Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in December 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]

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]

I have edited ALS to remove an implication that "Motor Neurone Disease" is just as much an Americanism as "Lou Gehrig's Disease"; this could have been done with a serial comma but I avoided that lest it be deleted. I note that the Maine legislature's response to the Oakhurst Dairy case where a missing serial comma (as prescribed by their state drafting standards) was found by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to entitle truck drivers to overtime pay was to substitute semicolons with line feeds for every comma in the list of exempt jobs (besides inserting an additional one before the "or").108.41.55.190 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving policy for this talk page

[edit]

As 2024 winds down I looked at the 1 extant archive of "Deaths in 2024" and did not find much...I was wondering what qualifies a topic to be archived. A great deal of material has been simply deleted as its resolution is seen as entitling it to be forgotten (on other talk pages sometimes everything there is is archived). Most recently there was the edit request by someone saying she was the decedent's wife (not sure there was a way of verifying this) citing bothersome errors in a listing (which were eventually conceded as incorrect), bestirring numerous invocations of Wikipedia policies that (no matter how long or zealously they are defended) can never become less ridiculous than a court of law refusing to admit anything other than hearsay as evidence. So what issues, when called into question here, are considered to have the discussions worthy of preservation for posterity? 108.41.55.190 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting resolved topics is a standard procedure where there is no possible perceived controversy still outstanding - the post would only be kept if it represented a change to a guideline or actual consensus which would affect the way that this project is edited in future i.e. practices previously agreed upon by majority or unanimous decision have been altered by the post in question after a lengthy discussion. Archiving just for the sake of archiving is pointless.
If you have spotted something in talk page edit histories which should have been kept and archived, you may be able to restore the conversation and add it to the archive. If your status as an IP editor precludes this, either bring specific historical deletions up individually on the current leading Deaths talk page (such as this currently is), or even better register as an editor and make the correction after becoming auto-confirmed. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the specific case you did mention (a posting by Steve Lewinson's widow in IP disguise), it became obvious by the end of the discussion that she WAS his wife, as the changes she claimed were needed were indeed updated on the Simply Red verified Facebook account announcement of his passing. She delivered what she promised in proving her identity. Having done this, and having convinced us to make the changes in the Deaths entry, it was completely resolved and there was no further point in keeping the post. (As it stands, his entry will expire after one month anyway, as his wikilink is a redirect to the Simply Red article Members section, and would be removed if an article about him is not created.) By the way, equating Wikipedia guidelines, manuals and essays with a court of law makes no sense. Ref (chew)(do) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order here is that most page policy issues remain for the suggested 40-day grace period before they are shunted off to the annual archival pages (I usually manually do it at 30 days). Those are set at a fairly high page size, which helps to refer back to previous policy discussions. As for individual entry/page-change requests being "archived" (removed), those are usually done within 24 hours of the issues being resolved (usually those marked  Done here). I myself removed Lewinson's edit request here because the OP's original issues (age and date of death) were resolved, to which the OP (regardless of their relation to Lewinson) seemed happy with the changes. The changes to the articles and replies here were verified by me at his page and the various sources provided. Should anyone object to talk page requests being removed so quickly, they can create another post request asking for longer shelf-life, but that might add to page bloat here, especially with lengthy discussions. For me, it's more of a housekeeping thing than anything. Wyliepedia @ 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changeover to Deaths in 2025

[edit]

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 Recent Deaths on the main page of Wikipedia will point to Deaths in 2025 from 1 January. Accordingly, deaths from that date onward need to be reported on Deaths in 2025, rather than staying on Deaths in 2024 for the first seven days, obviously. Wyliepedia @ 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as an ancillary to the sound advice above, can someone here who 'knows' a friendly admin try to ensure that the new page is page protected immediately from 1 January - otherwise, as has happened before, various ne'er do wells and IPs will run amok entering false death notices. Thank you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without naming names, I think there are about three admins who are "on this" every year changeover now, so rest assured and have a good New Year celebration. Ref (chew)(do) 17:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks and the same best wishes to you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duly protected by admins in super-short time. And December 2024 has been given protection until 1 February 2025. Ref (chew)(do) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I propose that a "less-than-sign-exclamation-point-dash-dash" comment be added to the right position in the new article telling all editors to leave the "short description" at "none" so that 2025 is not plagued with the revert wars 2024 has had? 108.41.55.190 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50 MILLION VIEWS!

[edit]

We did it, y'all! Wyliepedia @ 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

[edit]

The age at death for WarCloud is incorrect. "Warcloud, 53, American rapper" should instead be "Warcloud, 45, American rapper" The referenced page says he was born Sept 20, 1979 - making him 45 years old on the day he passed. [2]

Other references: [3] [4] Edu8rdo (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

[edit]

Joshua Nassaru Ward, Drummer, Keyboardist, Vocalist, and Composer for the Death Metal band Voraath and Xael, died 12/31/24 (Struct by a drunk driver) Sources: [5], [6] 2600:6C5E:3800:C8C:A4EF:A6A3:7951:3B25 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Neither the musician nor any of his band are notable. Sorry. Wyliepedia @ 00:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Whoever maintains it, the Archives link at the top of the page should point directly to a page called Talk:Deaths in 2024/Archive 1, not act as a redirect to Talk:Deaths in December 2024/Archive 1, as Talk:Deaths in December 2024 no longer exists. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted this fix myself - if it's wrong, sort it out. Ref (chew)(do) 08:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_December_2024&oldid=1267257642"