Talk:Deaths in December 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Footballer vs. Football Player / Short name vs. Full name[edit]

I know this has been discussed before, but I do not remember the decision and this seems like a good time to re-address it. People are using both terms here for the non-American Football participants. Is there a standard that should be used here?

Is "footballer" the preferred term when talking about what Americans refer to as "soccer" and "football player" the proper term only for American/Canadian pigskin football and Australian rules football?

Also, for Australia, is it just "Australian football player" or is it "Australian-rulles football player"?

One more question regarding the Brazilians. They seem to only go by one name like "Ananias" or "Josimar". However, there seems to be no consistency in the individual articles as some are listed by their shortened one word name and others are listed by their long full names. Should the entry here in this article always match whatever name is used as the title of their individual article despite this inconsistency? If so, several entries here need to be changed to reflect the full name.

Thanks.BurienBomber (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either or is correct, so neither is wrong. But in the United Kingdom, we tend to call them "footballers" colloquially. So I would expect to see British players referred to as "footballers" in our Deaths list here, and would no doubt feel obliged to change "football player" in that instance. However, with other forms of football in existence in other countries, I would not presume to interfere in those instances (such as the tragic Brazilian incident of late). To clarify further, originally the British countries knew their players as "Association footballers", before the passage of time saw the dropping of the technical prefix "Association" into a colloquial phrasing. Ref (chew)(do) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to the other questions, I will give just an opinion. Logic tells me that an "Australian footballer" might be described as such to indicate Association rules, but Aussie rules players would need to be clarified as "Australian rules footballer" (or "Australian rules football player"). That subject is probably a little more contentious there than for us in the UK though.
Popular sporting nicknames, for example "Pele", should head an article which bears their given or birth name in the first line of article text in bold, though I doubt this is actually a consistent occurrence. So his article name will be "Pelé", but his given name will be prominently featured, in bold type, as "Edson Arantes do Nascimento". There may well be a reverse redirect from the longer birth name to the shorter article title (which, in his case, there is). Ref (chew)(do) 19:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we write nationality first, an "Australian rules football player" is an Australian citizen who plays a game called "rules". Pedantically, we should write "Australian Australian rules football player". Better to use "Australian football player". WWGB (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016[edit]

Dec 10 László Huzsvár....is a Hungarian, not Serbian..........Serbian Roman Catholic does not exist 152.28.8.3 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Huzsvár was born in 1931 in Horgoš in the Kanjiža municipality, which became part of Yugoslavia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) in 1918, that makes him "Serbian" by nationality, despite Hungarians residing in the area at the time and possibly genetically related. This source shows he was a Bishop in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Zrenjanin, again Serbian. I hope that explains things. — Wyliepedia 11:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comma usage in entries[edit]

...can (or should) be considered handy in their simplicity. While I agree some positions, posts, and jobs need further descriptors (á la "politician, member of") due to some international governments being too large to consider one body (or voted so), I don't see anything wrong with listing judges of any type with their benches (tenures in parentheses) in commas, following said position. I myself used to be repetitive in describing judges, by listing the word again in the specific linked bench, but have come to enjoy the brevity in the current simplicity. I hope others do as well, while also succinctly expanding if necessary. (Apologies if I sound proper. Cold medicines have that effect upon me.) — Wyliepedia 10:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Thicke[edit]

jPod is recent and relatively high-profile (being based on a Douglas Coupland novel). The Alan Thicke Show is very obscure -- I'd hazard a guess that few Canadians remember it or even knew it existed, let alone anyone else in the world. Thicke of the Night is notorious, but maybe still a little obscure, since it was early 80s and didn't last long. freshacconci talk to me 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by references I've heard in the media about Thicke's career in the last 24 hours. I've heard both talk shows referenced, but not jPod. But I'm not in Canada so, of course, the references will be different. Thanks for the explanation! Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to list his significant works, those considered to be his "signatures". (For example, Growing Pains.) Not just any old fluff that a particular editor happens to like or to favor. Stuff, for example, that no one -- in the general population -- has ever heard of. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Thicke "three"[edit]

Re: Alan Thicke. What are the "rules" (or accepted practices) for listing acting credits for a deceased actor? I had assumed we list the 2 or 3 "big" (most notable) works, and/or their signature roles? Alan Thicke is universally known for Growing Pains. No one has ever heard of this Not Quite Human obscure TV film from 1987. It should be removed. I am not saying that he was not in the film. Just that the film is obscure and irrelevant. It is not a "milestone" or "highlight" of his career. It is barely a blip on the screen or a footnote to his long career. It has no place in his one-line bio which -- I believe -- we limit to about 3 works max. This is not in his "top three". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it is added as a result of one editor's bias. Someone really liked this film -- or whatever -- and is insisting it be included. This obscure film -- a TV movie, no less -- is totally inconsequential. And Thicke is not "known" for this role/work/film. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no bias. In all frankness the only notable thing in Thicke's resume was Growing Pains. Since we can put in 3 things and Pains is one, we try to include two other things to meet the 3 max. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "meet the max" just for the sake of meeting the max. We list notable works. That Not Quite Human film is not notable. We don't list three, just to list three. In other words, just because we "can" list three does not mean that we are required to list three. I think the rule is better understood as: "we list notable works, to a max of three." Not "we list three, regardless of notability". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, listing such "fluff" does a disservice to him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, we should be listing the famous TV show jingles (theme songs) that he penned. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not just any tv movie. It was a Disney Channel movie at the height of the era where tv execs began marketing entire stations to children, therefore this movie is notable to the Disney generation. In his career, however, this is a blip of a children's tv movie that has poor production value. List it on his page, but not in a one line bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:9028:75B3:CB5C:3F24 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As I said above: Quite frankly, listing such "fluff" does a disservice to him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the above consensus to be that we remove Not Quite Human from Thicke's bio entry. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition of consensus, no. — Wyliepedia 05:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you read the above consensus, then? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Browder[edit]

The entry on the 10th regarding the above articled subject, and his purported death, needs urgent attention. Namely, finding a better source to run with than (quote) "[ confirmed by his son, Prof. Thomas Browder of Hawaii Univ. ]" (no link). Although his article has been updated to show his "death date", we are dealing purely with hearsay here, and I'm uncomfortable in the extreme with that. Other thoughts? Ref (chew)(do) 15:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added WashPost source. — Wyliepedia 01:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That didn't exist until after my above post. Ref (chew)(do) 08:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ginyo Ganev[edit]

English spelling is Ginyo Ganev. 109.120.215.208 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an English name, therefore there is no formal way of displaying it. The Deaths pages certainly go with the spelling in whatever Wikipedia article exists for the subject at the time. The name of the subject's article in the German Wikipedia is currently "Ginjo Ganew", and that's why it is shown as such in the Deaths page here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zsa Zsa Gabor[edit]

Shouldn't she be listed on Wikipedia's home page rather than just on this page? She was world famous. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion for another place - not here. We have no control over the main page editorial. Sorry. Ref (chew)(do) 23:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a link for the appropriate place to discuss that (very valid) question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the nomination. Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Hunt (director)[edit]

Am curious why his name was removed from the December 19 list yet his entry has December 19, 2016, as the date of his passing. 68.231.71.119 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He died on the 17th. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of semicolons[edit]

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style states as follows (in Section 10.7 on semicolons):

Semicolons are used in addition to commas to separate items in a listing, when commas alone would result in confusion.

Confusing:   Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts, San Francisco, California, Singapore, and Millbank, London, England.
Clear: Sales offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California; Singapore; and Millbank, London, England.

If an item itself in a list already contains a comma, the items in that list are therefore separated by semicolons (not by commas). This is according to the Wikipedia MOS. And it's normal practice everywhere else, too.

So, when we have an entry such as this:

or this:

the items within the parentheses should be separated by semicolons, not by commas (because the entry items themselves already contain commas).

In other words, the entry Promises, Promises already contains a comma within itself. And the entry Me, Myself and I likewise does.

Such entries -- when contained in a list that would normally be separated by commas -- are properly separated by semicolons instead.

Per Wikipedia MOS. And per normal editing practices, everywhere else.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt readers will find it too confusing and can determine when punctuation is used in a title and when it's separating listings. Rusted AutoParts 04:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1: you missed my point entirely. Number 2: whether readers find it confusing or not does not dictate correct grammar, punctuation, style, or MOS policy. If I typed the phrase "catts and dogs", everyone would know what I meant. Still doesn't make it "correct". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I'm missing your point at all. You're suggesting that something like this:
Boston, Massachusetts, Detroit, Michigan, Las Vegas, Nevada
is confusing. I disagree. If this was an issue, I'm surprised you didn't raise questions about it when we started doing it in this particular way. Rusted AutoParts 04:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Started" doing what in what particular way? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I phrased that poorly. I'm meaning in regards to the use of semi colon in the way you applied toward Latessa's screen credits. Rusted AutoParts 05:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I have described above is the correct way to do the screen credits. Not by my opinion. But by Wikipedia policy. And by all external practice, also. It's simply the correct punctuation to use (in general practice and specifically in Wikipedia). This is not controversial. It's standard accepted punctuation. If things were done incorrectly in the past, that is no reason to continue to do them incorrectly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, here: [1], Rule #3. You will find this universal rule everywhere. I am just pointing out one example from a quick Google search. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph's got a point here. However, I don't believe the use of commas is 100% wrong, but semicolons are the better choice, whether or not Rusted is confused.Nukualofa (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick to the Manual of Style in general and in this particular case too, also I may be particularly dumb, but as a non-native English speaker I am confused by the city list. Redgolpe (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which city list are you confused by? The one with commas only, or the one with semicolons? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally missed whatever started this all off. Unless this was just a random lecture. Ref (chew)(do) 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It started off as "edit summary comments" when other editors (plural) and I made the changes described above. I changed the commas to semicolons; the other editors changed the semicolons back to commas. And so on. Several times. So, one of my edit summary comments said "See Talk Page". That is how this began. So, no, not a random lecture. Per se. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. Have a good Christmas. Ref (chew)(do) 07:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You, too. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Robert Urban[edit]

Please add to December 19 deaths: Łukasz Robert Urban. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any variation of his name gets redirected to 2016 Berlin attack for lack of notability. An entry here would also need a proper description outside of "Polish lorry (or truck) driver." — Wyliepedia 07:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, he had an article. See here: [2]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I added to it before it was redirected, because people keep trying to make him notable, hence the name variants linked in my previous post. Welcome to the ever-changing Wikiworld. — Wyliepedia 22:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deddie Davies[edit]

This entry makes no sense to me:

She is listed as an actress; and one of her acting credits is The Zimmers. The Zimmers, however, is the name of a musical group or band. What gives? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Merry Christmas. Ref (chew)(do) 07:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about references[edit]

I see that the edit notes contains the instruction - (4) References should be in ref[url & title]ref format, as full citations make the page too slow to load, and too big to edit

Why was this used for the article? Wikipedia needs more full references. Does it really take that much time for the full citation to load? Without the date included in the reference, it makes the date of the death more difficult to verify. This was not the guidance in Deaths in 2015 Bangabandhu (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point here being that, over time, consensus was reached among interested editors on keeping this page populated by simple references only, and it tells you the reason why clearly, in those instructions. A list of deaths certainly does NOT "need" a full citation per line. Articles about the dead subjects, yes, but not this functional listing. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I agree that a full reference is unnecessary if an article exists. But many of the names in the December 2016 list don't have an article elsewhere. Their only reference in wikipedia is an incomplete citation. That's consensus? A minimum requirement should be a full citation or a wikilink to the full article entry.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I think I mentioned, the 30 day hiatus is to give editors a chance of creating a credible, source-supported and therefore notable article about the deceased subject. They do not currently have to have an article elsewhere. It is a fine line though - Sweetie was recently removed as not notable because her ONLY claim to fame was being a sports fan and being mentioned by a sports coach in the media. Anyone would agree that this entry was frivolous. The journalist you removed at least had an occupation and media exposure which begs the question of notability - at least for the next thirty days. Hope this all makes sense, and thanks for your tolerance of this process. Have a happy Christmas. Ref (chew)(do) 07:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the Sweetie entry when I was reading the page. Actually, I thought that entry was more notable than some of the other entries - unlike the one I questioned, she at least has some coverage in English language media. I understand how the process works now, thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(She was only mentioned by other possibly notable people - her newsworthiness depended absolutely on other persons, and there is no indication as to whether other fans might also be deserving of mention - I suspect they might. I must disagree therefore on Sweetie!) Ref (chew)(do) 08:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are 2016 deaths particularly notable?[edit]

There's plenty of media coverage on the significant number of celebrity deaths of 2016. I suggest adding the following, or something similar, to the lead of the article:

Many media reports noted that a significantly high number of celebrity deaths took place in 2016,[1][2][3][4][5] particularly in American and British culture. The highly publicized deaths of musicians David Bowie and Prince, and boxer Muhammad Ali, were among the most prominent.[6]

Thoughts? Neegzistuoja (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zach Schonfeld (8 February 2016). "THE GREAT CELEBRITY DEATH EPIDEMIC OF 2016". Newsweek. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  2. ^ Justin Worland (22 April 2016). "Is 2016 Really a Worse Year Than Usual for Celebrity Deaths?". Time. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  3. ^ Harry Wallop (30 August 2016). "Why are so many celebrities dying in 2016?". Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  4. ^ Lisa Respers France (30 August 2016). "Is 2016 the year of celebrity deaths?". CNN. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  5. ^ Charlotte McDonald (16 December 2016). "Have more famous people died in 2016?". BBC. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  6. ^ "Pageviews Analysis" (A sample of statistics for notable figures who died in 2016 shows that Bowie, Prince and Ali's deaths were the most significant in terms of pageviews). Wikimedia Tool Labs. 25 December 2016. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
That just introduces WP:BIAS in favour of certain nationalities and occupations. Is Prince more important than Fidel Castro? The analysis of most significant deaths belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. How about just the first sentence? Neegzistuoja (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, we're not really here to carry out an original research exercise in statistics, pitting one year against the other. 2016 is was it is, just as 2015 was and 2017 will be. We are a list, as are the other years, without reference to quantity. There should be no mention in this article - such speculation is for other articles, such as the Main Page. Thanks, and have a good New Year - hopefully much kinder to the most notable of the world. Ref (chew)(do) 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that goes for introducing statistical "Day Totals", as was attempted by an editor without concensus today (and thankfully reverted by a diligent servant to this page). Here's the first entry in such a concensus process then:
  • Against - as quoted in my previous comment above, "we are a list, as are other years, without reference to quantity". Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Anastasian[edit]

Hello,

For Ashot Anastasian you put his death the 26 but your source mentions only when it was told to medias (the 26) they don't tell the day he died. Here is a blog that was made 20 hours ago (the 25) that says he died the 25 (here -> [3]). I know it's a blog but it reveals without a doubt he can't have died the 26. Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added our usual "death announced" in his entry, until confirmed. — Wyliepedia 13:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Michael[edit]

Using 3 Wham! songs for his credits is insane. His career was huge outside of Wham! and "Faith" was his biggest hit, even including the Wham! hits. It spent more weeks at #1 than any of his other songs and was the top-selling single of the year in the United States in 1988. It also spent more weeks at #1 than any other song that year. Furthermore, it was the title track for his all-time biggest selling album. George Michael had 10 number one singles on the Billboard Hot 100, 7 of them after Wham!. That should not be ignored. One if the other songs needs to be removed in lieu of "Faith." BurienBomber (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care so damn much over what songs/films/whatever is used as examples? Do you just have the chronic need to disagree with me? How is any of his work being ignored when the songs used are ones written by him?
Ok, lets use incidental stats like Billboard. How about YouTube views (Per George Michael Vevo)?
  • "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" - 115 million views
  • "Careless Whisper" - 167 million
  • "Last Christmas" - 229 million
  • "Faith" - 26 million
Awards/charts don't necessarily indicate that the work is their most notable, I think I told you that before. Al Pacino may have won an Oscar for Scent of a Woman, but his best known work is The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface, etc. Same applies here. There's nothing "insane" about his three best known songs written by him being songs within Wham. Rusted AutoParts 19:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Awards/charts don't necessarily indicate that the work is their most notable, I think I told you that before." -- That is only your opinion. And you telling me so "before" is irrelevant. You are not my mother.
Billboard in NOT incidental. It is the industry standard. Using Youtube hits is a joke when comparing hits from 25-35 years ago. And it is a bald-faced lie to claim "his three best known songs written by him being songs within Wham."
I only disagree with you when you decide to unilaterally dictate what gets entered for credits on this page. You are the only one here that does that. You think you are in charge and try to run roughshod over everyone else here. You never ever let someone else change a credit you inserted unless they make a big deal about it. BurienBomber (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith much? And as I pointed out in the long run charts are incidental. He could have dozens of chart toppers, doesn't mean they're all his best known work. I try to use the ones people who read this will recognize the best, ad based off those YouTube views, it shows which ones stand out. "Running roughshod"? What do you think this is, a colony I think I'm in charge of? It's a Wikipedia page. When you got this concept I dictate solely for my own benefit, I don't know, but it's definite OR on your part, and a huge amount of bad faith. Obviously I'm not your mother, I think I'd remember having a daily pain in my ass. Rusted AutoParts 20:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are also hypocritical. When it suits your argument, you will trot out the "it's only right to include his other aspects". When it doesn't, like with George Michael, you use the "It doesn't matter the 3 biggest came from one aspect of their career" excuse.
As for "daily". You've got to be kidding? You have your biased little hand every single entry for the credits an actor/actress and most of the entertainers listed here. Every one of them. And if anyone ever changes it, you reverse it back with some snotty comment. I speak up once or twice a month on your entries. That is likely less than 5% of them. BurienBomber (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My "biased little hand" (adding onto the bad faith) adds them in when there's none added. If it turns out there's another more notable entry, I accept the change. You just happen to champion less notable selections.
You're meshing separate argument points together. In the case of "other aspects", I was in reference to an actor with a career in different aspects of media (film and television) so I argued it was only correct to use credits that reflected that (one for film, one for television, if a noted stage performer one for that too) but only in the case if all aspects are notable. IE if they did a wide margin of film but few and far between television or stage stints that don't get remembered too frequently, and vice versa.
We're here discussing songs for the same individual, so there's no other aspects to explore. His work in Wham! is regarded in the same way as his solo work. People fondly remember them all collectively. But since we can't list every single one per rule of three, I at least try to identify what ones stand out more. I use YouTube views and mentions in articles to determine that. It's a bit easier for actors. With singers people can be more preferable towards a particular one. I identified what I feel people recognize more. If 100-200+ million click on a song to listen to, and only 26 million click on another, which one stands out to you as being more notable?
And I think you failed to note that my "daily" remark was in regards to your "you're not my mother" comment. Rusted AutoParts 20:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I identified what I feel people recognize more." --- It isn't all about you. You do not get to unilaterally decide this. "Faith' was the Billboard number one song of the year for 1988[4]. "Last Christmas" never even made the chart. It is not all about what is popular with the current YouTube crowd. (Who even said that is how the average person most listens to music?). And it certainly isn't all about what you decide, without any consensus whatsoever. BurienBomber (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one trying to make it about me. "unilaterally dictate", "You are the only one here that does that. You think you are in charge and try to run roughshod over everyone else here", "biased little hand"? You're trying to make it out I commanding what's best for the entry. That is insane. It's ridiculous how antagonistic you get towards whatever I do here, with you hurling assumptions and practically screaming in your edit summaries with your ALL CAPS ON EVERY WORD. Don't be so emotionally invested over something so trivial. Are you proposing people come here to discuss what songs/films/shows get added to people's entries? No one cares that much. I don't. I only add in what I think people think of when they think of that person (and don't try to spin this to seem like I choose what people should think, that's just absurd). I can just as easily say you're unilaterally deciding "Faith" is considered one of his most well known works. That accusation can be thrown both ways. But either way I've lost interest in your power trip. You clearly have no intentions of not having "Faith" in there, you seem to know what's best with your unilateral dictation. Happy holidays ;) Rusted AutoParts 06:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last bit of food for thought: "Last Christmas", "Careless Whisper" and "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" all appear in the lead section of his wiki page, whereas "Faith" does not, aside from noting the album Faith being his first solo album. Rusted AutoParts 06:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence. The current iTunes sales chart shows the following Michael songs: #20 Careless Whisper, #23 Freedom! '90, #29 Faith, #31 Father Figure, #37 Don't Let the Sun Go Down On Me (Duet with Elton John), #39 I Want Your Sex, #42 One More Try, #46 Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go, #56 Last Christmas. BurienBomber (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Faith/Last Christmas yo-yo has been brought out once more, now that 2016 has passed. Have fun with that then, guys. Ref (chew)(do) 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's putting on more weight than he did, almost as we speak it seems. Unbelievable. Ref (chew)(do) 21:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He pulls this crap every time. If he doesn't get his way during the month, he waits until the next month to shove his credits through. He does it over and over and rarely gets called out on it. BurienBomber (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it clearly doesn't annoy anyone else but you. And I wasn't the one who swapped it out again. But I know that goes against your anti-RAP agenda. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was you. You just slyly did it in two stages. You have reverted it back to "Last Christmas" 4 times now since I started this conversation here even though there has not been any consensus whatsoever. You are not the Lord God of the page. BurienBomber (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you now accusing me of sockpuppeting? Rusted AutoParts 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for notable works[edit]

Following on from the George Michael argy bargy above, I say again that we need agreed criteria for which notable works to list against an artist. Other than the rule of 3, and despite the many rules for this article, we never seem to agree on what is most notable. Perhaps we should all make a new year's resolution to act collaboratively and come up with some sort of consensus. For a start. I suggest three tiers:

  • Tier 1 - highly notable awards: EGOT, BAFTA, Man Booker etc
  • Tier 2 - sales of tickets, records, books etc
  • Tier 3 - other relevant criteria: Ghits, Youtube views, downloads etc.
We might determine notable works from Tier 1 first, then proceed lower until we have three.
Please, let's have less anger and more agreement in 2017! WWGB (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great idea and would make it less subjective. Using the above suggestion, I would add chart success to Tier 2 (preferably) or Tier 3 for music artists. For TV works of actors, criteria to be sorted should probably include starring roles, number of episodes.... For athletes the sortable criteria for teams could be length of service, championships won, all-star appearances. BurienBomber (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea "on paper". But -- in real life -- there is simply too much variability. And we will find ourselves being pigeon-holed into listing some credit that we otherwise would rather not, due to the "rules". As I said, there is way too much variability. Some actors are singers, some are not. Some singers are songwriters, some are not. Some athletes are movie stars, some are not. Some movie stars are politicians, some are not. Some dancers are singers, some are not. Some authors are politicians, some are not. Etc. Etc. Etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable about the "rule of three" being rigidly applied without any concession to sensible flexibility. What about subjects who were notable in multiple fields? If they produced award-winning works as an actor, singer, producer, director and author do we just arbitrarily drop two entire aspects of their career? Astronomy Explained (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting post. And thought-provoking. But I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that we eliminate the "rule of three" and include whatever number of credits might be appropriate in any individual case? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also ... do we really even have a "rule of three" (on this page)? Where is that coming from? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted over an edit to Carrie Fisher with the reason "rule of three" (two films, one book) being given. I understand that we don't want a full bibliography, discography, etc.. on these pages, but also think that we can afford some flexibility. Astronomy Explained (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three entries is plenty flexible enough. Rusted AutoParts 18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that answers your 17:37 query, Joseph. Astronomy Explained (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC) <Sorry, Joseph, some TimeZone arrogance there. Should have said 17:37 UTC.>[reply]
It's more a general decision, so as not to invite too many credits being added in. As stated it's subjective as to what people feel is notable to a performer, so if there's no cap on how many there's added, it could look like this:
Just a glutinous amount of credits. Rusted AutoParts 17:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting concept, but I don't know, for a lot of people, actors best known work can lie outside the realm of awards/ticket sales/etc.
I used Al Pacino as an example in the George Michael "argy bargy". He may have won accolades for Scent of a Woman, but overall people will point towards films like The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface and Heat before they point to Scent of a Woman.
What if the person didn't win awards? Or have high ticket sales? Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Al Pacino. What people are you talking about? The Kennedy Center Honors, which just aired a couple days ago focused heavily on "Scent of A Woman" as well as "The Godfather" and "Dog Day". They barely even mentioned "Heat" and "Scarface". I hope Pacino is healthier than he looked at the event, or we are in for another round of "argy bargy." BurienBomber (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another round of "you're being a biased dictator!" you mean?
And I clearly mean the people who read this page, who look this information up on Wikipedia. Accolades don't automatically equate to it being the persons best known work, I've said this before. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"And I clearly mean the people who read this page, who look this information up on Wikipedia." -- And you would know this how?
"Accolades don't automatically equate to it being the persons best known work, I've said this before." -- It is a far better measure than using the voices in your head. BurienBomber (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read the collected obituaries, seen which ones they use in the title/lead paragraph. Alan Rickman, 'Die Hard' and 'Harry Potter' Actor, Dead at 69 (can you confirm that's a real article? Or am I just imagining this magazine?). BBC also identified those two as notable works, so they were implemented into his entry.
"It is a far better measure than using the voices in your head" - good one. They're better to talk to. You're just an ass. Rusted AutoParts 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of three[edit]

No, no one has answered my question. Does this page have a rule of three? If so, where does that rule come from? Can someone point me to somewhere? Thanks. We have been talking about this "rule of three", as if it's Gospel. And it seems to be a "given" that that is the rule here. I am simply asking for the source of that rule. If, indeed, it even is a rule (for this article). Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I and @WWGB: have already told you. Look in the discussion thread above. The rule of three. Not a rule or "gospel", it's just a way of keeping entries using career aspects from being too bloated. Rusted AutoParts 01:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what the "rule of three" is. And I understand that Wikipedia has an article about it. However, that was not my question. I am quite sure that Wikipedia has lots of articles about lots of different "rules". Just because there is a "rule" out there in the real world, does not mean that that rule has been adopted by consensus for Wikipedia articles. So, my question is: where is the consensus in which we agreed to apply the "rule of three" to this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you angling for? There was no consensus. I just use it to prevent a heavy bloat of credits. We don't need a full filmography, just some highlights.
Are you trying to gauge a way to add more in, or less? Because though there's no consensus we have to use it, like your desire for people to use semi colons properly should we not adopt this as a practice? Rusted AutoParts 04:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My "angle" -- as you put it -- is to gather information. I have no ulterior motive or agenda. Much of the discussion on this Talk Page seems to be predicated on the "fact" that this page already has a consensus to employ the Rule of Three. However, that is not consensus (for this page). And it is misleading to imply that it is. In any event, what I would object to is that some people think that the so-called rule "forces" us to list three, when perhaps less than three would be appropriate. A similar discussion was posted somewhere above. Probably in the Alan Thicke discussions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ro3 concept for death notices first raised at Talk:Deaths in May 2014#Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.. No-one seemed to object, others climbed on board. Consensus by silence? WWGB (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "rule of three" is not a rule at all. It is just based on Rule of three (writing), which says things are more satisfying in groups of three. So there's some kind of consensus here that a celebrity can have no more than three works listed. Some take that to mean we must find exactly three good works by any celebrity. The whole point is editor restriction without any sound basis. That's why I would prefer a structure where there is agreement on which notable works should be reported here. I live in hope. WWGB (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly use it to articulate ones career, at the same time makensuren it doesn't go overboard with what's added in. Using the rule of three just keeps things in order. Rusted AutoParts 01:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I broke RoT with Gilles Borrie, but didn't want any of those townsfolk to write us nasty letters. — Wyliepedia 03:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the contributors that we don't want to see bloated lists of the entire bibliography, discography (etc.) of a subject, but contend that if the person has been notable in multiple fields we ought not to automatically feel constrained by RoT. The good judgement of experienced editors to add a fourth example shouldn't be arbitrarily overruled simply because "RoT". Astronomy Explained (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should we feel compelled to add three, just to have three (in the specific cases where having only two is more appropriate or perhaps even having just one). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I certainly agree with you there, Joseph. One world changing achievement doesn't need two items of trivia attached just to "make up the numbers". I'm more concerned about individuals who contribute in multiple fields having some of their attainments ignored. Astronomy Explained (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changeover to Deaths in 2017[edit]

As usual, the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not apply at the end of December.

The reason is that Recent Deaths on the front page of Wikipedia is pointed to Deaths in 2017 from January 1. This means that deaths from that date need to be reported on Deaths in 2017, rather than staying on Deaths in 2016 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway). WWGB (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Around 10:00 a.m. UTC on 31 December is when 00:00 1 January rolls around Kiritimati. Deaths in December 2015 was expanded at around 06:45 UTC on 1 Jan. If I'm sober in those wee hours, I will expand DiDec2016 and redirect Di2016. — Wyliepedia 17:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onotuku Joseph Onyemali - traditional ruler of Umuachi-Ogo, Delta State, Nigeria.[edit]

Onotuku Joseph Onyemali, the traditional ruler of Umuachi-Ogo in Delta State, Nigeria was found dead on 21 December. [5] - (119.224.80.18 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done. An in-depth Google search reveals that the subject appears to be notable only by mentions in the incident reports and obituaries for this sad occurrence. I think I am right in saying that Onyemali would be one of very many "rulers" of many communities in the country indicated, and not an "exclusive" national monarch as we in the UK would understand it with our Queen Elizabeth? Any creation of an article for the subject would need in-depth biography sources to support it, and not just the myriad obituaries currently dominating search results. I fear that his notability is much-diluted, and I personally would not be happy to add him, due to the above concerns. Sorry. Ref (chew)(do) 08:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Sollender[edit]

Apologies to those military editors (I am one myself) but I yanked the entry for Joel D. Sollender, 92, an American soldier and former prisoner of war, who died of heart failure.[6] His news item was mostly about being a Hillary Clinton supporter first, then his decorated military service; neither of which will ever make him notable enough for an article. — Wyliepedia 10:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been put back by someone else, with a possible axe to grind. I have shortened the very strident and convoluted new description and CoD, but am not removing it again, as I think we are all aware of the hiatus usually afforded to sourced entries. Individual opinions about notability obviously vary; the truly acid test would be for someone (not me!) to create an article about the subject, and see whether it is speedy deleted, nominated for such action or kept. Ref (chew)(do) 21:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re-insertion is fine, although his notability isn't from being a POW. If that's the case, then what of the others? The redlink patrol will axe it at the proper time. — Wyliepedia 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality/Citizenship (primarily for UK entries)[edit]

The guidelines for entries suggest that editors record "Name, age, country of citizenship at birth, subsequent country of citizenship (if applicable), reason for notability, cause of death (if known), and reference". Although virtually all of those born in the UK have British citizenship, many of the entries here record people as Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or English. This is comparable to noting US Americans as Texan, Californian or Minnesotan but, unfortunately, can lead to edit wars when corrected due to feelings of nationalism amongst some in the four constituent parts of the UK. What are the opinions of other editors in this space? Should we use the correct citizenship (British) or is this one of those occasions when the accuracy isn't worth the hassle? Astronomy Explained (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there is already consensus at this project for any United Kingdom subjects to be called "British" in the descriptions, and not filtered down to English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish divisions. Any instances of "English costermonger" (for example) should rightly be changed to "British costermonger", and any editor is free to correct that mistake wherever they see it - it does not need fresh consensus on this Talk Page. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 21:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to follow Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, in particular, "Individuals may identify more closely with being "British" or with being "English", "Irish, "Northern Irish", "Scottish" or "Welsh"." Wherever possible, we try to use the label with which the deceased most identified. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I typed earlier, "the accuracy isn't worth the hassle". As its new year's eve, I could be sarcastic and wonder how we ask the deceased their preference. <smile> Astronomy Explained (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't. We simply look back at past self-expressions. For example, Sean Connery clearly considers himself to be Scottish rather than British. WWGB (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia McCauley[edit]

I deleted Tricia McCauley since her life was not notable. Her article has been nominated for deletion. DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017[edit]

Please move actress Barbara Tarbuck to her correct date of death on Monday the 26th of December. She is listed under December 27 at the moment.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barbara-tarbuck-dead-general-hospital-american-horror-story-actress-was-74-959617 194.69.14.78 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thankyou for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deaths in December 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in December 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Deaths in December 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Fisher[edit]

died on the 24th of December. --Owen1983 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_December_2016&oldid=1206912189"