Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2023/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

War and football

Despite increasing our page views to more than 46.5 million, we dropped down to third place in the Top 50 articles of 2022. First place went to the war in Ukraine, and we lost second place by just 0.6% in a shootout with the World Cup.[1] Congratulations to all contributors and Wikignomes for keeping this page at the forefront of Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. KNOWKING4298<> (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Chinese Academy of Engineering

Ok I thought we agreed in 2022 to stop inclusion of members from the Chinese Academy of Engineering as members are not quite noteworthy but alas someone keeps including them at the start of this year again. 2600:8801:282D:3500:DCB1:6005:E88A:D91C (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly did you think that? You made a single comment saying they shouldn't be included and no one agreed. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I see no such consensus in the discussion from 2022. Additionally, all 4 members currently on this page have articles. Emk9 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the consensus, such as it was, favoured allowing the Chinese Academy of Engineering to be included as a credit, and indeed the similar Chinese Academy of Science has joined it in being included recently, for exactly the same reason - both establishments have an English Wikipedia article. Ref (chew)(do) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the discussion I began, checking to see if academies were notable enough to mention. Wyliepedia @ 11:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should include higher ups from say the SPCA or YMCA to this list? According to whomever is including Chinese Academy of Science. 2600:8801:282D:3500:1B9:6CAF:5A7:75EA (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
2600:8801:282D:3500:1B9:6CAF:5A7:75EA What does that mean exactly? Ref (chew)(do) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
A problem I see is that they're too often defined exclusively and identically as members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering. It might be good to distinguish them. Last month, I (briefly) added a professorship at a notable school to one, and I'm now hesitant to try again with a former director of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation. But honestly, most of these dead people had documented jobs in high places as well as rather common memberships. For those in whose minds Chinese names tend to blend together already, a bit of individuality could go a long way here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Those are possibles for additional credits, as up to three may be included per subject, but doesn't really answer the yea or nay of actually using the Chinese institution in question or not using it. I think I also see the sarcasm at play in the IP's comment above, but refuse to go there again. Ref (chew)(do) 15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
For some of these subjects, the academy membership is the only known association with something bluelinkable. So yea, I say. Beats just calling those guys Chinese engineers. Sarcasm is often the truest form of truth, but nay. We'll not stoop to linking YMCA or SPCA members, only presidents and the like, since any supposed celebrity with a YMCA or SPCA card almost certainly did something bigger to get here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
But it's fun to stay at the YMCA. Wyliepedia @ 14:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we come up with some sort of consensus on what level of a persons celeberty, claim to fame, or anything else that would make them notable to add them to the list, otherwise this list can become quite diluted and turn into a world obiturary page, for example, just because a certain individual shows quite a keen interest in a particular club or society (i.e. Chinese Academy of Enginering) and watches the members obits like a hawk and is quick to include them in the page, where as 99% of the general reading population would have no knowledge or interest in such inclusions. 2600:8801:282D:3500:29D8:A17F:7C1:FF86 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus already. If the person has an English Wikipedia article, he/she is included. If not, he/she stays for 30 days, if no article has been created, then the person is removed. Marbe166 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Ref (chew)(do) 23:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

occupation

why are there no "artist" on your lists? I mean painters, sculptors, and other fine art categories? You include heavy metal musicians but no classical artist. As is, the list is an insult to a fairly wide range of distinguished individuals. 2600:1010:B115:CD62:0:4B:D6A6:F101 (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Report those missing and they will be added. No insults or conspiracies here. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It’s insulting to accurately reflect a heavy metal singer died? This isn’t some exclusive only specific people invited or considered list, it’s a list detailing people who’ve died. We can’t control whether or not either an artist has died, especially if there’s not an article or obituary to cite. Such a ridiculous statement. Rusted AutoParts 06:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
And I can see painters and sculptors listed in almost every month per year and certainly in every year. Your sense of indignation does you no favours. Ref (chew)(do) 07:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It is in any event untrue that the list lacks classical (music, I assume?) artists and composers. Check earlier months and later than the 2nd... ELSchissel (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Date ranges

Don't we use ndashes rather than mdashes for date ranges here? A lot of mdashes being used, it looks like. ELSchissel (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ndashes are the order of the day. It's simply a case of changing it by editing whenever you see it, as with anything else here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification- didn't want to mistakenly apply a guideline that I might have only misremembered from another site here, e.g. :) ELSchissel (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Specificare se il "notable" è una persona o no

salve. Ogni tanto fra i cosiddetti notables c'è un non-essere-umano. Ad esempio, si può leggere nome, età (massimo 20 o 30), ecc. Quasi sempre si tratta di cavalli da corsa. Propongo questa ulteriore specificazione. Grazie. Bierre73 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally cannot make out what you might be proposing. A person is not an animal and vice versa, so the two must be considered separately. Overall though, you do not appear to specify a change at all. Please expand, and preferably in English if at all possible, just in case I am losing something in translation. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually humans are a specific type of animal. But regardless, I copied and pasted what Bierre73 wrote into Google Translate, and the suggestion is to note whether the deceased is a person or not. If I understand them correctly, if, say, a racehorse died it would be clarified that the deceased is a horse. Personally I think this is unnecessary as it's generally clear in context what sort of lifeform the deceased is. Human is obviously the default, and the descriptor usually makes it clear when it's a horse, dog, etc. without adding a separate category. AndyENy (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@AndyENy: My phone translates it as a request to see more animal deaths than just racehorses here. As WWGB points out, the FAQ up top insists upon animals having articles created before they are listed here; racehorses are the most popular due to their accomplishments in their short lives. There have been only 4 notable animals to have died this year, none are racehorses, with Bokito being the most recent. Wyliepedia @ 16:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Did you translate the title as well as the body? The body is a bit more ambiguous but the title seems pretty clear even if the translations aren't identical between your method and mine. Specificare=specify/define
Title: Specify whether the "notable" is a person or not
Body: Greetings. Occasionally among the so-called notables there is a non-human being. For example, you can read name, age (maximum 20 or 30), etc. These are almost always racehorses. I propose this further specification. Thank you AndyENy (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems like they do not understand the simple description of "notable deaths" (humans/animals) in the first line. True, there are redlinks of humans here without articles, and their entries offer their reasons for being listed, but after 30 days those even get removed if no enwiki is created for them. Animals aren't afforded that grace. Wyliepedia @ 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
If you are concerned with dead notable animals being reported here, please see FAQ #4 above. WWGB (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Paediatrician/pediatrician

Hi. I notice a difference of opinion as to how this should be displayed in an entry here. A pointless round of editing, as both are right, and only differ due to American English and British English variation. I would suggest that the editor adding the entry should be allowed to dictate which spelling is used, and not be reverted, unless the subject of the entry is American, in which case the American English spelling should be used, or British, in which case vice versa. These spelling differences are an insignificant basis on which to foster a potential edit war. Ref (chew)(do) 07:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sri Lanka uses British English, so Priyani Soysa is a paediatrician (as used in her source). WWGB (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair point. I updated Soysa's title in the entry, though yes local English variants should be used. I guess that it is both (a) correct to use the en-ca for Scriver and en-lk for Soysa; and (b) a jarring visual experience to see the varying spellings one above the other. While this list will likely change over time, this is what it looks like right now under April 7th:
  • Charles Scriver, 92, Canadian pediatrician and geneticist.
  • Priyani Soysa, 97, Sri Lankan paediatrician.
tl;dr, I don't know if there's an elegant way to align this beyond forcing one English over another in the Deaths in [xyz] articles. 514Charlie (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with implementing any such language forcings. For the record. Ref (chew)(do) 07:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh goodness, definitely not advocating for that. As a Canadian, straddling between the US and UK Englishes is confusing enough for non-Canadians :)
All that to say, I guess we can close this thread. We can have the "conflicting" spellings beside one another; it's not the best user experience but it's correct nonetheless. 514Charlie (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree this thread has reached its conclusion, but this is one of those sections which needs archiving at the appropriate time, as a measure of where consensus lies in tandem with previously archived conversations about the same subject. Thanks for the input. Ref (chew)(do) 10:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Postsen as sources

Hi. I notice that editors are freely using what can only be described as a garbage copycat translator site called Postsen, which prefixes the language being translated from in the URL (example: https://slovenia.postsen.com/local/102979/Sadness-in-the-theater-a-Slovenian-actor-has-died.html). I also notice that the site adds extra information clearly drawn from Wikipedia and suchlike. It is not a reliable site and shouldn't be used here. One alternative is to locate a link further down which acknowledges the original source (if it exists), and that will invariably be the foreign language source of a more reliable nature that they copied/translated from. (Just because someone called "Elizabeth" claims to have written the source article doesn't mean that it's actually the case, by the way.) Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As an update, I have replaced three of the Postsen "references" with reliable sources today, which I found lurking in archived editions of previous months. Luckily, I don't think the site has been going all that long, and a search back to January 2020 has brought up no further instances of its use. Ref (chew)(do) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this should be added to the spam blacklist (@MrOllie: thoughts?). Or maybe XLinkBot?-- Ponyobons mots 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you'd need to deprecate it as a source with an RFC for that, unless there is evidence of particular IP ranges or sock puppet accounts actively spamming the site. And there are a couple hundred links Wiki-wide that would need to be cleaned up first. It's not really usual to blacklist a source - even a bad one - if a bunch if unrelated people really are just adding it independently. - MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the reason I looped you in; I see you as the spam guru (ha!).-- Ponyobons mots 18:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as WP:SNOW. Per the discussion below. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Deaths in 2023 → Deaths in May 2023 – To comply with naming convention of the standalone articles on previous months and accurately describe article content(!) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments copied from WP:RMTR:

Additional comments:

Amen! 100% Agree! 2603:7000:BE00:4B:C8EC:92E1:F6C:ECF0 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Who are you agreeing with? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
When I posted there was only the 2 Oppose above ( Rusted & Noho ) which are whom I agree with. 2603:7000:BE00:4B:C8EC:92E1:F6C:ECF0 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It's not the first challenge of this type (and no doubt will not be the last) - the reasons why previous moves of this nature have failed still apply, and I would suggest that opponents avail themselves of the content of previous discussions of this ilk in order to understand why. There's nothing new to suggest that the main project lead article should be watered down into just a list of deaths in the existing month. Ref (chew)(do) 21:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose the page operates as it does due to the sheer volume of edits here (and the "recent" nature of the content). The nominator hasn't made a case for how the proposed change would improve on the existing system. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Just for understanding: "Recent deaths" which is under "In the news" on the Wikipedia main page, points to "Deaths in 2023". That's why the current month always has a generic name. Shortly after the end of each month, that month's deaths are transferred to "Deaths in <month> 2023". WWGB (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
One of the reasons the previous request failed was that the Wikipedia main page would have to change the pointing of its link to a different month/year each and every month. Ref (chew)(do) 07:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
So where is it written that this list is only about human deaths? WWGB (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This sideline subject needs to go elsewhere guys. Ref (chew)(do) 21:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What does the string 'ill'?

Greetings; looking at the "source" of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2023&action=edit) occasionally next to the name of the notable person there is the string 'ill'.

Does it indicate that the death was due to "illness"? Thanks for your attention; Greetings from Raffaele Bonacchi. Bierre73 (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

it is short for {{ill}}, "interlanguage link", because he has no article in English yet --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I should add that they are included here as an aid to creating an English article (if appropriate) for subject entries which are currently redlinks - however, they are restricted just to the subject name, and are not used for supporting notability credits such as jobs, membership of organisations and the like. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 07:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Animals

Why do horses, pandas, or any other animals get to be included? There should be a simple rule that pages on notable deaths only include humans and exclude (all other) animals for which there should be a separate page, so that those interested in deaths of notable animals could easily find all of that information in one place. I mean, it really looks ridiculous the way it is now, that a horse is listed in the alphabetical order with humans. The least we could have as a rule is that such cases are listed at the very bottom for each date. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times before, at least once every year (check the archives). There is a long-standing consensus to include the death of all notable living things including, but not limited to, racehorses, domestic animals and trees. The article is simply "Deaths in ...." and not "Human deaths in ....". Co-mingling of the species only seems to offend a minority of readers. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Look I’ve been in that mindset before, thinking it didn’t make sense but that’s just not the case. Dying isn’t an exclusive human thing, and I can’t see how it’s insulting. I can’t imagine a person listed here is floating out in the ether or wherever feeling offended they happened to die the same day as a notable cheetah. If that were the case I’d say they should probably focus on more pressing thoughts. Either way, death is death. As for separate articles, that’s needless. If separation is really something you need I believe there’s a separate deaths category for animals specifically. Rusted AutoParts 07:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of including non-human deaths, but I have seen a long-standing consensus for keeping them, so I would support that consensus above my own opinions. Ref (chew)(do) 09:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The Deaths in 2023 page serves as a list that allows readers to engage with Wikipedia and explore our articles in greater depth. Being more inclusive of what deaths are listed on the page, in my opinion, better serves the varied interests of readers and potential contributors.-- Ponyobons mots 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
To be honest I can see nothing wrong in splitting the human and animal lists in two and including a link from one to the other on their respective pages Topcardi (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not a common enough occurrence to require a separate page. Splitting the two would also require a second set of archiving by month. That's extra maintenance eating up volunteer time with no benefit to the reader.-- Ponyobons mots 20:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Deaths in May included three racehorses and one tree. Such a small number must surely only annoy hardcore anthropocentrics. WWGB (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
To me, it more stems from this idea that racehorses - essentially the pets of the ultra-rich - are more notable than the average college professor, simply by virtue of being owned by people with money. It's a really ugly commentary on the way Wikipedia treats social class. KarakasaObake (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"the pets of the ultra-rich - are more notable than the average college professor" Perfectly true. People have actually heard about these pets, and have written texts about them. Nobody has heard about the average college professor, and a nobody like him/her should never have an article on Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about Wikipedia, it's about WP:SIGCOV. A racehorse that performs well and wins will receive much more coverage than an average college professor. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If a living being is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it gets to be included on this page when it dies. That simple. StuZealand (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Major change request

Should we turn this article into my draft? ElWeyMamon (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that's better than categorizing every sourced death of a notable individual. It's the same format as what the listings at year pages used to be. I say no. Rusted AutoParts 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
well, i say yes ElWeyMamon (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, that's the idea, i want it to be exactly similar to "the same format as what the listings at year pages used to be" ElWeyMamon (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
That's antithetical to the purpose of this page. There can be an argument for an individual's inclusion on a year page based on their worldly notoriety. Why would we implement that here, a page meant to chronicle all deaths of individuals with Wiki articles? What would the criteria be? It defeats the page's purpose. Rusted AutoParts 03:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
We report around 700 deaths every month. What would be the possible benefit of having one article that reports over 8,000 deaths? It would take forever to load. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I would say no - and it's not the done thing for the proposer to then hammer home his point by voting, as it's assumed the proposer would be entering a yes vote anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 07:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely No. It's an awful idea on so many levels.--Folengo (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
No. Rusted AutoParts has already said everything I would have. The draft is not an improvement on this page, and does not contain the same amount of information that this one does. Doc Strange MailboxLogbook 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The term "traffic collision".

Is there any specific reason to why all traffic related deaths are described simply as "traffic collision" instead of specifying what kind of traffic collision, like "car, motorcycle, bicycle" etc? DrKilleMoff (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A traffic collision occurs when any vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or other moving or stationary obstruction, such as a tree, pole or building. Using a standard term avoids ongoing discussion about whether a specific incudent is a collision, a crash, an accident, a wreck etc. It serves us well. WWGB (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Injuries which can cause death during a traffic collision are manyfold, and searching for the exact one which caused the death seems futile, as it was the traffic collision which initiated the dying process. Terms like "car crash" tend towards sensationalist slang, so should be avoided, I think. Also, whilst the deceased may have been in one form of transport, that with which they collided may be of a different type, and that again seems a pointless differentiation to focus on. Ref (chew)(do) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
And - wow - suggesting copying Wikipedia verbatim into a personal program? Ref (chew)(do) 19:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Pouring one out for Mittens though. RIP. Wyliepedia @ 22:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Requested move 28 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It's snowing (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Deaths in 2023 → List of deaths in 2023 – Per WP:NCLIST, list articles should generally have titles beginning with "List of". I don't see any reason for this article to be an exception to that rule. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section for delayed reported deaths

Hi, I always check DEATHS IN 2023 to find out who dies. WHile I do check usually a week back I think a page or section for delayed celeb deaths is needed. I use this example that I just found out about on another page. https://obscurevideoanddvd.blogspot.com/2023/08/rip-sharon-farrell-1940-2023.html

Who would think to look back to May for a recently reported death. So I would suggest a subpage or page for notable deaths that are not reported till 2 weeks or more later. I would say keep the death up for 2 weeks then it can be deleted. 2603:7000:BE00:4C1:89C7:4BB7:9469:78BC (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why would we put in a name that passed away months earlier just because someone might’ve first heard about the death months later? It’s really not a big leap to go “oh she died in May, I’ll go look at her entry in Deaths in May 2023”. A whole subsection for “delayed” deaths is worthless. Rusted AutoParts 15:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not a news update facility and never has been. If you add months to your watchlist you'll find out soon enough, or even research back manually like I and many others do. Ref (chew)(do) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean add months to your watchlist? Also I do disagree to a point with your first line. While not a news update facility it is the internet living encyclopedia. So if you have a topic such as Deaths In 2023 that is updated multiple times a day it becomes a major reference point. Being a major reference point that is updated why would we not update just reported deaths that happened a time ago? Would it really be much work to do a subpage of Late reported deaths? Even more so leaving a link to the persons page up for only 2 weeks? Its not rebulding the whole wikipedia website. For those with the talent I bet they could create the page in less than 5 minutes. Then only the oddly late reported death here & there would even be on the page so very little upkeep. How can you research back manually on something you dont know about? If I didnt go on that other website I would not have known Sharon died. Are you saying there is a tool on wiki that informs people of random deaths? I dont understand the resistance to a simple page? 2603:7000:BE00:4C1:89C7:4BB7:9469:78BC (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
”Would it really be much work to do a subpage of Late reported deaths?”. There is literally a “Previous Months” subsection at the bottom of the page to guide readers to other months, what are you talking about? Rusted AutoParts 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges. I am talking about deaths that are just being reported about months later. You are saying just look up previous months deaths. But I am talking about situations such as Sharon Farrell where the person may have died in May but the news was not released till August. 2603:7000:BE00:4C1:89C7:4BB7:9469:78BC (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not comparing anything, I'm highlighting an objective fact. You're asking for a needless page for people who weren't revealed to have died until a period of time later. It's not that highlightable a thing to make an entire Wikipedia article for, nor would it be needing a category. Rusted AutoParts 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Surely you know what a watchlist is? Every registered editor has one. In a computer browser the link can be found at the top, third from the right. Ref (chew)(do) 20:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
“oh she died in May, I’ll go look at her entry in Deaths in May 2023”. Unless you found out how would you know she died? That is the whole point. I dont want to look up the person, I want the news of who died. So a subsection is not worthless if the death was not known about. 2603:7000:BE00:4C1:89C7:4BB7:9469:78BC (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The three ways you’d find her having died is: through the news, which clearly state she died May 15; her Wiki page, which states based off the news she died May 15; or or someone telling you she died, which will prompt your to do one of the previous options. It’s not difficult so yes, this proposed section is completely worthless. Just view her entry on Deaths in May 2023. Rusted AutoParts 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
But the news of her May death was not released till August. Her wiki page NOW says she died in May. Only because the news was released in August. It did not say in June she died in May. I do not get the backlash against a page for late reported deaths. Would a page like that affect you directly? 2603:7000:BE00:4C1:89C7:4BB7:9469:78BC (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There is zero reason to create another deaths page for people “late reported”, that is really silly. It doesn’t have to directly affect me to declare this. There’s zero point. Rusted AutoParts 20:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Go to Template:Deaths by month and year and add every page to your watchlist. Then as soon as someone is added to any of those months, you will know about it immediately. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Forgive my delay in asking this. First, I have always had a very high opinion of you both, and am sorry to see your peevishness coming through. Is that new?
Also, do I understand that there’s no category of “Deaths in which the everyone-finds-out day succeeds the actual death day by more than X”, thus erasing all mention of that interesting and rare situation from Wikipedia altogether? Susan Gleason (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@Sgleason818: Well, I just learned today that Swedish snowboarder Micael Lundmark died on 16 June, but his remains were not discovered until 27 August. How do I know he is dead? Because Deaths in June 2023 is on my watchlist, and I was informed as soon as his name was added. Too easy, and no additional work required. WWGB (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Except the work of adding and checking all the watchlists, that is. Susan Gleason (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Is making an entirely new page/category for "delayed announcements" really a more convenient method than just keeping tabs on presently existing list articles? Rusted AutoParts 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
No, I guess not. You’re right. Susan Gleason (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I don’t really see my statements as being of a peevish nature. Certainly wasn’t the intended tone but it’s just simply trying to firmly state that what was being asked was just very needless. If I learn that Johnny Hardwick had died, and upon searching I learn it occurred in August, I wouldn’t be wondering why he wasn’t included on the current months list, I would go look at the Deaths in August 2023 page to find him listed there. The only reason to include the suggested section is, frankly, laziness. Rusted AutoParts 05:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
So there’s no category for delayed-reported deaths. I suggest we (not just you) see if that category might interest anyone but me. Susan Gleason (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
But why is a category necessary? A death wasn't reported right away, I don't see that meriting a Category:Delayed death reports category. Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, your decision. Susan Gleason (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
for me it's extremely necessary to know about global deaths, you just can't hide those things for very long time,
I am not kidding anyone 182.189.118.135 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
No-one's hiding anything, certainly not intentionally. There's no reason for an independent Wikipedia editor to do such a thing, so perhaps you can expand on exactly what you mean by that? Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 07:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Photos

A new discussion about including photos has been launched here. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say lack of response at that discussion over an ensuing length of time (more than fourteen days) would indicate that a majority might say "no photos" if the matter were brought up here directly. Ref (chew)(do) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

deaths being human

I've seen many horse deaths listed in recent deaths. Thought it was ridiculous. Now A TREE? C'mon man! 2600:6C4A:1A7F:D295:E876:F940:1F63:3D77 (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If what dies has an article,the death can be notable.108.29.145.226 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd argue that it's not dead yet, just on life support. While death is easier to define with animals, the fact that a spokesperson said it can still be coppiced makes me think it can still live on as the life/death distinction is a lot fuzzier with plants with cloning and the likes. Nowhere in the article or any reputable source says it has died or was killed. I'm no dendrologist, so can anyone weigh in on when a tree can be declared dead? Phillycj 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The only reason the tree qualified for an article on notability grounds was its physical visual splendour. That splendour has been destroyed - any shoots that result from the coppicing will be insignificant shoots throughout the rest of our lifetimes. What's dead is dead. Ref (chew)(do) 23:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
If a tree is felled in the woods, do the arguments on Wikipedia make a sound? Phillycj 18:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Experts say that the Sycamore Gap Tree will grow back, but will not look like its former self, and its regrowth to its former glory could take up to 200 years. As for the OP comment, please see the Talk FAQ. Wyliepedia @ 19:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Death is irreversible. So, if it can grow back, it can't declared dead. There is dead tree however, like in this one: File:Kameldornbaum Sossusvlei.jpg It still standing (not felled), but declared dead due to can't produce new tree/plant cells anymore (like leaves, etc.).
Thus, felled tree ≠ dead tree. EdhyRa (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a well-sourced paragraph in Acer pseudoplatanus (the species in question) about how well the species takes to coppicing, so I'd say declaring it dead would indeed be premature. EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
But alive as we knew it in its notable splendour? Doubtful, and it certainly will not regain its physical beauty within any of our lifetimes. Ref (chew)(do) 18:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
By that logic, you'd include people with severe Alzheimer's Disease in the list. They're also fundamentally changed, and "dead" according to the definition you've just given. EditorInTheRye (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@EditorInTheRye: May your relatives never get Alzheimer's. When an entry here suffers and dies from it, we use "complications from" for the degenerative disease. Wyliepedia @ 09:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to idea of adding plants to RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
As long as you are aware that this is not a new thing. Notable plants, like notable animals, have been granted inclusion for a number of years already, so a broad consensus shift on the subject will be needed to change things, not the creation of a new consensus decision. Ref (chew)(do) 10:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
While tree deaths are not a personal interest of mine, if a tree is notable, it's demise is going to be of interest to somebody. I doubt many people do a deep dive on every death notice, so it only takes a second to scroll past. Unlike what would happen if deaths of non-notables were added, I don't anticipate there being a massive wave of notable tree deaths to the point of making the list unwieldy. Same with notable horses. While more common than notable trees, they hardly clog up the list. If they're notable, there will be people who want to know about their deaths. AndyENy (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Plants in RD

Isn't adding a plant in recent deaths page over the top? Per discussion on Sycamore Gap Tree. And per discussion on my talk page. Don't users think that it is a bit strange that posting a tree to RD is strange, especially when Michael Gambon is still nog posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss this a few sections above at an already-started discussion! This is disruptive behaviour. Ref (chew)(do) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Section moved up, as a sub-section of this same-subject discussion. Ref (chew)(do) 20:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Not even remotely. Consensus, year after year, is inclusion of anything biological that qualifies for an article. Star Garnet (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sycamore Gap Tree

The "death" entry has been removed from Recent deaths on the Wikipedia Main Page after this discussion. It was subsequently removed from this page as the tree is not "dead". WWGB (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Formatting of Francis and McSpadden's deaths

I do not see it necessary to apply the multiple deaths formatting in this instance. The crash was not notable, and Francis and McSpadden are the only two listed people. Two instances of the same source being used isn't going to break the bank. In addition, since their crash is not notable, it could instill confusion given Doug Larsen died the same day in a separate plane crash. Rusted AutoParts 01:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Some background. I believe the "group death" format was first introduced in April 2010 with this series of edits by User:HJ Mitchell. There is discussion at Talk:Deaths in April 2010#April 10th air accident. Yes, that crash was much bigger then the crash that killed Francis and McSpadden. I think that our list is better if deaths in the same incident are reported side-by-side, even though the death event may not be notable, like this:

References

  1. ^ Two killed in Lake Placid airplane crash identified - Exact cause still unknown
It seems that RAP is against the idea; would like to hear from others. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC
I disagree. I don't believe the format needs to only be invoked for a "notable" crash that itself merits an article: a brief description, even without a link to a separate article, can concisely and quickly disseminate the same information. I saw the page earlier today when the two deaths were listed together and it made perfect sense to me to list two people dying in the same incident alongside each other. If the concern is to avoid confusion with the separate plane crash that Doug Larsen died in, I'd say the format renders even more clarity about this: it establishes that these two people died in this incident, and anyone who died in a separate incident we label with the same cause is listed in a completely separate part of the section. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it should not apply in this case - there should indeed be a separate event article in existence for multiple deaths in order for them to be grouped under its wikilink. They are notable individuals in death, but not victims of what's currently considered a notable fatal event. That's my opinion, anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 07:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's been 10 days and there are four expressions of interest. The !vote is 2:2, so that is no consensus to invoke the "multiple death event" format. Case closed. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

National teams - association football

Hi. Just a heads-up that some article naming descriptions have changed recently. Specifically, men's national football teams are mostly now including the word "men's" in the article name, instead of (or in addition to) a disambiguating sentence at the top of the article itself, to differentiate it from the women's national football team. I have just been through the current Deaths in 2023 article changing titles to avoid redirects. Just a request, then, that we all continue to check that links to the men's national football team titles are absolutely correct before adding playing or managerial credits to entries. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

For the current status of discussions over whether these are correct moves or not, please see this talk page. (The Afghanistan national football team talk page is leading a wider discussion on all men's national football teams.) Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
"The result of the move request was: no consensus." This means that the national teams for men will not now include the word "men's" in the title, not until any fresh consensus makes a future change of that nature. Women's football will continue to disambiguate with the word "women's". Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship at birth

Is the format-explanation reference to "Country of citizenship at birth" truly appropriate given the standing (UNwritten) policy of deleting that citizenship if it no longer exists at present? 108.29.145.226 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense. A person's nationality at birth is a matter of their personal history, and is a valid inclusion designed to indicate their roots, with any dual or subsequent nationality following to partially explain a timeline in their lives, supported by reading the clickthru to their Wikipedia article. Nationality at birth should ALWAYS be made clear in our descriptions, as they are facts which do not need to be hidden for whatever other reason an editor might think there is. Ref (chew)(do) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
And yet if a person dies who was born a citizen of the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia (or one would suppose the Hatay State or Federation of South Arabia) that fact of what their citizenship at birth was will get deleted with the summary "not a current citizenship" even though the format explanation includes no hint of this.108.29.145.226 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. There are many instances of "Czechoslovak-born", either because it could not be established in which of the two former states they were born, or because it could not be established where their parents originated from (modern Czech Republic or Slovakia) in giving birth to them. I also feel this is a separate issue which is being (or has been) covered somewhere else in the realms of Wikipedia projects. Stating modern-day origins remains valid, whatever the merits or otherwise of mentioning former combined country states in the modern era. Ref (chew)(do) 18:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Grouping again...

I see that someone has decided to set up a "notable deaths in the Israel-Gaza War" grouping on October 13th. I think this is a problem for a number of reasons: 1) it's not being used on any other day, and we do know several high-ranking Israeli military personnel were killed in the initial attacks, so it seems like there's some bias here in timing; 2) it's only being used on one day, which makes me question the utility; 3) it's only listing two Palestinians and a Lebanese person, and of the three there so far, two don't even have articles, so there's a notability issue (which will sort itself out on its own), and the same bias issue with respect to who makes the list (which won't); 4) the general idea seems to be that grouping together is relatively related, and the incidents were literally miles away from one another in a multi-day event.

Shouldn't the I/P sanctions and related oversight sort of apply here too? 146.115.153.133 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can now see two groupings covering two separate days relating to the event article 2023 Israel–Hamas war. With that article in existence, and with more than two entries "caused" by its subject (that is, three or more on one day), the grouping of names under the event article banner is perfectly valid, as has been the case in groupings of this kind in the past. Victims are grouped using the specific war engagement event criteria, not through consideration of geographical boundaries. If you'd care to further explain "I/P sanctions and related oversight" for the rest of us, I'm sure we would better understand your objections or otherwise. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The common event format was set up to report deceased killed in a single notable occurrence, like a plane crash. It should not apply to people who happened to die on the same day, in different countries, just because they died in the same ongoing war. I have changed the death event on 7 October to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood which is the particular offensive in which they were killed. The 13 October deaths should not be listed together. They died in different countries, at different times, from different injuries. It's only three redlinks holding them together at the moment. BTW, there is no "three or more" requirement for the grouping. If two notable politicians died in the same plane crash we would report them together. WWGB (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Ref (chew)(do) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey, how about this-----why don't y'all quit being so partisan in only listing "Palestinian" deaths and start listing ALL deaths. Israelis are dying too. It's getting really irritating. Plus, I see no mention of the 240 something HOSTAGES that Hamas is still holding. If you're going to be a reporting agency, how about being a little more impartial and a little less biased? Anitarose33511 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Guess you failed to notice the article is DEATHS in 2023, not HOSTAGES in 2023. WWGB (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
And we are not a "reporting agency" - we are editors of an encyclopedia. There's no bias involved in referring to simple facts as they happen, it's not selective. Ref (chew)(do) 21:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"If two notable politicians died in the same plane crash we would report them together.", but not, say if an American football player and Air Force commander died in the same plane crash? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Maybe the better way to say it is if multiple deaths happen as part of a larger notable event, like a war, then the deaths should probably be grouped in some way? Of course then the question becomes what number and notability of deaths make the common event (war / plane crash) notable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B500:6200:18BD:A7DF:4067:A0E7 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You're rather stating the obvious - the common event is that which represents the title of the event article under which names are grouped, and so anyone of notability who perishes in the plane crash is eligible to be added underneath the common event. "If two notable persons died in the same plane crash" is all that matters for list purposes and any grouping of same (and that's two or more). Ref (chew)(do) 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

How about some balance?

You are listing "Palestinian" deaths. How about listing Israeli deaths too? Wikipedia isn't leftist. Let's start being a little bit more neutral when it comes to the Israeli war against Hamas. I'm getting to the point where I don't want to read this page anymore. 167.1.146.100 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Deaths are included by notability only, not by nationality, and on a neutral basis. When there are more notable Israelis killed in the war, they will of course be included, as they indeed were at the start of the conflict. However, with the balance of the war onslaught shifting towards Hamas and away from Israel, it's perhaps inevitable that more Palestinian casualties will be added than Israeli. Ref (chew)(do) 12:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Causes of death

This page is not a place to speculate. Please do not list someone's cause of death unless the accompanying citation includes it. If a different source mentions a cause of death, use that one as a more appropriate citation, but do not attribute causes without. This includes if someone had an illness not confirmed to have killed them. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

Dex Carvey, 32, American stand-up comedian and actor ("Joe Dirt 2"), drug overdose. [2] ShadowyFlows (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

He does not appear to meet any notability criteria for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, someone has seen fit to include him. Therefore I suggest waiting one month. Ref (chew)(do) 17:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Dex Carvey

Currently points to his father, actor/comedian Dana Carvey. 12.227.201.6 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

His "article" is merely a redirect. He should not have been added to this list. He will be removed after one month. WWGB (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Factors turned on their heads

I totally get that if someone works sixty years as a dentist (without achieving any leadership position or notable innovation in the profession) and spends six months as a citizen state legislator, they can have "dentist" stricken from the listing as "not notable as" and listed simply as "politician". However, it is not intrinsically notable to be a policeman or a centenarian yet recently two men whose notability among those vast classes of people (the only reasons they would merit encyclopedic articles or broadly published obituaries) was entirely the matter of being the first black member of his department and the oldest man in Belgium had the latter factors (their true reasons for inclusion) stricken from their listings. The blueprint for listing specifies that country of citizenship at birth comes before subsequent nationality, yet recently these got inverted for Adele Änggård who was a British born daughter of the UK's Ambassador to Sweden who only after his posting became associated with the latter country for the rest of her life (and the edit asserted that putting Swedish first was the correct order). Errors? 71.105.190.227 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that occupations such as dentist or policeman which are incidental to the main and overriding notability are routinely struck from the description of the individual. You may well also be right that a "racial first" or similar deserves a mention in connection with occupations which are viewed as secondary. In order to reach a fair conclusion, I'd invite others to this discussion to form some sort of wider opinion if not consensus. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
We should always include the reason why the deceased is notable. For example, Jaak Broekx has an article because he was the oldest living man in Belgium for two years, not merely because he was a centenarian. WWGB (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Now what about the daughter of Robert Hankey, 2nd Baron Hankey whose "country of citizenship at birth" was the UK long before she became Swedish...but had her nationality "corrected" to "Swedish-British"?71.105.190.227 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know where you can see that information, but it's certainly not in this list of dead people. We don't have any jurisdiction over descriptions of relatives of the dead. And I don't see the daughter described as such in Hankey's own Wikipedia article. Ref (chew)(do) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I already mentioned her in the first comment in this section.
Under her Swedish married name the former Adele Hankey is the first death listed under November 3. 71.105.190.227 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Her place of birth is not actually established in her article, so the dual nationality precedence issue can't be resolved as things stand with her article at the current time. The assumption goes with Swedish until it's proven the opposite. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 08:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
"Swedish-British" (or "British-Swedish") implies the subject holds (or held) dual citizenship. I'm not sure about the protocol of the country order: should it be chronological, reverse chronological, or even alphabetical. "British-born Swedish", however, implies the subject relinquished British citizenship to become solely Swedish later in life. WWGB (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Journalist killed by Israel in 2023

This is the latest, her name was Ayat Al-Khadour. [3], [4] Alssk (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You deserve to have an answer to this notification within twenty four hours, and this is my observation. Having carried out extensive searches on this journalist, I have come to the conclusion that the only significant coverage regarding her notability concerns the widely circulated and viewed video she made just before her death. There don't seem to be any other indicators of her notability that can be accurately sourced, and therefore I personally am not inclined to add her to the list, I'm afraid. Others may disagree, so it remains to be seen what further action will be taken regarding her inclusion. Thanks for alerting us though. Ref (chew)(do) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I concur. Journalists seem to be the first to die in wars, and this one is not notable enough to mention, aside from the video released moments before her death during one. Wyliepedia @ 03:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Same but shorter?

"Bassist" is not an exact synonym for "bass guitarist"...it also includes (and to some implies) that the person plays a Double bass or Contrabass violin. There are multiple instruments in that sound range so should we be specific as with football codes? 71.105.190.227 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The terms are not synonymous. A "bassist" can include someone who plays the tuba or trombone! Why use a vague term when the accurate term takes only seven more characters. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Good points. I changed it back. Ref (chew)(do) 08:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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) And August 5. Star Garnet (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC) And September 8. Star Garnet (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Articles per month

At the bottom of the page, it's noticeable that the other lists for "deaths in [month] of 2023" have their own dedicated articles. This article currently covers only November and December but is titled "Deaths in 2023" (Like if it was about 2023 in general). Maybe consider renaming this article to "Deaths November 2023" and create a new article specifically for "Deaths in December 2023"? Nyraxis (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Renewal6 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I make that the third time this year alone that this subject has been brought up. It's still doesn't present a valid argument for change. Ref (chew)(do) 00:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The article Deaths in 2023 reports ALL deaths in the year. December deaths are listed, followed by previous months. All 2023 deaths can be navigated from this page. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2023/Archive_1&oldid=1193138053"