Template talk:Recent death/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestion: Change in wording

I think "died" should be changed to "passed away" or "is recently deceased", it seems a little more respectable and less cold. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Recent death

Template:Recent death has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Zimbabweed 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

This seems like a memorial template not suitable for an encyclopedia. --Zimbabweed 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's wrong have such template on wikipedia. Suggesting to use [Template:Current-related] instead. Kirils 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Among other things, it's hideously morbid. --FuriousFreddy 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorting

Shouldn't this use the page's default sort rather than {{PAGENAME}} when no sort key is given in an argument? --Random832(tc) 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

template should stay

This is more specific than current event template. Crd721 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Template quoted

This template, specifically its application to the Anna Nicole Smith article, was quoted on page 4 of MX (Sydney edition) on February 9, 2007. -- saberwyn 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"Please be aware that while vandalism is usually fixed quickly, it is particularly likely in these articles."

Is this supposed to mean that vandalism is particularly likely, or that it is particularly likely that vandalism will be fixed quickly? -- Smjg 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to CURRENTYEAR

The link a recently deceased person links to the page Deaths in {CURRENTYEAR}. If, in January 2008, I click on this notice on an article about a person that died in December 2007, I will be directed to Deaths in 2008. Isn't that odd? Shouldn't the year be introduced in a parameter/argument? Johan Lont 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently deceased wording

I wonder if the template could be softened a tad? Maybe: "This article is about a person who has recently passed away."? I don't think that's formal enough either, but the current wording is just incredibly...dehumanizing? That might be too harsh, but it's close. Maybe even "has recently died" is an improvement? (Grief and mourning, anyone?  :|) user:j 05:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't soften anything, but only present facts. See WP:WTA, particularly the Sadly, tragically, and other words that editorialize death part. - Andrei 10:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Better word choices don't change the "facts." From WP:AVOID: "'Died' is neither crude nor vulgar; more importantly, it does not make a value judgment about any future state." "Died" is an infinite improvement over "deceased." Perhaps:

"This article is about a person who has recently died."

Thoughts? user:j 11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That was close to the original wording when I created this template. I started with "this article concerns a person who has recently died", then changed it to "this article is about...". Later, during the TFD discussion, someone decided "recently deceased person" was more "sensitive". So yeah, I don't think "recently deceased person" is terribly euphemistic. So either wording is fine with me. szyslak 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"This article concerns a person who recently died" or "who has recently died" is an improvement over the "recently deceased" wordage. If nobody objects, I may be semibold.  ;) user:j 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support the change of wording to "recently died". Anybody object? Dave101→talk  11:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn about vandalism?

One problem we obviously have a lot on articles about the recently deceased is that they're vandalism targets. Would noting "We apologize for increased vandalism this page may suffer" in the template also be appropriate, do you think? Phil Sandifer 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to BLP noticeboard

The template encourages people to report problems at the BLP noticeboard. Given that dead people are not "living persons", maybe the link should go to ANI instead? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely and have changed the link. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The recently dead are still covered by the BLP policy though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. Some editors think they should be, but there has never been consensus on that point. If you read over WP:BLP you'll see that there is no mention of the recently dead. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia jargon wording

{{editprotected}}

The last sentence should probably end "on this page", since "noticeboard" is an internal jargon.

 Done. DMacks (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It says "this page" instead of "on this page"; the grammar is simply wrong now. Waltham, The Duke of 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done SkierRMH (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

{{editprotected}}

Remove the entire WP:CREEP and make the template equal to Template:Current. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}}

 Not done Too controversial. List at WP:TFD to get a consensus for a change like this (I would support a merge/redirect, incidentally). Happy‑melon 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What is recent?

• Question 1: When is the passing away of someone sufficiently long ago, so that I can remove the 'recent' template?
  1. After three weeks?
  2. After half a year?
  3. After one year?
  4. After no new information has come to light about the circumstances for at least three weeks?
• Question 2: If the last option is chosen, who will reset the three-week counter to zero, each time new information comes to light?
• Question 3: I expect that in ten years (in the year 2017), I will find many articles about people who died after January 2007 with this notice about recently deceased person, because nobody had the idea to remove it. Can anybody tell me why my assumption is wrong? Johan Lont 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, usually when someone dies their article is edited profusely by many people. It's a fact: deaths cause interest. At Steve Irwin's article, the death template is now removed, while at Anna Nicole Smith it remains. I can assure you that these templates will for the most part be removed at an appropriate time, and that would probably be a period of 3 months or so, I assume. -- Sarcha 45 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You could ask the owner of SmackBot to date new copies of this template (as is done with, say, {{cleanup}}), and remove old ones after a set period. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is doing the first part. The rest is better done by hand. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34 29 April 2007 (GMT).

This is exactly the question I wanted to ask: What is "recent"? Actress Gusti Wolf died at 95, and no surprising or sensational revelations can be expected. Knowing this, I removed the template once but it was immediately readded. I'll try again. <KF> 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "recent" means however long the person's death is still in the news. Major figures like James Brown and former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford are often in the news for weeks after they've died. Anna Nicole Smith died back in February, and they're still talking about her here and there (as of May 22 UTC). So, the answer to the question "What is recent" is, however long they're still talking about it, and there's still new information coming in. That can take anywhere from a couple days to a month or so. szyslak 04:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. That's how we should handle the template. <KF> 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So how long would this tag have remained on Jon Benet Ramsey? Unschool 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been five months and no one has answered my question. I think my question about JBR points out the flaw in this reasoning (as well, for that matter, of 99% of our CE tag usage). Personally, I think the Recent Death Tag is almost certainly the stupidest tag to ever appear on Wikipedia, but that's just my point of view. Still, I had an admin threaten me with a block because I was removing these templates from articles sometimes more than a month after the death. So the question remains: What's the guideline people? Unschool (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rklawton's concern was that you were engaging in a mass removal of the tag, which is inherently disruptive in a pointy way, no matter what tag is involved. I don't say this because I want to portray you as a "disruptive editor"; I just felt your statement deserved to be addressed, lest everyone imagine an officious block threat from a power-thirsty admin.

The template was my idea. I'll grant that not everyone likes it. Indeed, it went to TFD just after I created it. But if it were so deeply flawed it would've been deleted months ago. Still, you're free to take it to TFD if it bothers you so much.

To answer your question about JBR, I imagine (a) there wouldn't even be an article on her until she died and (b) the tag would be merited for just over a month, when the initial flurry of new information and interest dies down. But why does that matter anyway? Are you asking for a specific deadline? Do your concerns apply to the {{current}} tag, too? I think questions like "how long should the tag stay" are situational in nature. The {{cleanup}} tag should be removed when the article's quality improves, the {{POV}} tag should go when the POV dispute has been settled, and this tag is no longer necessary once new information and interest has settled down. If that's too nebulous and unspecific for you ... well, all I can say is, consensus is like that sometimes. szyslak 10:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent is as long as the death is in the news and it's less than a year old. For practical purposes, I would say add an optional "keepuntil" parameter. If the parameter is missing, expire 90 days after the date of death or 90 days after the template was added to the article. The trick is getting any removal-bot to recognize the date of death or the date the template was added. For very famous people, 180 or even 360 days can be suggested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Icon

{{editprotected}}

As per the standardization of icon styles for Ambox template based messages, please change the icon to Image:Ambox currentevent.svg ViperSnake151 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Template

The Turkish version of this template is tr:Şablon:Yeni ölüm. I can't add.--Cfsenel (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could someone please add that interwikilink? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Conti|✉ 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Link of "request administrator intervention."

Should the IL "request administrator intervention" point to WP:AN/I or would WP:RFPP be more appropriate as that likely the action which will follow significant disruption? Goodnightmush^Talk 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Passed Away

Can we say 'passed away' instead of died, at least in the heading? For those of us who know people listed on here as "died", this is difficult to take don't you agree? --RiverRubicon (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this matter, and many Wikipedians feel that the use of euphemisms is unnecessary and not in the spirit of an encyclopedia. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Sadly, tragically, which advises against language that euphemizes death. szyslak 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I too find the use of euphemisms unnecessary, and often confusing for the younger members of our society. For example, well-meaning parents that refer to a person's death to their children such as "going to God," "sleeping forever" or "resting eternally," as well as "passing away" can cause more confusion and fear rather than lessening the blow that death can deal. Some children may become afraid of going to sleep, as well as never develop an understanding of death itself.

In the medical field, we are taught to use the words dead, die, death to keep misunderstandings to a minimum, to make it clear to the family/friends/etc. present that this person is no longer alive, that they are, in fact, dead. Furthermore, in the spirit of encylopedias, the use of "proper" or scientific terms seems more appropriate than what could be construed as gentler phrases.Kisher07 (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-TFD discussion

Since there was a rough consensus (at least in my eyes) that something about the template needs to be done, I propose the following:

1. Add a "date" parameter to the template.
2. Modify the documentation to instruct users to add the template as {{Recent death|date={{subst:date}}}}, or something similar.
3. Get a bot (User:SmackBot, maybe?) to add the date to the template when it's not been added by a user already.
4. Get a bot to remove the template after a week from articles.
5. Modify the documentation to suggest that the template was created for articles where rapid editing is actually expected. An article about a semi-notable person dying after a long illness won't really need the template.

Any comments? --Conti|✉ 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this would be an improvement on the current situation. The way the template is used doesn't seem to have changed at all since the tfd. It's still being added routinely to any and every article where the subject has recently ceased to be. Building an expiry date into the template would at least stop it lingering around too long. My only reservation would be that this shouldn't lead to a standard where the template always stays on the article for the full week. In most instances the message isn't needed at all.

I guess since no one has disagreed with your suggestions, Conti, that you have tacit consent to implement them. Flowerparty^☀ 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse Conti's proposal. Definately an improvement. I also agree with Flowerparty that, while seven days may be a default maximum, that it should also be clear that it can be removed earlier, if editing has settled down. Unschool 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was already thinking about just being bold and making the changes without any input (no one objected, after all, and there was a rough consensus to do something like this at the TFD), but figured that it might be better to wait for some more opinions. I'll go ahead and change the documentation for now, since that's the easiest thing to do. I'm gonna ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests about the the automatic removal, too. Not sure yet what the best way to implement this would be. --Conti|✉ 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd go further, I'd have 2 date parameters: date= and templatedate=, with the latter one auto-filled by a subst: template. So subst:recentdeath becomes dated-recent-death|templatedate=DATE_OF_EDIT. The removal bot can key in on the later of the two dates. Remember, the actual date of death is frequently a day or two before it's added. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the actual date of death in the template, tho? It's not used right now, after all, and Category:Recent deaths is not sorted by date, either. Currently the date-parameter is used solely for the "Current events as of Month Year" categories. --Conti|✉ 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}} Per the comments at WT:TC#Standardisation of template styling, I've made some tweaks to this template in the new sandbox for better consistency with other article message boxes. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Martin^msgj 15:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorting revisited

Why does this template not sort by DEFAULTSORT? It makes no sense for Category:Recent deaths to sort by any other criterion. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As I use Category:Recent deaths for patrolling such articles (as well as for its encyclopedic function), I wonder the same thing. I find mydelf adding name information to instances of this template on quite a few occasions. Can someone with the skills to do so add language to the template to use DEFAULTSORT while perhaps allowing an override if a name is supplied in the template call? I'd propose language, but I'm at a loss as to how to implement this. --SSBohio 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I think. Let me know if it doesn't work and I'll look into it again. It should now work by doing {{Recent death|date=month year}}, {{Recent death||date=month year}}, or just {{Recent death}}. --CapitalR (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Current event category

{{editprotected}} Currently, all articles that use this template are categorized at Category:Recent deaths and Category:Current events from MONTH YEAR. The latter seems overkill, considering that we use the current event categories only for the really big current events, and not for everything that can be considered "current". Just look at Category:Current events from September 2009, where pretty much all entries are articles about the recently deceased. Therefore, I suggest to remove the category from this template, or make it optional, at the very least (activated by "current=yes" or something). --Conti|✉ 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder at the purpose of these dated categories. As they are supposed to be current events, they should all be in the current month or two anyway. It's SmackBot that does the dating of these templates. It's best to enquire with the bot owner about the rationale for doing this first. Certainly, an {{editprotected}} request is premature. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it probably is. I'm not sure if SmackBot has anything to do with this, tho, as the bot just adds the date parameter to whichever template needs it, and doesn't have anything to do with the decision of adding dated categories in the first place. The "Current events" category has been on this template from the beginning, and I presume it got updated to the dated current events categories eventually without any discussion on whether it is needed in the first place. By now we have Category:Recent deaths, tho, so I don't think the other category is needed anymore. --Conti|✉ 15:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this template, which is temporary should use the category Category:Recent deaths, but think that {{Death}} should perform the month/year function more permanently. Also, I really do believe that it should perform an automatic {{editprotected}} request. "Most" pages get vandalised once their death is announced. (If only because "good" editors to to edit it, thus putting it into the recently edited list. I would like to implement this, but will wait around 30 days for other template editors to stop by... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• The category Category:Current events from MONTH YEAR is indeed used by bots to date and clear out aging no longer current events.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Optional link to a Wikinews obituary

I would really like to see this template have an additional, optional, parameter such as 'wikinews_obituary='. This would be to link to an appropriate obituary article over on Wikinews.

Obviously, my main reason for proposing this change is to promote/highlight Wikinews, however I think this would also offer some benefit to Wikipedia. There would be a link to a timely article focussed on the death, and in the form of an obituary. This would lead people likely to try and turn the Wikipedia article into an obit. elsewhere.

Of course, once the seven or less days for use of this template are up the Wikinews article would no longer be so prominently linked to. There are other templates, such as {{wikinews}} which can be used where appropriate in the article to link over to Wikinews.

Are there any major stumbling blocks to such an idea? --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done [1]. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but that fat red question mark shouldn't be there. I don't think there's any need for a link to the general concept of an obituary; just link to the actual obituary and leave it at that. Noisalt (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that people may be unfamiliar with the fact that they should not edit Wikinews articles that are more than a few days old. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't to explain the general concept of an obituary, I'd link to the Wikipedia article on obituaries for that. What is important is that there are some jarring differences moving from Wikipedia to Wikinews. Wikipedia articles can be developed forever; Wikinews articles must reflect what was known around publication time. I'd love any other suggestions on how to avoid people getting put off Wikinews by being reverted for making significant changes after publication. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like something that should be addressed on the Wikinews page, not on the Wikipedia page. —Noisalt (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, have you any suggestions how to present that? --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We're looking into a way of tagging Wikinews articles to make the red '?' unneeded. See here. This won't be instant because we need to coordinate getting one of the project's bots helping with this. --Brian McNeil /^talk 01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, bot or no bot, you can manually take care of the high-profile ones (Ted Kennedy) on your end so the poor souls' Wikipedia articles aren't cluttered. You should have the edit interface on Wikinews carry a {{time}} template that activates after a certain number of days and appears on the edit window as a warning. I'm surprised this issue hasn't been addressed before now. Noisalt (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, how would {{time}} help with this? It can't read the Wikinews article's date category, and I can't see anu way that can be integrated with FlaggedRevisions or detect that the article is protected. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now MediaWiki:Common.js includes {{BLP editintro}} on all Wikipedia edit pages that are sorted into Category:Living people. In the same vein you could have it include a template on all Wikinews pages that are older than a certain date. (I wasn't referring to the existing {{time}}, just make some new template called {{time message}} or {{time warning}} or whatever.) I'm not familiar with Wikinews' flagged revisions system, but Javascript is pretty versatile, so it must be possible. —Noisalt (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> Bawolff, one of Wikinews' javascript experts has made some tweaks. This is in testing as a gadget in preferences. More details can be found here. This is one template when you edit an article >2 days post-publish, and an alternative template for any article (except those in case 1) where you've gone Wikipedia->Wikinews article->edit the article. Didn't work for me in IE8 so not quite ready yet. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I've reverted this for now. I think this deserves a bit more discussion before it's implemented. This is a fully protected template and any addition to it is quite visible. Flowerparty^☀ 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The one item that has been disputed is the addition of the red question mark to link to a Wikinews landing page. I have twice asked for suggestions on other ways to integrate this into the template. Saying basically, "it's ugly" is not particularly constructive. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said it was ugly? I'm not opposed to the addition of the link on aesthetic grounds, I'd just like to see some consensus for the addition. The sole purpose of this template is supposed to be to warn readers that the content of the article may not be stable, and even that's not uncontroversial (see previous tfd's), so it's reasonable to expect some discussion before we start adding whistles to it. I don't see any good reason to add the link so far: "why not?" is not a reason in itself, you need to make the case for "why". Some questions you need to ask : 1) How is it in the reader's interest that this link be placed so prominently in the article? Does it have any informative value, or is this just an advertising opportunity? 2) Do we really want to use the occasion of someone's death as an opportunity to advertise a sister project? This strikes me as somewhat crass, so I expect some readers might be repelled by it too; 3) Why is this needed when we have {{Wikinews}}, which can be placed in context within the article alongside the relevant text. Flowerparty^☀ 11:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the change in the reader's interest?

• Wikipedia articles are not obituaries. There are a variety of templates to warn against making them such. A Wikinews article on someone's death is an obituary. As such, it presents details of the circumstances in more depth than Wikipedia might. If someone has been directed to a Wikipedia article from hearing news of someone's death, they may want the relevant biographical information, or the obituary. It thus seems beneficial to both projects.
• Of course the link is informative. This seems a somewhat specious point - both projects have key goals of providing information.
• Categorising this as an 'advertising opportunity' is not assuming good faith. Ideally, Wikimedia Foundation projects should cooperate and direct people to other projects where possible and appropriate.
• "crass" is a value judgement - I doubt it is anywhere in Wikipedia policy, and it strikes me as similar to the "passed away" versus "died" arguments I've come across.

Do we really want to use the occasion of someone's death as an opportunity to advertise a sister project?

• This, I believe, is the same as the "passed away" versus "died" issue. It isn't relevant. We're not directing people to a hagiography, and the information is most appropriate.

Why this instead of {{Wikinews}}?

• {{wikinews}} is for long-term use, at the most appropriate point in the article
• This change is for a template used briefly to highlight an extremely relevant article on a sister project when it is relevant

Does this address your points and challenge for a "why" this is an appropriate change? --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on your reasons. For me I can see the benefit from wikinews's point of view, sure, but I'm not convinced of the benefit here. I don't think wikipedia has an obligation to link to its sisters except where there is a clear benefit to the readers on wikipedia. {{wikinews}} seems quite adequate for that purpose. I'd like to see more input here from editors who aren't involved at wikinews before this is rolled out. Flowerparty^☀ 13:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brian (and I have no investment in Wikinews). This strikes me as a good idea. It takes the pressure off the Wikipedia article, as people always want to go overboard talking about the death while other editors try to maintain due weight. Temporarily pointing out a dedicated page about the subject's death on a medium that's more suited for it works in everyone's advantage. Noisalt (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I edit Wikinews (just to disclose a conflict of interest), and think this would be very useful to both projects. Many people come to Wikipedia expecting information on a current event. Because of the way Wikipedia works and structures its articles, they are unlikely to find this in the article. These people could be directed to Wikinews, where they can dump their speculative clutter (only to find that it does not appear in the article due to flagged revisions, unless it helps the article in some way). Therefore, neither article gets said clutter (or the one to which it is most relevant does get it), and a user is directed to the most relevant and informative article possible. Net positive for all involved. The section on the current event in the WP article can then be written over time by editors who have an understanding of the reliable sources policy (I don't mean newer editors are any worse at editing, just that for current events it is better to keep it free from the speculation a casual reader is likely to add in good faith). Dendodge _T\^C 13:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're both looking at this from an editor's point of view, but this template is visible to all readers. How does a casual reader benefit? There are other ways to convey messages to editors - talk pages, invisible html comments, etc. Flowerparty^☀ 13:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because when casual readers go to pages of people that recently died, they are looking for the kind of information that appears on Wikinews and not on Wikipedia. —Noisalt (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. On the other hand they might be looking for information on the person's life. And those that are looking for information about the death would presumably find their way to the death section, which could have its own little {{wikinews}}. Flowerparty^☀ 14:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me step in here and make a small point. We link to WP almost constantly in regards to people, events, some places (cities mostly) and such. So if a reader on Wikinews wants to know something about (i.e.) Ted Kennedy's life, rather than death, there are plenty of occasions they have to click on his name, or some link related to him to get to Wikipedia. Not to mention Wikipedia is precisely that, an encyclopedia. Any new, and or relevant information should be added to a news article, before it is added to an encyclopedia, but that is just technically. DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's an important point to be made about an above criticism - that of those favouring this idea looking at it from an editor's perspective. Why make a distinction between readers and editors in this case? It is supposed to be a WMF project-wide goal to convert more readers into contributors. --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>

Wikipedia and Wikinews are both Wikimeda Foundation projects. It may not be intended to come across as, 'Wikinews should be thankful to get any link from Wikipedia', but it frequently does; "On the other hand they might be looking for information on the person's life" - that's the same "why not"? I was challenged on above. If I thought {{wikinews}} was good enough I would not have put forward this change.

Is there any rational and compelling reason not to implement this? I've presented the case for, I see no case against. --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer we didn't include it, just because we don't necessarily have to/want to place privileged links to sister projects at the top of article pages. I'm probably outside the mainstream on this issue, because I feel we also shouldn't have wikinews section templates, but my feeling is that if readers want to find an obituary for a person who recently died, then they can do so on google or linked directly (though the references) from the WP page. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Better visual presentation

Per the criticism of the use of a graphic to link to a landing page, I made a slight change to the layout on my userpage example. User:Brian McNeil/Ted Kennedy (template). --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks good. I would recommend changing ^[contribute] to ^[about] or ^{[help out]}. Contribute sounds too financial. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

With apologies to the discussion that has already taken place above, is it necessary to include that hook? Those of us familiar with other Wikimedia projects will know when, where, and how to contribute based just on the link itself. My only other question would be whether or not there should be a period at the end of the blurb. Otherwise, it looks great and I think it's one of those "Why didn't I think of that?" sort of things. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we just use the usual wikinews template? I don't think it is a wise idea to include this in the recent death template for several reasons. First of all, am I the only one who thinks that it is.. odd that we would use the death of a person to promote a project? "This is an article about a person who just died. Oh, hey, have you heard about Wikinews?" Second, this template exists to warn our readers of possibly rapidly changing articles and/or the problems associated with these changes. It should be kept short and to the point, IMHO. A link to an obituary at Wikinews would just confuse the readers, especially if they're invited to participate like in the example given above. --Conti|✉ 08:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Per davidwr's suggestion, I'll change the superscipted bit to [help out]. I had in no way thought of people possibly seeing this as a financial appeal - that would be bad.

As to why this instead of {{wikinews}} - it is transitory, and highly relevant at the time it remains visible. It should also preempt editing of an article to such an extent that it needs tagged with {{Obituary}}. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian, by insisting we discuss visual arcana you're begging the question as to whether this link should be included at all. As it stands there's certainly no established desire to include it. Please allow people to express their approval or disapproval of the link in the first instance, if it turns out you have overwhelming support to include it then we can discuss trinkets. Flowerparty^☀ 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that might not be relevant to you, after all on the previous VfD you voted delete. If you are of the opinion this template has no merit at all, then it would be logical to assume you have no interest in seeing anyone pursue improvements to it. Several criticisms of the proposed change have been made, I am attempting to address them. Why should I not? --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to improvements to this template, not at all, I just happen to think that what you're proposing is not an improvement. An improvement, to my mind, would be to make the banner smaller and less intrusive in articles, not more so. The fact is there is opposition to this change, and the input so far has not been very broad. I don't suppose many people are watching this template. Have you tried seeking wider discussion, left a post on the village pump for instance? Flowerparty^☀ 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I edit on Wikinews so everyone knows. For me it is an obvious thing to do-however I would change the word 'available' to something else-available seems a bit...I don't know...but not quite correct for an obituary. I also agree with a previous comment to remove the help out link-people following it as a reader will want the article while Wikipedia editors know how to edit. I know it gives points so people don't add to Wikinews wrongly-but I don't think it's needed. Overall, I definitely think we should have this link-for both the Wikinews project; but also for readers as discussed earlier. Tristan Thomas (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(disclaimer: I'm an admin and bureaucrat at en.wikinews) I think that this addition would be helpful to both projects. Firstly, as Dendodge (talk · contribs) says above, after the death of a famous person, people who look up the person's bio on Wikipedia will generally want to read an obituary - and will be given a pointer to a more appropriate venue for that information. Those who are more interested in reading about the person's biography will remain on the Wikipedia page. I don't see a problem. Seems to me like this would be a net positive for both WP and Wikinews. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And, in the case of this template, tragically timely and appropriately temporary. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my feelings as well. There's at least clear opposition to the reversion of the addition. There's no reason that we shouldn't continue to talk about people's concerns here, but the support for adding some sort of line is clear.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I still oppose this, at least as long as the additional text gives the impression that its purpose is to get people to contribute to Wikinews. A simple link to an obituary might be okay, but for my tastes it is displayed way too prominently in the above example. There's no need for an extra icon, or for the sentence to stand on its own like that. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with encouraging people to contribute to a WMF project? --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In itself, nothing. But I consider it wrong to encourage people to contribute to a WMF project on a template that notifies people of the fact that a person just died. Seriously, am I the only one who thinks this is inappropriate? --Conti|✉ 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that fall into the same category as "passed away" versus "died"? The person has died, that's a fact. The appropriate place for an obituary is Wikinews. All WMF projects try and encourage people to contribute. This change both notifies people the article may be in flux because of the event - death, and points people to the most appropriate place to contribute towards an article on the death. "Not nice", "no respect for the dead", "lacking respect"... whatever. I see no logic in how you oppose the change, people will contribute as a result of the death; this change puts the obituary where it belongs. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really follow your reasoning. Just because we shouldn't throw WP:NPOV out the window to respect the dead doesn't mean that we're entitled to be tasteless. And I consider "This person just died. Hey, have you heard how much fun Wikinews is?" to be tasteless. That's an exaggeration of course, but I hope you get my point. Linking to an obituary might be fine (I'm neutral on that), but not in the way it is proposed. --Conti|✉ 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that taste is a factor here. I would say, lose the icon and lose the "help out".

For details of this person's death, see this person's obituary on WikiNews.

That would suffice. —Noisalt (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Noisalt, the ^{[help out]} doesn't seem particularly useful or tasteful here, it should be removed. (PS: Wikinews isn't spelled with a capital N.) Tempodivalse [talk] 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> Taking into account feedback here, I've updated my sandbox/test here (template). Beyond that, it's probably just fine-tuning the text and deciding if it should be in a smaller font size. There are other changes being worked on over on Wikinews to address the issue the [help out] link was for - namely highlighting people are no longer on Wikipedia, and that Wikinews articles are a snapshot of what was known at a given point in time. The discussion over those changes is on the water cooler on Wikinews and - if successfully implemented - should result in any user going from a Wikipedia page, to a Wikinews article, and then editing it, gets the 'you're not in Kansas anymore' warning. --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Noisalt (talk · contribs) and the tweaks made as proposed by Brian McNeil, this new version seems to be the best way to go from here. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New layout, continued discussion

Update:  Done [2]. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cirt, but given that you have the same conflict of interest here as the proposer you're certainly not in a position to declare consensus here one way or the other. I've reverted again.

I have thought some more about this link and why I'm opposed to it. Essentially I think that even if we do want to link to wikinews, this template is the wrong place to put the link: I just don't see a reason to insert a link to wikinews above the text of the article. Ideally, anything placed in a page-top tag should be crucial information without which the reader should not start to read the article: This article is under threat of deletion, The content of this article is extremely biased, etc. We do have plenty of unnecessary tags, but that's another matter. This recent death message is supposed to be used only in cases where it's necessary to warn the reader that the article is undergoing heavy editing. This was one of the outcomes from the last tfd. It is obviously used much more widely than that, and that is unfortunate, but perhaps people's attitudes to these messages will change and they will be used much less in future (see the recent cent on future tags for evidence of broad dislike for these tags). As it stands the template has a single purpose. If we add a second function to the template we're encouraging editors to use the template unthinkingly, as a matter of routine, and to leave it up for the entire week following the death or for however long is mandated. It also makes the template bigger and more noisome. And there's still the question of tact: for me, if you put the link inside the recent death box it's going to look inappropriate however you go about it. The new proposed version without the call for contributors still ends up looking opportunistic and in poor taste - Conti explains it well above, the Hey, check out wikinews! aside is incongruous. I'm not opposed to linking to wikinews per se, as I think I made clear above. I'm not even opposed to prominently linking to wikinews on a temporary basis. Is there any reason why we couldn't use {{wikinews}} near the top of the article for a week a so when appropriate - underneath the lead image? That would seem a much better solution. Flowerparty^☀ 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will not edit the template further about this. I would note that this previous involvement [3] by Flowerparty (talk · contribs) would suggest it might be best for this individual to also take an extended break from editing this template in which the individual has a stated vested interest, as well. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Flowerparty here. I don't mind (within limits) the link to Wikinews but I don't think it should be added to this template. Let's keep this template a single purpose template used only for a limited time on articles. Garion96 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this template may be a relevant place for such a link for precisely the same reasons one might want to add the template in the first place: when a WP article about a person's life is getting the plurality of search engine traffic about that person on the entire Internet, many of the potential editors visiting the page want to read or contribute to an obit and news story with detail and color that would be inappropriate for WP [and that they won't find in the article here]. +sj+ 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

General support:

• Wow, after all of the discussion above, it's actually implemented only to be reverted again? Shame on you, Flowerparty. You could have at least spoken out earlier. As for the criticism brought by Garion96, I just don't see that as valid. There should be another completely separate template? This template, and it's like, are already heavily criticized for being "pointless", so I don't understand the reluctance to add some real purpose to it's use at all. Adding a completely separate template will only increase over tagging regardless, which is already a big problem in my view.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus here for the inclusion of the obituary code. It has been improved since first proposed, based on that consensus. It was included in the template, based on that consensus. Why the stonewalling? user:J aka justen (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support of a reader-centric link. The truth is that very many people searching for somebody who has recently died are interested in the death/obituary aspect more than more holistic biography. My strong suspicion is most people are likely to want to read the obituary/death report first, and then go on to further reading of the biography. Many of us possess an inner rubbernecker! I know when I load a "recent deaths" page, 95% of the time I scroll down in desperate search of the gruesome details and reaction quotes, then go back up to the start to read the bigger picture. In fact, my behavior in doing so is illogical, since Wikipedia is not a good place to read a news-like story, yet because Wikipedia articles often rank #1 on google and other search engines, it's the ingrained semi-automatic first click-through. What makes my behavior even stranger in doing this, is that I am fully aware of the existence WikiNews (unlike the vast majority of our readers) and should realize that that would be the superior site for the information I am usually initially seeking, and then if I'm interested I should return through to the Wikipedia page (which will certainly be clearly linked on WikiNews). A large part of the reason for my behavior is that the appropriate WikiNews link is not so easy to find, since they're rarely highly ranked on search engines. For me, the "recent deaths" banner seems by far the best place to place an interwiki link, since that is the place we are acknowledging that the death of the subject is currently a news event - so a link through to WMF news coverage logically fits comfortably there, and hence although the position is prominent (and for death-infoseekers, easy to find without lots of scrolling or ToC navigating) it doesn't look like a blatant advert so much as a gentle nudge suggesting an alternative source of the information many readers are more likely to be looking for. Let's face it, this site exists to serve our readers, not to force them to read our own articles when they are likely to be better served by one on a sister project - it costs us no revenue if readers look elsewhere, and it may help stem recentism in our editing. I strongly oppose an editing-centric link - anything that looks like an attempt to recruit new editors to WikiNews does not belong in such a prominent position; the link to WikiNews front page contains enough information about how to contribute if a reader so wishes. I also think that we should consider rewording, possibly to avoid the term "obituary", or at least to give a range of other options where appropriate. In many cases what is being linked to isn't an "obituary" in the classical sense (which usually resembles a biography anyway, being closer to the Wikipedia article than the WikiNews one), but rather "coverage of his/her death" (including more coverage of the details of death, reaction quotes, and usually a brief biography). I suppose it's possible that sometimes it's possible that "obituary" is the better term for the WikiNews article, but at the very least other options such as "coverage of his death" (and appropriate gender/plural variants) seem sensible. TheGrappler (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. See my above proposed text: For details of this person's death, see this person's obituary on Wikinews. Like a dab (but more prominent since 90% of readers will want it).—Noisalt (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support a nicely presented, very visible link. When somebody dies, I scroll to the details of the death. Also, Wikinews needs a boost. Abductive (reasoning) 01:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I've been reading the arguments and it seems like a good idea. As TheGrappler said, "The truth is that very many people searching for somebody who has recently died are interested in the death/obituary aspect more than more holistic biography. My strong suspicion is most people are likely to want to read the obituary/death report first, and then go on to further reading of the biography." Nicely said. Gosox5555 ([[User talk:Gosox5555

|talk]]) 22:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Done tastefully, this seems like a fine idea, and beneficial to both projects. Wikipedia isn't really the right place for news articles, which some people want to write because they don't know wikinews exists; and Wikipedia should include the same sort of prominent link to help readers find the type of information they are looking for. +sj+ 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

General oppose:

• Strong oppose We should definitely not link to an obituary in a lead template, we want people to read our article, not immediately going elsewhere, even to a sister project. A prominent link to a wikinews obituary would also be a gross advertizing/proxying for Wikinews, breaching WP:NPOV. Sister links are constantly more or less violating WP:NPOV/WP:EL, but there are not placed in a prominent position, so they are acceptable. But not in such a prominent, high-visibility template; let people make their own choice for the obituary they want to read. Cenarium (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Don't we want people to find the information they are looking for, rather than making them read a particular page? If someone wants a news article rather than an encyclopedia article, that seems reasonable to me. +sj+ 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed to link. No disrespect to the many good editors at Wikinews but we simply should not promote one version of an obituary over any other and that's what this does. If there is any relevant content simply add it to the Wikipedia article itself and allow editors here to judge it on equal footing. Unfortunately Wikinews can be compromised and as well-meaning as those editors may be their work should not be be featured as such. I've had to delete some wikinews links as the articles themselves were quite poor. Others have been quite helpful like an interview with a celeb asking non-standard questions. These too, however, should be treated similar to other external links and possible sources, but not promoted as one being favored or preferred. -- Banjeboi 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we should not have links to other Wikipedia articles, because that would be favoring the accounts of those topics in Wikipedia over the accounts in other encyclopedias.

Because the internal workings of Wikinews have been changing over time, it matters quite a lot when you encountered these "quite poor" Wikinews articles. Roughly when was it? A week ago? Two or three months ago? A year ago? If the incidents were recent, it might also be helpful — both to the current discussion and to our sister project Wikinews — if you could specifically identify examples of these quite-poor Wikinews articles (though I do understand that such moments often fly by and are difficult to reconstruct later). --Pi zero (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It actually doesn't matter when those articles existed but I think it was the Michael Jackson one that was pretty bad. The issue is not that they can't be in the article at all - just not in the template as an official endorsement of the truth. Wikinews can be good but really the same important content from any Wikinews article can be put in the Wikipedia article and be edited by those working here. Our standards are generally much higher and the likelyhood of problems being quickly addressed much greater. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re standards:

• If there is any meaningful comparison between the standards of Wikinews and Wikipedia —a case could be made that there isn't, see my next bullet— if there is any meaningful comparison, then Wikinews has higher standards than Wikipedia, since no Wikinews article can be published without a peer review by a disinterested qualified Editor, and after publication all edits have to be sighted by a qualified Editor before they are integrated into the primary version of the article. Wikipedia does, typically, have more sets of eyes per article, but that's a complete no-op for the current discussion because any Wikinews obituary linked from here couldn't possibly have fewer sets of eyes than the number of sets of eyes that followed the link from here.
• The misapprehension that Wikinews has lower standards might be fostered by misunderstanding of the difference between a news article and an encyclopedia article. A news article is a snapshot of available information at a moment in time. When new information comes to light, Wikinews and Wikipedia can both react, but they do so differently. Wikipedia would modify its existing article, but Wikinews would publish a fresh article.

Re the example:

• As I remarked before, the workings of Wikinews have been changing over time. That means that, for example, whether something got through a year ago might have little or no bearing on what can or can't get through now, or in the future. Hence my interest in when.
• The tentatively identified example would be wikinews:Singer and songwriter Michael Jackson dies at age 50. This is recent enough to have, perhaps, some relevance. Supposing that was indeed an example of the sort of article you're talking about, what are your objections to it? (I ask because the value of the example as a concrete instance depends on knowing what difficulties it is perceived to be a concrete instance of.)

--Pi zero (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that some Wikinewsians may be very good - my point however is where are they getting their content? - hopefully from reliable sources. That very same content from the most reliable sources should instead be simply put in the Wikipedia article with due weight, npov, etc. I've never been opposed to a Wikinews link in the See also section but placing it at the top of the alert notice on an article simply does not seem appropriate nor needed. I would feel the same if we struck a deal to add a link in our template with the Wall St. Journal or any other highly reputable news venue. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the same sense that Wikipedia articles get their content "hopefully" from reliable sources. Wikinews is slightly different, in that it prefers its reliable sources to be available online; I don't hold it against Wikipedia that its sources are often difficult to check, but that's a luxury of the slow-paced world of encyclopedia-writing.

I'm put in mind, strongly, of the Wikipedia Weekly interview with Awadewit, where she describes some academic dismissing Wikipedia on the grounds that they looked at an article within their expertise and it was filled with errors, and she's thinking, why didn't you fix them? I wouldn't have expected that anti-wiki attitude from a Wikipedian.

(Regarding other differences between Wikinews and the Wall Street Journal — besides wiki-ness — I recommend WN:NPOV and WP:SISTER.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of a link to wikinews in this template. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Most people will want to read news reports or obituaries from reputed newspapers. If you are concerned with this, link to a google news search for the subject, at least it's more neutral, but not to an obituary in particular, better, link to the section detailing the person's death in the article if there's one. I'm still puzzled as to why we should link to that rather than this. Cenarium (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

These Most people are looking for X assertions are not particularly strong arguments. Unless any of you have surveyed a representative sample of readers you don't really have any authority to speak for the masses, and neither do I, we can only report our own habits. My feeling is that there's probably quite a number of reasons why people end up at the wikipedia article of someone who's just died. I know I tend to end up there because I've heard or read about the death in the news and I want a brief summary of the person's achievements - I usually know the cause of death before I get to the article. But that's just me, I have no idea how typical I am. What we can assume though is that anyone who arrives at the wikipedia article has got there deliberately, and I think we have to assume that that's where they want to stay. This shouldn't stop people who are looking for specific details from finding them: again, anyone who is interested specifically in the details of the death will presumably find their way to the section marked 'Death'. Flowerparty^☀ 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm being subtly misquoted I fear :) I very deliberately employed the word "many" people, instead of "most", because I realized that I couldn't claim any quantitative study had been undertaken. I am not sure why it's contentious that many people behave in this way; it's a perfectly natural human reaction to behave in that manner, and anecdotally other people here have said they do so as well, even if you don't. Obviously the little straw poll here doesn't give a good indication of the exact proportion, but it must be far from negligible; bearing in mind we are talking mostly about articles which will be undergoing a big spike in pageviews, "many" readers is a fair albeit non-quantitive conclusion. I also think it's reasonable that a person hunting for the "death" section should be given a relatively prominent option to go to the (likely more detailed) WikiNews article, and that it would be reasonable to do this at the top of the article (to save them burying around for the death section as much as anything). As an aside, I have been surprised at how quite a few editors in this discussion have been quite "possessive" of our readers (this is a general observation, please nobody take it personally or as an accusation!). It's an interesting phenomenon: if we were building a commercial website we would obviously rack our brains to make sure we keep as many eyeballs as possible on our site, and reduce opportunities for traffic to escape to rivals (even if a reader might be better served elsewhere). Despite the fact we have no such commercial aims, and we are already an incredibly highly viewed website (especially for stories that are passing through the news), some of that urge to "keep our readers where we want 'em" clearly persists. I'm not sure that's sensible, given that we have an unusual opportunity to be a "what's best for our reader"-focused website in a way that commercial sites simply can't afford to be, but someone of that mindset could follow that logic to a broader conclusion. If a reader might want to view the related news story, why not direct the reader to "our" news site? (I'm proposing that argument largely in jest, but a free content evangelist or wikimediaista may well think along those lines.) TheGrappler (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible that there's a selection bias operating here: could it be that anyone who's found their way to Template talk:Recent death is a little more likely to be preoccupied by death than the average reader? Just a thought. As for the possessive comment, I don't know if you're addressing me specifically there but I certainly don't think we need to make any special effort to keep our readers from leaving a page. Wikipedia is what it is: a handy tool for quickly accessing information. Hell, as far as I'm concerned anyone who sticks around to read the whole article has got completely the wrong idea. But Grappler, I'd like to hear why you think putting a link at the top that will benefit some readers (or many, if you prefer) is better than just placing {{wikinews}} (an easily visible template) in a part of the page where those readers are very likely to find it - and where it won't bother those who aren't likely to follow the link. Flowerparty^☀ 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Is it not possible that there's a selection bias operating here: could it be that anyone who's found their way [here] is a little more likely to be preoccupied by death than the average reader?" That's a riot! It's not like we're undertakers or something. I imagine we all have it on our watchlists for different reasons; you, perhaps, because you advocated for its deletion in the past? Me, because, once upon a time, I found the language used in the template was poorly considered (and it was later improved).

That being said, when someone notable dies, it is often the case that their article receives more traffic than it normally would in any given period. It is sometimes the case that this can lead to frequent changes quickly being made to the content, and those changes are not always accurate or reliably sourced. It is also fair to say that many of those individuals are visiting to learn of the person's life, and since they are visiting immediately following that person's death, it's not ridiculous to assume they may find an obituary helpful.

I do not believe any of my assumptions are due to some "preoccupation with death," and I don't believe they're unreasonable. I also don't think it's unreasonable, or against any Wikipedia policy to promote other Wikimedia projects on this project, and given all this, I continue to support these changes to this template. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(not deindenting, but attempting to reply to Flowerparty's response to me) I wasn't accusing anyone in particular of being "possessive" of our readers, don't worry :) Just noting that some aspect of that mindset seemed to be floating about. I'll reiterate why I think the "recent death" notice is a good place for a link: I think it's a useful link for readers, and this is the first place on the page that we talk about the person's death and the fact it's in the news. To me, that's a really logical fit to link to "our"/WMF's relevant news coverage. Why wait for the second time we mention the death? (Though obviously I'd expect a more permanent link there, too, as per WP:SISTER). I know not every reader will want to link to, especially those who come here from an alternative news provider (or especially those who came over from Wikinews itself!). If the death is reported at WP:ITN, which tends to produce a lot of referrals, do note that a lot of those readers haven't necessarily seen any news report. In general, I honestly believe that it is a reasonable assumption that many (I'm not quantifying here, but a non-trivial proportion) of readers coming to the article would be interested in that link and we should therefore make it easy for them to find it - so since there's a suitable place for it, stick it at the top. If people think this assumption is dubious because there are no hard figures here and discussion participants are unrepresentative of readers, then why don't we run a trial and see if readers find it useful? This would be straightforward to set up, we could just monitor whether Wikinews starts getting more hits on obituary articles. We could do some clever jiggerypokery by referring links to redirects on Wikinews and counting the views on the redirects, if exact figures are sought, but that may be excessive. It's circular to argue we shouldn't do it because we have no hard figures to back the assumption that readers will find it useful; we'll only get figures (either supporting or opposing) if we actually trial it. TheGrappler (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• With all the above said, why not try it? I can, again, ask one of the Wikipedia administrators I know who is in favour of this change to implement it. I have done a fair amount of work to address concerns people have raised about the visual presentation of this change, and it is quite difficult to pick a 'must be exactly like this' set of criteria out of the above.

What I need to know is if any of those with administrative privileges are going to revert such a change out of hand and without further discussion. I really do consider opposition to this change to be not well grounded in wider Wikimedia goals, and - perhaps unintentionally - an indication of a deep-seated lack of respect for the work of other projects.

The onus of completing the additional parameter in the template will most likely fall to Wikinewsies. Where it is not present, there will be no invitation to write elsewhere; I see value in such, but this is a point I will concede in an effort to reach consensus. As some involved in this discussion may know, Wikinews uses flagged revisions. This should lead to our articles not being categorised as published until a review has been carried out. I believe the below summary of applicable policy clearly lays out there is no "must not" criteria. That leaves an assertion someone made much early in the discussion that those in favour of this change must prove why it is beneficial rather than ask "why not". I see little to no compelling provision of a reasonable countering 'this is "why not"' to the above arguments for this change. --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we just need to be sure that the WikiNews Obituary contains a link to the article. I see no conflict at all linking to the WikiNews article, from this header template; especially since it is a temporary (though I would like to push for 30 days, not 7). -- Mjquin_id (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links, WP:EL and Promotion of sister projects

• Let's being realistic, people want news articles, obituaries by reputed newspapers, or the Wikipedia article. So I don't see how it would be a reader service to prominently link to Wikinews. Wikinews has difficulties to get traffic, but it's not a reason for Wikipedia to act as a proxy for Wikinews, or we loose our neutrality. And Wikipedia's coverage of a person's death is often more important than Wikinews', for example: Death of Michael Jackson vs n:Singer and songwriter Michael Jackson dies at age 50, same for Kennedy, Les Paul, Baitullah Mehsud... Wikinews contains no more content than Wikipedia on the person's death, and the rest is a summary of the person's biography, contained in Wikipedia. So this argument doesn't hold. Cenarium (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  We loose our neutrality? Huh? It's a Wikimedia project. This is a Wikimedia project. Our links to other Wikimedia projects are prolific throughout this project, and I think this idea that these interlinks pose some sort of dire threat to our "neutrality" is really peculiar. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  That the proxying be in favor of a Wikimedia project doesn't override neutrality concerns, the difference with normal sisterlinks is that here, it would be linked prominently and opportunistically, that would be a major breach of neutrality. It would be similar to link to the Wikiquote copy of the speech prominently at the top of the article 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address (actually, it's in the external links section, where it should be). Neutrality is a founding principle, and cannot be overridden by local consensus. Cenarium (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

...from a later thread...

Well, as a general principle, users have a tendency to use what they know and privilege what they prefer. So most will use google, they'll see news websites and Wikipedia as results, they'll check the news results from the news sources they prefer, and a substantial part, Wikipedia. It's very much the same for other search engines and web portals. So there's no need for us to propose to readers a prominent link to a news-like article on the event, as other services can do this, and in a manner that will better satisfy the user. And no, we should not promote other Wikimedia projects, they are not an exception to our neutrality policy, nor are they cited as exceptions at WP:PROMOTION. Of course, we have a relationship with other wmf projects, and we have developed practices known as sister links. But still, we should keep a balance and there's a line we should not cross. That is, in my opinion, for the reasons given above, undue promotion, not justified by our relationship. Cenarium (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of specific mention in wp:promotion of Wikimedia interwiki links doesn't justify your position. Wikimedia projects have mentions that would be violations of wp:el if they were run, identically, by any other organization. If you want a policy governing it, you should write one; as it is, the lack of a policy is not sufficient enough to beat the links out of existence. Most people here support the other Wikimedia projects and believe it's appropriate to do so on this project. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no lack of policy, WP:PROMOTION exists, and sister projects are not mentioned as exceptions, so they are bound to it. We should support our relationship, but not engage in undue promotion. AFAIK it's never been clarified which linking restrictions apply to sister links, there are plenty of restrictions on linking in policies such as WP:C or WP:BLP, and I for sure would immediately remove any link to material violating copyright or BLP, or extremely biased (and have already done so). Cenarium (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can call linking to sister sites 'promotion' in the sense that we normally guard against. We are trying to build the world's corpus of balanced, free knowledge. This is why we only have links to other Wikipedia articles within the body of an article -- even when some of those links are stubs -- rather than allowing links within the body of an article to a more detailed external page, or a search results page. +sj+ 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What our policies and guidelines actually say about interwiki links

A suggestion that seems to be being made is that the addition of links to sister projects is a form of link-spamming, or that it may violate our neutrality. I am attempting to document here our relevant policies and guidelines on interwiki links, to see how they actually apply to this case. They are certainly fractured, and to some degree ambiguous - in particular it would be clearer if WP:EL made it clearer, to what extent it governs interwiki links.

Extended review of relevant policies and guidelines

First, let's get the terminology straight. Is an "interwiki link" a form of "external link"? Our documentation at a technical level treats interwiki links (within WMF projects) as a special form of wikilink, and uses the phrase "external link" for any link generated using a web address in the syntax. Note that the phrase "external link" is used in our technical documentation to specify the format of the link, not its target - a link to a WMF sister project can be referred to as "external" or "interwiki" depending on whether the wikimarkup used interwiki prefixes in a [[...]] or using the URL. To see examples of our documentation using the terms in this exclusive way, see Help:Interwiki linking#Interwiki links versus external links and in our spam guidelines, WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer Point 7 which reads: "Do not add an external link to your signature. However, external links to Wikimedia projects are exempt from this rule. For example, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. (Although Interwiki links are preferable to external links for that purpose.)" [Note how the phrase "interwiki link" is being used to contrast the term "external link".] Do we have specific guidance on when to link to sister projects? The answer is to be found at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. This applies, without any doubt, to the question of including interwiki links to Wikinews obituaries in Wikipedia articles about recently deceased people. We are told at Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#When to link that: "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible." This leaves no doubt in my mind that our guidelines actively promote the inclusion of interwiki links to sister projects, so long as they are likely to be useful to readers. It seems to flatly contradict the argument that linking to Wikinews rather than CNN or BBC would be a form of pro-WMF bias, breach of neutrality, or linkspam. We have been instructed to link to Wikinews stories whenever it is relevant and likely to be useful to readers. What if the Wikinews story is harmful in some way? Common sense says "well don't link to it, then". In the terms of the sister project guidance, we could simply view the link as failing the "likely to be useful to the reader" test. What counts as harmful? In terms of breaches of core content policies, the provisions of WP:NPOV#Undue weight apply "not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." This would clear cover an interwiki link to a Wikinews story if it would breach WP:UNDUE. It seems wise to apply the high standards of WP:BLP to the recently deceased; at WP:BLP#External links we are told they "must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links." This supports the common sense view, not to link to a Wikinews obituary if it seems biased, factually dubious, poorly sourced or suchlike. [It could probably be made clearer that this includes links to sister projects, but the implication seems natural.] So what about WP:EL? Given that interwiki links to other WMF projects seem to be distinguished from "external" links in our documentation, it isn't obvious that WP:EL applies at all (or if it does, to what extent). This is something that should be made much clearer. It does not apply to external links in citations, but the first sentence does refer to "links to web pages outside Wikipedia", which obviously would include Wikinews or other sister projects. However: WP:EL#How to link only describes links formed using URLs. WP:EL#External links section suggests that official sites should go in the infobox and other sites should be listed in a designated section at the bottom of the article. WP:SISTER suggests sister project links should only be placed in the "External links" section "if there is no directly relevant section in the page" to place them instead. No specific mention of sister projects is made in the WP:EL#What to link section, whereas WP:SISTER actively encourages linking to them when it is likely to be useful to readers. So the way WP:EL is framed does not suggest it was written with sister project links in mind. Having said that, guidance at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided contains interesting elements. Point 2 says not to link to "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" which reinforces the common sense view that we shouldn't link to a Wikinews article if, for some unusual reason, it happens to be very poor. Point 4 warns against "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and links to WP:SPAM#External link spamming - that's a separate guideline so I'll develop it later. Point 12 targets "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I think English Wikinews should be considered okay on that front. (In terms of links to sister projects, it's the interlanguage wikilinks to smaller Wikipedias that seem dodgier, but WP:SISTER still wants us to link to them.) Is linking to Wikinews really a violation of WP:SPAM? I do see the line of argument that we are effectively "promoting" Wikinews by linking there, rather than CNN or BBC. This view seems to ignore the privileged position of WMF sites according to WP:SISTER, but it's worth reading the details of WP:SPAM anyway. Much of the guideline relates to other types of spamming (e.g. WP:ARTSPAM and WP:SPAM#Be careful when giving examples), and the accusation seems primarily to be WP:SPAM#External link spamming. Even aside from whether a link to Wikinews counts as truly "external", there really seems to be nothing in that section that even vaguely resembles the accusations of "linkspam" being made here. I seem to recall WP:PROMO linked to here, but that is essentially irrelevant: it is a section-link (and AFAICT poorly named shortcut) to WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer, not a guide to what counts as "promotional spamming" (isn't all spamming promotional?). That section has more to do with the motivation of spammers (especially people who are promoting something without meaning to). This debate is about whether a link to Wikinews obituaries would be useful to readers, not an attempt to promote Wikinews. I can see the logic in claiming that this makes us inadvertently promote Wikinews (this is certainly true; Wikinews would get more pageviews if this were implemented) and therefore we are "good faith spammers" if we do so; but the flaw in logic is that second step. Inadvertent promotion of Wikinews is not one of those instances that count as spam - we are explicitly encouraged to link to Wikinews and other sister projects by WP:SISTER wherever it is likely to be helpful to readers, and doing so will always tend to "promote" that site. Anything else? There's also WP:PROMOTION, which confusingly isn't the same as WP:PROMO (I fear there are just way too many of these shortcuts!) but rather a link to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." It isn't "soapbox" or "battleground" at issue here, but I can understand concerns about advertising. Points 5 is the relevant one for that, and it seems mostly concerned with more obvious spam - it's more or less WP:SPAM in miniature and certainly it's not obvious that it is discourages relevant sister project links. In full it states: Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. This is a very broad statement of principles, mostly concerned with warning against conventional spam. I really can see no explicit guidance here about sister project links - the more detailed guidelines seem a better place to look. As for the general principle against advertising, I think the answer is pretty much the same as for WP:PROMO - linking to Wikinews is inadvertently advertising it, but that is not the purpose of the link, and neither does making that link apparently fall under the criteria for spamming.

In short:

1. WMF sister projects are privileged over other sites according to WP:SISTER.
2. We are actively encouraged to link to them wherever users are likely to find it useful, and are by no means restricted to using the "External links" section at the bottom of the article.
3. Core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP) and pure common sense dictate not to link to a Wikinews article if its quality is dubious (but in any case, such a link could hardly be regarded as "likely to be useful").
4. The extent to which WP:EL governs links to sister project is unclear (it certainly hasn't been written with them primarily in mind) but there's nothing that explicitly discourages useful links to them.
5. The contents of WP:SPAM are mostly irrelevant but do warn against inadvertently promoting things. This seems less relevant when one bears in mind the provisions at WP:SISTER that explicitly encourage links to sister projects (implicitly, this is bound to publicize them).
6. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox (also known as WP:PROMOTION) is a very wide-ranging statement of principles. There is certainly nothing that explicitly discourages links to sister projects, and the relevant portion on advertising is mostly concerned with conventional spam.
7. Clearly some users have interpreted the broad-brush opposition to advertising there, as a sign WMF sister projects should also be prevented from being "advertised", even inadvertently.
8. Personally, I think exegesis from such a short and wide-ranging statement is unhelpful, particularly since the spam described on WP:NOTSOAPBOX is rather blatant and there is nothing to indicate it was written with sister projects in mind. I'd prefer to look at the more detailed guidelines - where the sister projects are explicitly given a special status, in a way that to my eye does not necessarily contradict the principles of WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

This wasn't an attempt at picking and quoting contextless shreds of policies and guidelines; it's my best effort at a comprehensive review of what the policies and guidelines actually say about links to sister sites. I realize it's not a neutral review, since I've left my interpretations in, but I have tried to include other points of view and acknowledge where things seem vague. Does anyone think I have mischaracterized or missed anything? TheGrappler (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

See this edit summary. Why should we have a bad image in use until a better one can be found while there already is a good image in place? Personally I really don't like this image. To have a coffin with RIP splattered all over wikipedia sounds like a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Plus I don't see any consistency issues since File:Gnome globe current event.svg is in use with the other current event templates. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Bad idea. Rettetast (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that coffin image is ugly and in bad taste. And there should have been some discussion before a change like that. --CapitalR (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I did that because other templates have some image relevant to their purpose. I originally was going to add one with a cross but I felt that it would be non-neutral. I really don't care what is used here as long as it is other than this as this is the only specialized current events template that has a non-relevant image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually. See Template:Current person, Template:Current tropical cyclone and Template:Current disaster. I don't see a need for a specific image in this template. Garion96 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

True, I thought though that originally the current weather template had one but I guess I was wrong. I just feel like a globe on a thing about death is a bit weird when we could get an image for it. If there was to be another image made, what should it look like? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline ...

... compelling editors to slap this on every article about someone who had died recently? If so, can it be changed. Putting the template on an article like George Hanlon (which didn't exist until after the subject died) is pointless and arguably misleading. I can see a use for it with situations like Brittany Murphy and Michael Jackson, even Steve Irwin but these should be the exception rather than the rule. The routine use of this template should be discouraged IMO. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree that, in the vast majority of the cases, there's no need whatsoever to use this template. But in the end, if a template like this one exists, people will use it, everywhere, without thinking about why it should be used in the first place. Unless you spend a lot of time making sure that they don't. The template's documentation says "Like {{current}}, this template should only be used when many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day", a sentence from Template:Current which has been introduced to this template's documentation recently, so feel free to enforce that part of the guideline. --Conti|✉ 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I entirely disagree that, in the all of the cases, there is no need to use this template. Compare to how many living people we have and then how many die in a set time (say 1 week). The deaths are a tiny fraction of all the BLP articles on WP. Looking at the list from Deaths in 2010 for the past 7 days, the tag would be on approx. 50 to 60 articles in any rolling week. Why "perhaps a hundred or more"? Why is 100 deemed to be the cut-off? Why not 99? or 50? Most editing/updating to the average biography is going to take place between the date of death and the next week. Lugnuts (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Article tagging

Why shouldn't I use this for any article of a recent death. That way, there will be a lower chance of reversion when removed from Living People. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat conflicting instructions?

The instructions say:

Like {{current}}, this template should only be used when many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day. Thus, it would typically be used very rarely (e.g., following the death of an internationally well-known figure).

It's as if someone thought that when an internationally well-known figure dies, then dozens or hundreds of people edit the article in a day. Constance Reid was by all standards an internationally well-known figure. But there wasn't much editing of the article about her after she died this month. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Asinine restriction in /doc

"Thus, it would typically be used very rarely (e.g., following the death of an internationally well-known figure). Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person."

This basically guarantees that this template can never be used.

I propose to delete this absurd restriction from the template.

The Category:Recent deaths is permanently empty, because no one is allowed to use this template.

Cheesed off by the usual pointless counter-productive WP bureaucratic nonsense, Varlaam (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would delete the entire template. It is entirely redundant to {{Recent event}}. I can't see any purpose for a tag that merely identifies that someone is recently dead, that is what the article text is for. The problem is that we have a tag in the first place, and that therefore people feel the need to use it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to know who died recently, they should go to Recent deaths, not Category:Recent deaths, which only accumulates this template on the rare occasion it is used. In other words, this template serves no real purpose WWGB (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The category can be added without use of the template. The guidelines on usage are only for this template. This complaint is moot—just add the category to whatever page you want. ^Bongo_matic 06:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Absurd is plastering this template on every article about a recently deceased person without bothering to look it's really needed. This template's function is not to inform readers that the subject has died. Readers are smart enough to see that by actually reading the article instead of looking at a huge template. Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Instructions on how to use

Looking at past discussions on this page, I finally gathered that the template's intended purpose is more to prevent edit conflicts than to inform readers about how incomplete the info in the article is. And, its existence is a little more sophisticated than it seems.

The template's intention is to inform readers that the information on the article may be inaccurate/inconsistent [because of the edit conflicts that may be occurring]. The reason "[because of the edit conflicts that may be occurring]" does not appear in the template is because the process of editing the article is a behind the scenes matter that should not concern readers who browse Wikipedia without ever editing it.

The documentation should be very clear on this. However, it isn't. It doesn't even mention "edit conflict". - Yk³ talk · contrib 01:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard and fast rules

I have a question. If an article has been averaging less than 70 views a day, and over a six year period has had an average of only one edit, on average, every six days, what would constitute "heavy editing" after the death of the article's subject? Does it really need to be 100 editors a day making changes?

I speak of the case of Samuel Wanjiru. He died Sunday under circumstances that the police are still not totally clear about. His article had about 250 edits between its creation in 2005 and his death the other day. In the first day, there were 88 edits to his article. Think about it--the number of edits in the day after he died were coming at a rate more than 400 times more rapid than normal. There were changes made to his place of death, the reasons for his death, and so forth. The situation remains murky, but there is supposed to be a preliminary report from the police by tomorrow.

What is the "recent death" template for? I submit that it was created for this very article. I'm sure that when Elizabeth Taylor died there were more than 100 editors editing her article, but the circumstances of her death were well-understood within the hour of her death. Here we have a case where a man who was arguably the greatest marathon runner of all time has died and people want to know why. We here at Wikipedia cannot say for certain why he died. We have a template that says, "information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known". That's what this template is for.

So my question is, is there a hard and fast number that needs to be adhered to in these cases? I believe that WP:IAR makes it clear that we need to judge things on a case-by-case basis. I recognize that templates have been horribly abused in the past. But if this one is going to exist, this is the kind of place it needs to be used.HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you can always use IAR in cases like these if you make a good argument for its use (as you have done here). But in this case I don't think you quite understand the intention of the template. The "hundreds of edits" line exists because the template is supposed to be used on articles that are inherently unstable. The kind that might look entirely different in 5 minutes, not the kind where some new information might be presented tomorrow. There's not much of a point to tell our readers that the article may change if the article itself is saying exactly the same thing. --Conti|✉ 07:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Conti, both for your patient explanation and the acknowledgement that my points are worth considering.

As to the issue of the instability; I think that I sort of already got that point--I was just thinking that "stability" is a relative thing. This article for a period of 24-36 hours was the most unstable it had ever been at any point in its existence. Was it as unstable as Michael Jackson or Elizabeth Taylor after their deaths? Of course not. But the nature of his death made his article unusually susceptible to unreliability, which is no more distant than a second cousin to instability, wouldn't you say?

Your other point, There's not much of a point to tell our readers that the article may change if the article itself is saying exactly the same thing. has gotten me to thinking, and to reconsider the use of the template. Are you saying that, if the article acknowledges the uncertainty of the circumstances of death, that the template is unnecessary? That is a thoughtful point. I might be willing to consider it if this fact (regarding the uncertainty) IF this uncertainty was made clear very early in the article. At the time that I added the template,[4] it did not.

So if the anti-template zealots had a) actually read and considered the arguments opposing them, and b) would have explained things as patiently as you have, and c) had guided the article to include the uncertainty issue in the opening, none of this brouhaha would have been necessary. Would that there were more editors out there like you, Conti, with a true Wikipedia spirit and desire to work with others, and fewer who use Wikipedia to vicariously live out their failed dreams to become deputy sheriffs. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The anti-template zealot writing this suggested an alternative that gives exactly the same warning about information being subject to change without making the article to appear sensationalist. Why there was such a push to insist upon a template with at best ambiguous instructions when there's one obviously applicable is hard to fathom. ^Bongo_matic 01:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, HuskyHuskie. I have looked at the article's history, and in this case I personally would not have seen a problem of using the template on it for 1-2 days, though by now the activity on the article seems to have calmed again. I also agree that, if the cause of a death of a person is unknown or important details of it are still missing, the article's lead should reflect this (like it does now), thus making the template unnecessary for pointing out this piece of information.

Unfortunately, it is quite easy around here to become an "anti-template zealot", as articles are at times cluttered with templates that turn out - if one sits and thinks about their purpose for a short while - to serve no actual purpose. For instance, this template used to be on every single article on a person that died recently, and it stayed there for weeks before someone bothered to remove it. So, there are always two sides to a coin. --Conti|✉ 12:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Characters?

I recently reverted an edit adding this template to Phil Coulson, a fictional character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It seems to me that the intent and scope of this template is for biography articles of (real) people who recently died, but nothing about the use notes indicate this. Sure, I suppose its possible with the release of the movie that "kills" the character, there could be edit conflicts, but probably far fewer than the article of the recently released movie that killed the character, and there is no template for recently released movies.

Any thoughts here? Anyone see this applied to fictional characters anywhere else? - Sangrolu (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. Per WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:CYF, we discourage treating fictional subjects as if they were real. Since this template is designed for circumstances in which a prominent real-world person has died, I can't easily foresee its use in articles about fictional people. szyslak (t) 02:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this template?

Someone asked above:

Is there a policy or guideline ... compelling editors to slap this on every article about someone who had died recently? If so, can it be changed. Putting the template on an article like George Hanlon (which didn't exist until after the subject died) is pointless and arguably misleading. I can see a use for it with situations like Brittany Murphy and Michael Jackson, even Steve Irwin but these should be the exception rather than the rule. The routine use of this template should be discouraged IMO.

This is completely incomprehensible to me. On its face, this is a template for use on articles about people who recently died. How could it possibly mislead anyone to say that a person recently died, if in fact the person recently died? I recently put this template at the top of an article about an internationally famous person who recently died. Someone removed it on the grounds that few people were editing the article after the death. How is that relevant? There must be some purpose of this template that I don't know about because it's nowhere explained, that causes some people to say it's "misleading" or otherwise inappropriate to use this template on the occasions for which it superficially appears to be intended. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to advise readers and editors that the article is changing substantially and frequently. It is basically a special case of {{current}}. We don't need a template to tell readers of an article that the subject has recently died - that is what the text in the article is for. If the article is not changing frequently and substantially, I fail to see what the point of using this template is. Can you explain? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To add, I must admit I find it incomprehensible that because the recent death template is useful occasionally, it therefore must be used in 'all articles where there has been a recent death, regardless of utility. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I further will add that if the argument is being made that simply reading the article is sufficient to tell that the subject just recently died, then why is that not sufficient for an article going through rapid changes? Why have this template at all if its use is governed so subjectively? Echoedmyron (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also cannot see the point of routinely adding the template where the subject has recently died. I even think it should not be routinely added in the case of very famous people where there's no reason to think circumstances surrounding the death might change significantly. In the Dave Brubeck article I removed the template, but someone reinstated it on the grounds that the article would be heavily edited and vandalised (edit here). If there is an expectation of heavy editing, then there should be some other wording, along the lines of "This article might be subject to frequent changes in the near future". The text about circumstances surrounding death s misleading.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Split to an edit notice?

The stated purpose of the template is "...it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again...", but this seems unrelated to the wording in the actual notice. I think both things are useful, but the stated purpose of the template is more suited to an edit notice, since it's purpose is to warn editors that there is a lot of potential conflict going on, which will happen even when the facts of death are not in dispute (witness Roger Ebert most recently).

I'd suggest a new template that's placed as an edit notice for the stated purpose, and for the old template to be used only for the cases where the facts surrounding the death are actually incomplete. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The wording of the new template would have to be changed somewhat, though, to make sure it's not going to be used like it is now. --Conti|✉ 10:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing

I have changed the phrasing of perhaps the most misused template in all of Wikipedia, hyperbole notwithstanding. Do please chime in if the new phrasing (of template and doc) is concerning. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I changed it back to its previous state.
  Note that every page of wikipedia warns that the article may not be accurate. It is located in the General Disclaimer reached via the footer of every article page. No need to redundantly reiterate that all pages of Wikipedia may not be accurate: it is a fact of the entire project, widely indicated. The template has a use, and has long been used for those few occasions, when some death is located in the context of a dispute, mystery, or circumstances unexplained or possibly needing investigation by national or local legal, security or health authorities.
  The recent revisions created a template was needlessly long, among article templates and I have trimmed the edits back, awaiting further discussion on the topic.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yellowdesk: the purpose of the changes it to mitigate the improper use of the template and the insistence by some editors that it must grace the top of the article of anyone who has died, thereby defeating the template's whole purpose. I'll work on the phrasing, but some such change is desperately needed. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Most recently, see Talk:Carrie Fisher. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this on the Graham Taylor article. Whenever I see the template I check the article history and talk page to see if its use is justified (it rarely is!) but I think the new wording is spot-on, and shows that the template's purpose is to show that the article may be "unstable" (through lots of edits), NOT as a template to show that a person has died. MIDI (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

Hi there,

I'd suggest that the template should say "This article is currently experiencing high levels of activity because it is about a notable person who has recently died".

This should state why it is experiencing high level of activity and help reinforce the template's purpose since it is only supposed to be used for articles being edited constantly. Such people are usually only what Wikipedia refers to as notable people.

2A02:C7D:BB97:AD00:190F:FEBA:11DE:A231 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If the article isn't about a notable person then we shouldn't have an article on that person at all. Lizard (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit suggestions

The text of this template currently reads as follows:

This article is experiencing high levels of activity because it is about a person who has recently died. The initial news reports, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may be unreliable, and the risk of misinformation is unusually high. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information.

I'd like to suggest re-wording it to align with {{Recent death presumed}}, as follows:

This article is experiencing high levels of activity because it is about a person who has recently died. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known. Initial news reports may be unreliable, and the most recent updates to this article may not reflect the most current information.

Furthermore, I don't believe it's useful to have the phrases "a person who has recently died" or "initial news reports" link to where they do. In the case of the first link, the reader is taken to a list of recent deaths, which adds little to her understaing of the topic at hand. In the second case, the link is to a guideline/policy regarding suitable sources. This is, I believe, well-enough covered by the information at WP:RSBREAKING, linked to from the term "unreliable".

Thank you. — Hugh (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hl: I support these changes. Ijon (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Another small suggestion

I don't like the anthropomorphic "this article is experiencing". Articles don't experience anything. In particular in the connection with a death, I think there's call for less anthropomorphic language. I suggest rephrasing the first sentence to read This article has high levels of activity because etc... or This article shows high levels of activity because etc...

Since there were no comments on the previous suggestion made last month, and I don't want to wait forever, I'll assume I can go ahead and make the change unless someone objects and we can't work it out within a week. Ijon (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ijon: Thanks for your support, and this further comment. I don't like the anthropomorphism either, but I think this template's placement alone should signify that an unusually high level of editing activity is taking place. Now that I think about it, I'd suggest simplifying to the following:

The subject of this biographical article has recently died. Knowledge about the circumstances of the death and surrounding events may change rapidly as more facts come to light. Initial news reports may be unreliable, and the last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information.

The definitive "has recently died" should eliminate the use of this template on BLP articles whose subjects whose death hasn't been confirmed (viz. Tom Petty earlier this year), and I think "as more facts come to light" is a better phrasing -- facts don't become "known".

The present bolding of "experiencing high levels of activity" could be replaced by bolding "has recently died", because that's the truly important part of the first sentence, and the reason for this template's existence. As above, I still think "unreliable" should be the only linked term. I'd be interested to know your thoughts. Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed! Let's go ahead and make that change tomorrow or the day after, if no one objects until then. Ijon (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I support the updating of the template, however the use of this template is to inform editors of rapidly changing edits and not to inform them of the death itself. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

This biographical article is being heavily edited because its subject has recently died. Knowledge about the circumstances of the death and surrounding events may change rapidly as more facts come to light. Initial news reports may be unreliable, and the last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information.

— Hugh (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ijon (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The current text uses magic words to achieve correct grammar, but I have a few questions.

The code is currently as follows:

This article is '''experiencing high levels of activity''' because it is about [[Deaths in {{CURRENTYEAR}}|{{{article|a}}} {{{type|person}}} who {{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|have|has}} recently died]].  The [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|initial news reports]], such as the circumstances of the {{{type|person}}}'s death{{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|s|}} and surrounding events,  may be [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news|unreliable]], and the risk of misinformation is unusually high.

• Wouldn't this: death{{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|s|}} potentially render deaths? How can something (or someone) die more than once?

• If we change to …its subject has recently died, how can we use magic words to potentially render its subjects have recently died?

Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, multiple deaths are relevant when the article is about, say, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Re the syntax, I suppose we could change it to its subject{{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|s|}} {{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|have|has}} recently died. Ijon (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. How does the magic word know to use the plural? Is there some hidden code somewhere? Does it use a WD property? Sorry, I've realised it's the parameter "multiple=yes"!) — Hugh (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Text to agree upon

I've realised the word "biographical" wouldn't make sense in all contexts, such as the MH370 example above.

So, the final text would read as follows: This article is being heavily edited because its subject has recently died. Knowledge about the circumstances of the death and surrounding events may change rapidly as more facts come to light. Initial news reports may be unreliable, and the last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information.

The code to generate this would be:

This article is being '''heavily edited''' because its subject{{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|s|}} {{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|have|has}} recently died. Knowledge about the circumstances of the death{{#ifeq:{{{multiple}}}|yes|s|}} and surrounding events may change rapidly as more facts come to light. Initial news reports may be [[WP:RSBREAKING|unreliable]], and the [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} last updates] to this article may not reflect the most current information.

Are we also agreed that the only hyperlink to remain from the current template would be WP:RSBREAKING (linked to from the term "unreliable")? (Edit: also retained "last updates" link.)

In having removed the person/type distinction from the text, have we rendered that parameter redundant—and is that a bad thing? Do we really need to retain the distinction, if the term "subject" covers both people are scientific types? Having the ability to render "an ostrich who has recently died" would be useful if this were a permanent template, but it's only intended to be used temporarily. — Hugh (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks good to me. We can also change it to "because of the recent death(s) of its subject(s)". I suggest you go ahead and change the template. Ijon (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "because its subject(s) have recently died". I think it's easier to skim-read. Thanks for all your help; I will make the changes soon. — Hugh (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ijon: I've made the changes. I believe the type and article parameters discussed in the docs are now redundant; should I remove them from the docs? Is there code anywhere else that needs to be modified to remove them? It appears this template is not currently used on any Article page, so I don't think this modification would cause any problems.

Edit: I've now updated the docs. — Hugh (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I re-added the link to Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, which is also found in the other current event templates. I do not see any exact discussion here about reasons to remove it. Like other recent news and current events, a reader may act upon the details of the death of a notable or famous person. One scenario that pops on to my mind is a loyal fan of a famous actor, who would take most of their savings to make a pilgrimage to the actor's home/place of death. Or someone going to protest the recent killing/murder/assassination before all the facts are known. I'm sure there are other scenarios where a person will make some drastic or life changing decision based on the recent death of a notable person. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I support your edit @Zzyzx11:. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP template removal

The documentation says to "remove any {{BLP}} template that refers to this person." However, this does not appear to conform with the BLP policy which may apply for some time after a person has died (see WP:BDP). —sroc 💬 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi protect the article

This template should automatically semiprotect the article on which it is being used. It is because during heavy editing time, random IPs vandalise those pages and good editors have to continously watch it to keep article correct. By the time administrator takes action of semiprotection, heavy editing already ended. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I struck off first statement myself. Now I suggest, if this template is added it should list that article needing immediate semiprotection on WP:RFPP automatically. and it should be mark it as "urgent attention required" for the reasons I wrote above. --Parnaval (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the initial proposal: that would be a big change that would need strong consensus. Semi-protecting some set of articles linked from the main page is a perennial proposal—e.g. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Protecting Today's Featured Article on the Main Page. The current policy for semi-protection says Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred (emphasis in original) so this would go against that. From my experience of writing articles that make it to the main page, vandalism does occur and is even the majority of the edits, but IP editors can also fix mistakes I've made or introduce new information that someone more experienced can expand on or polish, which makes their edits an important part of the ecosystem.

As for the listing at RFPP, I think this is just a symptom of a problem, and I regularly see complaints that it is backlogged. What we need is simply more administrators and more activity there by existing admins. Content on the main page is by no means the only case that urgent action is needed—any kind of big news story leads to this type of fast-paced disruption. All cases at RFPP should be treated as urgent and resolved within a couple of hours, and that they aren't will not be fixed by a big banner on some of the cases. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Obscured template display

This template is used for short periods and is meant to be highly visible, however, in this instance it being placed in {{multiple issues}} and is not very visible. I purpose coding in some kind of check/filter that would avoid this issue. Thoughts? - FlightTime (open channel) 04:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Small text

Why is "will be removed" in small text? This makes no sense to me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 06:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)