Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verification

Further discussion on the verification issues can be found at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/verification — Ched :  ?  08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL

An editor has suggested this would conflict with WP:NOTMEMORIAL, however I believe that policy is not applicable here for two reasons:

1. This is a proposal, and if the community accepts this proposal then of course NOTMEMORIAL would be modified in such a way to allow this (an exception) if needed
2. NOTMEMORIAL (and really, the entirety of WP:NOT) seems mostly applicable to article-space pages, not to project space pages per se.

Additional input would be nice on this. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed. In particular, it may behoove those who believe it conflicts by reading Support #18, the statement by Jennavecia. I'll quote: "As is seen with Jeffpw's memoriam page, these grant those who knew the deceased an opportunity to express their grief, and for the family to see (and perhaps even take comfort from) the loving messages left by those who cared about the editor. In Jeff's case, some of us were hit particularly hard with his passing, for various reasons, and appreciated this outlet for our emotion. NOT#MEMORIAL doesn't apply to user space." bibliomaniac15 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm that editor. I don't have a problem with this Guideline as a whole. I have a problem with one particular section:

" On WP:RIP and memorial pages ". The top paragraph is in conflict with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. For full disclosure's sake, I have reverted 3 times today, as did Locker Cole, and I do not plan to revert any further. Locker Cole contends that [| "Policy does not preclude proposals which go against existing policy" ] and as such the policy should stand as currently quoted, and recieve consensus or not. I contend that [| Policy constrains conensus ], that a consensus cannot be establish in violation of policy, therefore to leave in the text:


By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. However, if the user or the family has stated that a listing should not be made, their wishes should be honored first and foremost.

If the colleagues of an editor feel moved to do so, they may create a memorial page to honor the deceased, as long as the family or the user has not objected. Entries to the memorial page should be as tasteful as possible; edits that fail to be tasteful will be removed. Memorial pages are not mandatory; they are created by the community for the community rather than for a requirement.

is an excercize in futility as [| Consensus never trumps policy] and [| Consensus cannot operate against policy.]. As such, if the text were left in and a consensus were reached, it would be void per policy, and as such, it would be a waste of all participants time.
I move that the above text be stricken as it violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I will respect any consensus reached here.
— Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 20:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Biblomaniac - Jennevica's response is thoughtful, and while I agree with it's sentiment, policy states otherwise. If Jennevica or anyone for that matter wants to create a memorial, the policy needs to be changes, again, Consensus doesn't trump policy, as I noted above (and that's not even my opinion that I linked to! . — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 20:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course consensus trumps policy, policy was created by consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus trumps policy when the consensus is to change the policy. Matt (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the Policy vs. Consensus debate here as my time is limited. However, Kosh, I appreciate your attempts to adhere to policy, but simply put - this time you're mistaken. If we read the whole thing,

• Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, and so forth. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.

the second sentence is: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." The key here being "encyclopedia articles". We're developing a guideline here for editors outside of article space. It's in user space, it's not friends, it's not family, it's editors who have made wikipedia what it is. If you feel strongly enough that the wording at NOTMEMORIAL is not clear enough, and want to tweak it a little more, the WT:NOT would be the place to mention it (although one lone dissenter has posted a similar view in a small thread already). Word of warning - if you're headed for the NOT talk page, beware, there's heavy traffic right now regarding fictional "Plots" :). Thank you for voicing your concerns, and please continue to help us get the wording right here, but the NOTMEMORIAL and this guideline really aren't related. Ched2 (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Relatives' rights

Relatives have no particular rights in wikipedia. The topic in question is about a wikipedia editor and their contribution to the project. I find it worrisome that someone's disgruntled wife (who thought that wikipedia usurped her beloved one's time which rightfully [belonged] to her) can have a decisive say here. Wikipedia community has enough common sense to grant sensible requests from relatives, but that's about all we can promise. Laudak (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

work is currently underway at: User:LessHeard vanU/rip-template to establish a method of communications with family members, all comments and suggestions are welcome. — Ched :  ?  18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does WP:NOT disallow this portion of the proposal

Is the text below disallowed per WP:NOT :

By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. However, if the user or the family has stated that a listing should not be made, their wishes should be honored first and foremost.

If the colleagues of an editor feel moved to do so, they may create a memorial page to honor the deceased, as long as the family or the user has not objected. Entries to the memorial page should be as tasteful as possible; edits that fail to be tasteful will be removed. Memorial pages are not mandatory; they are created by the community for the community rather than for a requirement.

_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously my knee-jerk response to this would be "Certainly not", if you'll pardon the play on words. No offense, but to suggest that this has not been discussed, would be an error, as we can see at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians. The discussion was left open for quite some time, and very widely advertised at the Village Pump, WP:RIP, and the global WP:CENT. While a couple of the threads on the WT:NOT page may be slightly overshadowed by the plot discussions, there have been a few items brought up there as well. I see no issues or problems with having the text mentioned above being tweaked for wording, but I believe it moves against community consensus to suggest the entire removal of the section. — Ched :  ?  17:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not cover this, it is my belief that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is targeted at article space contributions, not project or userspace contributions. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:NOTMEMORIAL was intended to apply in this case. WP:NOTMYSPACE might have been so intended, however... not that I think it should. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTMYSPACE is a guideline made to prevent people from using their talk page as a forum or a social networking site. I am pretty sure that this is not the intent of, nor a problem at WP:RIP - and i guess for obvious reasons. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still an active proposal?

Just trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia proposals so wondering if this is still an active proposal or if it can be tagged otherwise? Hiding T 09:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate accounts?

How should alternate accounts of deceased Wikipedians be handled? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous barnstars

There is a question concerning the awarding of posthumous barnstars and placement of those on protected user pages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 90#Posthumous_barnstars (permanent link at [1]). Please offer any opinions you might have there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)