Talk:Deaths in 2022/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

And thanks to Prince Philip, Betty White and DMX, without whom only fewer millions would have been possible. Kudos to the runners-up for keeping us going in the months between those peaks. Most importantly, omnipresent dear reader (yes, you), for the daily backlit vigil and relentless refresh rates that literally drive this train, you once again truly deserve this award! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the instructions say "country of citizenship" not "subnational entity they happened to be born in", someone from Trinidad and Tobago is not a "Trinidadian". It's like changing the citizenship of someone born in the US to "New Yorker" or someone born in the UK to "Great British". Or maybe more correctly, it's changing someone's nationality from Tanzanian to Zanzibarese - it undermines national identity in favour of an identity that existed before the two islands were united. Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no joint adjective or demonym for someone from Trinidad and Tobago? By the way, according to Wikipedia's demonyms and adjectives for countries, Zanzibari would be the equivalent of Tanzanian. Editrite! (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Editrite!: Correct. There's an informal one - Trinbagonian - but no formal adjective for "citizen of Trinidad and Tobago". As one of them, it bothers me (a lot). And yes, thanks: Zanzibari. I should have remembered that. Guettarda (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should try inventing one, e.g. Trinto (pronounced Trintoe) or Trintoban (pronounced Trintoeban). These are just random thoughts. Editrite! (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page to see why the citations are simply bare. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Ok, does this apply for all "death in" pages or just this one? I'll skip all pages containing "deaths in" until I hear back. Rlink2 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Hi. ALL pages apply, because the same criteria applies to all; that the coding of the Deaths pages becomes so bloated via full cite that page loading times are extended, which is bad news for those with poor broadband connections through no fault of their own. That's one of the reasons, anyway. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we restrict this to humans? 2600:1700:B940:3750:21A4:922B:A285:C0C2 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ at the top of this page; your question is answered there.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Basically, with years of consensus standing in support of animal inclusion, you really need to introduce an argument as to why they shouldn't be. Six words is not a consensus challenge. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We include them because some animals (and other living things) achieve notability similar to humans. For instance, Laika was notable before Yuri Gagarin. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The last I heard, humans are part of the animal kingdom. Editrite! (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

horses don't belong

We shouldn't allow horses on this list 69.174.130.69 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Look above. Consensus says notable Animals belong.$chnauzer 18:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Seven words which don't explain why we shouldn't. Set your argument here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I asked a horse if we should remove dead horses, and it said "neigh". WWGB (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency in descriptions between the use of "footballer" and "football player". One recent edit changed "footballer" to "football player" even though "footballer" is already frequently used for others. Although not a big issue it would be good if there was some consensus on whether both terms are acceptable (and therefore not changed unnecessarily) or whether one is considered more appropriate or preferable for some reason. Thoughts? Afterwriting (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: you must be new here. We typically use "footballer" if that's all they do, "football player and manager (referee, owner, etc.)" if they further their career. American/Canadian gridirons get "football player", if it's not soccer. In the recent edit you mentioned, it was just an oversight that has been fixed. Wyliepedia @ 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to patronise me. I am a long-term and very experienced editor. The question was a perfectly valid one. All you had to do was explain it. Afterwriting (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

He's referring to time spent at the coalface of Deaths. I don't think there's any slur intended. Welcome. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: My apologies and, yes, no sleight was intended. I fully investigated your Wiki-tenure prior to replying above, yet failed to realize pages like this can slip one's notice until something looks odd. There are constant corrections that occur here: from demonyms/ citizenship-nationality (see up top and just above) to helpful editors who add entries but fail the page's pseudo-MOS we coalfacer wikignomes try to maintain. Wyliepedia @ 06:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@CAWylie:. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. I have not edited this page much as I recall and am not aware of some of its style idiosyncacies. Afterwriting (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the logic of limiting the number of terms that get spelled out for one entry to three (for space, ease of reading), but I feel like that should only apply to 4+ terms for a single office. Edits like this don't make sense to me; if anything, it makes the entry more confusing to me. Now, I think it would be justifiable to drop the membership and accompanying terms in this instance, but I don't like the format of the entry as it is now. Star Garnet (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of terms in office crept in some time ago without consensus. Personally, I find it unhelpful as it does not enhance the reader’s understanding of the deceased. Nevertheless, the “rule of three” applies to all entries, whether terms, jobs, teams, films, songs etc. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It began, I believe, with some Indian (and perhaps Brazilian) offices, where politicians can have nearly lifelong terms or numerous sporadic ones throughout their career. I have no problem listing all tenures if they served in only one office, but even two offices with multiple tenures is a bit much for an entry. I also think having all tenures listed only matters to a limited audience who remembers the name but not the years in office. That's what office links are for. Wyliepedia @ 05:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

...is

You initially removed the word "notable", so that the introduction read "The following deaths occurred in 2022".[2] Clearly, that is false as the article does not list every known death in 2022. Rather, the list is limited to those who died in 2022, and who satisfy the Wikipedia definition of notability. The use of "notable" to describe these deaths goes back to 1994, so we are not talking about a recent change. And we will not be changing the most-read article in Wikipedia to a "category". WWGB (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not change the text to "Only the following deaths occurred in 2022". Whether the entries satisfy WP:N is not something to burden the reader with. I was not aware Wikipedia existed in 1994. In any case,

Consensus can change. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 07:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does evolve here, but very rarely on something as basic as this. Pick almost any relevant subject, and it's been debated multiple times here, in some cases annually, over the past 20+ years. This page already experiences the most edits (running total will pass 350k within two weeks), requiring the most maintenance, of any page on WP, without making it less clear to readers why a certain death is/isn't/should be/shouldn't be included. Star Garnet (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For me, consensus on this particular point should not change. Notability is a crucial factor regarding inclusion in this list, whether you choose to acknowledge that fact or not; therefore, that fact should be mentioned somewhere within the guidelines for adding deceased people. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether notability is a crucial factor. This is an article, not one of Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore

WP:NPOV is also crucial, but we wouldn't start an article with, "This is a neutrally-written article about..." --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 23:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Informing our readers about the inclusion criteria of a list article has nothing to do with

MOS:INSTRUCT. Renewal6 (talk

) 00:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The use of notable is necessary to give the readers of one of the most consistently highly-viewed pages on Wikipedia a basic understanding of the criteria for inclusion on the list. The objection to its use, while in good faith, comes off as pedantic.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As another user writes below, what’s to stop an IP from adding their deceased family member over and over?. Evidently part of the purpose is to instruct readers/users. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The purpose is to clarify the inclusion criteria. Preventing an IP from adding non-notable entries might be a positive side effect, but nothing else. Renewal6 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to clarify the inclusion criteria when readers can clearly see that each entry starts with a link to the person's bio? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A lead section is a summary of the body, so I don't see any problem with that. Renewal6 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no assertion that "Wikipedia existed in 1994". I wrote The use of "notable" to describe these deaths goes back to 1994, a statement which is clearly evident in the first sentence of the page Deaths in September 1994. WWGB (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I see now. My points apply equally to all list articles, including Deaths in September 1994 and all similar pages. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS guidelines should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (at the top of each essay). Considering your proposal to turn the whole article into a category because of one word, you probably missed that point. Renewal6 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, a proposal with which you disagree must lack common sense. See

WP:NOTCOMMON. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 22:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not my "own common sense". This is the most-read article on the English Wikipedia, and nevertheless, you're arguing that the use of one word constitutes an unacceptable burden to the reader. Renewal6 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It wouldn't matter if it were the least-read; my argument would be the same. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Renewal6 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m struggling to see the problem here. It happens regardless but should there be no assertion that an individual needs an article to remain listed after a month, what’s to stop an IP from adding their deceased family member over and over? There’s no restriction noted that they can’t add them in. That’s why I find having notable to inform the included names is justified. Additionally, that category already exists. Rusted AutoParts 23:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

soft redirect to the category. The fact that the category already exists makes the article seem redundant. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 22:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative" as per

WP:NOTDUP. Renewal6 (talk

) 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not automatically, but if a list fails in being

notable as a group or set then it should be redirected or deleted. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So, you're NOW suggesting this list article be deleted or redirected? That would require you to take it up with higher powers, as

main page directs curious visitors here. Wyliepedia

@ 11:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"if a list fails in being

notable as a group or set" That's clearly not the case here ([3], [4], [5]). Renewal6 (talk

) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt that The New York Times is using Wikipedia's own notability criteria when making its list of notable obituaries. If we're going to use such published sources as justification for maintaining a list of notable deaths, then we should stick to the people specifically named in the sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. No, we should stick to the wording of

WP:LISTN. Renewal6 (talk

) 20:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is more of a list-type page and a timeline of sorts, wherein there should be standards given at the top of the page detailing the contents. Wyliepedia @ 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Why, though? Those standards are for Wikipedia editors to use when creating pages. Articles in article space are

intended for public viewing, not specifically for the editing community. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Brief research indicates that a link to "notable" appears in the lead of many list-type articles, such as these: List of biologists, List of geologists, List of all-female bands, List of mineralogists, Bibliography of King Arthur, List of songs about London, List of American Muslims, List of indie pop artists. Seems we are not alone! WWGB (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. To reiterate, My points apply equally to all list articles. Since this is apparently a common problem, I may have to start a more centralized discussion. But "all my friends are doing it" isn't a very good argument IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 07:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And there you go. Painting collective consensus as some sort of collusion to defeat your particular take on something. Many other editors have come here in an effort to make what others thought were ill-advised changes, and have on many occasions accused existing editors of "ganging up" on them to deny them their way. Never mind that the editors in question all individually held the opposite views on things, and for their own good reasons (I've stated mine). A wider discussion elsewhere may well add numbers to your cause, and I for one welcome any more diverse input into this conversation back here at a later date. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Collective consensus is represented by

local consensus. I never said there was any collusion, only poorly thought-out arguments. --Sangdeboeuf (talk

) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It occurred to me that it would be a good idea to number the deaths, instead of just having those little black circles. (I forgot what they are called.) Of course, new deaths are always added to the list for that day in the subsequent days. But with today's advanced technologies, there must be a way of doing it so that the numbers would automatically adjust when a new name was added to the list. Tesseract12 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the source number covers that pretty well. Rusted AutoParts 03:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is the key. That's a good enough ordering system, without seeming to give any priority to one over another by putting "someone" at number one and the last death of the month on 675 (e.g.). "If it ain't broke...". Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Plenty of numbers in the

reference section. Now serving no. 535... Wyliepedia

@ 05:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not mean assigning numbers in the order of prominence of the people. I meant that it would be a good idea to number them by the day, not by the month, in the same order in which they are now listed. Tesseract12 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So we have to raise a task and do extra programming to show that Aaron Aardvark was #1 and Zeke Zibrowski was #37, numbers which will likely change as further deaths are added. Why? WWGB (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read the last two sentences of what I wrote in my original post on this thread. Tesseract12 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What purpose would this serve? Numbering things for the sake of numbering them is not sufficient. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The mentioning of the European championship title Helmer Strømbo won in 1975 has been reverted twice. Are we not acknowledging this anymore? It's an international tournament at very high level. Nukualofa (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

According to

WP:NCURLING, a medal at the ECC is notable and therefore may be included here. WWGB (talk

) 12:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Owning a horse isn't, however. Wyliepedia @ 13:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

He owned lots of horses, most notably the magnificent Sugarcane Hanover, who was one of the fastest racehorses in the world. But yes, I see your point. Nukualofa (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

When have we ever included regional championships for any sport? Why is this an exception? Nanerz (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexandra Zabelina is a 9-time world champion, Milivoj Karakasevic is a European champion, Kirk Baptiste is a world indoor champion. None of these are noted and this is just recent examples. Nanerz (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It has always been included, but is generally omitted if the athlete has an Olympic or world title. Please add relevant achievements to the list, instead of removing it. Nukualofa (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you find me previous examples where this has been included then? Nanerz (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Stanisław Grędziński in January 2022, Pavol Molnár in November 2021, Anatoly Kavkayev in August 2021, Kirkland Laing in June 2021, Dieter Lindner in May 2021, Miloš Novák in February 2021. Nukualofa (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also just like to point out that Europe is a continent not a region. Calling European titles "regional" is therefore misleading. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Europe not a region of the world? Nanerz (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against having regional championships noted, however it seems to be sporadic in being added. It also doesn't seem like you care to add the ones I mentioned, so I don't understand why you are so adamant on this one specific case. Nanerz (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Whether you understand me or not is not important. Major international championships are included, as you have seen. Zabelina is listed as a three time Olympic champion and Baptiste as an Olympic medalist, which is likely the reason the lesser titles are omitted. Karakašević's European title came in a championship without a Wikipedia article, which is likely the reason it hasn't been included. You too can include them if you want. Nukualofa (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Understanding is important if it isn't be used to establish a consensus. You are arguing for something and then arguing against it in the same post. Figure it out. Nanerz (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus. You're the one challenging it. My standing has been the same all the way; continental titles are included if it is their best international achievement, but not necessarily included if they have done better in a global competition. Nukualofa (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Then follow the consensus and add them if you are so adamant about it. Nanerz (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents/pence/etc: there are 11 countries competing in the European Curling Championships. Bears inclusion here. Wyliepedia @ 03:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should positions that are not directly linked be added? For example, Mario Mettbach links second mayor of Hamburg to List of mayors of Hamburg and Marek Pasionek links deputy public prosecutor general to Public Prosecutor General (Poland). Seems like a stretch. Both their respective pages link to these pages, but should they? Thoughts? Nanerz (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely incorrect links. Mettbach links to an anchor of the mayors' list page, where, if you scroll down and open the Second Mayor list, you will find he is mentioned. As for Pasionek, he has held the position for six years, so it obviously exists, even if the PPG page (nor the pl-wiki) doesn't mention it. Wyliepedia @ 09:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To my mind, vices/seconds/deputies have irrefutable connections to their superiors and therefore the linking is not entirely wrong. The remits of their jobs are to step in and take charge of their superiors' positions should anything untoward happen to the primary holders. But I'm easy either way about it, as long as our linking here reflects that being used in the person articles. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally prefer a link to the actual position, rather than a list of people who have served as it, but a link is a link. Wyliepedia @ 13:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists of dates should surely be earliest first, top to bottom? Having the newest date at the top is very unusual and unexpected. I would change this but I guess there might be some script used to maintain this page so thought I'd best ask here first. JeffUK (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles open at the top. If the latest deaths were at the bottom, readers would have to scroll through maybe 800+ entries to see who died yesterday. The current format is more accessible to readers and editors. WWGB (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with WWGB. And there is no script or bot in action. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. But we should point out to JeffUK: reverse order is only employed in the current month. Once the page is archived as an "old month" ... somehow, the order magically gets reversed to be chronological (non-reverse) order. Which makes sense. Look at, for example: Deaths in March 2022. Starts with March 1 at the top ... and goes down to March 31 at the bottom. I always wondered how that happens? Is that some type of computer "bot" or program? Or does someone manually reverse the list each month? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I can tell you from long experience that it's done manually. I have often done it myself. You need to keep a clear head moving days one by one over the others and so on! Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I don't do it. I can't be trusted. Nukualofa (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

When I do it, using a phone mind you, it takes me maybe 30 minutes. That entails doing the chronology (in groups of 10 days) in my sandbox then importing it in. Takes practice and patience, especially if someone sneaks in an entry here. Wyliepedia @ 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, are you kidding me?!?!?!? There is no computer program or "bot" or procedure that can do this? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There may be a bot that could be created if anyone was that committed, but once I get the editing "rhythm" it takes me maximum five minutes to do on my desktop computer, so I'm happy to do it manually. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks folks for doing all this. But, I agree this is ripe for a

WP:BOTREQ Ktin (talk

) 18:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to do a "search" of old Talk Pages for these "Death" articles. Do I have to search each month's archives, one by one? Like, for example, "Deaths in September 2012" (or some such)? Or is there some archive somewhere that aggregates all of these monthly death Talk Pages? Where would I go? This Talk Page (above) has a "Search Archives" box ... but it only seemed to go back to the Year 2022. I looked on a few Talk Pages of "old" months ... and dd not see a "Search Archives" box, as appears here on this page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The monthly talkpages are rarely large enough to warrant archives, and, since the main pages change names every year, the archives are for each year (i.e. Talk:Deaths in 2021/Archive 1). So, no, no aggregate archival search is available. Wyliepedia @ 14:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Given an edit was made today removing the word "notable" again (reverted pending fresh discussion), it would appear that the above is about to become an issue again, even though discussion has already been had and a halt to consensus made with no change at that time. The archived discussion is here - it cannot be re-opened there, so a fresh discussion would need to take place here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep the word notable, to avoid an acceptance of inclusion of people with no encyclopedic interest. Again. Nukualofa (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am coming in late to the discussion ... and did not read the archives. But, I have always wondered why it says: The following notable deaths occurred in 2022. Shouldn't it (more accurately) say -- something along the lines of -- The following deaths of notable people occurred in 2022 ...? I think we all agree that it is the decedent (i.e., the person who died), that is "notable" (i.e., has a Wikipedia article) ... and not the death per se (i.e., the event) that is "notable". (Like, for example, that young kid who recently fell out of an amusement park ride in Florida ... or some such.) No? I understand that we'd have to tweak the word "people" -- due to the inclusion of animals, etc. But isn't my proposed wording more accurate than the current wording? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This article (

Deaths in 2022) is about notable people (who died). This article (List of unusual deaths) is about notable deaths per se (regardless of the notability status of the decedent). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk

) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

With respect, Joseph A. Spadaro, both your comments are slightly off-topic - yet bang on topic. In both comments, you assert that the word notable SHOULD be used, albeit in a different form. So you appear to be casting consensus towards keeping the word in the guideline at the top of the page, but altering the wording in a specific way. The only challenge we are answering here, to be honest, is an editor recommending the removal of that one word. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I'd say "yes and no". The issue, as you say, is about "removal of that one word". Agreed. However, that very issue is inherently linked to the issue of "well, if indeed we are not removing that word, and we decide to keep it, then at least we need to be using it correctly". So, it's generally one and the same issue. I think this page is about notable people who died; not about notable death events. And I think that the present wording is inaccurate, to that extent. I have wondered about this for quite some time. In fact, years ago, I may have even started a discussion about it? When I have free time, I'll scour the old archives. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I see the exact description in the information containing the word "notable" has been altered on the main page. I'm happy enough with the edit, as it's factual and retains the word, more importantly. Now who is going to go through all the other pages matching up the description to the current one? Ha. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently states: The following deaths of notable living things occurred in 2022. Which, more or less, aligns with my proposal above. It's OK, I guess. The list is 99% about people. To call people "things" seems awkward to me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, humankind is just one of many species of creatures, but I don't think I'd want "living creatures" as a description either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Think laterally. "Wikipedia subjects" sounds better, in my opinion. Living things include insects, plants etc. Editrite! (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia articles are to avoid being self-referential ... I think? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

We report the death of notable trees. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No idea ... but is "living beings" any good? Or, "living subjects"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus for "living things"? Maybe "notable lives" would be better. Editrite! (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

To me, "living things" excludes both people and animals, so that doesn't work. I prefer "living subjects", although it is a very awkward sentence. --Marbe166 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There is too much instability in the lead, with editors changing to their preference. I have reverted to the long-standing description until a different consensus emerges. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So far we have: "living things", "Wikipedia subjects", "living beings", "living subjects". WWGB (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... I believe that Wikipedia should avoid self-reference ... so "Wikipedia subjects" is excluded. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid.) Calling people "things" sounds awful. I am fine with "living subjects" and/or "living beings", preferring the former. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How about "deaths of notable people and other life forms", or something like that? Nukualofa (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Too complex. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought ... what do other language Wiki's do? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedias in other languages usually do not include dead animals and trees, so they just refer to people, individuals or persons in their language. WWGB (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

...and the German one doesn't use "notable", but they do have a separate list page for animal deaths. Wyliepedia @ 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it feasible for us to have a deaths page for humans and a totally separate page for animals, trees, etc.? Or is that too much hassle? I imagine that the latter is barely 1% of the deaths we report. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This started out as an exercise in consensus-building for the retention or removal of the simple word "notable". I do not know what it has become right now, because it has veered right off that straight line. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. However, the "simple" question of do we include or exclude the word notable? ... necessarily invokes the (somewhat more complicated) question of if we decide to keep the word, how do we use it correctly? So, it's all one-and-the-same issue. I believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with deaths of notable subjects? Maybe our using the word "living" (in the above suggestions) is throwing us off ... and it's an unnecessary word anyway. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Non-living things/subjects/beings can not die, so the word is redundant here. I would support "deaths of notable subjects". Renewal6 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting to the stage where anything will do as long as this issue is put to bed - again - so I would be happy enough with "deaths of notable subjects". Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Sounds alright. Nukualofa (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As it currently is ("notable deaths") is succinctly suitable to me. "Subjects" can mean anything. Wyliepedia @ 04:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I am beating a dead horse, but I will repeat myself. "Notable deaths" is simply not accurate. The decedent is notable; not the death itself. (See

decedent" seems like a stiff, awkward, clumsy, unfamiliar word.) Also, you state that "'Subjects' can mean anything". Yes, exactly. We need to employ some "all-encompassing" generic term (like "subjects" or similar), since the decedents on this page are people, animals, trees, birds, cats, dogs, turtles, elephants, gorillas, etc. In other words, a little bit of "everything and anything". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk

) 18:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Strike -- that is, partially strike -- my last comment. I guess that decedent refers only to dead people. Which I did not know. And which does not help us. The rest of my comment, above, stands. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, what's the conclusion of this above discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me like "no consensus – keep as is". WWGB (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Errrr ... not sure I agree. I will have to go over and read the whole thing again, more carefully. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

One more repeat "vote" from you is not going to change the consensus as it stands, Joseph. That's not how consensus works. There needed to be a lot more input from a lot more editors to build a changed consensus on this issue. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh ... what's that supposed to mean? Please tell me. I'll assume good faith, while I am waiting for your reply. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not derogatory, and is always a comment in good faith. I've given an opinion, you've given an opinion, others have given theirs, and some footballs have been kicked around as a result. The outcome of all our opinions seems to indicate no change, as WWGB has intimated. There aren't any vetoes, is what I suppose I'm getting at. Let's say I disagreed with a change of consensus, if that happened - I would have to bite the bullet and go with it as a majority decision by the interested editors here. I'm not casting any aspersions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we treat Wikileaks as reliable and independent? Editrite! (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WikiLeaks. WWGB (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

So, for the benefit of clarity outside that link, "Generally Unreliable". (I personally would never dream of using it.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has added the rock band Viola Beach, all of whom died in a traffic collision on 13 February 2016. I was set to delete it, but thought the concept of a “dead band” was worthy of a discussion here. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel it would count, given they as individuals aren't notable. The redlink/redirect restriction applies imo. Rusted AutoParts 02:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As a whole, no. In past deaths pages as individuals, no; here, yes, for the 30-day reason. Wyliepedia @ 05:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Her's are listed individually on the Deaths in March 2019 page. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Deceased individuals is the norm and should remain the norm. There's probably at least a couple of cans of worms primed for opening if group deaths are allowed here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the

Stephen Fitzpatrick to the band name, and there's not enough individual bio about Fitzpatrick in the band page to make it a valid entry. Ref ^(chew)(do)

08:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty ambivalent about the redirect rule in cases of duos, at least. And after all, that and the Viola Beach page probably wouldn't even exist if they didn't die, so it does somewhat qualify it as a "notable" death. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

With Viola Beach, it's the collective input of all the members which establish a notability for the group. I still say that, to validate a redirect, individuals within the group should at least have an expansion within the group article giving things like date and place of birth, early life if possible, educational details and work outside the group which also backed up personal notability. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not deaths, even if they were notable as a group it would go in events. JeffUK (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In this edit, Rusted AutoParts reversed the order in which the musician's two bands are listed, from a chronological order to the reverse order. I reverted, and was in turn reverted here with the edit summary: "S&C [Seals & Crofts] is the band he's known for most. Also afaik being alphabetical was never a necessity." I didn't know that popularity or (assumed) public knowledge was a justification for the order in which these things are listed, and would never suggest that the order should be alphabetical. I thought it should be chronological, as seems to be done in other cases (such as film titles, as far as I know). Am I wrong? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC) PS: For clarity, the fact that the chronological order is also alphabetical is coincidental, and irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally think more popular well-known associations/works should be listed first. For example, let's say Seals was known more as a prolific songwriter but won an award for only one, I would list that particular song first before the ones that topped the charts. That said, I have never listed anything alphabetically here, except individuals, of course. Wyliepedia @ 22:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see many examples of chronological being the norm. I've always just implemented what the individual may best be known for in a non structured way. With Ray Liotta's entry in May it goes Goodfellas (1990), Something Wild (1986), and Field of Dreams (1989). At most, for the first credit I consider what might be the most well known credit, so for Liotta it seemed pretty clear cut it was Goodfellas. Rusted AutoParts 22:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Where does alphabetical order come into it regarding most notable credits? Only someone with OCD would want to go that far (or, CDO, to keep the letters in order...). Let's keep it "most notable, first mentioned" and so on. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Blanket changes to demonyms were recently made in the article, for "consistency" - that's not a good enough reason. Demonyms for the UK are determined by individual countries within Britain (English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh), unless the notable occupation of the deceased involved international considerations, in which case they would indeed be British. This point has been argued before, and it is not a matter of consistency where the UK separate identities are concerned. Editors should stick to the descriptions in the individual deceased person articles, or change them before demonyms are changed at the Deaths article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of fluid demonyms, do we list Northern Irish as simply Irish now, or is that offensive? Wyliepedia @ 12:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Northern Irish cannot be Irish in that sense, as any plans for unification are so far off (if at all attainable in the future) and they are still seen as two separate countries on the same island. Unionist Northern Irish would be outraged too, so the Northern reference has to stay in the demonym. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it normal to include the titles of people who have died? I'm thinking in particular of

In terms of the United Kingdom and countries of its current and former Commonwealth, yes - it was agreed by consensus many moons ago. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 1#Excuse me, sir.... WWGB (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So many moons ago. Wyliepedia @ 04:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd totally forgotten I'd already had this conversation. Thanks for the reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

So then shouldn't it say Queen Elizabeth II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B4FE:A900:A950:AD31:9EFD:2913 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Renewal6 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is that an honorific or a job title? WWGB (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Both. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sayings like "Can't see the wood for the trees" or "Too many cooks spoil the brothe" come to mind.

In my view, if somebody (or some animal as the case may be ... there are some horses in the listing) is in red, then they don't have a Wikipedia page and have no place in this listing. I see that people from a few countries put in more of their compatriots than others do.

I would go further and suggest that if someone doesn't have a Wikipedia page in at least one other language, tney are good to be deleted. TGcoa (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Redlinks get a one month grace period to attain notability before they are deleted. As for the one wiki cap....no. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict, saying the same in other words:) To my knowledge: the red links are not archived when the month is over, but serve well on the active recent page trying to attract attention to turn them blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

ALL redlinks are deleted one month after the date of death. You will NEVER see an animal in red, they must have an article prior to listing here. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal opinion counts for nothing when consensus holds sway as it does here, but thanks for the input anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

As described in

Question #2 of our FAQ. Wyliepedia

@ 21:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

How is it that the Recent Deaths section has no women listed, or at most 25%? Stasikat (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Not even replying to that inane comment. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, we aren't Recent Deaths, we're

Deaths in 2022. Ref ^(chew)(do)

15:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent deaths is a link on the Main Page, and redirects to this article. WWGB (talk

) 01:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way x2, RDs on the main page go through a harsher scrutiny to get added there than here. Example: if just one "citation needed" tag is on a biography, it's declined. Wyliepedia @ 01:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Coming back to the question, we publish the deaths of notable people, as reported in reliable sources. There are many influences like sexism and the glass ceiling which lead to fewer female deaths being reported in reliable media. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There are an innumerable amount of notable women not listed at Wikipedia, so much so that there are indices for them or their work. To further help their plight, feel free to join the WIR wikiproject. There will also be drive to improve 2022 death notices starting in December. Wyliepedia @ 00:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How will that work? WWGB (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

WWGB: By consensus, or fail. It's that simple. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That WIR wikiproject link is interesting. There are NO bluelinked recent deaths (out of 78) only red links. Editrite! (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

List Doesn't need horseys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.130.69 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Go back and read the guidelines carefully. Any animal that already has its own English Wikipedia article can be listed here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Jeez again? Horses are living beings. If a human, horse, dog, tree, etc die, they get listed here. Though I think with redlinked animals/trees they can't be. Rusted AutoParts 20:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No redirects! Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: horseys*. Wyliepedia @ 15:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be for humans only. A recent entry is for a euthanized panda... this is just excessive and without merit or interest. If these deaths must be listed - then I proposed that beginning in 2023 - this page be a list for humans and a separate list for "others" should be established. 2603:8080:2502:7B00:4C75:7442:9187:388 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

— 2603:8080:2502:7B00:4C75:7442:9187:388 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey c’mon can we make a separate list for non-human animals already? It’s just jarring having Holocaust survivors and former prime ministers next to horses and f*****g panda bears Carbonara4 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your world view. I think that horses and pandas bring more joy to the world that terrorists and convicted murderers, also reported on this page. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Opinion: Should stay as is. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Is being members of these notable and/or worth mentioning here? For example, the Chinese Academy of Engineering has over 900 members as of 2020. Those numbers are dropping fast, judging by the amount of deaths this past week. Wyliepedia @ 14:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think they're valid mentions still, as the Academy is an eminently notable institution - might count as harmless extra information, if you like. I'm easy either way to be honest. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok enough inclusion of members from the chinese academy of Engineering,,it may be sad they died but I can guarentee nobody from outside china would find this an interesting inclusion. 2600:8801:282D:3500:7CC4:C0C2:6F9C:2ED7 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, not so simple. It's not just "enough" and stop now - it's go through and remove all references in each of the entries to ensure consistency. And a decision on that will be through a broader consensus, so let's have others giving their thoughts too please. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Similar to the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, I think membership would be notable. WWGB (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Academy of Engineering

Why are so many people from this organization dropping dead all of a sudden? So far it's twelve in six days posted on here.

Why is a six-inch length of string six inches long? That's another unanswerable question. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple of points to make here. According to the Academy's article, the youngest ever member was 41 when elected, so by definition it has a predominantly older membership. It was established 28 years ago, which means the longest serving members would be at an advanced age by now. The respective ages of the recently deceased members, suggest that their deaths are linked to the aging process and coincidental. Editrite! (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Editrite! That is probably the only sensible answer to the question, rather than my tongue-in-cheek response. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not apply at the end of December. This is because

And a reminder also that the annual due diligence on vandalism will need to be fine-tuned by us all, at least until we get an admin's protection granted. Happy New Year. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)