Talk:Deaths in May 2011

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

Images[edit]

Is there a reason we don't include any images? Many of those on the listing have free images available for illustration. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline Wikipedia:List#Listed items says nothing about whether or not images should be included. My opinion is that the list is already long, the inclusion of images will make it even longer and therefore longer to load. (One of the reasons I do not support inline citations here.) Since images may be available in the deceased's article anyway, I don't see the point in including them here. Thanks for the idea, interested in what others think. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a reasonable thought, and one that does not seem to have been aired previously. I tend to agree with WWGB that including images may unduly affect loading times, and that the individual articles might be a better place for such images. On the other hand, it might 'brighten up' an otherwise inherently morose listing. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is what a date might look like with images: [1] WWGB (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the test page. I think images are a good idea. The one drawback may be with edit-wars occurring over which of the departed warrant a photo. Hopefully a solution can be found. BurienBomber (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There don't need to be that many images if there are size concerns, just one or two for each date. Preferably, we should look for the better quality images that are available, those that show the person at the highlight of their career/notability, or most recent. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs/images showing people at their 'highest career point', might appear to be incongruous with a listing of dead folk. Plus the inevitable Wikipedia deliberation over selection of such images (who to include/why/how good a quality such an image is/what to omit/etcetera) may detract from the relative ease of simply adding people (and horses, dogs and pet hamsters, of course) to the listing. Nevertheless, it is common quality newspaper practice to include an image within an obituary, and Wikipedia does not have a policy/concensus/guideline on this subject to stymie further discussion. As before, I can see the plus and minus side of the argument, and feel more input would be appreciated. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are plusses and minuses to the inclusion of photos. The overall objective of this page is to inform/educate readers as to who has died during the month. Certainly, photos will help to that end. (I can't tell you how many times I did not recognize someone notable by their name alone, but did indeed recognize them by their photo! It's like an "Oh, that was him!?!?!?" moment.) There will be debate over whose photo to include, which is the best photo to include, etc. But that is no insurmountable task. I am not a "techie" type person, so I am unsure as to how the photos will affect download speed, etc. And I most definitely disagree that photos of a person at his career high-point are incongruous with listing the deceased. We are memorializing the person and his life (i.e., his entire career of notability), not just the single moment in time of death. No incongruity whatsoever. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A related side-note. When I am interested in knowing who died recently, I prefer my information from the following website (see an example page here: Life In Legacy - Week ending April 23, 2011). I actually prefer this site over Wikipedia, for the very reason that it includes photos! I just thought that I'd mention this. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The loading time likely won't have that much of an impact, if it is kept to a selective amount. I suggested the option of the career high-point or most recent, and with Wikipedia's usually limited selection of images, it may be difficult to have images of both points. We definitely don't want to see images for every person on the list, but a developed balance can further improve the bare list. Who knows, it may provide inspiration for seeking out better free images or the improvement of those specific articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is general agreement that images are OK to add to this page. So ... someone should start adding some. Personally, I do not know how to add photos to the page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I did a mock-up in my sandbox. Does this distribution/number/variety of images work for the list? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out your mock-up, and it looks fine to me. The only "tweaking" that I would suggest is that some of the photos should not be so large. The ones that were "small" and "medium" sized were fine ... but, there were three or four photos that were inordinately large (in my opinion). I don't know much about photos, so I don't know if you are able to re-size them or not ... or if you just have to use the original size photo that you have. I'd say, if possible, resize and reduce some of the larger ones down to a small or medium size. If resizing and reducing is not an option, what you have is fine with me. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The images all have the same width (according to whatever thumbnail settings you have set up in your preferences), but there is a a variety in length. That's due to the wide selection of portraits being used, as well as the author's preference or crop choice. I included the "|thumb" parameter for all of the images to include the uniform width. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that you mentioned it, I went back and looked again. The widths are indeed all the same, but the lengths vary from one photo to the next. I think it looks fine. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I've added the images. We'll see if further stated guidelines are needed if edit wars come about or if this page gets inundated with images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it starts from April 2011, or we can add pictures for older months/years?--Andres arg (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, add them in ... I don't see why not. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The pictures that had been posted have been deleted. I think we need to take an "official" decision on this to avoid people reverting edits.--Andres arg (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... well, that "official" decision is this discussion above ... no? I did not see any objections. And, it seems to me, this Talk Page is the very place to discuss this issue and, if need be, object. I don't think Wikipedia has "official" decisions per se ... but, rather, whatever consensus is reached on these Talk Pages. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I've just noticed the images for the first time, and I have to say it's a terrible idea to include them. We can't link to the words actor, British, cancer or suicide, but we can have a glorified image gallery cluttering up the place. If I want to see a picture of Bin Laden or Henry Cooper, I'd click on their article. Who's to decide which person is more worthy than the next to have their picture included? Get rid of them NOW. Lugnuts (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Lugnuts ... You can see that there were no objections above, and that is why the photos were recently added. I am not saying that the matter is now closed, as people are still free to add their opinions here on this discussion board. Reverting edits and removing photos without participating here is not the route to take, however. I appreciate your input, and I am sure that consensus can be agreed upon here with this matter. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

NO PHOTOS!!! If people want know who these dead people are, just click on the links. There are plenty of pictures there. Sounds like Nehram2020 is a damn fool. B-Machine (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these images must be removed following the reasons that some users have already pointed out. For me, and this is my POV, these files are redundant, they don't actually give more information than the one we can find in the articles. Besides, and again this is my POV, they are somewhat discriminatory with other notable people who died on the same date. I know that this seems to have been a decision based on consensus. I just want to express my disagreement if that helps to sort this problem out given the fact that some users are against this measure. --Góngora (Talk) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the photos. What purpose do they serve? Do they help anyway other than show that person's face in an obituary page? I think they should be removed, no contest. If i wanna see a photo of Sidney Lumet, for example, i'd click on the link. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:24 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd appear that initial consensus was content with including the images as the discussion was open for a while as well as no oppositions to the mock-up. Maybe the visuals helped to shed light on the discussion and incorporate some opinions! The selection of images chosen included a wide range of careers, ethnicities, and genders which would hopefully provide an assorted variety to avoid POV concerns. However, as consensus has changed, and rather than having the constant reverting, I don't see any issues with leaving them out. Hopefully this discussion will be helpful for indicating consensus on future image additions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the photos, but it's very poor form to be just adding, removing, adding and removing before a clear consensus is reached. This debate is clearly not over, so just leave the page alone until the discussion is settled. Reverting before the debate is finished is edit-warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the images and feel there should be a trial period, so more can view and weigh in with there opinion. Perhaps including images on the current months (April/May) as a trial and not placing any in the archived months until a definite decision is made? BurienBomber (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do we determine which people receive pictures on the centralized deaths list? Conceivably anybody who's listed already has met some definition of notability (as we link to the person's article) but they have to be an upper level of notable to get their picture on the centralized death list? Lots of subjective judgements being made in terms of treatment lead me to Oppose the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial period for images?[edit]

Now that some images have been placed on the page, why not leave them there for a trial period so that they can be viewed and a consensus can be formed? I suggest a 1 or 2 weeks trial period, with new images added during the this time. This would be consistent with past proposed changes to the page, such as the 30 day redlink removal and the waiting of 7 days before collapsing the previous month. in both instances, consensuses were formed after a trial period. Having an active example to view will aid in people's decision on how they feel about the images, in my opinion. BurienBomber (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I propose this: let's use May as a trial month. With that, we can see what problems / issues / resolutions do — and do not — arise. And, after 30 days (the end of May), we can assess the situation and reach consensus on the matter. I think that's fair to both sides of the argument. Thoughts? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
This sounds good. I would add that the existing images for April be left in the article (for demo purposes) until the time comes to collapse the month of April. BurienBomber (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds fair. Even if my opinion is clear as far as the inclusion of images is concerned, I see no harm in having a trial month to let other users manifest their opinions. --Góngora (Talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i'm open to a trial period. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:02 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea of putting images on the page sucks. Images take additional time to load and add nothing to the information content. Leave the images in the articles. —QuicksilverT @ 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll wait for the intended 1-2 week trial to end and determine from there, but i too object to them. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:00 3 May 2011 (UTC)
One or two week trial? I proposed a 30-day trial (i.e., the month of May) above. How did 30 days get whittled down to one week? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
7 days should be enough, just like AfD and CfD timespans. Lugnuts (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ... this is nothing like an AfD or a CfD. The objectives, aims, and purposes of a "trial period" are wholly different from those of an AfD or a CfD. The thrust of this (current) article is "Deaths in May 2011". So, we are trying to see what problems and issues do (and do not) arise on a page such as this, over the course of the month. A page containing one week (7 days) is far different than a page containing the full month of 30 days. This will be the case with regard to aesthetics; arguments and issues of whose photo to include or not include; the appropriate number of photos to post; download times; etc. A 7-day "sample" will not be the same as a 30-day sample ... especially for a page that features the monthly deaths. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Recent deaths relates to the last 7 days, as per the policy to archive off the month when we reach day seven of the current month. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that statement, but I don't see how it addresses my point immediately above it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I agree the sample needs to be 30 days as this is a monthly page. BurienBomber (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

  1. Oppose Per the above rationale I've given. I'm also adding this link to WP:CENT for further input. Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per my question above and inconsistent treatment of the dead. Those we'd probably feature because of their super-notability are already known enough to be recognized by their name. Those that don't have the super-notability are going to be confusing to readers. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some illustrations, maybe one per 20 entries, or one per day. Maybe there should be "Deaths by day" pages, and on the day pages, aim to have a picture for every person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the objection to arbitrary choice on who to highlight, and on overloading the size of the page, which serves as a large navigational aid. As a reader, I dislike unnecessarily large pages. However, as a reader, I really like illustrations. I can agree with no images on this page, but encourage day pages, with images and summaries of all notables who dies on that page, assume there are between about 3 to 20. Searching for people who dies on a particular date is kind of an odd thing, but is something done in a lot of places. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The images look haphazard on the page and I have concerns that it will invite edit-warring over which images should be included. I like the simplicity of the current layout, and interested editors can always click on the link to view an image and learn more about the subject of an entry. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Deceased with images assume a greater significance, not because they are more notable, but just because they happen to have an image associated with their article. WWGB (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Generally, I support the proposal. But, I'd rather take a "wait and see" approach, after the 30-day trial. The trial allows us (directly) to see what problems do/do not arise — as well as what solutions — rather than speculating about future concerns with the article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  7. Support adding images used in ITN. Otherwise, there will be more risk of image-warring and/or too many images. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose If images would be added to these pages, that it could be done two ways (I think). We add images (were a free image is available) for all entries, in this case it will become almost like an image gallery. Not a good idea. We could add only pictures for the most notable, but who will decide which person is the most notable, maybe a !voting on the talk page. This will lead to edit wars (because of the different POV of the editors) or unnecessary bureaucracy. In the light of my previous thoughts, I think there shouldn't pictures on these page. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose As I said above, if people want to know who these dead people are, all they have to do is click on the links. Having pictures on this article clogs it and is stupid. No photos. B-Machine (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I support the images and I also favor the wait and see" approach after a 30-day trial for making a decision. BurienBomber (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose We don't need to add pictures of the deceased if that exact photo is on their article. i also worry of nepotism as to who gets their photo posted. It's a terrible idea and a little glorified. Plus, what if the photo is deleted? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:29 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  12. Oppose As I've already said, I see no objective reasons for the inclusion of some images in detriment of others. Besides, in my POV, it does not add any substantial information to the page that cannot be consulted in the linked articles. --Góngora (Talk) 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support but a policy needs to be devised to avoid image-warring. Images "clogging" the page is a bogus argument, as images do not "clog" any other page. "It's stupid" is barely worth countering. "Nepotism"? So people will put images of their relations here? Nonsensical. "Confusing to readers"? Please. These images do have a purpose as they attract the reader to click the link and read the individual articles. They can and do promote further reading - this is an encyclopedia after all, and should look like one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I initially suggested the images as it would further inform readers on the topic as well as break up the long list of text. We're not pulling from non-free images nor trying to add images for each person listed here. I definitely wouldn't want to see a hundred images on the list, and keeping a listing of images similar to the current page with the current size restrictions shouldn't hamper loading times too much. Surprisingly, the majority of the images I added to the article are some of the few we have—many of those articles lack images. That may help in encouraging readers/editors to contribute in adding free images for these articles. As mentioned above, I grabbed a diverse selection from the list and did not center one one country, career, age, gender, etc. There could be editing of the image selection, but we see plenty of that elsewhere, and with some guidelines similar to other limitations of the list, a balance can be found. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I feel it has worked without images very well and they can be a distraction. Ifore2010 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose The attraction of this page is that it sticks close to function, presenting just the facts in list form. It is these facts of the person's achievements (or perhaps circumstances of death) that may persuade the reader to look further; a leering studio pic seldom if ever expresses the person's achievements and adds nothing of value here. AllyD (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Images take additional time to load and add nothing to the information content. Leave the images in the articles. —QuicksilverT @ 00:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Images appear to be chosen arbitrarily and place unnecessary and inaccurate importance to those with images. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Not worth the effort to try to decide which images we include. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Retarded idea. This is a list - if you want pictures go to the articles.180.130.212.111 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. After seeing them in action, I don't like the idea, plus would raise far too many questions of what images or images of who would be acceptable. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per Bretonbanquet's rationale. -Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose compromises clean format of page, no substantive info added.-Kiwipat (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I actually removed some photos by accident (having not seen the thread), but having seen the photos without being involved in the prior discussion, they make the page look terrible, give undue weight to certain individuals, and just don't fit - the photos are much, much bigger than the one line afforded to the subjects of the photos on the page. My thought is that if one wants photos (and more information), that's what the article link is for in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, though there are several other types of pages where this practice could be useful, such as the subject's own biographical page, and possibly current events. -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Simply adds to the format - the list is still there unchanged, but the additional picture is useful, particularly for some actors etc. where the name doesn't ring a bell, but the picture does. Arnie Side (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I like the idea and I think that it adds to the page as do illustrations in almost any article - my reservations at this point, however, are in the execution. How do we decide which images go up and of whom? Do we restrict it to free images or is it an acceptable use of the non-free rationale to put them up here? (I would argue that it isn't, but that's an entirely different discussion). Definitely there are issues that need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean that the entire idea needs to be abandoned. Canadian Paul 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Pictures are more trouble than they're worth.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"More trouble than they're worth." How so? Please clarify. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The trouble involved in deciding which people to portray and which pictures outweighs the benefits. Since each entry is here for only a month, we should keep the editing of this article as simple as possible.   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly have you seen "trouble" over which photos to include/exclude? I already pointed out several times that that is a "huge problem" that many have anticipated and predicted ... but has yet to actually surface (i.e., it's a non-issue, despite the "fear" of many opponents). Please clarify. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
It's a Wikipedia law: anything which can be argued about will be argued about. This discussion proves it. ;)   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

Irrelevant, if they want to find out who they are, they'd click on the link. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:54 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That really is a dud idea. That's like saying that we don't need any pictures on Wikipedia because people can just use Google Image Search. You completely ignore any possibility, or indeed likelihood, of editors having no interest in the name until they see the picture. Do you really think pictures contribute nothing whatsoever to a reader's curiosity? I'm not rabidly pro-pictures, but to be honest, there isn't a single valid reason among all these "opposes", and the standard of argument is poor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is where You are wrong. All the support votes are not reliable enough. Furthur information? nope, just clutter. Helps make the page look nice is immediately dismissable. Whereas Oppose actually make a shred of sense. Nepotism is something to worry about. Let's say Angelina Jolie dies. Would we remove a picture of say a world class scientist for hers because she's more important? I also stand behind my suggestion of the idea being glorified. Would people want to see pictures of dead people all over the list? Plus, it doesn't add to the format, it's just a random picture of someone who died that day. And on an end note, that is why we put information about the person with their entry. So people would get an idea of who that person is. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:27 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Nepotism? Why don't you go and look up what the word means before using it in an argument? You're not even starting to make sense with that. There is, to date, no trouble over whose picture to include and whose to leave out, so there's another non-argument. How about coming up with some hard evidence for your arguments? The idea being glorified? What does that mean? If people were worried about pictures of dead people they wouldn't even be on the page - it's a list of dead people. It doesn't add to the format for you - you're really not talking for everyone here, you know. Your last point is also invalid - any number of words cannot give as much information as a picture, and it's still pretty clear that a picture will jog a reader's memory and prompt him to click on a link which he would have not otherwise bothered with. You are as entitled as anyone else to your opinion, but rest assured it's baseless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Bretonbanquet on all of his/her points. Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding: there have not been all of these contentious arguments and edit wars about whose photos to include or exclude during the continuing trial period. That argument is a red herring, as I indicated in my post in the section immediately below (entitled Red herring). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
There are places to add pictures and there's places not to add pictures. A page about recent deaths is not the place to fill with photos. I stand by my argument. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:40 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you just don't like it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's to do with AfD discussions not this. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone could reasonably appreciate, it's the same principle, and is as appropriate here as anywhere else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it's no case of IDONTLIKEIT, it's just a really dumb idea. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:24 18 May 2011 (UTC)
You've just confirmed my point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you're acting foolish? Then yes, I did. If I didn't like it, that would have been my argument. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:45 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, I agree with Bretonbanquet and the arguments put forth by him/her. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Plus, the overwhelming negative feedback proves these photos won't live past May. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:50 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Overwhelming? Just like "nepotism"? Dude, do you even own a dictionary? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Nepotism - The favortism of one person to the chargin of another. This term can be used for family, friends, or a more popular individual. Overwhelming - Overpowering in effect or strength. Yes i own a dictionary and i know what both terms mean as proved above. Which means you thinking i don't know what i'm talking about is now null. THANKS! Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:48 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, nepotism only refers to family or close friends, nobody else and makes no sense here whatsoever. Hope this helps; perhaps you ought to junk your dictionary, after you look up "chagrin", perhaps. When an editor is pushing for a picture of his granny to be included on this page, I'll think of you. I see you've resorted to personal insults, which doesn't surprise me in the least, since you have precisely no content to your argument whatsoever. You say it's not that you don't like it, rather it's a "dumb idea", which, apart from amounting to the same thing, implies that anyone who supports it is dumb. You might want to use some caution with that line of "argument". The opposition may be slightly larger than the support, but no opposing arguments with any substance have been offered, particularly from you. Anything along the lines of "Waaah, it's a rubbish idea!" can be safely discarded. Incisive stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that, Bretonbanquet! Most of the arguments against including photos just boil down to "Well, I just don't like the idea, that's all" ... or some minor variation thereof. There have been no real substantive arguments put forth from that camp. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Oy vey, you won't go away, will you? First off, Joseph, don't be a kiss ass. Second, it's demeaning to me when you think i'm an idiot. In personal sense, yes, i don't like it and the people who think it's the next lightbulb, but it's not my argument for opposition. Nepotism does not directly apply to family or friends. I have a great dictionary with you as a prime example for "Jackass" (You know, since you can poke fun at my intelligence). Have you ever gave a single, momentary thought how the concept might be a little disturbing? More disturbing that there are people fighting for this "utter clutter" to remain on this memorial page. So please don't assume i'm stupid and Breton, please don't brush off people's arguments and assume they don't matter. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:55 20 May 2011 (UTC)
And plus, your argument of allowing the viewer to click the link is also discardable. Your shitty, lame-ass argument only proves you're in over your head. We put information of the person for that very reason, to attract the viewer to click the link. Sure we can add photos,a nd at the same time we can just remove all the information and add purdy pictures of the recently deceased! Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:55 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would anyone go away just because you want them to? You might win a vote, not that this is a vote, but I'm trying to understand exactly why you don't like the idea, you know, some actual substance. I don't really know whom you're addressing when you're typing your insults and puerile name-calling, so I'll let it go. You have your own, personal definition of "nepotism", that's great, but it doesn't apply in the real world. In any case, there's no evidence at all of any arguments over whose photo to include and whose to leave out. I don't know what concept you're referring to as disturbing - please clarify. I'm not saying your argument doesn't matter, I just don't see an argument beyond a simple dislike of the idea, and a simple dislike adds nothing to the debate. I also don't understand the part where you mention the "argument of allowing the viewer to click the link". I know you've discarded it already but it'd be nice to know what on earth you're talking about. If you think photos are clutter, that's an argument against photos in general - there's nothing anywhere that says photos are only allowed on certain pages. Another thing, this is not a memorial page. You do need to tone down the insults though, or else we're heading to Wikiquette or something, unless Joseph A. Spadaro has already gone there. If you're just going to insult people, there's no debate here, and I'd recommend not replying if it's just going to be insults. And please put your comments under everyone else's so others can read the thread in the order it was written. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring[edit]

Where are all the contentious fights and edit wars over whose photo to include / exclude? That has been the source of great speculation and concern in the above debate. However, there has been no evidence whatsoever to support that concern. Has anyone seen evidence of that, now that photos have been added? Please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, the Bin Laden picture keeps getting removed. Check the edit history. Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... any other examples of the widespread contention that has been predicted and feared as unmanageable? (Bin Laden is hardly expected to be "representative" ... as his case is quite clearly "off the charts". You know, being the 9/11 mass murderer and all ... ) Let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I'll make sure I keep you in the loop. Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will check back here periodically. But, it really doesn't seem that there is any great contention — or any contention at all, really — over whose pix to include / exclude. In any event, that's why I think a trial period was a good idea. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Disappearing images[edit]

I note that the images, previously included in the April entries, suddenly disappeared when April was collapsed. Strangely, the edit summary "collapse April deaths" makes no mention of this. Methinks someone may be pushing their POV?
Arjayay (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly stated above that the photo trial is limited to May. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. I had proposed a 30-day (i.e., month of May) trial. Someone else whittled that down to a one-week trial. So, I don't know whatever became of the issue. In other words, it's not "clear", really. Where does this stand? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
With the current poll at 16:7 opposed to photos, I think the images stand to be deleted. WWGB (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having suggested a one month trial, I, and possibly others, are waiting to see what it looks like, and what problems arise, before voting.
All those who have already voted are merely expressing their prejudices and preconceptions, rather than giving the idea a fair trial, and assessing the outcome. This is like finding the accused guilty or not guilty before listening to the evidence.
I suggest that, as none of the above opinions are actually based upon the trial, they are all scrapped, and a proper poll held at the end of the trial.
Arjayay (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arjayay. The "trial period" does serve a purpose (i.e., to "try" the new system and see if it's a good/bad idea). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The expressed opinions are just as valid as yours. What possible difference will "one month" make? Editors are either for or against photos here, waiting for 30 photos before casting a vote has no particular merit. It is fortuitous that the photos were allowed to remain in the first place. A bold editor might have removed them in accordance with WP:BRD. WWGB (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not expressed any opinion, neither for, nor against. I am waiting for the end of the trial.
Having agreed to a one month trial, opinions voiced before the first week of the trial is over, are clearly not based upon the trial, but mere prejudice ("An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts" [2]).
User:WWGB's concept "Editors are either for or against photos here" assumes that editors like me, who are willing to actually consider the result of the trial, rather than voice a prejudice, should be discounted.
Wikipedia is not a court, but in most jurisdictions, juries are selected from those who are prepared to consider the evidence, before coming to a decision - people who have expressed prejudicial opinions being excluded from the jury.
Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree 100% with the sentiments posted by Arjayay. I am quite surprised by the comments of WWGB, who seems to be a regular editor of this page. WWGB, I do not think that you are giving the trial period a "fair shake". In the end, maybe photos are a good idea ... maybe a bad idea. Some people, like apparently Arjayay, are open minded to see the results of the trial, before deciding. I think that it's closed minded to want to cut-off a trial and/or discount any merits to the results of a trial. Other editors should not be punished (or their views and opinions discounted) because they are taking a "wait and see" / open-minded approach. Which, by the way, is the exact point of having a trial period. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I call upon Arjayay and Joseph A. Spadaro to stop insulting other editors with ad hominem comments like "prejudice" and "closed minded". Many of us are sufficiently prescient to know a bad idea when we see one. We don't need a one-month trial to see that the placement of random photos on one of the most-visited pages in Wikipedia does not enhance the project. You might need one month to reach a decision, I have no problem with that; others can see that it is already a bad idea. The selection of photos is dictated by availability in the deceased's article, not by any particular criterion or merit. You can't even find and keep a photo of one of this year's most notable deaths: Osama bin Laden. A hodge-podge of random photos does not benefit Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "closed minded" is not an ad hominem attack. It describes someone whose mind is "closed" to an idea ... something to which you readily admit! And the term "prejudiced" means to "pre-judge" something. Both terms are appropriately used above as descriptions ... not as ad hominem attacks. And you have explicitly admitted to being both of those (closed to the idea, pre-judging the idea). Furthermore, whether or not you (personally) are able make a decision right now — without the benefit of a trial period — does not address the millions of other Wikipedia readers who can/will benefit from a trial period. I find that to be a rather pompous and presumptuous sentiment. Nonetheless, at least some of the millions of other Wikipedia editors/readers are not quite as gifted and "prescient" as you. And they either want or need a trial period for the new idea. Also, I am not sure to whom your pronoun "you" refers. I had nothing to do with the Bin Laden photo. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Honestly, this has to be the dumbest idea ever suggested. Why add photos of the deceased when that exact photo is in their article? Also replying to a comment Arjayay, what prejudice? We are only conveying our honest opinion and you are trying to make them null. A 30-day trial proves nothing, only holding off to keep the photos intact. I'd say a week would have been enough to receive input from other editors. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:06 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems occurring during photo trial[edit]

  1. Images added near top of page conflict with table of contents, throwing page out of balance.
  2. Some images (eg [3]) are too small, meaning the photo column will be uneven if image is added.
  3. Adding two images to the same day (eg [4]) opens up excess white space on the page . There is no guideline to determine whose photo is more significant.
  4. Similarly, if a long photo is added to a date with relatively few deaths, it opens up excessive white space at the end of that date.
  5. It is anticipated that there will be further problems when redlinks are removed at the end of the month, as many dates will then have fewer entries and photo length will exceed available space. WWGB (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solutions[edit]

  1. Change the Table of Contents to a horizontal — rather than a vertical — format. I suggested this on this Talk Page a few weeks ago (see below). This should be done, I think, regardless of photos; it just makes the page look better.
  2. Photos can be added in a "gallery", as opposed to being added individually under each "day". See this article (toward the bottom of the article) for a good example of a gallery: Annunciation. (A) The photos are all about the same size and; (B) we can add as many or as few photos as we want to, seemingly without any problems.
  3. During the trial period, thus far, there have been no edit wars over whose photos to include/exclude. This is a non-issue. All of the opponents of photos have been struck with fear over these supposed intense edit wars that were predicted to happen ... and they have never materialized. (Hence, serving the purpose of a trial period.) Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I don't agree with this last comment. There are at least two photos eligible to be displayed for May 15: F. Jay Taylor and Samuel Wanjiru. At the moment they have been taken down as they were affected by the TOC. Once May 15 passes the base of the TOC, which photo should be displayed? There is only room for one photo that day. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Who says that "there is only room for one photo that day" ...? Where did that rule come from? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
It's not a rule, it's common sense. One photo takes up 10-12 lines of deaths. Therefore, to add a second photo on the same day, you need at least 20 notable deaths to have occurred (very rare). Otherwise, the photo extends below the end of that date, which can either force all subsequent photos out of alignment with the date of death, or open up a large white space on the page. WWGB (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all "common sense" that we must have one photo per day. Don't be silly. Some days, there may be more photos ... and some days, less. Are you really proposing some rigid rule that we must have "one per day"? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Also, you are under the impression that the photo must be on the exact date of death ... I do not subscribe to that theory. If there are two photos necessitated on the 10th day of the month, we can simply add the second photo to the 11th (or the 9th or whatever). There does not have to be a rigid rule of "one per day". Also, as I proposed in a separate posting, we could use a Gallery, instead of a day-by-day photo spread. (See a good example of a Photo Gallery at the Annunciation article.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Possible problems to these solutions[edit]

  1. A vertical TOC would be a mess. If we submit the names of the deceased, then fill up the page with unecessary photos, Would there be a problem with how many are submitted? Would there be inconsistensy? What if 4 people died on the 22 and none of them had a photo?
  2. If we create a gallery, we may as well throw the concept Wikipedia has used for two years and just add pictures with descriptions of the deceased in an infobox.
  3. For good reason. I've been in heated edit wars over added content. It's ideal to keep high alert for such activity.

Overall, several frugile attempts to keep photos of dead people in an area where photos should not be added. It does NOT contribute additional information to the article and merly glorifies a topic which turns an enclyopedia into a Best of the Year People memorial section. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:00 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Frugile" attempts? Again, a dictionary would prove that that word (which is not even a word) is being used incorrectly. You either mean "frugal" ... or "futile" ...? Hopefully, you mean the latter. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(#1) A vertical horizontal TOC would look like the TOC in this article here: List of Iranian actresses. That TOC is hardly a "mess". In fact, it looks far better than a horizontal vertical TOC. The rest of your comments/questions under #1 make no sense at all. Who cares about how many people die on any given day, with or without a photo? Your comments under heading #1 make no sense ... or, at least, I don't understand them. (#2) Again, makes no sense. Galleries are used in many articles throughout Wikipedia. I have no idea what your point is, above, in #2. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Er - I think both User:Rusted AutoParts and User:Joseph A. Spadaro are referring to a horizontal ToC, not a vertical one. This was tried, see Talk:Deaths_in_2011#Table_of_contents below, but removed despite receiving some positive comments. As stated below, it had a minor problem with dates, but one which I'm sure could be overcome. Arjayay (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find a horizontal TOC that is generated automatically, including the 7-day overlap, and it might have legs. If it has to be developed manually, forget it. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; the ToC would need to generate automatically. I don't know if there is one, or if the Techies would have to sort it, but they will want to know it is going to be used, before spending their time sorting it out.
So, is it considered a good idea, which would be adopted if the coding could be sorted? or not? - Arjayay (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a horizontal TOC is a great idea. That's why I proposed it several weeks ago. And, it's a great idea, with our without photos on this page. It makes more sense for the TOC to "occupy" one simple horizontal line across the top of the page (with 30+ entries), than to have to have a TOC that is 30+ entries long extend down vertically to half the page. A horizontal TOC is far more aesthetic, even if we decide to not use photos after all. But, I am not a "techie" with computer code, so someone else will have to figure that piece out. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Compromise[edit]

Since people want pictures and people don't want them, i have thought of an idea. We can insert photos, keep them for a month and then remove them the next month whilst removing redlinks. Sound off if this is a fair compromise. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:14 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So far, the majority of voters in the straw poll want no photos, not a compromise. WWGB (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thought that might help the tension between the two sides. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:25 29 May 2011 (UTC

30 day trial is up[edit]

Now that the trial period is over (it started just before the begining of May), I've restored the page to pre-trial mode. Show me the consensus to accept pictures here before re-adding them. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little confrontational perhaps, but I agree with the response. The straw poll result was 19:9 to reject photos. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers?[edit]

Why aren't any of the Soldiers fighting for our Country and our Freedom on this list? Not sure who some of these people are, but they are certainly less important than every one of our men and women that gave their lives for all of us. Anyone??? 24.131.9.166 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Bob[reply]

To be fair, the answer to this is that our test for inclusion in this encyclopedia is notability, not worthiness, otherwise anyone might be included, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a useful guideline here. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is a rediculous question, even if the answer could be construed as unfriendly. What about the American, British and Nepali war veterans for this month alone? Perhaps we should have them die in a different month. Nasnema  Chat  00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<Jimbospeak>It may seem ridiculous to you, but you have to remember that some peoples' perspectives differ from yours, and that should be respected, whilst gently pointing out our criteria for inclusion here. You should also not necessarily assume that every editor here has read our guidelines, or is even a native English speaker. That is why we should point them in the right direction, in a friendly manner. </Jimbospeak> OTOH, if they are trolling, that will rapidly become apparent elsewhere. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original poster ("Bob") is posting from an IP address and not a Wikipedia account. Therefore, he may not be familiar with all of the in's and out's of how Wikipedia works. He may have just stumbled across this page through a Google search (or however). So, I think that his question is valid and legitimate. As a side note, he was not asking about inclusion in Wikipedia with an article; rather, he was specifically asking about inclusion on this particular list within this particular article. (Those are two separate issues altogether.) So, to the original poster (Bob) ... a person is included on this death list only if they are "notable" (meaning that that person also has a Wikipedia article about him or her). Thus, if a deceased soldier is notable and has a Wikipedia article about him/her, then his/her death does indeed merit inclusion on this list. That general rule would apply regardless of the soldier's nationality. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
For example ... see the article here: Deaths in 2004. This death list includes Pat Tillman (who died on April 22, 2004). He was a soldier, in the military, serving this country when he died. And because he has his own Wikipedia article (located here --> Pat Tillman), he is considered "notable" enough to be included on the 2004 death list. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Osama bin Laden is dead[edit]

according to CNN, who held a press conference at 10:30 PM EDT on Sunday, May 1st, 2011, Osama Bin Laden is dead. in fact President Obama will be making a rare late Sunday Night press conference about it. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death?[edit]

I thought he was killed on May 1st, not May 2nd? 24.65.118.164 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was about 1.30am on May 2 Pakistan time that he was killed. Nasnema  Chat  06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is still May 1st in USA time. Hence, the confusion. I believe that Pakistani time and USA time have a 9 and 1/2 or a 10-hour difference. That is, Pakistan is nine-and-a-half or ten hours ahead of USA. And, in Wikipedia, a person's date of death is recorded in that individual's local time zone. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Not just in Wikipedia, Joseph, but anywhere at all. It makes zero sense to say that someone died on 11 November because that's what the date was where the listener/reader was at the time, ignoring the fact that it was 12 November where the person themself was at the time they died in the place they died. It has absolutely nothing to do with the listener/reader. It has everything to do with the person who has died, and what the date was in the place they died, at the time they died. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jack ... agreed. Though that concept does seem to get lost on many. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Daniel Quillen death[edit]

Could someone add Daniel Quillen, the american mathematician and Fields Medalist(equivalent to a Nobel prize in maths) who died on the 30th of April —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.125.13.174 (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for his death? I did some quick Google searches, and I could not find anything about him dying. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
 Done Death added to 30 April. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a reliable source? Isn't that just a copy of his Wikipedia article (excerpts)? I did a Google search and can't find anything about Quillen's death. If he died, wouldn't that news be "out there", somewhere, amongst reliable sources? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I have replaced the reference with this one from Quillen's widow [5]. WWGB (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, that's much better than the first one. Although an internet blog/post from his wife would not usually be considered a "reliable source" ... correct? If it's the best that we can do, so be it. But, I am just surprised that this notable death was not picked up by a more reliable and mainstream news source. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Stupidity[edit]

Someone made a ridiculous deciion to add pictures to this article. If people want know who these dead people were, they can just click on the links, and presto! You're looking at the person's article. If it's a red link, just to Google and search for it. It's funny how you people didn't say anything when someone added the photos without a discussion. How one-sided you people. B-Machine (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section on this Talk Page, under the header entitled "Images". There was indeed a discussion; the discussion began on April 21. Consensus reached there was to add photos. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hardly a consensus. Lugnuts (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was indeed a very clear consensus up until a certain date (May 2). The discussion began on April 21 and remained open for 11 days before consensus was reached on May 2. Then, after May 2, others began to object (i.e., after we decided by consensus to add pictures). This is what happened: one editor proposed the addition of photos; a discussion ensued; no one objected; so, by consensus, an editor added some photos. It was only then (after the discussion and the posting of photos) that other editors complained. Nonetheless, the resolution of a "trial period" seems fair to both arguments. (See above discussion, located here: Talk:Deaths in 2011#Images.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Another stupid Wikipedia "consensus" — the blind leading the blind. See my additional comment at Images, above. —QuicksilverT @ 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents[edit]

Is there any way to make the Table of Contents (TOC) read horizontally (left-to-right) as opposed to its present vertical (up-and-down) style? I think it would look much better. You can see this article (List of Iranian actresses) for an example of what I mean. What do you guys think about this change? I don't know how to do it, myself. But, I assume that another editor can figure it out. Can someone make this change? Or can others offer opinions, either way, on the matter? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I like the new, horizontal TOC as it looks right now. Thumbs up. Susan Gleason (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 31st of April Unclemikejb (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the format has been reverted to the old vertical one, without any discussion. The horizontal format avoided blank spaces if there are photos near the top of the page, giving a much better appearance if photos are eventually adopted. The horizontal list needed some refining - selecting 6 in the May list jumped to 6 April.Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from UBERNESS, 2 May 2011[edit]

The death of Osama Bin Ladin is inaccurate, he died on May 1 2011, not May 2 2011.

UBERNESS (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – the times given are local; his death came in the early hours of 2 May in Pakistan, even though it was 1 May in the US when the news broke. matt (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you should know that the world revolves around the USA. That's what Americans think anyway...94.169.166.61 (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Americans think that way. It's entirely possible that UBERNESS didn't know that it was May 2 local time. A little civility goes a long way. --Tathar (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza bin Laden[edit]

Why is he not listed on May 2? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Because he's not dead. — Bility (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His article states that he is dead, as does the article of his father (Osama bin Laden). So, they should all be consistent. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
No, his article does not state that he is dead, it states "There is confusion as to whether he was the son who was killed in the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed his father" Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does state that. But — before the reader even gets to read that comment buried within his article — it lists him as being dead on May 2. As it does in the father's article, as well. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Why is this page currently locked?[edit]

Martyn Smith (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from unregistered editors. WWGB (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo-related issue we could well do without here. We run the real risk of damaging a high-profile Wikipedia page with these photo shenanigans. WWGB (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, the bad news just keeps coming! Lugnuts (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congestive Heart Failure[edit]

There is somebody that edits that has this bugaboo about using the term Congestive heart failure, saying it's the same as heart failure. It's not. Everybody dies of heart failure, but only people with congestive heart failure die of that. It's really irritating to see people with obituaries saying congestive heart failure being changed. Williamb (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • oh never mind, even the wikipedia article has it wrong. Williamb (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that "somebody" would be me. WP has no article called "congestive heart faiulure"; the agreed term is "heart failure", so I will continue to change CHF to HF. WWGB (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 77.49.58.110, 16 May 2011[edit]

  1. Benny Joe Stevens, 52, was executed 05-10-11 by Lethal Injection in Mississippi, being the 1249th person executed in the United States since the re-installment of the death penalty in 1976. (www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/stevens1249.htm)
  2. Jeffrey Motts, 36, was executed 05-06-11 by Lethal Injection in South Carolina, being the 1248th person executed in the United States since the re-installment of the death penalty in 1976. (www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/motts1248.htm)
  3. Cary D. Kerr, 46, was executed 05-03-11 by Lethal Injection in Texas, being the 1247th person executed in the United States since the re-installment of the death penalty in 1976. (www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/kerr1247.htm)

77.49.58.110 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: As you can see at the top of the article, this page is for notable deaths. If you can explain how these people are notable, maybe they can be added. — Bility (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that your additions of executed murderers have been deleted from previous months for the same reason. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Executions[edit]

In china each year over 200 people are executed so the ratio 3 americans each month is very notable, also I want to say that many unnotable executed murderers have their own article such as: Jesus Ledesma Aguilar, Robert Anderson, William Dillard Powell and others. 77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think someone is notable, please feel free to start an article. That will determine notability. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Onslow[edit]

Someone named Rcb1, removed the Earl of Onslow who died May 17. Why?

--77.49.58.110 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onslow died on 14 May and is correctly listed under that date. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bertini[edit]

I notice someone has added former Italian footballer Mario Bettini, who supposedly died on 11 May according to this article. However, other than that article, I find no further evidence to back this up. No news stories or obituary in La Gazzetta dello Sport or other major Italian media, no mention of his death on the websites of his former clubs Inter and Fiorentina - which is strange, since he was a high-profile player back in the day. Furthermore, the article says the Bettini who died was 76, whereas "our" Bettini is/was 67. And in the corresponding Italian wikipedia article, he is listed as alive. Could this be a case of mistaken identity? Maybe a different ex-footballer with the same name? --Badmotorfinger (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a second article, which states that the Mario Bertini who died was a youth coach in 1973-74, at a time when the other Mario Bertini was still a player at Inter. So I'm now convinced that this is a case of mistaken identity, and that Mario Bertini the ex-international footballer is still alive. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - you're no relation to Sherlock Holmes are you ? Well done - if only every editor was so diligent !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in May 2011. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deaths in May 2011. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in May 2011. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in May 2011. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_May_2011&oldid=1208886630"