Talk:Deaths in 2012

Heads up, fellow editors!

I have already sorted the June 2012 article in my sandbox. (I was bored.) I know more for June could be added before the 7th day cutoff, but I just wanted to save others time by telling them not to do one. I will wait till July 8-ish before adding it to the actual page. I think I have it down to a science now! The format will mirror May 2012. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why has someone removed all of the red links ? --Racklever (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean in the June article? This appears to be standard practice for the stand-alone monthly articles. Pick one at random to check. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The normal way is to leave the red links for a month and someone deletes a days worth of links each day.--Racklever (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in 2012 - file size

As I don't see this addressed anywhere else, yet, I'll address it myself. My last edit to the page was 20 June; by 23 June the page would no longer load for me, although it still loads AN/I, which is larger but has no references. My contributions to the page were minor, but I used it to find articles to edit, which it seems I'll be unable to do about 1/3 of each month, so I'll now stick to the ones here on the talk page and the ones I see in the news. Good luck. Dru of Id (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of regular contributors realised that would be a consequence of footnote references and expressed that opinion in the RfC. I can no longer access this article on a handheld device, even for reading. I think it is unfortunate that one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia is unavailable to potential readers. This is not a case of being a sore loser, just a re-statement of the consequences of the change to footnotes. It will be interesting to compare the number of visitors and edits before and after the change. WWGB (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's no stroke of genius to realize that larger articles cause problems for editors and readers with weak hardware/slow connections. WP:SIZE has made that point long ago. Fortunately, there's options aside from going back to the crude way things were before. For one, the pages could be broken down even further. Or, a less demanding form of referencing than fully filled-out Citation Style 1 templates coupled with Cite.php footnotes could be used. WP:CITE leaves a lot of leeway in that regard. Sadly, and to my surprise, the "regular contributors" here appear to be more interested in whining and pouting than in seeking a solution that's acceptable for everyone a greater number of people. The way the RfC was closed, it does prevent the former "style" from being restored, but it does not mandate the style currently used. Goodraise 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I voiced this concern, which was overlooked in the original discussion - something about 300+ references to load. Couple this with the aggravation of adding/editing an entry, the long load time after saving, only to see that someone has added something else before you saved causing a re-do and even more loading time. I vote for a ref section reboot. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't overlooked. It was read, considered, and found to be insufficient justification for continuing to violate guidelines. Anyway, what do you mean by "a ref section reboot"? Goodraise 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked in the collapsed discussion and the first post under "Arbitrary break I" is mine about 500 references lengthening the page (and, by default, load times), to which I saw no response. As for "a ref section reboot", I was merely supporting your "less demanding form of referencing", hence, a reboot. This new setup is akin to buying a fuel-efficient vehicle, only to end up stuck in traffic. What has it saved? — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That point was addressed a few times in the discussion. It even had its own section below the RfC with examples and comparisons listed. Anyway, picking a different citation format is perfectly fine, just so long as we follow the closing of the RfC, which is to say follow guidelines by using a format which avoids linkrot, is transparent, and doesn't suffer from other issues outlined in WP:CITE. A lot of the time taken from cites is used in loading the cite template, so if loading times are really that important, we could (for example) manually format the citations. I don't support doing that, and I don't think others will either, but it's one option to speed up page load time without contravening consensus from the RfC. If you have an idea you'd like to try, feel free to present it. To my mind, this isn't a serious problem, but I'd be happy to discuss it nonetheless.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I forgot about the "two examples" listing underneath. My apologies. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the current system isn't ideal, but I still think it's better than the old one. And as Goodraise says, the cite templates aren't essential if they're substantially increasing the page size. There are plenty of options to discuss. (Personally, I'd like to eradicate references from all but the red-linked entries; so long as somebody checks that the linked-to articles are properly referenced, there's no need to duplicate the references here. But I've raised this before and no-one agrees with me, so I'll shut up about it.) DoctorKubla (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the same (radical) proposal occurred to me too! Why do we need references at all for bluelinked deaths? An inquisitive reader just needs to click on the deceased's article where the death will surely be referenced. There are precedents in Wikipedia where lists are not referenced, for example, DYK and In the news on the front page. Redlinks could still be referenced until such time as they become bluelinks or are deleted after one month. I wonder if this might be the solution that keeps everyone happy? WWGB (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, we don't need references. An unreferenced article can stick around for years without anyone complaining about it. However, when it comes to creating articles of which the larger community can say "yes, that's great work", then we need references, and not just in articles linked, but in the articles themselves. You don't typically find articles of that quality in DYK or ITN. New articles appear there. If you want to see the quality desired by the larger community, you'll have to look here and here. Goodraise 01:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, high quality lists don't always need references. IIRC, I listed 2 featured lists in the previous discussion which didn't have refs for the entries. Even if there wasn't a precedent, there's always IAR. I would be fine with taking that approach if others feel it's a good idea. There's apparently 3 editors here that do, so maybe we should discuss it again?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, high quality lists do always need references. If you indeed found two featured lists lacking significant amounts of references, please let me know, so I can fix them or send them to FLRC. Goodraise 02:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, I hope I'm considered in your "3 editors" as I feel a better format needs to be done. Either a simpler citation process (the load time is actually in the preview for me, the page otherwise loads as normal) or a way to hide the ref section somehow (which will not help during previews). I have no problem with any cite process as long as it's conformed to by all. The only problem I foresee with only relying on deaths to be added to that person's page (if they have one) is if it's been added here and not there, and therefore not cited. Also, please keep in mind the delay still remains after the month has its own page and removed from here (and then put in chrono order), ergo, the song remains the same. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Goodraise, are you saying FLs need references for the entries due to guideline (e.g. WP:FLCR) or convention (e.g. those are the only lists that get promoted)? I don't see refs listed at all in FLCR, so could you point me to where it's mentioned elsewhere, if it is? I think adopting any policy on this page which would prevent us from eventually meeting FL criteria is a bad idea. However, as far as I'm aware, this wouldn't be a major obstacle for us, provided we have a reasonable justification. I'll reiterate that I don't see this as a serious problem that needs solving, but I'm willing to do it (i.e. I'm not going to oppose it) in order to address the concerns raised by a few of the "regulars", because I don't see it causing any harm.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:SAL, stand-alone lists are articles, and reviewers at FLC treat them that way. They ask for references for information they'd expect to be referenced in non-list articles as well. While there appears to be a significant number of editors holding that list articles should be treated differently, i.e. being allowed to rely on linked articles for referencing, that position is not presently supported by guidelines or policy. Perhaps it's time for the community to make an explicit decision on the matter. I don't know. I'm just describing what the situation at FLC is at the moment, and has been for years. Goodraise 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested: Template:Fcite web. "...fast-cite alternatives to cite_web for use in large articles. To allow extreme speed, only the basic parameter names are supported". Created yesterday by Wikid77, and I assume still in development, but worth a look. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I boldly changed cite web instances in the article to fcite_web. If there are any issues, feel free to revert me. For the editors having loading problems, does this help? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My load-time concerns lie within the "Preview" viewing, where it has to load the article, as well as the lengthy visible cites. It's a bit faster but only by seconds. (Yes, I'm nitpicking.) We'll see what others with various PCs say.— WylieCoyote (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The load time is now two clicks to find the source. I fail to see any advantage in using a references section to this dynamic page. Nasnema  Chat  23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting "Deaths in..." pages

There's a discussion over here about whether the "Deaths in 20nn" articles, which have now been merged into Lists of deaths by year, should be redirected either to "20nn#Deaths" or "Lists of deaths by year#20nn". If anyone has an opinion on that, your input would be appreciated. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody? Then it looks like consensus is to redirect the pages to "20nn#Deaths". I'll get onto it tomorrow. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there is not consensus. I have already expressed my opposition. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Three others disagree, and I personally find your objections unreasonable. I'm trying to invite wider discussion, in the interest of fairness, but if no-one else cares either way (as seems to be the case), then consensus is to redirect the pages. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, another interpretation may be that no-one else wants to change. Perhaps you are confusing disinterest for consensus? WWGB (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Red links

I think that deaths that have red links should not be allowed as this page is "a list of notable deaths" (my emphasis). If the article is red linked, it must not meet WP:N. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 18:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. The applicable guideline is WP:LSC, which discourages excessive inclusion of red links, but allows red links "if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." I think that WP:NOT#NEWS also applies here to some extent. So I don't think that there can be a blanket prohibition against red links on this page. (Also the fact that there is a red link does not prove that the subject fails WP:N. On the other hand, an AfD decision to delete would amount to proof.) But I do think that there can be a rather stringent expectation that, whenever a red link shows up, it is likely that there will either be a biography page about the person, or an event page about the death, that will be created in the near future, and the WP:BURDEN falls on the editor(s) who want to include the red link. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. Some redlinks, I have noticed, are also of people from other countries who have died. They may have listings in their native-language Wiki but not here. I think that is why they are listed here, as Tryptofish stated, in case someone creates an English article for them. Editors have the entire month plus 7 days into the next one to create an article for them and notability can be verified then. When the current month passes and receives its own articles, the redlinks are removed from the page here and in the new article. (For example, Deaths in June 2012, which was just created, has none.) Besides, there are also some other random articles with red links as well. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Thanks. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Remain. By long-standing consensus, redlinks remain until one month after the date of death. Many redlinks have been converted to articles after appearing here. There are wikignomes who remove each redlink one month after death. Having a one month "amnesty" stops arguments over whether the deceased is notable, despite not having an article. Being a redlink does not guarantee the deceased is not notable. Some redlinks have been restored to Deaths in June 2012. The redlink expires one month after the subject. WWGB (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Retain red links for the one month grace period (in other words retain the status quo). The links are helpful for article creation, especially with regard to foreign language individuals who clearly meet our notability requirements. As this process allows for expansion of Wikipedia (which is why we're here after all) I support it fully. The red links are vetted for potential notability and any obvioiusly non-notable and WP:NOTMEMORIAL type entries are removed in short order. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Status Quo. This again? Its amazing the number of articles that are generated off of red links. Just in the last 6 weeks I have seen scientists who made huge discoveries from the 40s, 50s and 60s have articles written on them, numerous musical artists and quite a few international dignitaries. One of these days if Wiki figures out a way to link all the pages together from all of the different languages so that there is 1 article for a person, it might be possible- but that day is not today. Leave the process alone. Sunnydoo (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfect example from the weekend. E.V. Thompson an English author of over 20 books didn't have an article written about him even though he had won 2 literary prizes. Additionally he was awarded an MBE for his contribution for the arts. Sunnydoo (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket prohibition, for mostly the same reasons as Tryptofish. Redlinks are ok sometimes, and wikipedia is not complete; if an entry meets notability with a reliable citation, then, under the current inclusion criteria, it should stay whether or not it has an article. That being said, I disagree with the current process of forcing redlinks to stay on the page for 30 days even when the subject isn't notable. I would entirely support re-evaluating that process, and would urge future contributors to this page to be judicious in their inclusion of redlinked entries which may not meet WP:N. As with other discussions, I'd also urge editors participating in this RfC not to oppose "because it's worked well for a long time", or similar. That's not a strong argument.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Retain redlinks for one month, as we do now. A redlink does not denote lack of notability. It denotes lack of an article, nothing else. Give people a month to write an article before removing the entry, aside from obvious non-notable memorial entries etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - While I don't have an opinion on whether the names themselves belong if there's no article, I do think that if there is no article then the name should not be wikilinked. This is because red links to personal names should be avoided per WP:REDNOT, because of BLP issues if someone created an article with the same name about a different person. - SudoGhost 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (RfC comment), per WP:RED (and WP:LSC per Typtofish). A red link don't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable. It means that an article (on a possibly notable subject) han't yet been written. -- Trevj (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have created an article that was about someone notable who didn't have a page yet. So leave the redlinks in and then delete after the usual period. Nasnema  Chat  18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Retain redlinks for one month, sounds sensible. There are many WP biographies that are sourced primarily from obituaries. After all, when someone dies their contribution is usually appraised. There are restrictions on WP to adding redlinks of living people to lists, but this obviously doesn't apply to the deceased! Sionk (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the restriction is on personal names, whether the person is alive or dead is irrelevant (and BLP applies to the recently deceased as well). - SudoGhost 06:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I added David Barby to the list about 10 hours ago. His name got a red link. Now he has an article which I didn't contribute to. Textbook case of why the motion is wrong. And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

References format

I really really really hate the new references format, what was wrong with the old one? I want it back! Eagle2012a (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Borgnine

Do we really have to have Spongebob Squarepants in as one of Borgnine's most notable works? He wasn't even a main character. For an actor who was in more than 70 films and dozens of TV shows over several decades, I don't think a bit-part voiceover in a cartoon is up there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It covers three aspects of his career: film (Marty), television (McHale's Navy) and voice acting (SpongeBob).Rusted AutoParts 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't think it's supposed to cover his most important works? I do. To say that Spongebob outweighs From Here to Eternity or The Dirty Dozen is more than a bit ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In Borgnine's obituary in Variety that covers his entire career, SpongeBob SquarePants is given a passing reference at the end of the article. Perhaps it is time to set up some guidelines for parenthetical references, including entertainment, sport, politics, business and academia. WWGB (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes; hear, hear. We seem to have this sort of discussion every time someone of global significance expires. What was their most important album, book, TV appearance, political, religious or academic status etc. Or perhaps even more contentious, which to include or exclude. Otherwise, and more generally, for the lesser lights (bless them) it never seems to be much of a problem.

My own view is that most individual articles list/cite/explain those factors, somewhat better, than a single line in the 'Deaths' column ever does. So, perhaps, we should simply list the individual's name (and other basic death details as normally), and then leave the finer points as to why they are deemed to be notable, in the link to the individual's own article. Perhaps a 'cop-out', but it might save endless edits, reverts and so on here, that actually seem to serve little purpose except for some sub-editors to write their thoughts for all to see. D'oh.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't excluding anything. I set it up so three examples of three aspects of his life were used. Marty is used over From Here to Eternity as it won him his Oscar. McHale's Navy a popular show and SpongeBob is used as his highlighted voice acting as he appeared in it frequently. I wan't aiming to exclude anything, but i felt one example of each category (film, TV, voice acting) was fair.Rusted AutoParts 02:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Akira Toki

I wanted to talk about a notable death in the Madison, Wi. area. I cant decide if the guy should be included or not. His name was Akira Toki who was an American of Japanese descent during WW2. He joined the 100th Battalion and served his country with distinction earning several bronze stars in an all Japanese regiment that had several major rescue missions in the European theatre- notably they were the ones that pulled "the Lost Battalion" rescue. He has had several books written about him, the struggles with racism he endured and his service record in Europe. He also has had a school named after him in Madison. I will give you guys some links to go with yea or no on. It could go either way I think. [1], [2], [3]. Sunnydoo (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"several books written about him" sounds sufficient to meet WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

several books written about him and a school named after him? Seems pretty notable to me. - SudoGhost 17:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

List of latest additions to the list?

I need some help. I had a link that would list the latest names added to the Deaths in .... page on my old laptop. I am looking for it again. Does anyone have it? It is extremely helpful in quickly seeing the new names. Otherwise, I have to scan the whole months list each time, trying to see if I recognize any names that weren't there last time I checked. Thanks. 64.134.70.175 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can check the history of the page. Click on "History" at the top of the article. If you find an old revision that you're familiar with, you can hit "cur" to see differences between that revision and the current page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Query about page view statistics

If you go to "History" of this article and then click on "Page View Statistics" you will see that this article gets viewed often - over two million times in the last 30 days. Would it be possible to work out where this stands in Wikipedia's most viewed articles? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on daily or weekly views, Deaths in 20nn is often overtaken by breaking news or trending topics. At the moment, it is likely that topics like Higgs boson or Roger Federer will achieve more hits than Deaths in 2012. Here is the data for this week. On an annual basis, however, Deaths in 20nn usually features in the Top 10 most visited articles, as shown here and here. All the contributors here can be mighty proud of their efforts. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that - very interesting data! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A question to WWGB

I added Berthe Meijer on 10 July 2012 page, giving her description as Dutch-Jewish. It is certain that it was not my description, but given by sources citing her death. You deleted the latter part of it, leaving only Dutch. You stated in edit summary that it is a formatting issue. Can you please explain the reason for your formatting in this case? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The standard format here is to report nationality, not religion. The reporting of religion is limited to members of religious orders, such as archbishops and rabbis. WWGB (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If Ms. Meijer was known to write about Jewish (Judaic) history, then that could be added, as in Arno Lustiger's listing, but that is not the case here. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for information. I will follow it. Egeymi (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Footballer vs. football player

Just a heads up - "footballer" refers to somebody who plays association football, "football player" refer to somebody who plays American football - that is standard and shouldn't be changed to avoid confusion. GiantSnowman 13:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From our private discussion I will reiterate. We have had this discussion several times in the last few months. It was one of the ideas to why I brought up the FAQ page being instituted so we could avoid rehashing the same items. Wiki recognizes both in its definition of "Football Player." However "Footballer" is a colloquialism. "Football Player" is the more formal form. Since these are formal entries and because we want to keep the terminology similar, we have adopted it as the primary listing.

This also will avoid the need to start labeling things such as American Football player, Australian rules football player, Canadian rules football player, soccer player, and on and on. One term to rule them all- Football player. Sunnydoo (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And here is the main wiki page link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_player Sunnydoo (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Association, American, rugby, Aussie rules - they're all different sports! You will NOT hear any American football fans describe their players as "footballers", and you will NOT describe any association football fans describe their players as "football players" - this is a clearcut case of WP:COMMONNAME. GiantSnowman 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Precedent here (which does not seem to count for much any more) was to use footballer for association football, and football player for all other codes. This is evidenced in Deaths in April 2012, for example. WWGB (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that precedent thas been longstanding - but Sunnydoo does not seem to know/care. GiantSnowman 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Further - Google search for "footballer" brings up 31 million results, mainly about association football - compared with "football player" which has 25 million, mainly about American football. GiantSnowman 13:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all stop trying to be uncivil and pick a fight. We had this discussion both in April, May and June. However I cant seem to find the copy of May's and June's discussion and they have been removed from the Talk Page for both months. Several editors have been removing the references since then and just not me. If you guys want, its fine by me. From now on we will put in all Association names and break them down such as Canadian Rules Football Player, American Rules Football player, Australian Rules Football player. Sunnydoo (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Who's being uncivil and picking a fight? Quite an accusation to make. As for discussions in April, May & June - well I've never discussed this matter (or any other) with you before, I rarely edit this article and I can't recall ever using the talk page. If they're not in the archives then perhaps they never happened? You can aother sports whatever you want, but association football players are "footballers", simple as - though I'd suggest "soccer player" for US/Canadian/Australian. GiantSnowman 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be problematic as there are no codes known as American rules or Canadian rules. Also, the first adjective describes the nationality, not the football code. Do we really want to refer to a Canadian Canadian football player? WWGB (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be Canadian Canadian rules football player I think. British English rules footballer, American American rules football player and Australian Australian rules football player. This is why some of us were trying to use 1 term for the complete set of football players as on the main wiki football page- just to simplify players. And yes I take umbrage at shots across my bow. I do this as a hobby helping out with the CoDs and dont need to be specifically called out with snide comments. I just do this to help out.Sunnydoo (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is "English rules" football?! and where are the "snide comments"? GiantSnowman 14:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there an issue with simply having "footballer" for Association football, "rugby player" for rugby league & union, and "football player" for the other codes? It's how I've seen it work for as long as I can remember. GiantSnowman 14:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Melodie

There are reports saying she died on July 17. B-Machine (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved it. The source attached to the listing also says she died "Tuesday", which was the 17th. Thanks for the heads-up! — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding entries

Given that these lists aren't limited by any space constraints, is there a need for the entries to be so concise? Besides looking (in my opinion) rough and unfinished, the forced brevity also results in awkward sentence fragments ("after long illness", "train impact") and easter egg links (bomb blast, plane crash), and sparks debates over which of an individual's achievements are the most significant or worthy of mention. I've been thinking about expanding some of the past lists to provide a more complete summary of who each person is and how they died (as an example, compare Deaths in May 2006 to my expanded version). I'm not proposing that we adopt this format for recent deaths, just asking whether it's the direction we want to be heading for the stable lists. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect your commitment to the project, however, I wonder if you are undertaking a major task that will not be used by many. Once the current month and year pass, there is not a great deal of interest in the historical pages. Deaths in May 2006 is currently viewed by less than 30 readers per day [4]. It seems like a lot of work without much "payoff", given that the expanded content is already available in the deceased's article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There are already problems with these pages being too big for users with slow internet connections or mobile browsers. Expanding the entries will make the problem worse.--Racklever (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And this is just a list. If the person was concerned over the details, they could always open up the main article. There are also space commitments because of the new linking system that affect some users.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB, Racklever, and Sunnydoo. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on July 21

• Marcos Roberto, 71, Brazilian singer-songwriter and producer, mutiple organ failure. [5] (Portuguese)

189.92.147.36 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Call WWGB

I wasnt totally on board in the past with the car accident, car crash, etc scenario with everything being referred to as a "traffic collison." However that has now changed and I completely understand your point. The Cuban activist that was killed this week in what was termed a car accident may have in fact been run off the road in an intentional act. There were several International witnesses who lived through the car crash and are getting out of the country before they make a statement. I dont think there could be any better example to illustrate your point to everyone. Good call on that one. Sunnydoo (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request July 24th

Themo Lobos, 83, Chilean comic book writer and artist. Respiratory failure. (Spanish) ---- 200.120.109.50 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)