Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2024

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

Deaths needing proper citation

[edit]

Via thorough browsing of the 2024 deaths category, I’ve found the following are marked as deceased and needing of proper citation. Rusted AutoParts 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetizing Sir Richard

[edit]

Is the 13th of the Pole Baronets of Shute House (1628) corrrectly alphabetized at Carew or at Pole?--71.105.190.91 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who listed him. I believe C for Carew is correct. At some point during the baronetcy succession, a relative with the different surname of Pole-Carew inherited. The family later appeared to have changed it to Carew Pole within a generation. Originally the surname was only Pole, but that hasn't been the case for several generations now. Thanks--Jkaharper (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the defaultsort contained in the source coding of his article points to C for Carew Pole. Ref (chew)(do) 00:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burke's Peerage 106th edition (1999) has him at Pole (page 2264) and says his father changed surname from Pole-Carew to Carew Pole by deed poll in May 1926...Debrett's 1995 (page B700) has him at Pole as well...but various editions of Who's Who have him and his father at Carew Pole.71.105.190.91 (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a better Deaths in 2024 article?

[edit]

We can probably make this article similar to Deaths in 1980, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85. But I'm not sure if you guys think the same as me, so leave your consensus in here. SrGarga (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really the other way round, those pages should be updated to match the formatting implemented on these deaths pages from 1989 to now. Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with editor Rusted AutoParts - there's also a case of employing "IIABDFI" (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Ref (chew)(do) 22:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that a large majority of those entries (e.g. Deaths in 1980, I'm looking at) are unsourced deaths and shouldn't exist - surely you can't be advocating a lack of reliable verification too? Ref (chew)(do) 22:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't we at least add some images of the deceased, like we use to do in the yearly articles? SrGarga (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we could do, but there is the weighty matter of size to consider. The whole entry for Deaths in 1980, effectively that whole year, currently consists of 71,500 bytes (and that includes the images you are keen to see). Whereas Deaths in 2024 (which presently counts less than one third of the potential December entries alone) has 56,600 bytes ! How massive does anyone's computer / phone capability need to be to easily and quickly load up all that ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example we have November 2010, which only has one picture, I know that's not too much, but that's just an example. SrGarga (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image. Rusted AutoParts 18:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Adding images just adds page bloat and slow load times. It also gives editors something lame to argue about, such as who's image should appear where.-- Ponyobons mots 23:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Paul McCartney, LET IT BE. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comma Wars

[edit]

I have noted that @Jkaharper seems to be on a one-man campaign to delete "Oxford commas" (which I would be minded to insert wherever I found them missing if it were my call) while @Refsworldlee has been inserting them between "unrelated occupations" (the most recent Harper deletion has been between the clearly unrelated occupations of "writer" and "underwater archeologist"). I was under the impression that what passed for a consensus on this article was to leave things alone where the issue of such a comma arose (let whatever the first poster did stand) rather than have insertionists and deletionists at war with each other. Was I incorrect? 71.105.190.91 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to aim for consistency. The vast majority of entries on the Deaths in 2024 page don't use Oxford commas – hence why I remove them. However, when I see them on individual biographies I usually just leave them alone. --Jkaharper (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To have them or not have them is up to individual editors. I would not expect notabilities as [a first initial talent], a writer, and an underwater archaeologist to neglect the defining pause between the second and third notabilities, but if others feel this is not important I'll gladly cease bothering, as I have a load more things to do, and not just during Wikipedia editing. Consensus does not mean leave things alone at all, but agreement on this issue can be built right here if editors so wish - it needn't be a mystery factor. P.S. Someone once actually described them as "American commas", so I don't know where the Oxford reference originates from - the Dictionary? Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name for it with which I am familiar is actually "serial comma"....and I personally regard its use as mandatory and its absence as infuriating...but I am aware that others differ.71.105.190.91 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite example is: "To my parents, Mother Teresa and the pope" (at the serial comma link). Our total page size at the months' end is usually around 220K. We use simple cites with our references to help reduce that footprint. I personally think that if removing the final serial comma can reduce the page size further (and thereby load times), then why not remove them? Otherwise, this former journalist supports usage for clarity. Wyliepedia @ 02:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think including one character to add to the "page size" and "load times" is acceptable if it maintains the use of what is seen by some (if not many) as an essential encyclopedic punctuation point. There are other perhaps more contentious additions to subject description in entries which might be removed first, amounting to many pointlessly included characters. Wikilinks are a case in point - the piping code to create the Hall of Fame links can sometimes be excessively long, but hidden nicely within the already bloated code. Focusing on one tiny punctuation mark per entry in that respect is not the best argument, I feel. Ref (chew)(do) 08:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The serial comma article reveals why I recall it being described as the American comma (quote) "it is usually excluded in British English, while in American English it is common and often considered mandatory outside journalism". Ref (chew)(do) 08:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add this link to help editors make a decision on this. According to the Manual, what should be agreed on is whether this article (and its linked archived months/years) should use them or not use them, on a consistent basis across the project. Ref (chew)(do) 14:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, that for consistency of editing here is better not to use this kind of comma, because exept an American English, this practice is less common. And from my experience to edit this kind of files (i.e. "Deaths in..."), majority of contributors aren't using it, iven if time-to-time somebody appiar with this practice--Noel baran (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noel baran: What? Wyliepedia @ 19:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand what you meant, but I expressed my opinion that this type of comma should not be used. Noel baran (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for your decision doesn't seem to be properly understood by us though. Consistency of editing can be either using it or not using it - consistency is neither one thing or the other while it's up for discussion. I have already detected a broad mixture of using and not using serial commas throughout all the archived pages of the Deaths project, so no "majority" of editors either using it or not using it actually exists right now. If you are saying you just prefer that it not be used, that is fine on its own as a straight opinion without a reason. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Noel was stating that the majority of entries and the majority of editors contributing to the Deaths in 2024 page do not use it – which is true. A quick glance at the page and a tally will tell you that. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These two adjacent entries currently sit on 1 December:

  • Jacques Barsamian, 81, French singer, writer, and journalist.[313]
  • Alioune Badara Bèye, 79, Senegalese novelist, playwright and publisher.[314]

The use of the serial comma for Barsamian makes no difference to the understanding of his roles. We seem to use it for pedantry rather than clarity. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one won't be adding (or subtracting) any more serial commas until this is resolved. Probably never again. Ref (chew)(do) 17:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remain a zealous insertionist...if the insertionists AND deletionists both stand down,I don't regret raising the issue...if the insertionists throw in the towel and let the deletionists run wild I DO regret it.71.105.190.91 (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2024&oldid=1264915436"