Contents

Talk:Deaths in 2014

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2014 redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

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 articles 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 articles Years Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014, when it received 20,967,890 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 53 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 29, 2013 to January 4, 2014 January 5 to 11, 2014 January 12 to 18, 2014 January 19 to 25, 2014 January 26 to February 1, 2014 February 2 to 8, 2014 February 9 to 15, 2014 February 16 to 22, 2014 February 23 to March 1, 2014 March 2 to 8, 2014 March 9 to 15, 2014 March 16 to 22, 2014 March 23 to 29, 2014 March 30 to April 5, 2014 April 6 to 12, 2014 April 13 to 19, 2014 April 20 to 26, 2014 April 27 to May 3, 2014 May 4 to 10, 2014 May 11 to 17, 2014 May 18 to 24, 2014 May 25 to 31, 2014 June 1 to 7, 2014 June 8 to 14, 2014 June 15 to 21, 2014 June 22 to 28, 2014 June 29 to July 5, 2014 July 6 to 12, 2014 July 13 to 19, 2014 July 20 to 26, 2014 July 27 to August 2, 2014 August 3 to 9, 2014 August 10 to 16, 2014 August 17 to 23, 2014 August 24 to 30, 2014 August 31 to September 6, 2014 September 7 to 13, 2014 September 14 to 20, 2014 September 21 to 27, 2014 September 28 to October 4, 2014 October 5 to 11, 2014 October 12 to 18, 2014 October 19 to 25, 2014 October 26 to November 1, 2014 November 2 to 8, 2014 November 9 to 15, 2014 November 16 to 22, 2014 November 23 to 29, 2014 November 30 to December 6, 2014 December 7 to 13, 2014 December 14 to 20, 2014 December 21 to 27, 2014 December 28, 2014 to January 3, 2015

Would anyone be against moving away from sticking the (death announced in this date) or (body discovered on this date) tags and moving on with notes we add to the end of each entry? Rusted AutoParts 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I mean by notes:

EXAMPLE: *Emma Stone, 26, American actress (Easy A, The Amazing Spider-Man.<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref>¹

Notes[edit]

1. ^ Death announced on this date.

- Rusted AutoParts 23:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. Just makes someone click to read the same thing, then go back up. If they don't know why there's a note, they might not click it and assume whoever died whenever, as normal. What's the benefit? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Against. Although there won't be many additional "notes" for such entries, this would stretch the page even further and cause even longer load times, which is why we adopted the simpler referencing format. As InedibleHulk states, this also involves further navigation. — Wyliepedia 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose – There is no real benefit that I can see. Also, as pointed out above, a reader would have no inclination to scroll down the page to see if there are, indeed, any notes. Notes such as "date body found" or "date death announced" are vital to a page like this. Particularly so, since the page is set up according to the date a person died. Without a note (or with the note hidden and buried in some footnote way at the bottom of the page), that vital information is lost. And, as stated above, the reader will always simply presume that the person died on that date. Again, no benefit; great detriment. I strongly object to the proposal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose – Unnecessary device, tinkering for its own sake? Plus, usually "(death announced on this date)" tags are purely temporary inline messages, there for that purpose only, for a very limited time if we are lucky, and should remain inline. Let's also keep substance over effect please, to match the solemn subject matter within these pages. Thanks for listening. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the belief that "natural causes" could be listed as cause of death, if that's the words the article used. Am I wrong? I think it's better with a diffuse cause than no cause at all, anyway. Nukualofa (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be against listing it as a COD, since, if none is listed nor reported, that is the presumed cause. I've become flexible with listing it, if in the source, so visitors won't question the COD. Still, "anything non-external" and "heart attack" are also considered "natural causes". — Wyliepedia 07:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. To me it basically says they were not murdered, or anything "unnatural" of the sort. I think it's fine for the articles, but it's not really a death cause, rather a blanket term. Connormah (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up to contributing editors that the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not usually apply at the end of December.

The reason is that Recent Deaths on the front page of Wikipedia is pointed to Deaths in 2015 from January 1. This means that deaths from that date need to be reported on Deaths in 2015, rather than staying on Deaths in 2014 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway).WWGB (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added an editor note to not remove this page until 1 Jan 2015 00:00 UTC. — Wyliepedia 10:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]