Talk:Deaths in 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in 2014 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Split[change source]

Should we split the article into Deaths inJanuary 2014, Deaths in February 2014, etc.? Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. We expect this kind of article to be large. If you'll notice, the articles for other years aren't split, either, and some of them are undoubtedly bigger. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of this, the article is just growing. It makes it unbearable to edit, it takes at least 30 seconds plus to submit a change. George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I withdraw my previous objection. We have people updating this so much now that it's worth splitting. Is there a volunteer to do the split? If not, I wouldn't mind doing it later. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am annoyed about how long it takes to change or add a person in the article. A split would be perfect. So are we going by months like Deaths in March 2014? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be consistent with enwiki. The main article could just have links to the pages for the individual months. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer. Let's hope my browser doesn't spontaneously combust before that happens. Let's do this. George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why this has gone through but the August dates are still present on the main page? Surely it should just be a list of links to the individual articles, possibly with transclusions? I'm particularly thinking about history trails when the August dates get moved off somewhere - a copy/paste doesn't really seem appropriate (and nor does it for having split previous months out - a series of history merges would have been better, if not a little more time consuming). I'm for the change, I'm just not sure it's been implemented particularly well. Gob lin 11:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Possibly because it was modeled on the way enwiki does it. The thinking might be that someone going to the page is likely to be interested in a very recent death, so having those on the main page prevents having to go to more than one place. That being said, I'd be OK with it either way. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, although I think a better way to do that would be to transclude the relevant page onto the main 'Deaths in 2014' one, using the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} function if required. It's no big deal either way, just something that doesn't seem to make much sense to me - and could be a bit squiffy with attribution. Gob lin 17:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Introduction[change source]

Should all of the "Deaths in...." have a introduction? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one in the English Wikipedia. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{citeweb}} and sort?[change source]

Should we not be using the {{citeweb}} template to reference links in the article, as we do with others? Likewise appropriate templates for non-web references, although I don't think there are any. Additionally, would it not be better if the article was sorted by either first name or surname after the date of death, to make it easier to see them all? Just a thought. Gob lin 11:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Using citation templates is always preferred, but we don't require it. That's true on all pages, not just here.

I'm against sorting alphabetically. For that, we can look at Category:Deaths in 2014. This article and the related ones for specific months are chronologies. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the English Wikipedia it says by using {{citeweb}} it makes the page load slower. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments all around. These were just some observations I'd made whilst making a change earlier - I'm by no means 'involved' in these pages so more than happy to defer to those of you with more knowledge than me. A chronological list makes perfect sense, although I do wonder how the sorting by 'day' is done, and whether that could be alphabetical - that's what I was referring to in my comment above, which may not have been clear. Again - just a musing. :-) Gob lin 04:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

The split[change source]

Are we going to split now? Or wait a while? George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 12:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]