Template talk:Recent death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 3. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Contents

[edit] Suggestion: Change in wording

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

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Recent death

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

[edit] Deletion?

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

I feel it's wrong have such template on wikipedia. Suggesting to use [Template:Current-related] instead. Kirils 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Among other things, it's hideously morbid. --FuriousFreddy 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

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

[edit] template should stay

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

[edit] Template quoted

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

[edit] Ambiguity

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

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

[edit] Link to CURRENTYEAR

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

[edit] What is recent?

  • Question 1: When is the passing away of someone sufficiently long ago, so that I can remove the 'recent' template?
    1. After three weeks?
    2. After half a year?
    3. After one year?
    4. After no new information has come to light about the circumstances for at least three weeks?
  • Question 2: If the last option is chosen, who will reset the three-week counter to zero, each time new information comes to light?
  • Question 3: I expect that in ten years (in the year 2017), I will find many articles about people who died after January 2007 with this notice about recently deceased person, because nobody had the idea to remove it. Can anybody tell me why my assumption is wrong? Johan Lont 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, usually when someone dies their article is edited profusely by many people. It's a fact: deaths cause interest. At Steve Irwin's article, the death template is now removed, while at Anna Nicole Smith it remains. I can assure you that these templates will for the most part be removed at an appropriate time, and that would probably be a period of 3 months or so, I assume. -- Sarcha 45 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You could ask the owner of SmackBot to date new copies of this template (as is done with, say, {{cleanup}}), and remove old ones after a set period. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It is doing the first part. The rest is better done by hand. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34 29 April 2007 (GMT).
This is exactly the question I wanted to ask: What is "recent"? Actress Gusti Wolf died at 95, and no surprising or sensational revelations can be expected. Knowing this, I removed the template once but it was immediately readded. I'll try again. <KF> 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Good point. That's how we should handle the template. <KF> 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So how long would this tag have remained on Jon Benet Ramsey? Unschool 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been five months and no one has answered my question. I think my question about JBR points out the flaw in this reasoning (as well, for that matter, of 99% of our CE tag usage). Personally, I think the Recent Death Tag is almost certainly the stupidest tag to ever appear on Wikipedia, but that's just my point of view. Still, I had an admin threaten me with a block because I was removing these templates from articles sometimes more than a month after the death. So the question remains: What's the guideline people? Unschool (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Rklawton's concern was that you were engaging in a mass removal of the tag, which is inherently disruptive in a pointy way, no matter what tag is involved. I don't say this because I want to portray you as a "disruptive editor"; I just felt your statement deserved to be addressed, lest everyone imagine an officious block threat from a power-thirsty admin.
The template was my idea. I'll grant that not everyone likes it. Indeed, it went to TFD just after I created it. But if it were so deeply flawed it would've been deleted months ago. Still, you're free to take it to TFD if it bothers you so much.
To answer your question about JBR, I imagine (a) there wouldn't even be an article on her until she died and (b) the tag would be merited for just over a month, when the initial flurry of new information and interest dies down. But why does that matter anyway? Are you asking for a specific deadline? Do your concerns apply to the {{current}} tag, too? I think questions like "how long should the tag stay" are situational in nature. The {{cleanup}} tag should be removed when the article's quality improves, the {{POV}} tag should go when the POV dispute has been settled, and this tag is no longer necessary once new information and interest has settled down. If that's too nebulous and unspecific for you ... well, all I can say is, consensus is like that sometimes. szyslak 10:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Recent is as long as the death is in the news and it's less than a year old. For practical purposes, I would say add an optional "keepuntil" parameter. If the parameter is missing, expire 90 days after the date of death or 90 days after the template was added to the article. The trick is getting any removal-bot to recognize the date of death or the date the template was added. For very famous people, 180 or even 360 days can be suggested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recently deceased wording

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

This is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't soften anything, but only present facts. See WP:WTA, particularly the Sadly, tragically, and other words that editorialize death part. - Andrei 10:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Better word choices don't change the "facts." From WP:AVOID: "'Died' is neither crude nor vulgar; more importantly, it does not make a value judgment about any future state." "Died" is an infinite improvement over "deceased." Perhaps:
"This article is about a person who has recently died."
Thoughts? user:j 11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That was close to the original wording when I created this template. I started with "this article concerns a person who has recently died", then changed it to "this article is about...". Later, during the TFD discussion, someone decided "recently deceased person" was more "sensitive". So yeah, I don't think "recently deceased person" is terribly euphemistic. So either wording is fine with me. szyslak 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"This article concerns a person who recently died" or "who has recently died" is an improvement over the "recently deceased" wordage. If nobody objects, I may be semibold.  ;) user:j 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would support the change of wording to "recently died". Anybody object? Dave101→talk  11:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warn about vandalism?

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

[edit] Link to BLP noticeboard

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

I agree completely and have changed the link. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The recently dead are still covered by the BLP policy though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No they aren't. Some editors think they should be, but there has never been consensus on that point. If you read over WP:BLP you'll see that there is no mention of the recently dead. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passed Away

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia jargon wording

{{editprotected}}

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

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

{{editprotected}}

It says "this page" instead of "on this page"; the grammar is simply wrong now. Waltham, The Duke of 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done SkierRMH (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

{{editprotected}}

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

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

[edit] Icon

{{editprotected}}

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

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

[edit] Turkish Template

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