Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2023

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 166.199.114.47 (talk) at 00:38, 19 July 2023 (→Carlin Glynn: Struck incorrect url. Replaced.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Table Format?

Would it be possible to have the death list in a table format? Like something that can be easily exported to excel. 50.230.98.226 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this idea has been visited many times before, and due to extreme technical difficulties is impractical and almost impossible to update efficiently. You don't say why you would prefer it that way when the majority seem happy with it as it is? Ref (chew)(do) 19:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And - wow - suggesting copying Wikipedia verbatim into a personal program? Ref (chew)(do) 19:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And - yes - while in college I took a few computer classes with one being GIS. We had a pile of projects that came from us finding data online(inlcuding wikipedia) importing it over to excel and using the data in a multitide of ways to find paterns, forcast future population or expansion of cities/waterways, and make our own GIS mapping based on real places. In this case, we copied data into two personal programs.. Excel and ArcGIS.. so yes I would suggest doing it for the thousands of students needing data for school projects 50.230.98.226 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what all goes into updating these pages, but I have seen plenty of other wikipedia pages where the data is in table format and is incredibly easy to export to excel. I was unaware that I was to come prepared with a arguementative essay as to why a table format would be better.. it was only a suggestion 50.230.98.226 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of work goes into it, made so much easier each day by the bullet/lines format rather than trying to pick out correct sections of a table format to edit so that it stays in alphabetical and day order, etc. You should also realise that Wikipedia does hold copyrights and other legal entitlements - despite anyone's wish to copy-and-paste/import large chunks of it for their own use, editors are always mindful of those legalities when dealing with the encyclopedia, and even though we know millions of people do copy it blatantly, we wouldn't expect anyone to come out and admit it in a talk page. Please glance at this page to understand more about rights and usage. Thanks for your suggestion though. Ref (chew)(do) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of three application

I had seen one of Glenda Jackson's three film credits removed as her political term is there. But does the political term count towards an Ro3 credit? It’s more of a political position. Just seeking a bit of clarity to the extent of Ro3 application. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I remember seeing the rule of three applied is within a category of notability; I don't think it's intended to encompass all areas of notability. So in this case, I think including three film roles + political career is in keeping with the guideline.-- Ponyobons mots 21:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter should apply, as implemented in obituary lines for similar past entries. Another film can be added, as far as I am concerned. Ref (chew)(do) 21:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a term in office equates to a credit. If we were discussing a book she wrote that would also be a credit. Had Jackson won three Oscars, we would list those three years as well as three notable films. WWGB (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does hall of fame status come before occupation, but no other awards do?

At the moment there is an entry for Manabu Kitabeppu, 65, Japanese Hall of Fame baseball player (Hiroshima Toyo Carp). Why does it say it like that? Would it not make more sense to say Japanese baseball player (Hiroshima Toyo Carp), Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame inductee (2012)? That way it is clear which Hall of Fame the individual is in (say, a Japanese player who exclusivly played in MLB and ended up in their hall of fame would look the same as this player) and there are no other awards that are arranged in this order (the entry for Glenda Jackson does not call her a English Oscar-winning actress, it puts the award after her occupation. OZOO (t) (c) 12:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which Hall of Fame is always linked in the wording, so the reader is one click away from finding out which one (or alternatively, one hovering of a computer mouse above the phrase to show the tooltip description). The main reason for putting the phrase in the pre-eminent position is to avoid clutterage in the end section of the one-line sentence, but it's also to do with how grammar is employed to create a succinct but economical use of the English language, and to avoid accidental ambiguities. As you know, Wikipedia editors are always open to alternative suggestions, but what is suggested must always improve on the existing, or fix a problem, and can only be adopted by consensus. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why it's Hall of Fame X but never Oscar-winning X or Olympic medalist X; are the latter two not also clutterage? I don't think expecting the reader to go on a second click to find out details of the Hall of Fame matches with WP:TRANSPARENCY. OZOO (t) (c) 16:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of other credits towards notability which appear in a subject's obituary line require a second click (or a mouse hover) for absolute clarity, so I don't see why HoF links are any different to those. It's also to do with using the minimum possible number of words to achieve the passing on of the information required in the entry, and some of those Hall of Fame titles are so wordy the line could go on forever. You're already getting the phrase Hall of Fame alongside the activity or job for which the subject was noted - if you combine the two it should be a little more obvious which HoF it's going to be. Anyway, I'll let someone else have their say on this. Ref (chew)(do) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's about reducing clutter. "Hall of Fame" has 10 characters, whereas "Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame inductee (2012)" has 40 characters. We must remember that these entries are death notices, not obituaries. They are not intended to tell the whole story. Further detail about the deceased can always be found in their article, or associated links. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths needing a better source

I've added a few hundred missing deaths over the past month. There are a few for whom I couldn't find a non-social media source. Perhaps somebody else here might have better luck? (feel free to edit below if a source is found or add to the list if it's helpful) Star Garnet (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Updated July 5. Star Garnet (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalance of rules/standards between Deaths in 2023 and Main Page

I've recently come to the conclusion that we should list deceased individuals on the Deaths in 2023 where the source is an official Facebook or Twitter page of a band, organisation, studio, agent, sports team etc. There are some users on here who are wholly opposed to this, others more sympathetic to my leaning.

Seems a good time to bring this into debate now that we have a major inconsistency on the site. Dave Viti is currently listed on the Main Page in the "Recent deaths" tab, despite the fact that the only source thus far is a tweet from the official Hamilton Tiger-Cats Facebook page here. He should technically be added under "June 16" on the Deaths in 2023 page with the addition of "(death announced on this date)" to the end of his entry, but I'm certain if this is added, someone will no doubt scrub it with a "no Facebook sources" comment.

With this in mind, time to redraw the rules on here? Personally I'm for allowing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram sources if it can be determined that the account in question is the official page belonging to that organisation/business. We're now entering a time when a lot of announcements are not added to "news" tabs on websites (nobody reads them) and thus Facebook, Twitter etc. become the only channels used in some instances. I'd like to propose we relax this on the Deaths in 2023. Would like to hear what other users have to say. Thanks, Jkaharper (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly and simply, as before, I would say NO sources from either Twitter or Facebook, because accounts are generally difficult or impossible to verify as official, and those in charge of the social media accounts are usually virtually anonymous and unnamed. The same goes for Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, et al. Veracity is almost uncheckable with these. Reliable sources usually indicate which editor or reporter wrote the article or snippet which confirmed the death of a subject. All of the above do not generally include this key indicator. This is one can of worms I advise everyone to look inside thoroughly before voting for social media posts to be adopted as "reliable sources". (My ascerbic quote marks show you exactly what I think personally.) Ref (chew)(do) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of social media sources as cites is explained at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Social networking websites. It is only an essay. WWGB (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Talk:Jimmy Justice (musician). You will note that 'we' know this individual died in November last year, but because of the reliable source criteria, Wikipedia is still showing this former musician as alive. Thus the case mentioned above is not unique. As User:Refsworldlee states, mainstream media does not always report deaths as they used to. Then have a glance at User talk:Derek R Bullamore under the 'Sadly...' sub-heading.
Whatever we may prefer, it is totally non-sensical to report deaths on the main page but not here. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there's no easy way of synchronising the main page and the deaths page. I believe it's a non-sensical situation which would be almost impossible to fix by consensus all round. The main crux of this section seems to be either to campaign for the use of social media sites or oppose them, rather than to focus solely on the synchronisation of this page with the main page. For synchronisation to occur would certainly require editors here to relax their stance on social media to the same level as those who edit the main page. Ref (chew)(do) 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this because I think it's an urgent matter that needs addressing but alas radio silence from a lot of the other members who read this talk page. Problematic once again today. Margia Dean died on June 23, as reported by SAG-AFTRA on their official Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram channels. I really do think it's time we took a vote on this, and for me this is about coming to terms with the reality that the shape of traditional media is changing and yet Wiki's standards remain lagging behind. And also, organisations now use social media channels first and foremost (if not solely) to post news pieces and updates, as opposed to their websites. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should continue to review each source on its individual merit. The advice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Facebook, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube etc is inconclusive. I doubt that discussion here will resolve the issue. I would have accepted the SAG-AFTRA Facebook post as it is noted that "Facebook confirmed that this profile is authentic". WWGB (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the previous comment. Individual examination and consensus is needed to ensure the sources are genuine and official - having a blanket acceptance of social media posts as reliable sources is not an option. It's all about the "good name", such as with The Times, The New York Times, the Guardian, etc. Facebook, for instance, cannot enjoy this status as a named entity, simply because just about anything can be posted there without editorial control, and monitoring of content by the organisation is still very poor. Ref (chew)(do) 06:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cryopreserved

I noticed on May 26 Saul Kent was listed, with a COD put as "cryopreserved". Does this constitute a death? Rusted AutoParts 00:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is dead as a dodo, he ain't coming back. Cryopreservation is not a COD, just a way for the rich dead to waste their money on the forlorn hope of "coming back from the dead" one day. How vain. WWGB (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was "a-head" of his time. Wyliepedia @ 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The cryopreserved are officially pronounced dead in the living world. Ref (chew)(do) 20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a COD if the person didn't die from another cause first, encompassing at least hypothermia and whatever drug cocktail they're injected with. On another note, I had a good eye roll at whoever removed homicide as a COD about a month ago. Like basically all CODs, it is an agglomeration of certain circumstances of the things that actually cause people to die. Star Garnet (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a horse shouldn't be listed

Or we should list Every animal that has a name that died, my cat mittens died. He died. List for mittens. He died. 195.252.220.47 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonstarter discussion. Mittens had no Wikipedia page, Mittens would not be included in the list. Seabiscuit or Secretariat do because they have Wiki pages. Death isn’t exclusive to humans, why is this such a hard concept? Rusted AutoParts 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable animals only. Mittens was like that for you, but sadly not for us. We continue to add animals which have achieved something great within their lifetimes. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pouring one out for Mittens though. RIP. Wyliepedia @ 22:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlin Glynn

Glynn died of cancer and dementia on July 13 per her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson)'s INSTAGRAM obituary (https://www.instagram.com/p/CsojZT3M7SO/). ([2]) 166.199.114.47 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need to wait until a website reports it. Presently I'm only seeing social media links which we can't use. Rusted AutoParts 21:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it appears your Instagram link is Masterson promoting her upcoming film from seven weeks ago and not the post about her mother. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Really? 166.199.114.47 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I only joined Instagram today to see if Masterson mentioned her mother's passing. But that platform is as slow as molasses on my phone and I have trouble retrieving it. But I copied it -- you can read the whole thing at the Glynn article. I'll try to get the right url. 166.199.114.47 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be the right Instagram post:Notice of death of Carlin Glynn Masterson by her daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson, on Instagram.
I know it's likely insufficient on its own although impossible to explain away as anything other than what it is. I frankly don't know why the NY Times, L.A. Times and Variety haven't reported yet on the death which occurred five days ago. (I am reminded of the death of another actress/singer Elmarie Wendel, less famous than Glynn, which was only reported by her daughter, also only on Instagram without even an exact date. No news or independent coverage either except wikisites and other mirrorsites. Not even SAG-AFTRA, although I searched.) Hopefully, that won't be the case with Glynn for long. Yours, 166.199.114.47 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable - or not?" Seems to me to be saying "not", though her death has most probably occurred. Ref (chew)(do) 23:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2023&oldid=1166035660"