the fact that Islandersa was persistently engaging in edit warring in the most pig-headed way than by the entry itself.Rcb1 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)rcb1

I agree with that. In some cases listing a relative is useful information, and not listing the person seems like a way of disguising what that person in fact in known for. It should be considered individually each time a case like this comes up, it's not that often. I also removed the post mostly because there seems to be a general consensus that relatives are not listed, but I'm all for softening that practise a slight bit.Nukualofa (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But where shall we draw the line? When Margaret Rhodes died I removed the reference to Queen Elizabeth II but it was put back by another editor who claimed that in this case there should be an exception because that was what she was actually notable for.DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We should look at each case individually, but my opinion is that we should list what the person is most known for. Spielberg's mother might not be notable by her own terms, but the huge amount of press coverage the case got means we should at least list her on this page. And listing her as a pianist is only giving a fraction of the truth. It's really of no help, as long as all media focuses on her famous son.Nukualofa (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I concur that we should only list what the individual was notable for on the page. There is no need to mention that an ex-president was also a high school basketball player. There is usually no need to mention the relationship in Adler's case. (Occasionally the relationship is notable on its own, so I wouldn't mind if Kim Jong-nam is mentioned as the half brother of Kim Jong-un) EternalNomad (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if anyone has already made these points, I'm late to the party due to work commitments. Perhaps you could just take this as my standpoint, even if some of you have already made the same observations: She is the mother of Spielberg, that's a FACT. But that fact is not eligible for inclusion in a simple entry of death on our pages. What the other editor seems not to have noticed or appreciated is that the mousehover-tooltip for the source in use actually includes that info already. It's not as though it is isn't acknowledged somewhere in the entry, even by coincidence. We can all agree consensus on non-inheritance, but I still see no sign of the crucial editor joining this discussion (I tried to encourage him to respond by posting to his talk page, but that seems not to have elicited a response, per usual). Whatever we agree amongst ourselves, the protecting admin is clearly not going to unlock the edit facility until at least February 26th, as he states in the protection source blurb and on his own talk page. I feel we have no option currently but to save up all the obituary entries we gather and rush them onto the page when it is freed up (edit conflicts ahoy, I fear, in that case). Sorry I've nothing more constructive to add than that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(Postscript: As well as doing a lot of formatting and check-editing here, I use the information in these pages to construct YouTube-based tributes to deceased musicians, on a music-sharing website I am a member of. For interest's sake in that regard, his mother has NO musical content on YouTube whatsoever that I can find, so you might probably be right in saying that she is not notable as a pianist either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC))

I think it depends. Back in 2015, there was insane pedantry over Cynthia Lennon, where editors tried over and over again to remove any mention of John Lennon and put "author" instead (and it looks like that's ridiculously how it still is today). Like it or not, some people are only notable because they're related to someone. I find things like that can be misleading; the current listing implies Leah Adler was prominently known as a pianist, when it's obvious to anyone that she's best known as Spielberg's mom. I don't think it's worth wasting energy on this case though, she's quite obviously not notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Leah Adler now redirects to Steven Spielberg#Early life. I had originally redded it to her husband Arnold Spielberg, since they are the parents, but she remarried and that might cause confusion. (Sidenote: Her maiden name was Posner). All that said, if a notable article is not created for her, her entry here will still be removed at the usual time. — Wyliepedia 20:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But the question wasn't regarding if she should have her own article or not. The question was wether her connection to Spielberg should be mentioned in the entry or not and I think that we should come to an agreement as soon as possible so that the page can be unlocked. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly misleading to include her at all, the redirect just increases the confusion as there is no mention of her as Leah Adler in Spielsbergs article. Probably best to remove the entry as it is unlikley she will end up with her own article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I put a note in Spielberg's article that she changed her surname later but since I very much doubt she will get her own article since she hasn't really done anything by herself I'm all for removing her entirely. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

To repeat what I said earlier: I think no amount of consensus between us regulars is going to get this page unlocked ahead of time, from what I read of the protecting admin's rationale on his talk page. The 'silent editor' who has stirred up this hornet's nest refuses to engage, and I feel that is the key to unlocking the edit facility ahead of February 26. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sure if we can show a consensus on this page on the way forward the article can be unlocked, if a user goes against consensus then they can be dealt with as a disruptive editor. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I think the best solution is to block him/her since we others seem to be pretty agree about the subject. From what I can read on the admin's talk page he is willing to unlock the page even before February 26 if we come to a consensus and not EVERYONE involved needs to agree. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a few opinions, but no strong convictions. Count me in for whatever argument takes the lead here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And, though not pinged, I have the exact same strength of convictions. Count me in for whatever leads to this page's unprotection swiftly, thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible for somebody to make a clear statement on what consensus has been reached and then we can probably unlock the article if nobody objects to it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well. If somebody is the mother - brother - whatever of a notable person, why not add that under the notable person's personal life. It is certainly a part of that, and would do no harm. Royalrec (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it is now. DrKilleMoff (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Explosion of red links

What the ???? WWGB (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Like it or not, though, they are all "mentioned in dispatches" on the internet, most have a remote notability as far as EN Wikipedia is concerned but a firmer standing in foreign versions, no doubt. I somehow think we are obliged to give them the "suck-it-and-see" one month to gain an EN article I suppose - unless anyone can spot any glaring non-notable howlers amongst them? I've been through to tidy up some of the coding and style work, but otherwise my day is far too short! Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(Perhaps "Star Garnet" might consider adding them 'as and when', rather than saving them all up for a Monday morning? Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

If I ran this zoo, redlinks would need proper news stories to illustrate some notability. Not just obituaries or employee profiles. Should have secondary and significant coverage, just like they'd need for articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bright side: Deaths in March 2017 should be fairly short! — Wyliepedia 18:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dark side: The recently most active editor is ensuring that the page becomes consumingly inclusive of all reported deaths with a modicum of attached notability, rather than representing a cross-section of the more notable of deaths (as WAS the case). Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems absurd to me that now as few as 25% of deaths on a given date are confirmed notable (blue link). There is a real risk of diluting interest in the article which is, as we know, one of the most popular in Wikipedia. In time, interested editors may have to reconsider the one-month amnesty on red links. At the risk of sounding Anglocentric, I doubt that the majority of readers are interested to learn of the death of Hungarian rappers or Japanese manga artists. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

We're not too excited about their lives, either. Did you know Ganxsta Zolee (rap pioneer and local fellow of Dopeman) was born in Budapest in 1966? Wow.

Seriously though, you worded the FAQ. You have the power to unword reword it! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think 30+7 Days of Red is a wee bit generous. If I see a red entry that looks fairly notable and has more than three or so searchable wikilinks, I will create it within 24-72 hours; otherwise I let them RIP. I've also been known to yank a few extremely non-notable red entries (such as in "too local" cases) that I foresee as never passing scrutiny as an article. It's a double bind situation: add reds to be removed later or remove them to edit war their inclusion. — Wyliepedia 06:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Hide-and-seek" entries: a viewpoint

Hi. Relating to a recent incident on this page, I'm pretty sure the "hiding of work-in-progress, yet to be reliably sourced, entries" practice is against past consensus here - I wouldn't try it personally, and that's simply because even non-confirmed users and IPs can access the source code to have a look at the bare bones. If they see a hidden entry which turned out to be a rumour only, there's a big issue regarding truth v. gossip within Wikipedia, however tenuous it might seem to some of us. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of this, so I'll keep it in mind in the future. Rusted AutoParts 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Better I think to get a "why" when you've just got a "mustn't"!!! Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

no cause of death

A lot of recent death listings (Mar2017) have no given cause of death. Is this intentional, or is everyone dying in ambiguous circumstances? Darcourse (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We can only list CODs when they are made public. — Wyliepedia 08:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And incidentally the CoD "natural causes" shouldn't be listed (I saw this used the other day). Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant editing

A recent Wikipedia editor has been constantly adding irrelevant content. Is there any way that they can be blocked from editing this page? Hpresti (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They've been warned and finally reported. Just waiting on an admin to block. freshacconci (✉) 03:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. He'll be back. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Football

Players of football (soccer) are generally referred to as "footballers". In the case of someone who played and managed football, the standard practice here has been to use the expression "football player and manager" as the nouns "player" and "manager" share the common adjective "football". Recently, User:Refsworldlee changed the entry for Billy Hails (died 20 March) to "footballer and manager", claiming that "UK 'players' are ALWAYS known as footballers". A simple Google search reveals that "footballer" is not always used in UK. After I disagreed with his edit, Refs changed the entry to "footballer and club manager". I also maintain that "club manager" is equally vague. Was it a nightclub, a strip club, a gay club? I think that "football player and manager" is short, clear and consistent, and should be retained. What do others think? WWGB (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How about "managerer"? (not really) Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In seriousness I think "football player and manager" is probably the best option. The teams that will likely be listed with the entry will establish which football they took part in. Rusted AutoParts 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

All in all, if it's such a massive deal for anyone on here, I couldn't care less. I've never been involved in an edit war and I don't intend to start now. Change it if you must, but make sure you go through and do the same to John Phillips, Paul Bowles, Asbjørn Hansen, Ken Currie, Ryan McBride, Arne Høivik, Hiroto Muraoka, Dave Taylor, Noureddine Hammel, Juan Carlos Touriño, Marek Ostrowski, Alberto Villalta and Raymond Kopa - and that's just last month's entries. I'm sure there's a whole archive of months/years need changing if the terminology is to be restricted to just one style, "football player", when the colloquialism is generally popular in at least the British isles (not "always the case", as I wrongly asserted before). I thought my "footballer and club manager" edit was a good compromise, but there's just not pleasing some people. Last word on the matter for me, I've other things to be getting on with. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This a WWGB-ism. As he would explain it, football is the adjective in this situation and describes both of the following nouns. When you combine the first part, it disrupts the 2nd part. That is why you use "footballer" in a single instance, but football player and manager in the duality. Personally, I would just do away with the entire term footballer as it is mostly a colloquialism and isnt used worldwide. But by the same token, football isnt football everywhere either. So if we must, we must.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think my broad point, and therefore answer, to the use of the term "footballer" is that you can certainly remove it by consensus forever more from this article and other relevant articles throughout Wikipedia, but I guarantee you will never get the average editor or reader of our noble tome to stop thinking in that term or referring verbally to that term outside of these pages. My only point, then, is the term's popularity in UK-centric references, although I obviously get WWGB's context and the reason why he reverted. And again I'm commenting here while other things need doing! Thanks anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong as a nationality - or Chinese?

Hi. There's a slight difference of opinion going on in the main article regarding the nationality of Huang Yi, the late writer of wuxia novels. While the source quoted, and many other outlets, insist he was of Hong Kong descent (which he was), it has been pointed out that the location is not an "autonomous state". For what it's worth, the term "Hong Kong People" is a valid description as far as I can make out, and when the subject is probed deeper, it turns out that those with no Chinese lineage who were born in Hong Kong ARE "Hong Kong", whereas those of Chinese descent are (even self-described as) "Hong Kong Chinese". So - either, or - or both maybe? Other points of view might help avoid any kind of edit war here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No need for an edit war, we have used "Hong Kong" here for quite some time without objection. Hong Kongers are different to Chinese, as shown by their different passport. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least we got that down in black-and-white on the talk page. Thank you. (I genuinely was puzzled, to be honest - not my bag of interest much.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And I am still not a fan of giving credit to non-autonomous regions like Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, Faroe Islands, Basque Country, Balochistan, Indian Nations (which all have different functions in different countries), et al. Just because they have some semi-autonomous functions does not make them a separate nationality. We have argued about this for years and still dont have a definitive answer on what constitutes a Nation (hence Nationality) and what doesnt. We have even tried to let some self identify with the 6 counties and others, but the recent death of Martin McGuinness sent that out the window as well.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And I stand corrected. It looks as if the WP policy has changed. From now on, it looks like we will not have to call them New Zealand Maori or American Sioux or Canadian First Nation. Instead they will just be Sioux or Maori or First Nation. To wit-

"In English and some other languages, the word nationality is sometimes used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth). This meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Kurds, Kabyles, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit, Māori and Sikhs)." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's good that a little conversation here lays out a framework and DOES avoid unnecessary conflict and argument. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused what an unrefenced bit of an article has anything to do with "WP policy" or how people are described here. MilborneOne (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

To address your confusion, there is a step in between that you might not have gotten. There are WP policies laid out usually with WP:Policy. We use a number of these to determine notoriety especially in the sporting arena of life (e.g. WP:Baseball). The WP:Nationality policy you can locate in the manual of style and it directly refers to the Nationality article with linkage to it. If you read the entire article from head to toe, you can see that there are many different definitions of nationality- which is why we are where we are at. Apparently we are going to use the loosest form from now on and not care about whether it is an autonomous or non-autonomous state and just use straight ethnicity instead of encompassing into a larger meaning ie Puerto Rico or Hong Kong instead of American Puerto Rican (it is a Commonwealth), Chinese Hong Kong (Special Administrative District), or any of the Indian tribes in North America as they are not directly governed by the States but by the Legislative Branch through Diplomatic treaties. I would guess that it would be similar in Australia or New Zealand but I dont know their laws and someone else would have to comment on that. And I am OK with that as long as everyone gets treated the same way and fairly...which is where we are going to have an issue I do believe with some people adopting that definition fully.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope you lost me somewhere, as far as know the consensus here is to to list "country of citizenship at birth, subsequent country of citizenship (if applicable" which has nothing to do with Indian tribes or non-autonomous states and the like, if there background is something to do with notability then that is mentioned, so as far as I can see an American Indian would be described as an American. So forgive my ignorance I cant see the assumptions you have made and cant see why they are relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK I see what you are saying, so that is what we are talking about changing. It will no longer be country of citizenship but nationality. Obviously Hong Kong or Puerto Rico are not a Country, but they are apparently a Nationality, as are the others that we mentioned (I changed a Scottish reference today after someone put it in as British...Scotland is not a Country either (automonously speaking)). So once we get everyone to agree, we will have to fix the wording at the front from subsequent country of citizenship (if applicable) to subsequent Nationality.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That is why we are having this discussion and I am glad WWGB entered the topic this way. Country of Citizenship does not equal Nationality. It is 1 or the other. That is why I was changing it from Hong Kong to Chinese Hong Kong...China is the Country of Citizenship, Hong Kong is the Nationality as it is a Special Administrative Territory of the Chinese since it was taken over from GB in '97.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of where we do NOT follow our own rule about citizenship at birth:

• Givi Berikashvili, died 10 Apr: was born in Georgia when that was part of the USSR, hence he was a Soviet citizen, not a Georgian citizen
• Sir Arnold Clark, died 10 Apr; was a citizen of the United Kingdom (= British), not a Scottish citizen
• David Parry-Jones, died 10 Apr; ditto British, not a Welsh citizen
• Brian Matthew, died 8 Apr; ditto British, not an English citizen
• Peter Isaacson, died 7 Apr; born in London 1920 to an Australian father and an Austrian mother. He was not an Australian citizen at birth because Australian citizenship did not exist until 26 January 1949, Up until then, all people born in Australia, or born overseas to an Australian parent, were British subjects, not Australian citizens.
• Many more. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

While still being mindful of Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. WWGB (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, but the rule we have is about "citizenship", not "nationality". Sometimes we apply it rigorously ([8]), sometimes not. Why the inconsistency? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure we are making a mountain out of a molehill here I dont think we have a problem with 99% of the entries and the few odd ones can be discussed here, if we start making hard and fast rules it just leads to more guidance and rules. I would suggest the odd few that people dont like can just be discussed here remembering that we should also heed what the reliable sources use and common sense. MilborneOne (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This debate was going on long before Russell Means death. There is no way he wanted to be remembered as an "American," but he was listed as such at the time b/c WWGB among others insisted. Only begrudgingly were we allowed to explain the situation and his Indian Nation was allowed to be listed. The thing is that everyone should be treated equally in death as in life. I just cant believe some people are afforded their Nationality while others are not. If it is going to be Citizenship, then it is Citizenship...the main thing here is fairness and consistency....and if we need a rule to do it, then I am OK with that.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

But why would it be citizenship here but nationality in the lede of their own WP article? We could read of someone dying who was "a German novelist" but go to their own page to see them described as "a French novelist". Most people would find that jarring at least. It may become apparent on further reading that they were born in Germany but moved to France in early life and remained there, becoming thoroughly Frenchified and adopting French citizenship. That's fine, but many readers don't have the time or inclination to wade through their story to find some justification for the subject being described in mutually exclusive ways in different parts of WP. We have to harmonise these references. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that is the question we are asking. I think we just need to change the lead wording to "Nationality" instead of "Country of Citizenship". Dont see anyone so far that disagrees with that and that is obviously the principle several are operating under what with the Great Britain mention earlier. Seems like it would be all encompassing for everyone and their issues.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If no one else objects, then I will change it tomorrow and we can move on with our lives. Also added Sue Shaffer today, so we will see how the new policy holds for Nationality instead of Citizenship.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear that the label "nation" does not equate to nationality. We have the Rainbow nation, Nation of Islam and Queer Nation, membership of which does not constitute a nationality. WWGB (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thats true. We are talking Nation = Semi-Autonomous functioning government under the control of another Autonomous government whether by war, treaty or peace.Sunnydoo (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki has 2 lists that all of the semi-autonomous governments should be on that we use: Autonomous administrative division and List of autonomous areas by country. The only entry that I have noted not on those 2 pages (and I could have missed it) is Balochistan, which is a Christian warring subsection of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And if no one has a problem with those lists, we should probably add those lists to the top of the Talk page in the FAQ section under what we use the definition of Nationality to be.Sunnydoo (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have written the section under the FAQ but not moved it in yet. Let me know how this works for everyone-

Q: What constitutes "Nationality?"

A: We have agreed to use Nationality as the membership of the 193 Countries that are members of the United Nations. Additionally, Nationalism can be defined for some individuals that either self-identify or who's outstanding activism (e.g. Dalai Lama) warrant an inclusion of a semi-autonomous area- lists that can be found here or here.

Sunnydoo (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with this pre-emptive change. I see no benefit in cluttering the FAQs with references to the United Nations, the Dalai Lama and oblique lists. The vast majority of editors here have no difficulty describing the deceased, including their nationality. In rare cases of uncertainty (I have yet to see one) then discussion can resolve the issue. WWGB (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Songwriting credits

What's with edits like this? - the replacement of songs that the deceased person wrote by a list of performers with whom the songs are associated? If someone is notable for writing songs - not for her association with those performers - she should be credited here with the titles of those songs, not the performers. I've reverted. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Songs should be listed.Nukualofa (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing editor Wolf O'Donnel was taking the easy way out, since the source states "Moy helped revive [Stevie] Wonder's young career but also wrote for Marvin Gaye, the Isley Brothers, Mantha and the Vandellas (sic) and even Michael Jackson." However, changing the entry to reflect the artists she wrote for forces visitors to navigate to her page to search for what songs she wrote for them. It would be much easier to name her most popular/recognized here. — Wyliepedia 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to make things simpler. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with first commenter. I don't see the simplification - just a complication. This issue really speaks for itself. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree it should be songs, but not just Stevie Wonder songs. Suggests she's only notable for her association with him. If that's the way it really is, perhaps just "Stevie Wonder" works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Should "Death of X" articles be listed here?

As JAS has indicated, there are many Wikipedia articles with titles such as Death of X, Murder of X and Shooting of X. The existence of an article indicates that the death/murder/shooting was notable. As this page reports notable deaths, and not notable deceased, is there an argument to include such deaths here? In the past, they have sometimes been listed as, for example, [[Shooting of Robert Godwin|Robert Godwin]]. Some editors, including RAP, have removed them after one month, citing no article about the individual. Do any of the regular contributors think there is a place to report "death articles" as well as the notable dead? WWGB (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just notable dead Death articles named after a victim are just like death articles named after a location, except with fewer victims. If we lower the bar for single victims, we'd have no reason not to lower it for multiple victims. April 15 might look a bit crowded with 126 more redlinks on top of Yang Jie. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment / Question: User WWGB makes a good point. Is this page about notable deaths? Or is this page about notable deceased? It may be splitting hairs and it may be semantics. But it's also a significant difference. The title of the article is "Deaths in 2017". However, I suspect that is mostly for brevity. The article intro states: "This is a chronology of deaths in 2017". Do we have a clear answer as to whether this article is about notable deaths or about notable deceased? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There are links to past discussions on this in this link to a past discussion on this. One day, this too shall be linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Even back then (2014), it was I who raised the same question! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally (or not), a year ago this month, you also questioned the notability of murderers, relative to the notability of their victims. Kitty Genovese was there. In 2011, you concluded that the level of media coverage determines which identically dead people are notable and which are not. Kitty Genovese was there. In 2012, you chimed in on "Trayvon Martin" vs "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" and Kitty Genovese was there. Sorry to go Jacob Marley on you, but some of that seems pertinent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It all seems to have started in your initial response to criminal notability. March 10, 2008. The day the North American blizzard of 2008 ended and the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal began. That last part is probably a coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation: You've been stalking me? Or, rather, stalking my 10-year-old posts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I just put your name and Kitty's name in the search box. Briefly looking in boxes out of curiosity is only implicitly creepy. I don't know where you've been lately, if that's any consolation. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Got ya. LOL! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, coincidentally -- or not -- someone recently added the following entry for April 18: Steve William Stephens, 37, American killer (Shooting of Robert Godwin), suicide by gunshot. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Possible "compromise"?: Maybe we can allow the listing (on this page) if the person is specifically named in the article title? For example, "murder of Kitty Genovese" would make Kitty Genovese "eligible" for inclusion (even though she does not have her own stand-alone article). "Shooting of Michael Brown" would make Michael Brown "eligible" for inclusion (even though he does not have his own stand-alone article). And so forth. This will avoid the issue of multiple victim scenarios such as plane crashes, shooting massacres, etc. When there is a plane crash with 100 people, or a school shooting spree with 20 people, those articles are never named "death of John Smith" or "murder of John Jones". One problem I can foresee. If "murder of Kitty Genovese" renders Kitty Genovese eligible for inclusion, what about her killer (who is central to that article, but is not named in the article title)? Ditto for "Shooting of Robert Godwin". That will render Robert Godwin eligible (under my proposed compromise), but what about the killer, Steve Stephens? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see myself supporting this. In regards to Stephens, since he only has a subsection in the Goodwin article, I wouldn't include him. In a less relevant and more direct opinion, he can go fuck himself anyway. Rusted AutoParts 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Supporting "this"? Meaning ... supporting what? The overall idea? Or my "possible compromise" above? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, supporting the compromise. Rusted AutoParts 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to go with this on a trial basis. If it causes too much argument and edit reversion though, we should return to including names of persons only, on a WP bio-article or potential WP bio-article basis (i.e. retaining redlinks for 30 days to see if an article is written). Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My compromise does seem pretty decent. However, it does raise that one potential problem that I had mentioned. Maybe we should pro-actively or preemptively address that? To reiterate: One problem I can foresee. If "murder of Kitty Genovese" renders Kitty Genovese eligible for inclusion, what about her killer (who is central to that article, but is not named in the article title)? Ditto for "Shooting of Robert Godwin". That will render Robert Godwin eligible (under my proposed compromise), but what about the killer, Steve Stephens? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The compromise is based on the mention of the name in the event article title. Killers should not be allowed notability for killing in the normal scheme of things, unless they either already have a notable article in Wikipedia or it's discovered that some other aspect of their former lives has been notable. But not the killing itself. So, named in the event article is the only compromise really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The way I see it, the killer is always more notable, having made the event that made the article. A bit silly to treat a single arbitrarily chosen victim as more notable than one of many arbitrarily chosen victims in a location-named article, especially since a higher toll typically leads to more enduring notability for the event itself. But if everyone else thinks it's wise, I can play by this rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am interpreting the above discussion as consensus that, yes, "Death of X" articles should be listed here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Language formatting update

As per this discussion and vote, the language icons we use with non-English sources have changed in appearance. Instead of being bolded with the simple defined language, as in "(French)", the language icons are now unbolded with the additional preposition, as in "(in French)". The use of the template {{lang icon}} still applies and reflects the update. — Wyliepedia 02:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A question about semantics

I come with a question about semantics. A somewhat important issue for this page, I believe. I was doing some research about the following incident: Shooting of Justine Damond. Then, I came to this article to see if she was listed here, on this Deaths Page (which she is). Upon reading her entry, the wording seemed a bit odd or funny; and, thus, my question of semantics arose. Her entry states: Justine Damond, 40, Australian veterinarian, instructor, and life coach; shot. OK. So, she was a veterinarian, an instructor, and a life coach. Fine. Then, I went up to the top of the article, and I re-read the introductory blurb. This states: A typical entry reports information in the following sequence: Name, age, country of citizenship at birth, subsequent nationality (if applicable), what subject was noted for, cause of death (if known), and reference. So, I think that we have a "disconnect" here. Damon was not "known" for being a veterinarian, an instructor, and a life coach. Those merely represent a biographical description of her. But, they certainly are not what she is "known" for (i.e., they are not the reasons for her "Wikipedia notability"). She is included here in Wikipedia for the circumstances of her death. She is "notable" for the circumstances of her death. The circumstances of her death are "what the subject [Justine Damond] was noted for". So, something is amiss. In this specific case, and probably many others. I just happened to see this and think of this, as I was reviewing the Damond case. So, we either have to change the introductory blurb. Instead of saying "what subject was noted for", we would have to say something along the lines of "biographical description of the subject". (Hardly ideal, I agree.) ... OR ... We have to change Damond's entry. Instead of saying that she is notable for being "a veterinarian, an instructor, and a life coach", we would have to say that she is notable for "the circumstances of her death" (or some such). Also, hardly ideal. My point is that we have an inconsistency in this entry, and probably others. And we should consider addressing the semantics. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, when inserting a subject's most notable attribute(s) in the description, it has always been permissible to add any long-term other occupations. However, it's quite possible for you to remove those parts you feel are trivial and still avoid an edit war, I'm sure, simply by changing the description to include only the notable information contained in her own Wikipedia article, or in the reliable source used. That's all we need to do as editors, and other editors would find your action difficult to argue with. I'm sure it's not something you would get taken to task over, as I see it. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: and @WWGB: Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

While we're on semantics, homicide is a manner of death and we'd earlier agreed only suicides should stand alone. If we need something in the cause field, a comma between "woman" and "shot" might work nicely. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we remove links to pages that don't exist?

Hey all who see this, Just wondering why every single name here is linked even if no page for the person exists. Is it a notable death if their Wikipedia page does not exist? Potatornado (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As explained at the top of this page "Many notable people die before a Wikipedia article is written about them. The regular editors of this page have agreed that a death notice without an article may remain for one month after the death, so that an article may develop. If there is no article after one month, then the death notice is removed from the list." WWGB (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: Thank you! I did not see that anywhere and there were no guidelines posted on the page itself. Thank you for the clarification! Potatornado (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the linking by redirect of less notable people temporarily to a notable entity they were deeply involved in is permissible until the 'day of reckoning' (30 days) for other redlinks. If their bluelink is actually a redirect to somewhere else, they will be removed at the same time as other non-notable redlinks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a cadre of editors who enjoy turning red links into blue ones, I do it myself on occasion. Try it, you might like it. Carptrash (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Cadre of editors"? We prefer to be called "WikiGnomes", thank you. — Wyliepedia 10:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Carptrash : "Life's Too Short." ;-) Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Serial comma

This issue was already addressed. See here: Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No consensus was reached there. The use of the serial comma is optional but should be consistent in individual articles. I see no consistent use of the serial comma in Recent deaths. WWGB (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was reached there. And I am (consistently) putting in the serial commas. If others choose to remove them, I cannot help that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you mean Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1#Serial comma I see nothing remotely like consensus for the universal use of the serial comma. The only agreement is that a list like "hamburgers, mac and cheese, and fish and chips" requires the use of the serial comma. Use in a list like "beef, lamb(,) and pork" is optional, but should be used consistently. I'm not aware that this latter usage has ever been agreed here. WWGB (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed the original discussion on serial murderers... COMMAS! (Commas, or pauses, whichever...) Having been back there to have a look, it seems to me that any serious discussion/argument/fit of pique dissolved almost immediately once an admin had come in to 'calm things down'. The final sub-section then clearly failed to reach a consensus, in my opinion, bearing in mind that "consensus" is never a case of "I said it my way the most times in the discussion". Quite sanely and rightly therefore, in my opinion, the use of commas should always be an open preserve for each editor, as the fancy takes them - though any other editor should be freely allowed to edit out, or in, any of the commas (or omissions of such) if they violate the MoS, or indeed common English grammar as taught in schools (at least, back in my day it was). In my opinion, of course. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Spadaro and I have a related discussion on his Talk Page, if anyone's interested. Briefly, I'd rather not see serial commas at all, but prefer consistency over inconsistency, so am willing to do it his way if he successfully convinces the rest of us it's the way. Essentially, I'm on whichever side wins, to avoid losing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not "my" way. This was stated in our earlier discussion seeking consensus. Quote: From the article serial comma, we have this. The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, the United States Government Printing Office, and most authorities on American English and Canadian English require the use of the serial comma. In British English, use of the serial comma is not usual, although some authorities (for example, Oxford University Press and Fowler's Modern English Usage) do recommend it. End Quote. I neither own, nor have stock in, nor oversee/direct any of those publications and/or organizations. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't blaze the path, but you follow it and recommend it to others. This make it your way in the same way people "have" countries, cigarette brands and religions. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We already had this discussion and "consensus proposal" way back in that earlier thread. See here: Talk:Deaths in 2016/Archive 1. If editors did not choose to offer input then, I cannot help it. I very clearly stated: "It's been a good week or so. According to these discussions, I will be adding in serial commas where appropriate". After which, there was no objection. Nor were there even any responses (let alone, objections). So, either editors were apathetic; or it was an issue of little concern to them. I did what I had to do. I opened it up for discussion. And I followed through, accordingly. Why is everyone so up in arms about it now, a full year later? And, given that past discussion, what exactly would "you" (a collective "you") have me do? Everyone seems to want to eat their cake, and have it, too. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And, it goes without saying, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And and, being a British English citizen and language user, you'll forgive me then if I forego the serial comma wherever it occurs in a line of three or four items (for which the final item is preceded by either of the words "and" / "or") - as I was taught at school. The significant difference between the teaching of American/Canadian English and British English is one of the reasons that I STILL say the use of the serial comma should be up to the individual posting the entry, and not bound by rigid convention regardless. Another example of this Atlantic difference in teaching, and inevitably spelling, would be if an "American color coordinator" died. The word would be left alone as "color" by British English users because the subject was American. Now, if a "British colour coordinator" passed away, I would expect the "colour" spelling to be left alone, in deference to the British subject of the entry. So consequently it makes sense that the application of the serial comma can differ from entry to entry, nationality to nationality, in a similar way. One way of applying English cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the other - it ceases to be an international encyclopedia and instead becomes a global one overseen strictly by the set of rules of one faction active in the application of the English language. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Just so I am clear. What you are saying is this. It is "ok" to have inconsistency within the article. In one entry, we can choose to use the serial comma. And, in another entry, choose not to. Is that what you are suggesting? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What I am saying is what is clearly laid out above, and not in the over-simplified sentence you just attempted. Because a simple sentence does not fully explain the difference between punctuation/spelling useage on either side of the "pond". "Two nations separated by a common language", remember, and that's got to be taken into account. Merely to ignore one useage in favour/favor of another is neither equal nor fair. I think you know what I meant, and so, yes, I'm afraid inconsistency is inevitable, as it is most often with spelling irregularities developed between English-speaking nations over many years. (I used enough of my learnt English language setting out my rationale above, and if it doesn't hit home with anyone following that, then I'm lost on this issue.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Canada is on this side of the water, but we're just as British as we are American. I learned serial commas are superfluous from three Canadian English teachers, and our CBC (basically your BBC) writes things like "journalism, food retail and real estate". But we use it in "food retailing, distribution, and building and real estate development", because buddy would seem like a builder without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

When deciding which standard to use (if such a decision is needed), it's good to look back to the earliest form. Deaths in 2003 somehow begins in November 2001, where a "Dutch rock musician, painter and publicity freak" is our holotype. Granted, that page does a lot we don't anymore, but it's something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to claims, then, consensus certainly does not seem to exist supporting the undeniable inclusion of the serial comma; if anything, later comments are showing up the trans-Atlantic divide even more. I'm still inclined to follow my own nose on this - others can revert my style without fear of undo, though, as the whole subject is really not worth it, and "the serial comma can" is much more appealing to me than "the serial comma MUST" anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there is also an age gap component to this as well. Now in my advanced middle age, we were taught the old English way in my very Southern elementary school- that a list should have a serial comma. It has come up in my writings at work, and mostly pointed out by millennials- even to the point of joke status. But it is something that was ingrained and instilled at a young age in me (mostly with a ruler across the knuckles), so good luck getting that out. I agree with Ref- to each his/her own.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I, like Sunnydoo, was taught to use the serial comma — fortunately, no ruler was ever involved. I also agree that in addition to being country-related, the use of the serial comma is also age-related.

Stateside, and from family history (my family were educators who taught at all levels, K-postgraduate), the use of the serial comma was taught from 1923 to at least 2003. But I know that beginning in the late 1980s, the use was not stressed/required and became more of a 'personal' thing.

In addition, I was also taught that whenever a pause occurs during an oration, there MUST be a comma in the transcription (written/printed version).

I, too, like consistency in grammar, sentence structure, use of numbers, etc. in ANY writing; but with different Englishes and even the writing/style guides changing through the years/decades, it's an impossibility.

But remember, if you submit something to a publication, you MUST follow their writing style or you're not going to get published. That means there IS consistency WITHIN THE SAME WORK.

Since Wikipedia, in my mind, IS all "the same work," why shouldn't there consistency?

What really surprises me is the length that this discussion has grown to and how long it had been discussed.

All this over whether or not one more "," (aka 'keystroke') should be used.

Really?

And look at how many keystrokes have been used on this discussion.

If there is a consensus or Wikipedia writing style concerning comma usage — follow it.

If not — don't worry.

"A mountain out of a mole hill." 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal choice over rigid style rules, and that's how I'm playing it on the comma, given the lack of any opposite consensus above. Nice short sentence, that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the cereal comma in Snap, Crackle, and Pop. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I finished it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I inserted a serial comma here recently because someone had chosen to remove it.

WWGB then removed it claiming this was interfering with someone else's editing (so how was the removal not that same interference?)LE (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I concede that the serial comma was there first. [9] WWGB (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)