Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premature obituaries/archive2
List of premature obituaries edit
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly interesting & unusual list, to the extent that it has already been cited by the New York Times and Daily Telegraph. It also appears to be by far the most comprehensive list of premature obituaries in existence (others being limited to a handful of entries). It is a self-nomination (I am the main contributor to the list).
I am re-submitting this list because it failed Featured List status last time (in February - see archive) merely due to 'lack of interest' - various people commented on it and all suggested changes were made, but not enough people came back to provide Support votes before the time limit was reached.
Since the last submission several more entries have been added, e.g. for Japanese soldiers presumed dead after World War II. Ben Finn 11:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While some of the non-notable people might have notable or interesting pre-deaths, I suggest that Mr Hopkins is notable only to his family and the journalists at the rather non-notable Brentwood Gazette. Colin°Talk 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anything in a list needs to be notable in its own right, does it? As long as the list itself is. Many Wikipedia lists are full of entries which are individually un-notable; take for example the 1876 entry in the featured List of Prince Edward Island general elections (post-Confederation). Ben Finn 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Prince Edward list is meets criteria 1.a.3 since it is a finite list that would be incomplete without those. They are also red-links so hopefully someday someone will write something. The best (featured) lists do contain notable entries. See criteria 1a and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). You may consider the entries to be either the actual premature obituaries or the people themselves. We generally don't mention ordinary folk on Wikipedia. The only defence I can think of for this list is that premature obituaries are probably quite rare. A correction in a local newspaper of a mistake that paper itself made, isn't a notable event IMO (see also Richard Paul Smith). An premature obituary in a national newspaper or international journal is a bigger issue and IMO would qualify (see Harry S. Weed). However, the fact that they achieved such an obituary implies that they possibly deserve a Wikipedia article and so should be made a link, even if it would currently be red. Colin°Talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the rarity of premature obituaries arguably makes any occurrence of them notable (regardless of whether the publication or the person are notable; notable events don't have to involve notable people/publications). For assuming this list contains a fair proportion of all premature obituaries in modern times, there have been no more than one or two hundred of them. Consider, for comparison, List of snow events in Florida - light snow flurries in Jacksonville in 1855 are not notable except for their rarity.
- The rarity argument is reasonable. I'm still uncomfortable with Mr Hopkins – we don't know is first name and can't be 100% sure that is his surname. We only know he's Martine Hopkins' dad, whoever she is. Colin°Talk 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's not ideal, but given that this is the only information readily available at the moment I think it's better to leave it in than remove the entry entirely. There is an outside possibility more information may turn up later. Even with some of the well-known cases(e.g. Alfred Nobel, Bertrand Russell) the full facts are far from clear. Ben Finn 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rarity argument is reasonable. I'm still uncomfortable with Mr Hopkins – we don't know is first name and can't be 100% sure that is his surname. We only know he's Martine Hopkins' dad, whoever she is. Colin°Talk 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the last FLC round I removed redlinks from those people who did not seem notable other than for their involvement in a premature obituary (i.e. had little chance of a separate article about them appearing). I agree Harry S Weed does seem somewhat notable in his own right as an inventor, so I'll redlink him. Ben Finn 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the rarity of premature obituaries arguably makes any occurrence of them notable (regardless of whether the publication or the person are notable; notable events don't have to involve notable people/publications). For assuming this list contains a fair proportion of all premature obituaries in modern times, there have been no more than one or two hundred of them. Consider, for comparison, List of snow events in Florida - light snow flurries in Jacksonville in 1855 are not notable except for their rarity.
- The Prince Edward list is meets criteria 1.a.3 since it is a finite list that would be incomplete without those. They are also red-links so hopefully someday someone will write something. The best (featured) lists do contain notable entries. See criteria 1a and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). You may consider the entries to be either the actual premature obituaries or the people themselves. We generally don't mention ordinary folk on Wikipedia. The only defence I can think of for this list is that premature obituaries are probably quite rare. A correction in a local newspaper of a mistake that paper itself made, isn't a notable event IMO (see also Richard Paul Smith). An premature obituary in a national newspaper or international journal is a bigger issue and IMO would qualify (see Harry S. Weed). However, the fact that they achieved such an obituary implies that they possibly deserve a Wikipedia article and so should be made a link, even if it would currently be red. Colin°Talk 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anything in a list needs to be notable in its own right, does it? As long as the list itself is. Many Wikipedia lists are full of entries which are individually un-notable; take for example the 1876 entry in the featured List of Prince Edward Island general elections (post-Confederation). Ben Finn 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Oh boy, casting my first !vote for a featured list candidate. An excellent and completely sourced list, though I think the Mr. Hopkins entry should probably be removed. Also, the "sample" at the top confused me and seems unnecessary, is it a common thing? It threw me off at first, and on my screen at least the main table of contents is off the screen because of it and the cause section. Atropos 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sample is not necessary, it's there more as an introduction to draw people's attention to some of the more familiar/interesting cases. It could be cut I suppose - anyone else have views on this, or on Mr Hopkins? (Re Mr Hopkins, I maintain the view that even though it is short on detail and isn't an interesting case, it clearly happened, is sourced, and is a premature obituary, so it has every right to be in a list of same! And for the sake of completeness, should be included.) Ben Finn 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am slightly concerned about the sourcing for some of this. For instance, Anthony John Allen's entry lists Beachy Head as "Britain's most popular suicide spot", however the source provided says "Britain's most notorious suicide spot", there is a big difference between the most popular and the most notorious.
- OK I will correct this.
- The "Causes" section doesn't have any sources listed. Was this info simply compiled after looking through the list? Some editors with a strict interpretation of WP:NOR might consider that original research if that is the case. While the entries may reveal the reasons for individual cases, calling those "common" causes for a premature obituary seems to be OR.
- Yes, it was compiled after looking through the list. This was discussed in the previous FLC attempt as a result of which I altered the wording to try to make it clear that it was no more than a summary of the list. (The consensus then appeared to be that it was OK to have such information as introductory material, but that the percentages which it then had should be removed.)
I'll think about how else to express the 'common causes' bit, but this is difficult to re-word. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording?Now re-worded. Ben Finn 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was compiled after looking through the list. This was discussed in the previous FLC attempt as a result of which I altered the wording to try to make it clear that it was no more than a summary of the list. (The consensus then appeared to be that it was OK to have such information as introductory material, but that the percentages which it then had should be removed.)
- Another thing I find odd is the listing of the people's professions after some of the names, but not all. For instance, James Earl Jones has "(Voice of Darth Vader)" after his name (He is an actor who has had many roles besides this, and it is probably inappropriate for this to be his descriptor, it should probably simply say "actor") while other people such as Bob Hope don't have any profession descriptor after their name.
- This is intentional. All entries, including Bob Hope, do include profession/description of the person concerned (I went through a while back to ensure this), but not necessarily in brackets at the start. It makes for smoother and less rigid reading if it can conveniently be included in the first line or two instead, e.g.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge: in 1816 the writer heard his name mentioned in a hotel by a man reading out a newspaper report of a coroner's inquest.
- rather than the clumsier:
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge (writer): in 1816 he heard his name mentioned in a hotel by a man reading out a newspaper report of a coroner's inquest.
- However, not all entries can be conveniently put in the former format, as it depends on what the opening sentence says; and I think having some variety in this is harmless. Re James Earl Jones, where someone is particularly famous for one thing (e.g. film), I have generally given that as it helps readers identify the person. Many people cannot place who James Earl Jones is by name, and saying he is an 'actor' does not help much; however saying he was the voice of Darth Vader identifies him clearly. Though note that in this particular case it describes him both as 'voice of Darth Vader' and as 'the actor', thus covering both bases. Though perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording? Ben Finn 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is intentional. All entries, including Bob Hope, do include profession/description of the person concerned (I went through a while back to ensure this), but not necessarily in brackets at the start. It makes for smoother and less rigid reading if it can conveniently be included in the first line or two instead, e.g.
- I'll support when these issues have been addressed. VegaDark 08:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, do we have a reliable source saying he is best known for being the voice of Darth Vader? I consider the original Star Wars films the best films ever made, and even I associate James Earl Jones much more with Field of Dreams rather than the voice of Darth Vader. To use that as his descriptor with the justification that that is what he is best known for is an opinion, unless sourced. VegaDark 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't say he's best known for being the voice of Darth Vader - it just says '(voice of Darth Vader)'. Though far more people have seen Star Wars than Field of Dreams (see e.g. IMDB). Sure, it could just say 'actor' I suppose... Ben Finn 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it just to say 'actor' (though I don't think this is an improvement myself!) Ben Finn 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, do we have a reliable source saying he is best known for being the voice of Darth Vader? I consider the original Star Wars films the best films ever made, and even I associate James Earl Jones much more with Field of Dreams rather than the voice of Darth Vader. To use that as his descriptor with the justification that that is what he is best known for is an opinion, unless sourced. VegaDark 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]