Talk:Deaths in 2021

2022

Merry Christmas guys, with only a week to go until 2021 ends. I am wondering is anything staying for next years deaths lists or not in regards to sources? . Regards, KNOWKING4298<> (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Bare sources

Why do "we keep the sources bare" at this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#3 at the top of this page. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So essentially a technical limitation driven by the limits of editors' devices? Is that consensus quite recent? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I've been editing these lists for ~15 years, and they have never been "full" citations. In fact, it used to be just [URL] links. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure we don't want bare URLs. But has technology progressed any in the ~15 years since that decision was made? How slow is "too slow to load"? I would have guessed there are many articles, which are equally long, that don't have this rule. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why fix what isn’t broke? Rusted AutoParts 12:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Full citations provide much more at-a-glance information, such as author, title (usually the headline) and dates. For sources hidden behind a paywall they can also provide direct quotes to support contentious or disputed claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not the length of the article that is problematic, it's the number of references. I don't think many other articles would have 700-800 references, which these articles include every month. If every citation used the "cite web" template, every template must be rendered before the page loads. Also, it needs to be remembered that this is one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia every year, with over 43,000,000 visits each year. Any noticeable impact on the page loading time runs the risk of deterring regular readers from returning. There is a small group of wikignomes who maintain these pages, sometimes accused of being a club or exerting ownership, but always trying to do the best. The agreed rules here are all about keeping these pages consistent, useful and popular. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. I guess one might have to do manual comparisons via e.g. Long pages. We have no way of ever quantifying the "risk of deterring regular readers from returning", do we. Do we even have any actual data on how much longer it takes? I'm not even sure how one might run such a test. I guess it gets progressively worse as the month goes on. I'm not saying that the article is "broken", I'm just suggesting that full citations could sometimes be used e.g. for paywalled articles or non-English articles (where translations can also be given). Yes, I'm sure gnomes are people too. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the purpose of the reference here is just to prove that the subject is dead, so that's not "contentious or disputed". Fuller detail on the deceased is available, with full citations, at their main article. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. But we sometimes seem to have differences between what's reported here and what's reported at the main article. There is often some uncertainly about exact date of death. Another restriction here is "only one source allowed". I did try and raise this topic before, as I had assumed that this article had to, in some way, "follow" the main article. But the response I got said something about "bragging rights". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Another approach might be to initially hide References in a drop-down box and allow a show for interested readers and editors (assuming this is not contrary to MoS policy). I wonder was this considered at the discussion ~15 years ago? I'm not sure this would really jeopardise "keeping these pages consistent, useful and popular." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

My historic and long-gone comment about bragging rights was not directly to do with what you are talking about now. In the main, this article/list generally sticks to what is being claimed/informed by the person article linked to the death entry. What varies that is repeated and persistent misinformation being inserted into the person article, when it later becomes clear that our entry actually gets it right and just has to wait for the person article editors to sort out their differences. We can actually serve as a further check against misinformation, rather than be viewed purely as going our own way regardless of what person articles say. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we can. What's your view on the requirement to only ever use one single "bare" source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

As in a previous discussion, I still maintain that bare sources use up less edit code, therefore should result in quicker page loading times for those with inferior tech or disadvantageous broadband conditions (such as in the area I live, where I'm lucky to get 9mbps). This seems to be the gist of arguments by others so far too, but further discussion will clarify that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that bare sources use less code. Are these "Deaths in XXXX" the only articles that have such a large proportion of references? I really don't know how much difference it makes to those editors with "inferior tech or disadvantageous broadband conditions." I doubt that anyone knows how many such editors there are. There are plenty of larger articles, of course, e.g. List of chess grandmasters. But these may not be as amenable to such strategies for quicker loading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to further qualify remarks I have clearly made establishing a certain position for me. That position remains, so I think it's time to let other editors have their say here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking you that. But other editors are very welcome to reply or make any other contributions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this restriction relate to all "Deaths in XXXX" articles or just current year? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Archived months in years never lose their edit coding bulk, so retain bare sources for the same reasons, as it stands at the moment. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But if I go back to e.g. Deaths in January 2006, everything has full citations? Is that just because it's a smaller article, or because it was before there was consensus to use bare sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this page being audited or something, lol. Idk why the older pages filled out their sources, perhaps yes they can withstand the added load time given it's a shorter list but I think it's pretty evident here why the need for bare sources are necessary. More people are dying/having been sourced as dying. Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure the discussion ~15 years ago was perfectly valid; but it might be useful to know what evidence was used then to evaluate the trade-off. I was just surprised that these pages use a different citation style to the rest of the encyclopaedia. I was just suggesting that in some cases, a full citation, and/or more than one single source, might be useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But would you not agree that a full cite "in some cases" is guaranteed to destroy the consistency aimed for in this project? And how would you decide which merits a full and which only merits a bare? As mentioned earlier above, the aim of including citations of any stripe in this list of dead people is to confirm without doubt that they have actually died - no more. The ramifications of including someone who is still alive don't bear thinking about, and it has happened on occasion.

The extra information in a full cite is, as you say, useful, but that's not really what we have focused on in the past. Links exist within the subject line of the deceased to other Wikipedia articles where further information can easily be found. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that continued consistency here will be far easier to use and apply, even if what is produced is inconsistent with the rest of the project. I'd still like to see some kind of "quantitative evidence" for loading times; perhaps I'm just too sceptical. In ~15 years the number of entries has probably increased, but maybe people's devices and download speeds have got better? I'd be surprised if there weren't other, more elegant, solutions to the problem. As long as there is consistency between the entries here and their full article, perhaps it doesn't matter. I'm assuming that, once a month has been "put to bed" and is no longer being actively edited, the references are filled in to full cites. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've mentioned my poor download/upload speeds already due to the BT broadband cabinet and exchange issues which exist in the UK (not sure if similar problems are experienced in other countries), and it is very frustrating to sit and wait for a feature-laden website page to load, believe me. As to the cite issue, there would be no point at all in restricting the current month to bare sources and then converting them to full cites after archiving - whether a month is current or archived, the massive edit code burden for both remains the same. Each page in each month/year is currently treated in the same way because they all have this source code bloating. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you for one seem to have a noticeable problem with the page as it stands, so adding in full cites would probably make it much worse. I have no problem with page loading, so maybe I'm lucky. I do have to wait for very large pages like User talk:EEng to load and I guess most other people do to. I'm still unsure why some older "Deaths in MONTH XXXX" articles have full cites. What you see as "code bloating" is a normal MoS requirement across the rest of the encyclopaedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, time for others to have their say I think. Quite enough column inches from me for now - I'm bloating the page..... Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't all rush at once. Is there something peculiar about references that make them more difficult to load than ordinary text? Otherwise it's just this size of the entire article that's the governing factor. The argument here seems to be "we've done it like this for 15 years, so why change now." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No one owes you a response. Anyway, like I said before if it’s not broken why fix it? Rusted AutoParts 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia no one owes anyone anything? I don't think something has to be "broken" for it to be improved. Perhaps there are many other articles which have "dropped out" of the need for full citations. This was just the first one I had come across in 14 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

But do you really feel what this and every other deaths page needs is to add extended load length via padding out the sources? Would you be the one who goes through to make the updates? You had 3 frequent editors to the page explain why the editing practices employed better suit the page, I really don’t know what else can be explained. Rusted AutoParts 17:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

But it's not every other deaths page, is it? More historical pages have full citations (and again it's just my personal ignorance, but I don't know why or what the cut off is)? I'm sorry but I still don't understand why it's the number of citations that causes the problem. And no-one has been able to explain to me "how slow is too slow". Perhaps you could here, now? If bare sources are just fine, and wholly within MoS policy, then I guess any article could use them, as long as there was local consensus to do so. And sorry, no, I'm not volunteering to personally change all the bare sources into full citations (even if that were deemed preferable). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I suppose this thread is at it's end. It's preferred to keep it bare and you don't wish to see the switch to full cites through so it seems that's that. Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I probably would wish to see the switch to full cites. Because I think full cites are more useful and that would be consistent with the rest of the encyclopaedia. Sorry if you see that as disruptive. But that would be based on an evaluation of evidence that so far has alluded me. I asked "how slow is too slow", but you can't tell me and it seems no one can tell me. I know something was decided, by persons unknown, about 15 years ago. And I don't seem to be able to get much further. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"you don't wish to see the switch to full cites through" is in regards to you saying you wouldn't be the one going through to convert the bares into fulls. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

lol. One might want to separate principles from individual editing. Single editor crusades at Wikipedia generally fail. And I do have one or two other articles I occasionally edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a crusade, it’s just me seeing you push for a change presently no other editors here support and you also saying should it be elected to convert to full cites you wouldn’t participate in that. I just don’t know what else could be said here, it just feels like a lengthy amount of “but why?”ing every response. Bare cites just allow for quicker additions and less load time. How slow is too slow? I don’t know, I can’t really put an exact number of seconds to it, but it’s more ideal to be able to just snap into the page. I guess I wouldn’t want to see the page take as long as it does to load my userspace cataloguing of deaths. I figure since these pages average almost or over 500 entries, thus meaning about 500 sources, should all those be filled in it would make for a slower experience losing it and even saving edits. Rusted AutoParts 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Parts, I was characterising my own possible single-handed conversion of bare cites to full cites as a crusade? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Now awaiting some input here from @Unreal7:, who has recently been converting archived months/years to full cite using reFill 2, despite having been approached on their talk page. I have duly invited them to join this conversation for a review of the current consensus. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. If there's consensus against, I won't do it. Unreal7 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, that's all I've wanted, is some response of some kind. I thank you for visiting this talk section, and hope you have gleaned enough from the above discussion to know why we are not in favour of full cites. You are of course entitled to challenge any consensus at any time, but merely ignoring completely the approaches made for comment by editors is not productive. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Syncing Deaths in 2021 with 2021 deaths category

With 2021 drawing to a close, I was wondering if anybody here would help sync these pages with those in the category of 2021 deaths (and related cats). I've taken care of the more unusual cases (e.g. deaths were reported here, but nobody ever bothered to edit the article), but that leaves a ton of deaths that aren't listed here. 753 by my count. I know everybody has lives, and this page can be hectic. But if people are willing to help, great! And once a group of entries are dealt with (generally added to page or removed from category), feel free/please do remove them from the list below. Star Garnet (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

1-100

101-200

201-300

301-400

401-500

501-600

601-700

701-753

Need citation

• Wayne R. Dynes
• Yosef Avni (יוסף אבני‎) [2]
• Zorka Grandov (Зорка Грандов)

To be fair, some of those were created after their death, which is why they haven't been "synced". Wyliepedia @ 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This basically what I’ve been doing the past little while. I was able to purple link every listed name in each month so I could better see the non listed names when combing the category. At least there’s now a list of the actual missing names now. Rusted AutoParts 13:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of non-added December deaths: Qazi Ajmal - Scott Alarik - Bruce Arden - Osman Arpacıoğlu - Martin Quinn - Vesma Baltgailis - Ron Blazier - Norberto Boggio - Carl Clowes - Ian Cooper - Miroslav Čopjak - Edward Esko - Nathaniel Exum - John Flynn - Donald K. Fry - Diana G. Gallagher - Ian Gregory - María Guðmundsdóttir - John Heard - John Hepworth - Skilyr Hicks - Piotr Iwaszkiewicz - Issa Kassim Issa - Jan Józwik - Luis Kadijevic - Claudia Levy - Robert Malinowski - Andy McCabe - Tom McGarry - David Mercer - Muhammad Yusuf Islahi - Sarat Kumar Mukhopadhyay - Chandra Nayudu - Enrico Pieri - Pablo Sierra - Soepardjo - Ben Tollefson - Wang Xuezhen - Lloyd L. Weinreb - Suzette Winter - Chowdhury Akmal Ibne Yusuf Nukualofa (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Rollover on the 8th day

There has been some recent confusion regarding the day on which deaths are moved from "Deaths in 20XX" to "Deaths in Month 20XX". The editor consensus, reflected in the FAQ above, is "to keep the old month listed in the article for seven days after the new month begins." It is quite clear that the entries remain for seven days, that is, they may be moved on the eighth day of the new month

The protected text on the article page was incorrect, It has now been changed to read "Please do not move deaths from the previous month until the 8th of current month."

Of course, it is still not clear if the start of the eighth day is measured at UTC+14, UTC, UTC-10 or some other time zone. WWGB (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on UTC (or GMT) as per timestamps. Editrite! (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, from my position in the UK Western hemisphere, the page always seems to archive on the 6th, no matter who appears to be doing the move. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it depends on who does it and when it's done. For example, October 2021 was moved by HelpingYouToKnowMore at 07:09 (EST, 11:00 UTC) on 6 November. Myself, I've been known to move it out around 18 hours later, once the 7th has pretty much begun in the world. And we take out monthly redlinks a day or so before their time, so what's a day early for the move? Wyliepedia @ 15:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Still the butchery continues, restoring a version that is 20 hours out of date. [3] WWGB (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Was Mel Lastman a notable furniture salesman?

In Ontario, he definitely was, for many broadcast years. But this is a global encyclopedia, so I get why Folengo might not remember that catchy classic campaign slogan at all. Not looking to fight about it, just bringing it up for editors of all nations to consider, if they want. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, on that "global" scale, I've honestly never heard of him. I'm assuming, then, that he was at least famous in the annals of American TV advertising. I'm neutral, after all that. Or Canadian annals? Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ontarian chronicles, technically. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Who? Editrite! (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We could ask that of mostly everybody here, actual world fame is nearly impossible. But Mel Lastman has a bluelink, and part of it is devoted to his not-quite-standalone furniture chain, which millions of people have heard about, repeatedly, over time. So now that you're up to speed, whatcha gonna do? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Drakeo the Ruler

He died on December 18th according to Rolling Stone:[4]. 2601:18C:8B01:EE40:0:0:0:6A86 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the source, he was stabbed Saturday night (18th) and attended to by paramedics at 8:40pm that night. It then says he died "later". There's no current way of knowing whether "later" was that day (18th), or if he survived into the next day (19th).  Not done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It says he was killed late Saturday night. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"The rapper’s death is the second tragic event to occur at a Live Nation-organized festival in as many months...". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Who? I don't think he qualifies for front page inclusion. I asked many of my younger friends who listen to that kind of music and they had no clue who he was. Notable for his cause of death, but nothing else. Antiwesley (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, editors here have little sway with what gets posted through "In the news", whose content goes through scrutiny here. For example, the subject's entry. Wyliepedia @ 14:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

:: I think we need to have some more clarification for next years lists in terms of if someone has died or not ( if we encounter something like this again). I have never heard of this “notable” person in my whole life. I am not here to get on someone’s nerves, just offering my insight. Regards, KNOWKING4298<> (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)