Talk:Deaths in September 2016

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016[edit]

Please add these two people:

American actor Shepard Sanders who passed away on September 14, 2016. He was 88.[1]

Swedish former athlete Rune Larsson who passed away on September 17, 2016. He was 92.[2]

194.69.14.78 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Larsson appears to be there already on the 17th. Shepard Sanders would be added to the 14th as a 'redlink', and then removed therefore in ten days from now. Not willing to add due to this reason. Sorry. Ref (chew)(do) 07:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added Larsson because he is linked and notable, but did not add Sanders because he is not, despite his filmography. — Wyliepedia 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such a patient IP, to wait until the unprotected September Deaths page is created in order to add its own entry (Sanders). I encourage it to register and create Sanders' article or it won't matter on October 14. — Wyliepedia 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Shepard Sanders probably should be ---> Shepherd Sanders. VIAF has entries for both, which doesn't help... Shepherd Sanders e.g. ... IMdB goes with Shepherd and Google gives quite a lot of hits for Shepherd to extremely few for "Shepard" but as to anything really authoritative, e.g. birth certificate / WOG, I don't know? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. Obituary is strangely wrong. Redlink search now shows his films. — Wyliepedia 20:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016[edit]

Please add Swedish actress Ann-Marie Wiman, who passed away on September 22, 2016. She was 95. [3]

194.69.14.78 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be. It's eligible for addition until such time as it redlinks, and even then is given the usual grace. I have voted "Keep" at its deletion entry, due mainly to the fact that she already has a well-written Swedish article without challenge (so, clearly notable enough there it seems), and I would always ask why the sudden deletion nomination here ten years after her English stub was started? Could the nomination be a mere coincidence in relation to her death? Ref (chew)(do) 17:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is deleted and the death listing turns red, it does not then get the balance of the month. Once it's gone, it's gone. WWGB (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Refsworldlee: I was merely pointing out the fact that it was added and her article nommed for deletion, not weighing in on its inclusion here. As I stated with Chica Lopes, I will add someone even if they are redlinked, nommed for deletion, has an article in another language, or what-have-you – provided there's a degree of notability. — Wyliepedia 22:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both article and death listing now deleted. WWGB (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deaths in September 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babiker Awadalla[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did Babiker Awadalla die on September 6, 2016 as per this source: http://www.sudaress.com/akhirlahza/168395 Or does this source mean he is still living? http://www.baps.org.uk/news/announcements/report-visit-khartoum-sudan-8-12-march-2017/

The cite from baps.org.uk is strange. It refers to "Sami Babiker AwadAlla (Ireland)" travelling to a medical conference in Sudan. Was Awadalla ever known as "Sami", or is that possibly a relative based in Ireland? Why would a 100-year-old law graduate travel to a medical conference? Common sense and logic tells me this cite is NOT about the former PM. The sudaress.com cite merely states "died at the age of 99" without a cause or a date of death. On balance, I find both of these sources unreliable, so we have no clear evidence of death. WWGB (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AT Talk:Babiker Awadalla. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deaths in September 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) 15:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deaths in September 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) 18:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in September 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) 03:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

revert[edit]

At this edit, Editor WWGB reverted my edit with the edit summary we use simple cites on these pages to avoid excessive loading times.

According to the NewPP limit report (Right click > View page source; Ctrl+F NewPP) for this article with my edit intact:

CPU time usage: 1.401 seconds
Real time usage: 1.611 seconds
Lua time usage: 0.460/10.000 seconds

According to the NewPP limit report for this article after the revert:

CPU time usage: 1.102 seconds
Real time usage: 1.294 seconds
Lua time usage: 0.388/10.000 seconds

Your times may vary because of your location and the server that served the page to you may be faster, slower, differently loaded from the servers that served me these examples. I included the Lua timing because all {{cite web}} (32×), {{cite news}} (2×), {{in lang}} (126×), {{webarchive}} (22×) templates are Lua templates. The NewPP limit report has a Transclusion expansion time report that shows transclusion time for {{cite web}}, the templates that I changed. For this article with my edit intact:

16.54% 191.083 32 Template:Cite_web – (%,ms,calls,template)

and after the revert:

18.17% 166.138 32 Template:Cite_web – (%,ms,calls,template)

Assuming that all else is equal, my edit added 24.945mS to the article's processing time 4.1575mS per template.

The wikisource for this article is not particularly large at 143,382 bytes (my edit) and 142,683 (the revert) (a 699 byte difference). The served html sizes (logged out) for my edit is 467,742 bytes and for the revert is 474,002 bytes; the revert is larger by 6,260 bytes probably due to how MediaWiki expands an older edit vs how it expands a current edit. In any case, the size differences are negligible (unless perhaps you are trying to use the internet at 19.2k baud...)

So, @Editor WWGB: can you show what it is in my edit that is causing excessive loading times?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Editor WWGB has not responded to the above, I have restored my edit.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I've been reverted, this time by Editor Rusted AutoParts who left the edit summary: read the talk, we still only use simple cites. You need consensus. Because 'talk' is unlinked in the edit summary, I must presume that Editor Rusted AutoParts means this talk page. As I write this, on this talk page there are eight discussions: two semi-protected edit requests (1, 2); four external links modified notices from InternetArchiveBot (3, 4, 5, 6); one discussion about Babiker Awadalla (7) and this discussion (8). None of these discussions establish a consensus that says we still only use simple cites. So I looked for archives of this talk page. According to this search, there are no archives of this talk page. So, evidence that there is a consensus for simple cites has not been produced; evidence that properly configured citation templates cause excessive loading times has not been produced. Where is the evidence to support these claims?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was stating I had read this discussion and your edit summary. The point was that, if you look at every single other entry on these death pages, they use a simple citation. There have been countless discussions on this topic, and the decision is always to keep the citations simpe for brevity and loading time sake. Rusted AutoParts 16:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? There have been countless discussions on this topic but you can't be bothered to link to one?
I looked at a handful of adjacent 'Deaths in September YYYY' articles and did a Ctrl+F search for archive-url:
Deaths in September 2013 – 15 of 34 cs1|2 templates use |archive-url=
Deaths in September 2014 – 19 of 43 cs1|2 templates use |archive-url=
Deaths in September 2015 – 18 of 20 cs1|2 templates use |archive-url=
Deaths in September 2017 – 14 of 15 cs1|2 templates use |archive-url=
Deaths in September 2018 – 9 of 11 cs1|2 templates use |archive-url=
Deaths in September 2019 – 0 of 0 templates use |archive-url=
Of these, 2017, 2018, and 2019 all have a hidden comment that says something like:
(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.
Yet, 2017 and 2018 also use properly formed citation templates so only one of my sampled articles, 2019, obeys the rules hidden in the wikitext. So, don't you think that you should be consistent? If a rule applies across all of these sorts of articles, then shouldn't you make sure that all of these sorts of articles obey that rule? That instead of simply reverting me, shouldn't you have (because apparently you care about this article) edited the article to ensure that it complies with the (unstated) 'rule'? Reverting me so that the article continues to hold malformed cs1|2 templates simply invites someone like me to 'fix 'em'.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_September_2016&oldid=1210313526"