Info removed apparently without a cause[edit]

What's happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_2024&diff=1201124358&oldid=1201124232&variant=en

3 deaths removed. --Agnellino (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30 days is the standard period before redlinks get removed. Rusted AutoParts 08:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts OK, thx. Imho may be better write a note for each edit. --Agnellino (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need - the one month removal of redlinks and redirects is a long-standing standard task which needs no explanation to editors who contribute regularly here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 09:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Refsworldlee Not everyone is a regular contributor!! The removals may appear as vandalism! This is just my thoughts. --Agnellino (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good thoughts - however, the regulars here are satisfied that things are being done properly and within the rules of Wikipedia, and admins are also content with the redlinks removal. Thanks for your concern though. Ref (chew)(do) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It only takes a few seconds to write an edit message ("no article after one month"), and it is good manners. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! Edit summary note! Of course - only lazy editors don't leave one. I see what you both mean now. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funeral home obituaries - self published?[edit]

So I've seen pushback over edits I made to Jesse Jane. The obituary of her boyfriend, who died with her, was published recently, with a DOD asserted as the 24th. I added it in, but it was refused with the reasoning being funeral home obituaries fell under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Giving we utilize these kind of sources all the time, I'm looking to see if this is accurate. I've personally never seen pushback over this before, and combing through SELFPUB I just don't see why they'd fall under it. Rusted AutoParts 07:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A better forum for this would probably be WP:BLP/N. I'm not aware of a common practice of citing funeral homes for death details, but for truly notable individuals there's usually a newspaper obituary at least. Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published websites should never be used for third-party claims about living (or recently deceased) people. As I've already explained at your user talk page, Business, charitable, and personal websites are examples of self-published sources per WP:USESPS. In any case, the boyfriend's obituary doesn't even mention Jesse Jane. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consequently, as Legacy.com relies on funeral homes for some of its content, I assume not all of its obituaries will be allowable, if they are based on funeral home information? This job doesn't get any easier. Ref (chew)(do) 09:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think a funeral home obituary counts as a sps. Funeral homes don't usually write obituaries. They just publish them. Sure they are a business, but the implication there is not to use a business' page for information written by the business about itself. (As for the above comment, I believe legacy.com was already discouraged in the past because anyone can post to it, but I don't see it at RSPS so don't take my word for it.) Nohomersryan (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nohomersryan - I must have missed that discussion, I suppose because we see Legacy obits being so often included without argument. Another visit to that issue required at some point perhaps? Ref (chew)(do) 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that this page deals exclusively with deaths, and obituaries from funeral homes have been a valued asset here that is now being called into question, I felt it best to broach the topic here to see where the usual editors here stood on the matter. Rusted AutoParts 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's a matter of personal opinion - I am all for keeping reputable funeral home obituaries purely for factual things like birth and death dates, though I do understand the potential issues which may arise when family give specific information about anything else to those homes. Legacy I tend to respect because it's not a wiki platform, it clearly states its sources on the majority of occasions, and it also serves as a workaround when publications like the NY Times bar non-payers from viewing its content. Just my window on those two things. Ref (chew)(do) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what counts as a reputable funeral home when it comes to accurate information about the deceased. Especially considering that their business is comforting bereaved families, not providing a historical record for the public. If it's true, as another user said, that funeral homes don't usually write obituaries, then the information is only as reliable as the source they got it from. In which case we should probably just cite that source if it's a reputable media organization. If it's just a statement from the family, then it's definitely WP:SPS and one with a conflict of interest to boot. As for editors' jobs not getting any easier, Category:2024 deaths already exists based on verified information in individual articles. We don't need a list of Deaths in year X at all AFAIK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding your last point, a category page can't duplicate a list article (see WP:NOTDUP), if that's what you're trying to say. Renewal6 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is the reversion/revision off this page being discussed here? Everyone knows this page must bend "the rules" in order to be informative and relevant. If we followed Wikipedia's "rules" of order, this would be a very different page. All we should worry about are perennial/deprecated/blacklisted sources, social media gossip, and whether someone's dog is relevant. Wyliepedia @ 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just seeking clarity about the funeral home citations part. If that was something that applied to SPS, I just thought it might have an impact on what could be used as a cite here. Rusted AutoParts 22:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deaths needing proper citation[edit]

I removed Ihde's death from his page until it can be reliably sourced and not with this. (Edit: I opened communication here.) Wyliepedia @ 02:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ihde was restored with a decent source recently. Ref (chew)(do) 00:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twomad[edit]

@WWGB As I said before, TMZ is not considered to be a reliable source (see WP:TMZ). Until we have received reliable reports, we should not report Sedik as dead. – Howard🌽33 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, WP:TMZ states "no consensus" on the subject of reliability. Comments there tend towards "low-quality source". How is that "not considered to be a reliable source"? Ref (chew)(do) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the context of potentially living persons, we must abstain from tabloid journalism. – Howard🌽33 10:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't actually answer my exact question. Ref (chew)(do) 15:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TMZ is tabloid journalism. Tabloid journalism is not allowed as a source in biographies of living persons. Before we confirm a person as dead, we assume they are alive. This means that we need to cite a source which is reliable and uncontentious to prove that they are dead. Therefore, as TMZ is tabloid journalism and tabloid journalism is not a reliable source in the context of living persons, we deprecate its use as a source here. – Howard🌽33 15:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tabloid journalism is not discounted as a reliable source per se - that's a sweeping verdict which doesn't explain why one such as the Daily Mirror in the UK (WP:DAILYMIRROR) also gets marked "no consensus". No consensus, by definition, is not an indicator of general unreliability, otherwise the section would be marked as such and not "no consensus". It's never wise to assume that all other editors, or a majority, also think X is an unreliable source when a consensus clearly hasn't been reached. Sorry to keep on about this, but it bugs me when an unnatural prejudice appears without due explanation as to why the view towards the subject appears skewed. Ref (chew)(do) 20:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source replaced with NYDN. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article cites the TMZ report as their source. We can't be certain of his death until we receive independent verification. – Howard🌽33 11:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A user named SugarRat has made an edit with a confirmation of Sedik's death from the LA county medical examiner. [2] I have added this link as a citation to replace the TMZ report, as it is far more reliable. Howard🌽33 12:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet, Etterlene DeBarge's death source on the 16th is TMZ. Wyliepedia @ 18:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The upshot is, TMZ is NOT deprecated, and that's all that matters. Ref (chew)(do) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLP states that one should use only reliable sources for living people. Any poorly sourced claims that are likely to be challenged should be removed. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. Until we have reliable evidence that a person is dead, they are assumed to be alive, so WP:BLP applies (see WP:BDP). The source for DeBarge's death should be replaced if we only have TMZ as a source in her entry. – Howard🌽33 10:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only repeat my comment on lack of deprecation. Ref (chew)(do) 15:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn’t a biography article though. It’s a list page. I’m not hot on TMZ either but they are workable enough to utilize for proof of passing until I can find a different source to swap in. Rusted AutoParts 16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability.
If it's contentiously sourced, it must be immediately removed. – Howard🌽33 17:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, really and honestly, it only seems to be yourself who desperately considers TMZ to be that "contentious". I can't find much in the way of prohibitive comment against it anywhere, except as discussed for the purposes of WP:TMZ itself. I will be the first to desist from using TMZ (or the Daily Mirror, for that matter) if it gets marked "generally unreliable" or "deprecated". Until then, they're available for me personally to safely include, without sanction. Ref (chew)(do) 20:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Periods galore![edit]

Why do we have periods at the ands ends of so many (all?) entries. That is certainly not normal in any list. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you mean "the end" of entries. It's a collection of bullet-pointed sentence fragments, which allows for the use of periods (full stops) according to the Manual of Style. Instead of listing single entity words, each sentence takes the form of a prose structure within itself. It's been the subject of several consensus challenges over the years, so you are welcome to bring this up yet again on the talk page. Ref (chew)(do) 19:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did bring it up on the talk page (here) - and thank you for helping me correct my typo. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: typo - just making sure of your context for all who read this section. Yes, you've broached the subject, but have only asked a question in this section. You would need to assert that you think this is a wrong call to get any debate going, as the past consensus has remained WITH the period/stops, and probably won't change following our fairly neutral comments here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion it looks unusual, very odd, that all the entries on this particular list end with periods, and I wonder what motivation has been given in previous discussions for such an oddity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The key to the decision comes exactly from what I mentioned above regarding bullet-pointed sentence fragments. They're treated as lines of prose and therefore require full stops/periods. Again, if you think this is wrong, state that you wish for a review of the consensus. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More specific info, please! According to whom or what policy or WP guideline or academic source are they "treated as lines of prose"? I've been a pretty-well-updated English teacher & author since 1969 and I never heard of such a thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS You can stop telling me what to do. If you don't wish to answer my questions, or cannot, that's OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you are not happy with my tone or approach, I think I'll leave it to others to go into the specifics. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coroner Date of Death vs. Published Date of Death[edit]

Just a general question: When listing someone's death, do we go by when the coroner announced the date of death or when it's posted online? Wikivisitor2022 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would assume that a reliable source would report the coroner's verdict, though these decisions tend to take a long time coming. If a reliable source quotes a family member or other verifiable person in stating a cause of death, that can be used until the coroner's verdict comes in. Sadly, many news outlets do not follow up on deaths they report, so there may not be an obvious news report of a coroner verdict at all in some cases. Ref (chew)(do) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024[edit]

Can these notable people please be added to the page?

23 February

24 February

25 February

Thanks, 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: People are not considered "noteworthy" unless they have an existing article. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FlightTime - Incorrect - entries in the Deaths in 2024 article can be redlinks for one month before either having an article written about them or being removed. Please also note the inclusion of the Inter Language Links above, which is an indicator of notability in the foreign Wikipedias and a guide to possible creation of English articles. Ref (chew)(do) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Ref (chew)(do) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, I'll stay away from edit requests here. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need for that - as long as you allow for the one month grace period, your help would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories