This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Biography This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Changed the name of his office as he was in charge from 1977-1984. During that period (as since founding of the Federal Republic of Germany 1949) the office was only called "Ministry of Economics". The office changed its name into "Ministry of Economics and Technoligy" only in 1998. So he was only the Minister of Economics, not for Technoligy. YOG'TZE (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we maybe improve the formatting of these entries? It looks, to the casual observer, like Claiborne Pell's entry is claiming he created Parkinson's Disease. Kamdrimar (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section to discuss changes to the formatting of this page that has been used for the past two years. A change was implemented, an editor disagreed, so a discussion is warranted before further changes are made. I can see the benefits of the new system, but also some drawbacks, so considered me undecided at the moment; it is, however, best to do this early in the year before things get too hairy here. Cheers, CP 07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree. I attempted to use a reformatted style and chart with more organization listing the Deaths in 2009, but I did not realize we need consensus first. So, how can we go about getting this? 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make a change ... why not have the list start at the 1st of the month ... and continue downwards (on the page) to the 31st of the month? Why is it set up so that it is essentially upside down? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would assume the reason for this is convenience. As someone who checks out the list daily for notable deaths, it's very convenient to come to the page and see the most recent deaths at the top of the list instead of having to scroll down through past days, which would only get longer as the month progressed.Ryziun (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree with that. But that is only applicable to the current month. When the page is "saved" for posterity -- after the current month is over -- it would make more sense for the dates to be listed chronologically from beginning to end (e.g., April 1 at the top of the page ... April 30 at the bottom). In other words, the current set-up (with dates in reverse) is convenient for the short-term only (the current month), yet inconvenient for the long-term (whenever anyone in the future wants to access any information for any "old" month). I assume this would take time / effort ... to change the format after the month ends and the info is saved for future viewing. Nonetheless, I think it makes sense. If I were searching the Deaths in November 1984 ... I would expect / want the page to begin with November 1 and scroll down to November 30. I wonder if there is any easy computer "program" that can reverse the dates, at the end of the month. Does anyone know? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Was a sad and embarrassingly Show. I changed a nearly not usable list to a definetly better design, were to find what the readers want ist much more easier. But "we've done it so long is the other way..." seems to be the only argument. New year, new list. Best point to make it better, to make it new. But like so often I only get the impression, here at the en:WP not quality is the major important thing, not the reader, not the usability. More personal Vanities by some users. Sad. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"definetly better design": that's actually just an opinion and thus not definite. i personally thought it was awful-looking and much less intuitive to update and use. tomasz. 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little assumption of good faith is necessary here Marcus. Your changes were not reverted because "we've done it so long" the other way; in fact, nowhere on this talk page does it say anything like that. Your changes were reverted for the exact reason stated above: consensus is required. Instead of coming here to build that consensus and help convince users why it should be change, you just have just levied personal attacks against the editors and the English Wikipedia with no evidence whatsoever. Requiring a discussion has nothing to do with the "personal vanity" of the editors. Please remember that incivility is not tolerated here. Cheers, CP 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The reason that the current system has been used for so long is probably that everyone is happy with it. I too thought that the tabular idea as proposed / enforced by Marcus Cyron looked awful, and was less easy to read. As is so often though, when someone's unpopular idea is not wholeheartedly accepted, they cry foul and say how sad the world is. As for "personal vanity", bringing about a radical change without asking anyone else at all seems to be about the height of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "incivility" covers Marcus' post. There is an underlining attitude which, for this site especially, is appalling. My particular opinion is this is "definitely" someone who should not in a decision-making position on Wikipedia, as the post shows conclusively that he's not interested in the greater good of the site and its users. As stated above, the format he created was very poor, but it's his comments (such as that final "Sad") that are the most unfortunate part of the whole situation--ADWNSW (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being dogmatic in the past in changing English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh nationalities to "British". There is a similar exchange at the moment concerning the nationality of Bashir Ahmad. Now, according to Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS we should take into account if the person has a preferred nationality (not necessarily British) and use that instead. The point has been made that Bashir's party are staunch Scottish nationalists, and hence Bashir would prefer to be known as Scottish rather than British.

Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Do NOT enforce uniformity goes on to say that re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British" – is strongly discouraged. Could/should we continue to apply British as the default nationality unless it is demonstrated that the deceased had a strong preference to be known as English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh? WWGB (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that for the purpose of clarity on the page, that each person should be listed as British, unless, as above, they specifically identify as one of the four nationalities. My main reason for this is that my Polish girlfriend says that she was taught that all people from GB were British and that no major distinction was made between the countries. My brother's Greek girlfriend says the same. Therefore, a non-GB resident who was looking at the english language Wikipedia may find the assumption of British to be more easily construed. I realise that this may create some debate, so I suggest it may need some form of poll, if this has not already occured. I think it would be wise to ask people from outside of GB for their opinion. British people, probably, do not constitute the majority user base of the english language Wikipedia. Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The corresponding demonym is British. English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh are identities, but not nationalities. Treating them as such would be incorrect, imo. Aecis·(away) ^talk 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with British footballers is there's no such thing as a British footballer because there is no British governing body for the sport. There is an English FA, Welsh FA, Scottish FA and Northern Irish FA, so footballers have to be English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish. To call someone a British footballer is nonsense. Capey (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British refers to nationality, it has nothing to do with where they play football. WWGB (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. British first and foremost refers to citizenship. It can in some cases also refer to nationality. Ask Sean Connery what his citizenship is, and he'll say he's British, because he has a UK passport. But ask him his nationality, and he'll say Scottish. Many people from the UK prefer to regard themselves as English, or Welsh, or Irish, or Scottish, or Manx, or Cornish, or whatever - before they acknowledge their Britishness, if they do so at all. In a good many cases with the people appearing in this list as British, check their own pages and it'll say something different. It's false consistency to insist that everyone on this page must be called British when the rest of Wikipedia calls them English or Scottish or whatever. The consistency we need to adhere to is ensuring that whatever they get called on their own page is what they're called here. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, providing that nationality is verifiable. Wikipedia is littered with biographical articles stating that so-and-so is Scottish / English / whatever, simply because of where they were born. Any subnationality of the UK needs to be verifiable before being used here, or in the subject's own article, giving clear indication (beyond birthplace) that the subject identifies with that subnationality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. If it's not known what they considered themselves to be, the default description is "British". That's fine. But to change everyone on this entire page to British because of what someone's Polish girlfriend told them is going too far. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that I agreed with putting someones nationality as the one they identified with, if noted. Which is the view that you're subscribing to! The reason for mentioning what my girlfriend said was to show that non-British Europeans are taught that people from the United Kingdom are British and that they don't tend to view the countries as discrete. A lot of the time this argument gets bogged down with what people from Britain see themselves as, not what the majority of people see British people as. Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth at this late date, Canadian schools used to teach (they still may for all I know) that all residents of the UK are always and in all circumstances called "British" - to call them anything else was said to be the worst and most obscene form of racism, up there with the N-word. Seriously. So some of the people changing things back might be under the impression that sub-national "nationalities" are offensive in the extreme. We were taught by our teachers, many of whom were immigrants from the UK, that calling someone from London "English" or someone from Glasgow "Scottish" was only barely this side of referring to them by a crude and incredibly offensive racial slur. They were British, and if you used another word you'd better like the taste of soap. --NellieBly (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows deaths during the current month even when the last month only ended five minutes before that. That means in the early hours of the month, one does not see who has died within even the past 24 hours, and in fact the month hasn't ended yet in the Americas—in California it's still February for eight hours after the month of February is dropped from this page. If someone dies at 6:00 PM in California on the last day of February, that's six hours after the month of February is over according to the way this page is managed, and only March is visible on this page.

Is it conceivable that one could leave a month on this page until several days after it's ended? That way deaths that are still news would not be excluded. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The title of the article is "Deaths in 2009". Why not leave the last several days (a week's worth) up when beginning the new month? New deaths are still being reported for these days (especially over weekend days) and it would be nice if they could at least be seen on the current page when they are first added to the list. BurienBomber (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Usually it's gone from the 1st day of the next month, when a fair few deaths aren't reported/added until a few days later. Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are often problems at the end of a month with well-intentioned editors not fully understanding the changeover methodology. In particular, if you do [1] then you have to do [2] at the same time, otherwise there are two different lists in existence for the same month, as was the case for ten hours today. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put February back in because WWGB, who reverted my earlier edit, did not repond to my comments above. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harvey died in February. His name was added to the list in February, but it was 1:10 AM on March 1st according to Wikipedia's calendar, since Wikipedia uses British time. His death is a current news item. But anyone in the USA who clicked on "Recent deaths" on the main page on the evening of February 28th found only March 1st and did not see Paul Harvey's death mentioned. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses UTC, not British time but a month does not end until UTC-12 as clearly as a month begins at UTC+12. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend that a comment to this effect be added to the article. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Not the moment it ends.

Not BEFORE it ends, as has been customary and as happened with February 2008.

Paul Harvey died in February. His name was added to the list in February, but it was 1:10 AM on March 1st according to Wikipedia's calendar, since Wikipedia uses British time. His death is a current news item. But anyone in the USA who clicked on "Recent deaths" on the main page on the evening of February 28th found only March 1st and did not see Paul Harvey's death mentioned.

Deaths do not cease to be current news one hour after they are reported on Wikipedia's "recent deaths" page.

They do not cease to be current news before they happen, as in Paul Harvey's case.

Please post opinions concerning the proposed new policy below. Don't just say Support or Oppose; explain your position. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has always bugged me, for that very reason above. Coming in at the very start of the month invariably means I have to 'check back' to see if anyone else significant has died over the preceeding 24-48 hours.

I would say however that it doesn't to be as long as a week. I'd argue that for most people significant enough to appear on this page, their deaths would generally be known within 48 hours. So probably 2-3 days into the month would be ample enough time. It is, simply, just an ease to see the deaths - they will of course always be available on the historic pages.

My question is, what will happen to the discussion pages? I notice that they tend to get transfererd over at the same time, but (from my limited observations of it) there never seems to be consistancy over what is and what isn't transferred to the "old" page - the way I see it, surely every discussion that takes place over that month (that refers to people that have died *in* that month) should be transferred over, but sometimes it just doesn't seem that way so we get half that month's chat on the new page and half on the old page. I can't give *examples* of this due to the flexible nature of the page, but you must have seen what i mean! Vrillon (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is not true. If discussion relates to a death that occurred in the month, it is transferred to the relevant month talk page at the end of that month. If it relates to general policy or guidelines, then it remains on the Deaths in 2009 page. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose What is the trouble with clicking on one link? Besides, make a conclusion on hte discussion board before changing policy. Thus I will revert until consensus is formed. Besides, Wikipedia runs on British time for a reason: uniformity. Star Garnet (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good faith edit is never vandalism. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not propose to change a policy, but to create a policy where there was none before (as far as I know). And just which time zone is used would no longer be important under the proposed new policy. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for reasons proposed. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Because: 1. Splitting Listing multiple months is visually a mess. i think, for instance, if i were unfamiliar with the layout i'd wonder where the rest of the month had gone. 2. "Deaths in [preceding month]" is one click away, per Star Garnet. One can also easily just add the -month pages to one's watchlist. 3. i do not find that moving a death that occurred late into the month from Deaths in 2009 to the month-specific page does actually constitute them "ceasing to be current news". The month-specific pages are also de facto current news for a certain period. 4. Any time period we could decide would be fairly arbitrary, whereas a month just seems a logical division point. 5. i think the updating problem identified by WWGB, where one month is split across two lists and the two get updated at different paces, under different observation, and possibly by different users, making it harder to consolidate them at the end and co-ordinate them while they're split, will be inevitable. We could specify that, for example, February 25-28 are to be kept completely off Deaths in February 2009 and only edited on the main page until after a set time, but i anticipate that solutions to this two-page problem are likely to cause more confusion and effort than the current method. Cheers, tomasz. 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Who proposed to split months? I proposed that the whole month would remain visible until a specified time after it ended. Simple. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my understanding too. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it appears i misread. Amended accordingly. tomasz. 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tomasz and Star Garnet miss the point: Yes, you can go to a page. But only if you do it intentionally. We want to call the attention of users to something they may not know about and may not be looking for. E.g. a user knows the previous month page is there, but isn't looking for it, but might be interested if told that Paul Harvey (or whoever) had just died. The main page links to "Recent deaths" in order to tell people that it exists, not just for the convenience of those who already know! Similarly we want to put certain other things where they will be seen by those who don't know it's there but would be interested if they knew. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The month has to end sometime, and midnight UTC on the last day of the month (note: NOT British time) is the most sensible time to do it. The change could not be done unilaterally on this page, as it would be inconsistent with practices on other pages such as "<month> in sport". -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it should be UTC-12 not UTC because the month does not end until UTC-12. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the measurement of time. A month starts and ends at midnight on the relevant dates at the place where time is being measured which, for Wikipedia purposes is UTC. If your argument held water, all months other than February would be either 31 or 32 days long, which is of course nonsense. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant place is not UTC. It is wherever the person died. Paul Harvey did not die in March. Arwel Parry, you are the ONLY person who thinks he did. And you simply misrepresent what is proposed. No one proposed having months end at any other time than what is standard; what was proposed was to keep a month's list of deaths on the "Deaths in 2009" page for several days after the month ends. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course the month ends at midnight on the last day of the month. Nobody suggested anything else. What was suggested was leaving the previous month's page on the "deaths in 2009" page for a time after the month ended. As for the end of the month being in British time, that's never been done and no one has proposed it. Paul Harvey died when it was March in Britain and February in the USA, and accordingly his name was entered in the February deaths list. That is as it should be and as it has always been done. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arwal Perry has now admitted in an email that he misunderstood what was proposed: He thought that what was proposed was waiting until a month is over in all time zones before deleting it from the "Deaths" page. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal is being misunderstood and misreprested.

• It is NOT proposed that we should split months, putting some deaths on one page and some on another when their in the same month. Rather, the whole month would remain on the "Recent deaths" page until some time after the month ends.
• It is NOT proposed that the month should end at some other time than midnight on the last day. (When someone dies, the death is entered in the month that was current where s/he died. Thus when Paul Harvey died in February, he was entered in the February deaths list although it was March in Britain. No one's suggested changing that. Unless maybe that's what Arwel Parry is proposing should be done.)

Michael Hardy (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support as NPOV demands we treat people dying towards the end of the month the same way we treat people at the beginning of the month, at the moment if someone dies in the last days of the month they are treated as inferior, an absolutely ridiculous failing strategy. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: one possibility that I would not be opposed to would be to not compile the deaths on Deaths of YYYY, but to make Deaths of YYYY a link page, so that deaths are compiled in Deaths in MONTH YYYY. Any opinions on this? Star Garnet (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ahem . . .  : I'm sorry, but this entire discussion is unnecessary, if one is aware of the true power of Wikipedia, and uses their true powers of observation, as well as being more thorough in their updating of this special area of the Current events Portal. (That sounds cryptic, but read on as I clarify. This is going to be written in stream-of-consciousness style.) First, Michael H has a reasonable complaint, but the way he illustrated it reveals a flaw in how deaths of notables (or any sudden occurrence) are (or "may be", to be more weaselly about it) habitually posted, and the "above/below the fold" issue on the Current events page. Let's read it again (my emphasis added, natch):
  

  ". . . anyone in the USA who clicked on "Recent deaths" on the main page on the evening of February 28th . . ."

  Check out this link: Portal:Current events/Sidebar#February.
  Then check out this one:Portal:Current events/Sidebar#March. These are what I call "scrolldown" links: they put you on a certain page at a specific location, not at the top.
  

By rights it shouldn't've been necessary for a casual browser of WP to have to click "recent deaths" at all. Mr. Harvey's demise, a notable one, IMHO, should have been entered into the Feb 28 box as a press release, and then immediately added to the Recent deaths list on the sidebar. I realize the sidebar deaths are pretty far down the page. The "Recent deaths" link in the top box (next to Wikinews) could scroll the page down to that part of the sidebar to display the recent deaths as they're reported in that location, so this leads to my second of two points: Perhaps this discussion might be about how to create an Obits or Death Portal!! Then the main page "Recent deaths" link would link there. With an obituary portal on WP, there'll be ample room for consensus and standardization. Also IMHO, the variations in implementation and layout of the archival death lists, vs. the chrono death-date categories, are pretty bad. There are ways of implementing these myriad chronological death lists such that everybody can be satisfied, especially with a dedicated portal.

Having said all that, I'll report that the "Obituaries" section on Wikinews is pretty stale, and since it links to a "Recent Deaths" redirect to "Deaths in 2009", User Hardy's policy suggestion is quite valid. (There are better non-WP obit sites, however. I'm more into the list maintenance thing (and the wiki thing) than the death thing.) The suggestion is supported by the extant 2-week Current events "stack" which currently extends back to Feb. 23. So the "Deaths in '09" page should maintain the same "zoomed-in" top end. I would like to see transcluded a highlighted "Recent Deaths" box on the top.

And this brings me to a general observation. If the monthly lists were transcluded onto the full-year lists, with the ability to show/hide, perhaps everybody can be satisfied: the casual browsers as well as the more focused searchers. Everybody understand this very cool transclusion thing?

You also realize that this user was kind enough to edit the most recent entry on this section of this page (scroll to it upon landing, would you?). But I'm not going to come down on one side or the other, even though I'm not an admin. I'd like to think like one, though. - - - Schweiwikist (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (Methinks, poor Yorick, WP needs a Death portal . . . what say ye?)[reply]

• Correct statement of the proposal: "Deaths in February 2009" should remain on the "Deaths in 2009" page until several days (perhaps a week) after February ends (and similarly for) other months and years. It is sad that we can't have a discussion of a proposal without a lot of people posting lengthy diatribes against it without knowing what was proposed. Then it looks as if there is a lot of opposition to it when the people speaking in putative opposition don't even know what was actually proposed. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for a 1 week delay. I believe moving content immediately the following day is too soon. Compare it with listing for those who died early in the month. They stay for a full month, whereas those listed at the end, just a day or two. This system might even inhibit some contributors from going back to dates like 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st once its moved, simply because they do not see it in the front page. One week is a reasonable period to give a chance to contributors to add a few new names if possible. werldwayd (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It seems like it would be fair. A month is an arbitrary unit of time. Plus it allows deaths that don't get reported for several days to get on there without having to make the extra click to the month in particular.DandyDan2007 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Paul Harvey is not an isolated case: by definition, in a standard February, on average 1/28th of the people to die will die on the last day and be immediately swept away by a slavish adherance to process. Similarly, 1/31th in March, 1/30th in April etc. And for an appreciable number of people who die, the death report comes 24-48 hours after the actual death, so those people are preswept away because our processes say so despite never having been discussed. ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, or, alternately, a shorter period Perhaps a 3-day window would suffice to keep clutter to a minimum. Eauhomme (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial support - do we really need a week? I personally think three days is adequate enough. Gran² 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (for a week or less). It seems a good idea to keep some of the more recent deaths instead of having a blank article at the beginning of every month. It would also be useful for having more death listings for the last days of the month, as per User:werldwayd above. Mushroom (Talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This should've been proposed ages ago. It's a nuisance having to keep clicking back the the previous month when you have to get information from the end of the month and the start of a new one. One week would be an adequate amount of the time both for viewing reasons but also the fact that if the end of the month just finished is reachable from a link on the main page, then more people will tend to edit it and add information.--Jkaharper (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (with reservations) I don't like that the page immediately resets as soon as the month changes in London, but I also think it's a bit silly for something that happened three or more weeks ago to be on a "Recent..." page. I would like for the "Recent Deaths" page only to have notable deaths from the past week. After a week on the page, the death would get transferred to the appropriate month. Fryede (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a week seems like a reasonable compromise position to me. - fchd (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think that two days after the new month has begun is adequate before collapsing the previous month. IMO there would be too much clutter on the screen for the previous month and seven days into the new month of recent deaths. If one needs to either add a name or make an edit in the previous month, then click on the blue [edit] on the previous month. I don't think that this should be such a big deal. Ed (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So would you support having a delay instead of changing it the minute the month ends (as has heretofore been done)? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I would support having the delay for a couple of days instead of the minute the month ends. But my vote for oppose is for the proposal as written. I do agree with the discussion for not collapsing the previous month as soon as the new month begins, say, in Kiribati; that's much too premature. Ed (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. Additions to the list are comparatively rare after a week, and it reduces the risk I would miss an article I could work on or which interests me. Philip Cross (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support While I would preferably like to see a 2-3 day time frame over a week (since, as in our example, a majority of death edits would likely occur the day of or day after), a general delay of the cut off would be more universally equal to all wiki readers. Not to mention, it does take away of the significance of someone's passing just because they couldn't be bothered to die earlier in the month for people to find out about it. :) Evilrobert (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been set at one week, which seems to be the general consensus. Thus, as it is the March 3rd on Wikipedia time, three days of the week have elapsed and four days of February still appear. Star Garnet (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never proposed that the month be split. The proposal was to leave the ENTIRE old month in Deaths in 2009 for a period of 3-7 days before collapsing that month. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would prefer a three-day period but a week is preferable to the status quo. It sometimes takes a few days for the obituary of a long retired head of state, for example, to get an Internet obituary from a reliable source. As such, a late in the month death could easily be overlooked under the current policy. David McNamara (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support the new policy but I seem to have misunderstood the details. I thought the new rule was that a month that just ended would stay completely listed on the Deaths in 2009 until 7 days had passed in the NEW month, at which point the OLD month would be archived away to its own page leaving only 7 days of the NEW month as current. What I see here is a splitting of February 2009, which is exactly what was being argued against above. I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this split month method. I also think archiving one day at a time until the 7th day of new month is silly, and is just a make-work project for those who have nothing better to do with their time. Leave the WHOLE month there until the 7th (or 3rd day if you wish).Juve2000 (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I support the WHOLE month staying there, I have no support for archiving one day at a time and splitting the months. - fchd (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody proposed splitting months. That's just a straw man someone attacked above. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to me, it was actually just a misunderstanding that was corrected as such, rather than a deliberate misrepresentation of your position. Cheers, tomasz. 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have found it frustrating sometimes when I check this page (and associated talk page) at or close to the start of a month, only to find the previous month has already been archived. Not sure if seven days is the most appropriate timeframe but IMO it is better than the existing arrangements. Jonesy (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the ENTIRE old month staying in view for 3-7 days. Do NOT SUPPORT any other changes to the previous arrangements. Seven days seems a tad long; maybe 5 days would be better - but whatever, the ENTIRE month must always remain, and must NEVER be split. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I believe the present system is adequate, and needs no reform. Also, bear in mind that some deaths go reported for a couple of weeks (for certain reasons). If a person was to die at the end of a month, and his family announced his death 1.5 weeks after his passing, wouldn't we be failing in providing information to our readers? Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mainly for many of the reasons outlined above. I think the notable deaths should have some form of current events take and a change of day causing a change of month does not take the prior month away from being a current event. In reality, if it weren't for load times, I wouldn't remove anything until the end of year. If we could have a show/hide thing, such as works on most talk pages, I still would propose full yearly entries. I just don't know how to do the show/hide thing and assume most people wouldn't be up for my plan. Fol de rol troll (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support This is a change that I have been wanting to see for a long time. As of now, we are up to March 4 and the current page with beginning of March and February look great. I support the "one week" time frame. BurienBomber (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Page gets to look too cluttered. I'm a fan of clean and crisp pages. Adding another unfortunate event is always easily done despite the fact that it's collapsed. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It just doesn't look "right". I personally have had no problems in months past with clicking a simple link to view the month just ended, and I imagine I'm not the only one who can handle it. When I viewed the page for the first time in March - on March 4th - my immediate response to seeing February still lingering was "that's just wrong". I do agree one shouldn't remove the current month before the month is over, but I think it should be moved as soon as it's over. Overboard (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for what it's worth. UTC issues aside, a newsworthy death occurring on the 30th or 31st of a month will still be newsworthy two days or a week later. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support recent deaths should include at least several days or a week ago without having to search archived ones (and as deaths at the beggining of the month get three or four weeks exposure!) Hugo999 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• May I suggest a compromise to end disputes over red links.
  • I've been planning to do this for a while, but haven't had the time. I propose archiving deleted red linked entries from each month on the talk pages. Deleted red links would be archived in the talk pages of each month: For example, deleted biographies for March 2009 could be archived by date on the Talk page for "Deaths in March 2009." This would allow future and interested users to access potential entries of individuals whose biographies simply have not been written yet. Past deleted red links since 2007 have ranged from national defense ministers to circus clowns, and all occupations in between. An archive on each months talk page might be a simple solution to a long running dispute. I've personally created dozens of articles from deleted red linked biographies, or red links endanger of deletion. Trust me, there's some really great life stories hidden in these red links which can still make great articles in the near or distant future. If an article is created in the future, the name could be moved back onto the main article pages. Scanlan (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tried before and failed after three months due to lack of interest. WWGB (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have missed this dispute, but can't see any reason for redlinks to exist on this page. If they aren't notable enough to have their own article then they should be notable enough to be listed in a Deaths in Year article! DerbyCountyinNZ 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite often, an article about a person is created within a few days of their death. Many red links added to this article are notable enough to have an article; they often have articles in other languages. Best name (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jim Bellows, 86, American newspaper editor, Alzheimer's disease."

If you check out the Alzheimer's page, Alzheimer's itself isn't a cause of death, it's usually something else. Much like the "suicide" argument (suicide by X) I've seen here before, "Complications of Alzheimer's Disease" or something similar should be used, IMO. 78.86.230.62 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also true of Parkinson's disease. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this problem with other conditions which in themselves are not fatal, particularly when identified as a reason for suicide. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a good example of a condition which is rarely (if ever) a direct cause of death, so be careful with cites--MartinUK (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Alzheimer's Association calls it a fatal brain disease and the sixth-leading cause of death in the United States [3]. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the PDS does not describe PD as fatal. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this discussion is about Alzheimer's, no? tomasz. 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources say Alzheimers was the Cause of Death, that's what should be used here. - fchd (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Alzheimers is a cause of death, how come he didn't die as soon as he was diagnosed with it? Simple answer is that (as I said above) Alzheimers is a symptom and not a cause, the cause comes through a complication of Alzheimers. And WWGB says that the AA calls it a fatal disease...sure, it is, but so's HIV/AIDS yet when someone dies of AIDS the COD is put as "Complications from AIDS", or something similar. Jumping from a bridge is a cause of death, as is falling from a bridge, yet the COD would be listed as "suicide" or "accidental death". Obviously, it's splitting hairs, but it's a point I feel needs to be addressed. Do people die DIRECTLY because of Alzheimers, or is it always SOME other cause related to the fact that they have Alzheimers? I took a look through the Alzheimers page on here, and it suggests that 70% of deaths from Alzheimers are directly because of Alzheimers, but the reference cited (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3776457) is very confusing and I am not sure how valid the information is. If the COD with Alzheimers isn't 100% directly from Alzheimers, any thoughts about ways to address that? 78.86.230.62 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting above: "If Alzheimers is a cause of death, how come he didn't die as soon as he was diagnosed with it?". Because of the same reason people don't die when or "as soon as" they are diagnosed with cancer or swine flu, for example. Being diagnosed with something doesn't mean that you will die of that, mostly soon. 187.20.121.122 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a death is caused by complications from disease x, then x should be stated as the cause of death. That is because it is the underlying cause; the complications could not have happened without the person having x. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if a person can stay alive long enough with Altzheimers it kills the cells in the brain stem, which is fatal. So Altzheimer's IS a terminal disease it's just most people aren't made to suffer that long. Williamb (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the massive increase in the number of elderly people, Alzheimer's is now a common disease. It is terminal, but because most sufferers are old when they get it and it takes years to die of it, most, but not all of them, die of something else before the Alzheimer's proves fatal. When a person who has Alzheimer's dies of something unrelated, such as heart disease, Alzheimer's is not their cause of death. However, when a person dies of Alzheimer's or a complication of it, Alzheimer's is the cause of death. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following line be added to the lead:

Missing persons who are presumed to have died are not listed here until their remains are located and positively identified or they are officially declared legally dead.

Any objections or alternative suggestions? 58.8.1.230 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support adding caveats to the introduction just because there is a difference of opinion. Apply the appopriate policy or guideline and edit the article accordingly, or apply WP:BRD. WWGB (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "proposed new policy" above it was proposed to leave each month on the page until a week after it ended (that way deaths that happened only hours ago don't fall off the page if a new month has just started; the main page link to this page is after all labeled "Recent deaths").

The new policy was agreed to but some people had qualms about the amount of time—e.g., is three days enough? or four?, etc. Should we work on this further? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought consensus had been reached with 7 days. I think that's a reasonable length of time and as a standard measure of a passage of time (being a week) that it was the obvious choice. --Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no problems with one week (as it is a basic unit of time). Last month worked OK as seen here: [4]. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 days should be fine, afterall the link from the mainpage is recent deaths. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus was reached. I just wondered if some qualms concerning the specific number of days might merit some further refinement. But it seems no one's interested, so apparently there's no need for that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone decided for all of us that 7 days was too long. I suggest that the 7-day policy be stated at the top of the page so that people who do not read the discussion page don't take it upon themselves to shift the old month to a separate page beforehand. That way they'll have to wait until 00:01 of the eighth day of the month to be the first to get the satisfaction of doing the edit. I personally have no problems with seven days. Juve2000 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was agreed that it would remain at 7 days? Why was March collapsed already? BurienBomber (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early collapse was implemented by User:Whiteman [5]. He/she is not a regular contributor to this page, so perhaps thought it was the right thing to do? WWGB (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new template, {{Deadpeoplelinks}}, to be transcluded into the external links section. What do people think about this? Shall I go ahead and replace the external links on Deaths in 2001-2008? ←Spidern→ 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, as this page is worded, it actually doesn't prohibit fictional deaths. It SHOULD, but it doesn't explicitly. Hell, Fox even went to the trouble of preparing an obituary for Lawrence Kutner. 71.42.216.98 (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what might be the date of death? Is it the date of the script? Date of filming? Date of broadcast? What about re-runs, do we list again? Then we might move on to dead notable fictional animals perhaps? We could even have a notable death for Old Shep! Seriously, I think the key considerations here are WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:UNDO. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't always list the date of death for people when it is unknown... what do we do then? Don't we use (death announced on this date)? It would be the same principle. But seriously, if you read, I don't actually think they should have fictional deaths here but, per WP:OBVIOUS, we should somehow work it in that they are prohibited. 71.42.216.98 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, fictional characters should not get obituaries. I've even held the line on animal deaths unless widely known (e.g. Koko). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koko's not dead yet, but I figure he or she should get an obit. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite their authors' sometimes appearing to kill them off, fictional characters, if properly conceived*, will never die. Are Hamlet and Miss Haversham truly dead? I say no, a thousand times no. There's a better rationale for adding them to List of the verified oldest people than for adding their supposed deaths here. (* If not properly conceived, they were never worthy of an obituary to begin with.) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how helpful these links will be, but hope they help:

• List of recent deaths
• Filter 117 (removal of "living people" category)

The latter is designed to catch vandalism, but is useful to detect people updating articles after deaths as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing debate (and occasional reversion) in Recent Deaths whether all citizens of the United Kingdom should be reported as "British", or whether alternatives such as Irish, Scottish etc may be used.

Interested editors might like to read Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Basically, if an individual identified strongly with a particular national identity, then that should be reported. Thus, Scottish nationalists or Irish republicans might be identified as Scottish or Irish respectively, rather than making British obligatory. WWGB (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I consider the term British to be derogatory, if someone is born in Scotland they are Scottish. The Irish aren't British anyway, Northern Irish on the other hand... and the Welsh are just English with sheep... Salty1984 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Acts of Union 1707 and British Nationality Act 1981 seems to have passed you by. Our guideline clearly allows those who strongly identify with a "constituent nationality" to be described as such, e.g. Sean Connery, although their legal status is otherwise. The Scottish Parliament, likewise, is totally clear on this. Please feel free to contribute when sober or when you know what you are talking about. In particular, your comment on the Welsh seems calculated to annoy. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should have a standard that differentiates if anyone in the auto racing world is killed in a roadway accident versus on the track. I have changed Joe Tandy's entry to road car crash as he was not killed on the track. Racing accidents, such as for Ashley Cooper should be listed as racing accidents, preferably delineating whether during a practice, qualifying or race session. -- Guroadrunner (talk)

I think you are seeking to make too fine a distinction. In the case of a shooting, for example, whether it's a police officer shot on duty, someone shot accidentally in a hunting accident or a domestic shooting, we just report the cause of death as "shot". Further specific detail can be determined from the article. !WWGB (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think of a shooting as a shooting, but a racing crash is different than a car crash. I can see your point absolutely on not including qualifying, practice or while racing. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's reasonable to make the distinction between an in-race crash and a general crash as their job increases the assumption that it would be an in-race crash, which may not be the case. Equally, if a notable coal-miner were to die in an explosion, I would list whether it was an explosion in a pit or a domestic explosion as the COD would of itself be a possible notable event. Any in-race crash or coal mine explosion has an after-affect on the area in which it occurs, whereas something occuring outside of their line of work is unlikely to have a major knock-on effect. I'm not sure that I've described my point very well, but I hope you understand! Fol de rol troll (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that - a race crash has a particular link to the subject's job, whereas a road accident does not. These are two entirely different types of crash and merit a distinction - it's a pretty simple and straightforward distinction to make as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad; I don't always have time to login and just use the anon I.P. (I did Betty Allen, 81, 22 Jun 2009, over at the Law Library) ...

Do you anticipate at least downgrading the protection at any time soon? WB2 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, am i dreaming, or is MJ not on this list????84.110.148.215 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're either dreaming, or not looking at June 25 :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many red links? Justin talk 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to allow anyone who's death has been reported in a significant and reliable media source to be put on here for a month without an article about them. Just because they don't currently have an article, doesn't mean that they shouldn't. An editor may not be aware that someone doesn't have an article until they see a red link on this page. I myself have created a page this way. Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the policy is sound. I myself created Rene Capo after being intrigued by a redlink here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. When Dennis Pacey died, I was surprised he didn't have an article, so I created one :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I regularly check this page for people I can create articles on, mainly former soccer players. GiantSnowman 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt the word "wikipedia" be removed from the lead paragraph? I think WMOS says to not refer to wikipedia in the articles. notability is not determined by a wikipedia article, rather, a wikipedia article is determined by notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, listings of people with no Wiki article related to them should be removed, or an article should be issued. I second that this list was not necessarily intended to feature only recently-dead people who were already on Wiki, but, on the other hand, people with no Wiki mention whatsoever hardly could be considered "notable deaths". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.32.198 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put new comments at the bottom of the page, please. Just because someone does not have an article on Wikipedia, patently does not mean they are not notable. Wikipedia is not complete, and there are subjects out there that have not yet been tackled. When someone who has no article dies and is put on this list, that is often the time that an article is written. A certain length of time is allowed for articles to be started (I forget now how long that is), after which the red link is removed. HTH. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a calandar month Fol de rol troll (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely preposterous to let anyone and everyone to be on this page for a month before removing them if there is no article. If a person was not notable at all while alive, it is highly unlikely they ever will be after death. The first sentence of the page says "The following is a list of notable deaths in 2009." If there is no article, then they are not notable. If an editor believes a recently deceased person is indeed notable, then they are welcome to create a sourced article before listing them on this page. Jasper Howard, a respectable player with a tragic death, does not pass WP:ATHLETE and likely never will. Looking at past pages, very few of these non-notable people unnecessarily added here get articles, so there is no need wait a whole month to remove the redlink. At the very most there can be a one-week waiting period, but redlinks should not be added to this page in the first place bacause, by definition of being redlinks, they are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some affiliation to your cause. However, you appear to support Hamilton Southeastern Junior High School (seemingly simply because you attended it) which appears to this Brit to be completely non-notable in itself. I think that it is to easy to overlook the fact that Wikipedia is an ever growing encyclopedia and, in say fifty year time, it will look considerably different in all aspects (not only notability) than it looks today. I have very recently created a new Wiki article on The Olympic Runners, a pop band that ceased trading over thirty years ago. Not because they were possibly/arguably non-notable, but because no-one had got round to creating such an article before now. Actually, I do wonder why an encyclopedia is positively interested in listing recent 'notable'/'arguably notable'/'dead racehorses', 'et al' deaths, at all. Accepting Wikipedia is coming from a different angle, would you seriously expect say Encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Americana to include several separate pages on recent deaths - 'notable' or 'not' ?! Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely off-topic. Just because something is in the past doesn't mean it won't ever have an article, but just because someone dies doesn't mean they should have one (or be listed as notable). Since this page says "The following is a list of notable deaths in 2009", being on it implies that the person is indeed notable, which they are not. Prove it to me that a person is notable by creating a sourced article that passes WP:NOTE, then include it on this list of deaths. Reywas92^Talk 01:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that Britannica and many other mainstream encyclopedias do, in fact, publish lists and obituaries of recent, notable deaths in their Year Book updates. --Canley (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is no article, then they are not notable."? Have we really come to this? That the definition of notability is whether a Wikipedia article has been written or not? What about someone who is clearly notable but somewhat obscure? The Prime Minister of a small African nation or the captain of a national football team – but an article has not been written because references were difficult to come by or just because no-one could be bothered (see Countering systemic bias). I find the redlinks on the Deaths pages very useful, as they display gaps in Wikipedia's coverage which could be filled – people whose life was notable enough that mainstream media reported on their death. Combined with the convention that a reliable reference be included, which often contains enough information about the subject to create a decent article, I would argue that redlinks actually have a very beneficial function on lists such as this. So instead of pruning redlinks as quickly as possible like they're some kind of cancer on Wikipedia, we should be clicking on the reference and adding an article. --Canley (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must not have made that clear. I'm not saying everything in the world without an article could never ever possibly have one, but that it currently does not prove that it passes Wikipedia notability standards. According to the first sentence, entries are notable, but without having an article that passes WP:NOTE, you have not shown that at all. If the person is clearly notable, I would expect there to be an article for him. I fully understand and agree with what you say about Prime Ministers and football captains - they are clearly notable and should have articles. But the college football player whose name I removed is not notable; he does not pass WP:ATHLETE. While some of the redlinks added should have articles, most should not. A single obituary or death report does not always guarantee notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he may not pass WP:ATHLETE does not mean he is not notable in some other way. Allow time for notability to be established. You are not the arbiter of what is or isn't notable. As has been said, your idea that "If the person is clearly notable, I would expect there to be an article for him" is unrealistic and misguided. Wikipedia is not finished, there are many notable subjects out there whose articles have yet to be written. Take a moment and read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Just because notability is not yet established for some entries on this list, there is nothing anywhere that says they have to be removed. By your token, all redlinks should be removed from all articles. Wikipedia:Red link is also relevant here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand a bit better what you're saying: that lists like this should serve more as a chronological categorization of existing Wikipedia articles, and if an article is created on a notable subject, they would then be added to the appropriate "Death in..." list? I still think redlinks have a very useful role to play in Wikipedia and should not be removed because they're "messy" or "ugly". Given that most of the "low-hanging fruit" for article subjects has been harvested, they are a useful tool to generate lists or ideas of potentially notable topics. --Canley (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above. Having an article or not is not a test of notability; it's the other way round. This page is a useful generator of new articles as long as I've been watching it, and just because (as stated) people are obscure, does not necessarily deny them Notability. Even if no article is created within the month, a stub can be created, establishing notability, and if necessary, moved to the article incubator. Animals are somewhat different, since consensus here is that an article must already exist. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some obsure people actually should have articles, but others shouldn't. Being a painter, referee, or journalist with an obituary does not automatically mean he is notable enough for an article. My experience here is that there should not be redlinks here for an entire month. If an article is not written in a week, it will likely never be. Reywas92^Talk 01:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a stub asserting notability could be written just as soon a death is reported here; but that article would be then linked from here, and tagged with {{recentdeath}}, which in my experience tends to attract editors who may not understand the subtleties of our policies, remembering that WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased, and their families. That imposes an unnecessary burden, I think. I've seen many deaths notified here by those editors who do not write articles, per se, and I think they are quite happy to leave the fine detail to more experienced editors. That it may not happen immediately, or even prior to being reported here, is an assumption that editors who are already engaged in projects can suddenly drop all that to meet arbitrary deadlines. That, I find unreasonable in a volunteer community; but I do consider a month to be an adequate buffer zone for those who are not here 24 hours a day. Rodhullandemu 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The idea that notability is determined by the presence or absence of an article on Wikipedia is so misguided as to be laughable. There are thousands, maybe millions of notable subjects who do not yet have articles. Just because someone has not yet got around to writing them does not affect the subject's notability. Furthermore, a subject may need some considerable research before notability can be established or not, and a cursory glance at someone's career and a subsequent "He/she's not notable" is just not acceptable for a serious encyclopedia. Very few Wikipedians have limitless time to mop up the redlinks on this page inside a week. Forcing editors to write an article before listing the subject on this page is a very bad idea. It will discourage editors from editing this page, and those editors who like to write articles based on red links on this page will also be discouraged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the Rene Capo entry had been here for only a minute before being removed, I would have never written an article, and this Olympic athlete and interesting figure in martial arts would have never had an entry. Remember, articles on Wikipedia are not based on all who are notable, but who editors have heard of and are interested in, so the current wealth of articles does not reflect every person who deserves entry in an encyclopedia. In short, the system works. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in as a long-time observer of Recent Deaths to support the points of Scalper et al. The redlinks in Recent Deaths are a fertile ground for the creation of new, deserving articles. Many an excellent article has arisen because the subject's death has drawn the attention of wiki-editors after his redlink is listed here. In fact, the original rationale for linking Recent Deaths to the Main Page was precisely that articles could so easily be inspired this way. If there is sometimes an overabundance of redlinks, it is a small price to pay for fostering the creation of worthwhile biographies. Redlinks do no harm, as Wikipedia is not paper, and never pretends to be anywhere near "complete"; meanwhile, a red-linked death from 2002 may yet inspire an editor to compose a fine article years from now. The balance of the cost-benefit analysis is deciding in favor of listing any real death that merits coverage in any reliable source. The only red-links deserving removal are: 1.) false claims; 2.) claims not reliably sourced; and 3.) links for which an article was composed, and that article failed an AfD conclusively. Even redlinks of this last sort are a close question, and the nature of the AfD's consensus should weighed carefully on a case-by-case basis. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there somewhere an established policy written down? I can't find it and have never heard of such a rule. Recently I added several well-known people from Estonia died from January to August 2009 (all of them are listed on et:2009 among the most notable deaths of the year) and they were deleted immediately. I find that offensive and not appreciating contributors' work. Could have at least warned me before deleting. Andres (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good thing to re-add the links that were taken off in August? Somebody made them into a template that was subsequently deleted.

The edit to recover the old links is here: [6] Star Garnet (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the general notice that any editor sees, whether they edit the page as a whole, or an individual date. It's the bit that says

Please note:

• Additions without reliable sources will be removed
• Names are listed under the date of death, not the date it was announced[1]
• Within each date, entries are in alphabetical order of family name
• Deaths of notable animals (that is, those with their own Wikipedia articles) are reported here

I added it a couple of weeks ago, to see what would happen, but it seems perhaps too early to judge that. I suggest this could be carried forward into 2010 when the new page is created; meantime, comments would be welcome. Rodhullandemu 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has already removed January 2010 deaths to a new page [7] [8]. It looks like the seven day period prior to rollover is not going to apply this month! WWGB (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 1st tends to occur at different times, depending on whether you live in Australia, Hong Kong, or otherwise. There seems to be no consensus as to how events should be represented in a global encyclopedia, but it would seem sensible to relate all to a common timescale such as UTC. However, this is detail that should really not depend on any local time, and since the Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, perhaps that should be the arbiter. Rodhullandemu

Yes, god bless America, the arbiters of everything, or so it seems. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily so, and I fully understand why you said that; specifically, American editors, living in an increasingly litigious society, are more likely to err, if at all, on the side that renders them personally least liable to legal actions for damages; which tells me that they actually don't understand their responsibilties. They cite the First Amendment to the Constitution, as though it is a universal "get out" clause; it isn't. Rodhullandemu 02:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not about when 1 January "starts", but rather that "new month" deaths are reported above "old month" deaths for a period of seven days, like [9]. This consensus has already been ignored for the current changeover of months, as shown in [10] [11]. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of death is determined by the date in the location of occurrence. It doesn't make any sense to have deaths that occurred in 2010 listed on the Deaths in 2009 article. Surely the best course of action is to have the December 2009 deaths listed in the way they are now, then, in seven days time, collapse them like the other 11 months of the year already are. This article has a link to Deaths in 2010 and vice versa, so there is no real difficulty. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that the date in the location should determine the date of death. In any case, what's the purpose of a seven day window? Wouldn't 24 hours be enough to cover any discrepancies? Oh, and Mr. Bullamore...not that it really matters, but since it's not 2010 anywhere in America, and the editor whose diffs have been provided is in London...could you perhaps rethink the out of place Americans being the arbiters of everything commentary? --Onorem♠Dil 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days has been agreed as the length of time after a month's end as being when its entries are taken down from display in a Deaths in... article and put in a link to be clicked on. I guess that is because deaths are quite often not revealed to the media and public until a few days after occurrence. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph this was discussed to death and voted on once already. Are we going to have to go over this again everytime a new reader gets a hair up his cloaca? Williamb (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]