Talk:Deaths in 2024/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

Can we please keep the joke listings to a minimum this year... or better yet, not have any? Look, last year's shenanigans were fun, but they also caused the article to be semi-protected, meaning those of us without accounts couldn't edit it, which is actually coming into play right now as I'm a NASCAR fan (RIP Cale Yarborough) and I don't have an account... NOBODY ADD ANYTHING ABOUT TRUMP OR PUTIN, PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.225.115 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's already had so many reverted hits that the same protection is now in place as last year, and will probably happen again for 2025 too. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

They need to stop ruining it for the rest of us! It's pissing me off to no end, and if they protect it for 2025 without any good reason... 68.41.225.115 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Cale Yarborough died on 31 Dec. Jay 💬 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Jay - Cale has been listed at Deaths in December 2023 already. 68.41.225.115 - there's always good reason to protect Deaths pages, as you just found out. By the way, I'm not understanding why you cannot or will not create an account, get autoconfirmed and start editing Deaths? Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

For best that would be fixed by auto-protecting all the Deaths in... article by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and non-AC may not edit. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 13:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe admins have been approached about supplying auto-protection in previous years and have declined to offer it. Edit: I should have mentioned, the rationale being that each year's "Deaths" title is different by year date, therefore technically a different article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Deaths due to Covid

Is the Covid-related "See also" section at the bottom of the page still necessary in 2024? What does the community think? JimboB (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm neutral on it, to be honest, though I would never have thought about introducing it myself. It's not outside the scope of the subject we deal with, and even now sometimes has relevance to the article within which the link lies. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No longer warrants inclusion. More people die from other causes than COVID. WWGB (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Gonna wait one more day to see if there's anyone else willing to say something. If not, since I got one answer in favour of deleting it and another neutral, I'll delete it (it also sounds unnecessary to me at this point). JimboB (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel it served a purpose in 2020 and 2021, but with COVID now back in the overall numbers of many things that can kill someone, the link seems superfluous. However, I would wait a little longer to potentially solicit more opinions. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it was added to this page on the 14th. A good faith edit, but it definitely shouldn't be kept. We have five suicides, five vehicle crashes, and six COVID deaths. It isn't an especially remarkable COD anymore. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleted it. It seems consensus is pretty much formed. Thanks to all. JimboB (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Causes of death

Hi. A lot of "suspected" and "possible" causes of death were entered into various subject entries today, and this happens quite a lot generally in actual fact. If you have nailed a certain cause of death, why not enter the reliable source URL into the edit summary and shut people like me up with good reason? Just saying. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And further thanks to whoever spotted the plethora of "cardiac arrests" that hadn't been confirmed either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization or non-capitalization of job titles

Hi. We currently have one editor reverting our attempts to be consistent in our naming of job titles - that is, our belief that, irrespective of country or individual article titles editing, WP:JOBTITLES advises that all such namings should be delivered in lower case, except portions which include proper nouns requiring capitals to start. I have invited said editor to contribute here, via edit summary, and would encourage others to do the same. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"all such namings should be delivered in lower case"

No, it says to do so when used generically.

This is name name of his office, not a generic description.

"They are capitalized only in the following cases:

When a formal title for a specific entity ... is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description."

"write minister of foreign affairs OR, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs" Braintic (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You've now had your say (and your maximum three edit reversions, by the way), so let's hear from others, if you would be so kind. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing here I had not already said.

Where is a comment from you about the number of edit reversions by the other guy?

Where is his input here, given that he requested this?

(He has made another reversal since my comment)

Is his claim that capitals is "self-aggrandising" valid?

Why is it that this and similar job titles is in capitals in the ALL individuals' Wikipedia pages, yet people have a problem with it only here? Surely if it is about consistency then it should be consistent with these other pages.

ALL online reference to this job title in non-Wikipedia sources have initial capitals. Braintic (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You've made seven (sic!) reversions so far, which is completely unacceptable. Beyond that, you should keep in mind that no one is obligated to satisfy you with their responses here. Renewal6 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Renewal6 If anyone wishes to create or reiterate a consensus here, it would be so much better if other editors WOULD post here. I've just restored the pre-talk version of the contentious edit (reverted yet again by same editor) so that the consensus can be achieved. Silence is not an option. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The only reason you haven't made as many reversions as me is because a couple of others have jumped in and done the same. Without them you would also have seven.

I see that you have not addressed ANY of my comments here.

That means you have no interest in any of my arguments, and are simply waiting for someone else to jump in and agree with you, most likely also without arguments.

Given that YOU were the one who requested I post here, yes YOU are most certainly obliged to respond here. Otherwise what was the point of the request? And after saying that no one is obliged to comment here, you then have the gall to tell others that "silence is not an option". Clearly you do not understand the concept of "consistency" which you claim you are trying to apply here.

Let me ask again:

(i) Was "self-aggrandisement" with regard to a deceased person a valid argument from you?

(ii) Is "Minister for Water Supply" the formal title of his office or is it not?

(iii) What does the page I linked to say about unmodified formal titles? Or have you not bothered to read that?

Given that you don't know how [sic!] is to be used, I don't think you should be making decisions about proper English usage here. Braintic (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already made my statement on the matter when I opened this section for you. It's now for others to give their opinions rather than just myself, yourself and one other. Please don't try to bait me, because it doesn't work - let's keep it civil at all times. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You have ignored my quotes which show that what you believe is "advised" was taken in the wrong context. Braintic (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the current usage of lower case to report job titles on these pages, a long-standing convention consistent with Wikipedia MOS. WWGB (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I support the usage of lower case, as well. Besides I believe the formal office title is "Minister of State for Water Supply," while "minister for water supply" is the conventional form describing the person's occupation... if that makes sense. ThylekShran (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Info removed apparently without a cause

What's happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2024&diff=1201124358&oldid=1201124232&variant=en

3 deaths removed. --Agnellino (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

30 days is the standard period before redlinks get removed. Rusted AutoParts 08:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts OK, thx. Imho may be better write a note for each edit. --Agnellino (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No need - the one month removal of redlinks and redirects is a long-standing standard task which needs no explanation to editors who contribute regularly here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee Not everyone is a regular contributor!! The removals may appear as vandalism! This is just my thoughts. --Agnellino (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good thoughts - however, the regulars here are satisfied that things are being done properly and within the rules of Wikipedia, and admins are also content with the redlinks removal. Thanks for your concern though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It only takes a few seconds to write an edit message ("no article after one month"), and it is good manners. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh! Edit summary note! Of course - only lazy editors don't leave one. I see what you both mean now. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Funeral home obituaries - self published?

So I've seen pushback over edits I made to Jesse Jane. The obituary of her boyfriend, who died with her, was published recently, with a DOD asserted as the 24th. I added it in, but it was refused with the reasoning being funeral home obituaries fell under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Giving we utilize these kind of sources all the time, I'm looking to see if this is accurate. I've personally never seen pushback over this before, and combing through SELFPUB I just don't see why they'd fall under it. Rusted AutoParts 07:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A better forum for this would probably be WP:BLP/N. I'm not aware of a common practice of citing funeral homes for death details, but for truly notable individuals there's usually a newspaper obituary at least. Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published websites should never be used for third-party claims about living (or recently deceased) people. As I've already explained at your user talk page, Business, charitable, and personal websites are examples of self-published sources per WP:USESPS. In any case, the boyfriend's obituary doesn't even mention Jesse Jane. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Consequently, as Legacy.com relies on funeral homes for some of its content, I assume not all of its obituaries will be allowable, if they are based on funeral home information? This job doesn't get any easier. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a funeral home obituary counts as a sps. Funeral homes don't usually write obituaries. They just publish them. Sure they are a business, but the implication there is not to use a business' page for information written by the business about itself. (As for the above comment, I believe legacy.com was already discouraged in the past because anyone can post to it, but I don't see it at RSPS so don't take my word for it.) Nohomersryan (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nohomersryan - I must have missed that discussion, I suppose because we see Legacy obits being so often included without argument. Another visit to that issue required at some point perhaps? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that this page deals exclusively with deaths, and obituaries from funeral homes have been a valued asset here that is now being called into question, I felt it best to broach the topic here to see where the usual editors here stood on the matter. Rusted AutoParts 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's a matter of personal opinion - I am all for keeping reputable funeral home obituaries purely for factual things like birth and death dates, though I do understand the potential issues which may arise when family give specific information about anything else to those homes. Legacy I tend to respect because it's not a wiki platform, it clearly states its sources on the majority of occasions, and it also serves as a workaround when publications like the NY Times bar non-payers from viewing its content. Just my window on those two things. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what counts as a reputable funeral home when it comes to accurate information about the deceased. Especially considering that their business is comforting bereaved families, not providing a historical record for the public. If it's true, as another user said, that funeral homes don't usually write obituaries, then the information is only as reliable as the source they got it from. In which case we should probably just cite that source if it's a reputable media organization. If it's just a statement from the family, then it's definitely WP:SPS and one with a conflict of interest to boot. As for editors' jobs not getting any easier, Category:2024 deaths already exists based on verified information in individual articles. We don't need a list of Deaths in year X at all AFAIK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, a category page can't duplicate a list article (see WP:NOTDUP), if that's what you're trying to say. Renewal6 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is the reversion/revision off this page being discussed here? Everyone knows this page must bend "the rules" in order to be informative and relevant. If we followed Wikipedia's "rules" of order, this would be a very different page. All we should worry about are perennial/deprecated/blacklisted sources, social media gossip, and whether someone's dog is relevant. Wyliepedia @ 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just seeking clarity about the funeral home citations part. If that was something that applied to SPS, I just thought it might have an impact on what could be used as a cite here. Rusted AutoParts 22:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Periods galore!

Why do we have periods at the ands ends of so many (all?) entries. That is certainly not normal in any list. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean "the end" of entries. It's a collection of bullet-pointed sentence fragments, which allows for the use of periods (full stops) according to the Manual of Style. Instead of listing single entity words, each sentence takes the form of a prose structure within itself. It's been the subject of several consensus challenges over the years, so you are welcome to bring this up yet again on the talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the talk page (here) - and thank you for helping me correct my typo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: typo - just making sure of your context for all who read this section. Yes, you've broached the subject, but have only asked a question in this section. You would need to assert that you think this is a wrong call to get any debate going, as the past consensus has remained WITH the period/stops, and probably won't change following our fairly neutral comments here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it looks unusual, very odd, that all the entries on this particular list end with periods, and I wonder what motivation has been given in previous discussions for such an oddity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The key to the decision comes exactly from what I mentioned above regarding bullet-pointed sentence fragments. They're treated as lines of prose and therefore require full stops/periods. Again, if you think this is wrong, state that you wish for a review of the consensus. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

More specific info, please! According to whom or what policy or WP guideline or academic source are they "treated as lines of prose"? I've been a pretty-well-updated English teacher & author since 1969 and I never heard of such a thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

PS You can stop telling me what to do. If you don't wish to answer my questions, or cannot, that's OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As you are not happy with my tone or approach, I think I'll leave it to others to go into the specifics. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is weird, no doubt. And, like the weird way references are formatted here, it's also normal in context. Also, our archives don't exactly "work the way they should", so specific lines of prose regarding the origin of this norm or that are hard to come by. They did occur, though, I truly figure. It sucks and is something most of us have gotten used to. Or something to which most of have gotten used...it depends. There're also bits about when to use serial commas that I don't understand and tolerate just the same. It may take you a bit longer, since you've been reading, writing, learning and teaching for longer, but good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there are two archived discussions from 2020 (Terminal punctuation and Full stops?) for comparison purposes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Coroner Date of Death vs. Published Date of Death

Just a general question: When listing someone's death, do we go by when the coroner announced the date of death or when it's posted online? Wikivisitor2022 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would assume that a reliable source would report the coroner's verdict, though these decisions tend to take a long time coming. If a reliable source quotes a family member or other verifiable person in stating a cause of death, that can be used until the coroner's verdict comes in. Sadly, many news outlets do not follow up on deaths they report, so there may not be an obvious news report of a coroner verdict at all in some cases. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Formatting inconsistency

Looking at other "notable deaths" lists on Wikipedia, they seem to start with the first of the month and work their way down to the last day. Is there a reason that this list is upside-down? It feels impractical and inconsistent with other pages, as well as inconsistent with the way events are typically documented chronologically in a timeline fashion. Ap1015 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The most recent deaths are at the top, so you don't have to scroll past 30 days on the 31st to see the latest updates. When the page is archived and moved to the specific months (see Deaths in January 2024) the order is reversed. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And thus should it stay. I don't want to roll right down to the bottom just to see the most recent passings. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ap1015 It does look pretty strange. Also the use of bare numbers for the individual dates makes it difficult to navigate on mobile, because you can't see which month you're in. Musiconeologist (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Musiconeologist: Mobile user/editor here. It's usually always the current month, which is given in a Level 2 heading at the top of the page and in the table of contents (given on the right or in the browser margins (depending on your Wikipedia setup)). The only time it should be "difficult" is the seven-day grace period we have before moving the previous month to its own dedicated page and, thus, the page refreshes to the current month, once again. Wyliepedia @ 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@CAWylie Ah I see. I didn't realise the pages only ever cover about a month. That makes more sense. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Translating or not translating titles

Just what makes it inappropriate to translate the title of an Irish parliamentarian into English when any Norwegian Stortingsmedlem or Austrian in the Nationalrat (for example) is rendered as "MP" without batting an eyelash?...and just where is the semantic distinction between a "deputy" and other forms of "representative" or "councillor"?71.105.190.227 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated in this edit summary, we use the preferred national title, as designated for Irish assemblymen (see the lead there), just like their upper house members are "senators". The Storting (and Bangladeshis) has no such abbreviated designation and are therefore called "MPs", due to it being the supreme legislature. Does that help? Wyliepedia @ 08:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My message was a reaction to that edit summary, which appeared to be designating the Irish as a special case.

I have also seen edit summaries stating that Country X does not have MPs but deputies.

It seems confusing (in the latter case it would often be a translation to English and in the former it is not, as well).71.105.190.227 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes the title MP is too often used when in a particular country it is easily translatable (or popular, or institutional) the office of legislator as "deputy", "congressman/congresswoman" or "teachta dála". Or even "member of the Storting", which is not particularly long, since often when adding legislators from a US state there is no problem in adding, for example, "member of the Idaho House of Representatives". "MP" is more commonly used in the Anglo-Saxon parliamentary system and should not necessarily be used in a generic way. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's also a bit of an editor's personal preference to abbreviate understood offices, in addition to reducing page load times towards the end of months where we have upwards of 700 entries. As a visitor, I would much rather see a linked MP abbreviation than "member of a lengthy government office". Wyliepedia @ 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As I hover these abbreviated links (on computer), I get a tooltip pop-up which invariably tells me what the full title is. So easy, at least with a PC. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Olympedia

Cases like Toldi's is why I wish Olympedia didn't have to cease operations. Rusted AutoParts 04:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Clarify? I can't find any news outlet (or the site itself) which says it is ceasing operations? Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

In their Feedback tab, they state as of January 1, 2024 the site wouldn't be updated. I had only stumbled onto it myself a few weeks into 2024 as I'd been looking periodically to see if any new names would be added on their list, but so much time went by. Eventually I found one of the founders on Twitter stating "our contract with the IOC is not being renewed. The OlyMADMen will no longer update Olympedia after today, 29 Dec. We do not know if the IOC will continue to keep Olympedia online, but we do not expect them to update it." A very frustrating loss of a resource for sure. Same with Pro Football Archives being shut down around the same time. Rusted AutoParts 02:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I wondered why death details seemed to dry up not too long ago. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cole Brings Plenty

Why is Cole even on this page? He isn't a celebrity or any sort of significant individual!? Doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Cflisthebest (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

His death is widely reported by reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5]. An independent biographic article based on these and no further coverage would be inappropiate, but certainly not its mention in an article dedicated to notable deaths. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We usually list redirects that have been created, either upon an entry's death or long before. His notability can be discussed elsewhere. As for his entry here, per the FAQ above, he will be removed in due time, if his article isn't expanded. Wyliepedia @ 23:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the existence of his redirect means he should be given the one month leeway for an article to be written. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

His entry has now been removed due to the one month redlink/redirect rule (at last check it represented only a redirect to a show). Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)