Talk:Deaths in 2014

(death announced on this date) rephrasal?

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)

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

1. ^ Death announced on this date.

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Natural causes

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)

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)

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)

Change over to Deaths in 2015

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)

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