Talk:Deaths in July 2022

Super Bowl identifier for Jim Lynch

Point blank, for 51 years Super Bowls have been identified by Roman Numeral. While when Super Bowl IV was played it was called "1970 AFL-NFL Championship game", these games played before they were called the Super Bowl have been retroactively named Super Bowl with a Roman numeral (with 50 being the only exception). The pages themselves are identified by Roman Numerals, players that have won these games have them identified by Roman Numeral, articles about the games even today (except for the handful of game recaps you can find that were written in 1970) identify them by Roman numeral and they are rarely identified by the year the game was played so I legitimately don't understand why this is even a problem using the proper identifier. For other sport championships like World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup, or even AFL and NFL Championships before the first Super Bowl using the year makes sense because that's the official title of the championship game, but that's not the case with a Super Bowl.--Rockchalk717 19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite simply, in a list like this it is more useful to identify by year than expect readers to either a) know the numbering off by heart, or b) undertake unnecessary work in researching which year Super Bowl XIV, for example, was played. This is a simple list (or supposed to be), and really doesn't need to be treated like an American football article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Anybody that would actually care wouldn't need to "research" it or would already be aware Super Bowls are referred to by a number. It's being calling a simple list but I don't understand how accurately identifying the Super Bowl makes it less simple. If someone wants to know what year the game was played it's just a click away. It's not like when I was insisting on including College Football Hall of Fame on his entry, this is about nothing more than accuracy and identifying it as "1970" isn't accurate.--Rockchalk717 21:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Our primary purpose is to inform readers while not misleading or puzzling them. In this regard, use of a calendar year is universally understood, whereas use of Roman Numerals will only be understood by Super Bowl fans. I note that the calendar year variant is used quite commonly in the media. See, for example:

• Super Bowl 2022 (New York Times)
• The Best and Worst Moments of the 2022 Super Bowl (New Yorker)
• Super Bowl 2022: Rams vs. Bengals (NPR)
• Super Bowl 2022: 'ANOTHER 1,' (ESPN)

This situation is analogous to the Olympic Games, where we always use the calendar year (2020 Summer Olympics) rather than the "technically correct" Games of the XXXII Olympiad. It has been the consensus here that Super Bowls have been labelled in calendar years. See, for example, Deaths in March 2016#5 and Deaths in May 2019#26. There is no reason to change that tradition. WWGB (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB: That's not a good analogy whatsoever. The Super Bowl is officially and more commonly known by the Roman Numerals, while the Olympics are Officially the Roman Numeral but more commonly known by the year. Additionally, two of the articles you provided are from Australia and the other two are from outside the sports world and represent the minority. Within the US, where it's the most watched television program year after year and a Super Bowl is the most watched program of all-time, it's known by the Roman Numeral in the overwhelming majority of articles, including, for example, the official website for the upcoming Super Bowl the official ticket seller, the Phoenix Tourism website, and finally the official announcement from the NFL. And regarding "tradition" I think most experienced editors are well aware that just because it exists in other articles, doesn't make it right. Not to mention, consensuses change all the time. That's why we have these discussions. It's not that confusing and I'll use an argument similar to one that was given to me from this entry, if someone really wants to know when it was played, they can click on the link and check the date. Providing accurate information is not misleading. It's more misleading providing inaccurate information. Unsigned 06:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have updated my articles to US websites. The "2022" usage remains. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus it is then. Which will take more than the contributions of three editors to establish. So let's hear from others if you please. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As a suggestion, why not have the roman numerals immediately followed in brackets by the year (or vice versa), which would take little extra space, for those who either don't know their roman numerals or their Super Bowls, in the interests of clarity. Editrite! (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this even matter? Did Super Bowl IV not take place in 1970 or something? It did, so that's not inaccurate or misleading. Rusted AutoParts 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB and Rusted AutoParts: My point remains, it's still more commonly known by the number and a handful of articles doesn't change that. I never said misleading I said inaccurate but it is a little misleading. Saying "Super Bowl Champion" then the year to identify what Super Bowl was won is 100% inaccurate because the game is officially Super Bowl IV not 1970 Super Bowl or Super Bowl 1970. When the game was played isn't all that relevant either, especially because it's to name the champion for the 1969 season despite being played in January 1970. I'm ok with with what Editrite! suggested as a middle ground though and it won't take up much extra space. With him specifically maybe say "Super Bowl IV Champion (1970)". It's literally just two extra characters vs just saying the year.--Rockchalk717 18:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As a happy medium, I would be more inclined to follow what the {{Super Bowl}} navbox uses, as Editrite suggests, and just link the Super Bowl played with the year included in the link. So, for example Lynch's entry would be "...Super Bowl champion (IV 1970)". Wyliepedia @ 11:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just returning to add my "yes" to the "Super Bowl number + (year)" idea. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

David Ireland

The source (dated 29 July) just says he has died. It doesn't say he died on 26 July. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. And there are NO other reliable sources as yet to back up July 26th death date - just a Google search header claim that it was on that date. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

So someone moved it back to 26 July and it had to be restored to 29 July - again - with no further new sources to back up the earlier date. What's that all about? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This is why I’m constantly being reverted? His agent Margaret Connelly, who is referenced in the SMH article, has stated he died the 26th. I’ve included this in both my edit summaries. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter? Here? Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've used it in my edit summaries as supportive backing for entries missing details (COD, DOD, age) so long as if it's verified or coming from family or someone close to the individual, such as an agent, for some time. Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It's Twitter. Why would we refuse to use Twitter as primary sources in our article yet rely on it for secondary source information? Shouldn't be happening and belies consensus as it stands. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Using it to source the death itself is not good, but at no point have I seen an issue with using it for the reasons I stated above, nor any pushback from anyone here when I cite it via edit summary just to add any missing details. If the specifics are being put out there, I don’t see the quibble over using it for the edit summary. Especially when, again, it’s his agent stating these details. Rusted AutoParts 04:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time in my memory that you have admitted making edits based on Twitter (or other social media), so of course you haven't been challenged before. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER provides that Twitter "may be used as sources of information about themselves". Since Ireland did not publish his own DOD, Twitter is not relevant here. WWGB (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

We once again fail readers based off goofy semantics then… Rusted AutoParts 05:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Goofy semantics"? WP:TWITTER is a part of Wikipedia policy! WWGB (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And said “Wikipedia policy!” is insanely restrictive. I just know I’m of the opine when someone associated with the deceased states specifics, regardless where it’s posted to, it should be given a sliver of leeway to be used, but oh well. May we continue to live in fear of the changing times and refuse social media as valid places of information, despite the media itself actually using it themselves. Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think all editors now need to stick to Wikipedia policy and in particular what we currently have agreed as a consensus. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully didn’t indicate I was looking to be defiant and move him again. I think the caveats for WP:TWITTER are stupid to be quite frank, but policy is policy. Rusted AutoParts 18:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, this new source doesn't pinpoint his exact date of death either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• We now have a death notice where 26 July is confirmed as the death date. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Scratch that. Wrong David Ireland. My bad. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

DOD confirmed in family death notice as 26 July.[1]. WWGB (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)