Talk:Lists of unusual deaths

• There is a holding tank for content, removed from the article due to poor sourcing, which may have been included in the article for a considerable time: Talk:Lists of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues. Following talk page discussion, and in line with WP:STALEDRAFT, it has been agreed that any content in this holding area not sourced within 6 months from addition should be removed.

Pinging those who have been active lately; apologies if I missed anyone: Abductive, Aoidh, Bdblakley29, Bkatcher, Brandmeister, BrayLockBoy, Gildir, Martinevans123, Toadheart, Chaliceborn777, RBainbridge2000, Rori1911, TeeVill

Happy to open a formal discussion if needed, but if we can come to consensus on our own, might as well! I've got three points to bring up that I think (loosely) cover the bases for the moment:

• This page is massive.
• It's not getting any smaller.
• Should we do something about it? If so, what?

I think we can all agree on the first point, but if you'd like statistics, the List of Unusual Deaths is (at the time of this writing) sitting at 522,035 bytes, making it one of the top 100 Wikipedia pages by data size - it was 57th, last I checked. It's big.

I'd hope we can all agree on the second as well - people die, and the more time passes, the greater the odds of unusual deaths. In addition to that, the digitization of historical records, especially newspapers, makes it much easier to find even more unusual deaths for the list. I personally have been poking through Chronicling America and adding deaths as I find them, and I've still got more noted down that I just haven't formatted yet (a golf club victim, a guy who accidentally ate a sandwich soaked in battery acid, a freak decapitation, guy who got run over by his own hay rake, etc.).

So given those, we're left with the actual questions in point 3 - should we do something about the size and unchecked growth of this page, and if so, what? My opinion is that yes, we should do something about it; it's already huge to the point where I sometimes experience lag if I try to edit the entire thing instead of just a section. As for what specifically to do about it, I have a few thoughts that I'd like input on.

1. We go through with a weed-whacker and clear out anything unverified. This gets trickier the further back in time we go, but gotta start somewhere, right?
2. We go through with a bigger weed-whacker and clear out things with questionable sources. I'm talking infotainment listicles with titles like "You Won't Believe These 13 Weird Ways To Die (#7 Will Shock You!)".
3. We go from weed-whacker to machete and chop the article into multiple articles. By date/category would likely be the easiest way to do this - List of unusual deaths in Antiquity, List of unusual deaths in the 21st century, List of unusual animal deaths, etc.
4. We graduate to a full-on landscaping company and decide if certain unusual deaths aren't actually that weird. For example, we have several people currently on the list who drowned, but perhaps "seizure and drowned" or "vertigo and drowned" or "fainted and drowned" could be removed in favor of keeping "drowned self due to ex-wife's ghost" or "drowned in poop" or "drowned by a swan."
5. We let our landscaping company get picky about its clients and adjust the qualifications for inclusion. I previously suggested 1) a reliable source must describe the death as "unusual" or some synonym thereof; 2) a contemporary source (can be the same as #1) must do the same; and 3) a modern reader could reasonably agree the same with said source/s.

Don't know why I let this turn into an entire lawn care metaphor, but sure, why not.

Of these, I like #1, #4, and #5 the best. There's no reason not to get started with clearing out recent deaths that fail verification (honestly that doesn't even really need discussion). #4 is a little sketchier, as it's a judgement call; I thought deaths removed this way could be placed in the holding tank for review and reinstatement by any editor who disagrees, after which per WP:BRD they could be discussed here. #5 feels like a good idea, but then again of course it does, I came up with it. Adding the caveat that a contemporary source should call it unusual (or otherwise point out that it was exceptional, since the further back you go the more you see things like "terrible death" instead and if the death fits the other criteria then "terrible" is within the spirit of the page) increases the sourcing, which is rarely a bad thing, and the "modern reader" provision - while open to debate and interpretation - may help keep to a minimum more mundane deaths that happen to be called "unusual".

I'm not sold on #2; some of the sources that would fall under that umbrella include otherwise-reliable sources like the BBC. #3 seems like it could be a good idea, but I'll readily admit that I haven't done that before and I'm a bit nervous about it. I'd want a good solid consensus before getting that going.

I'd love to hear what other people have to say! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been watching this article grow for quite some time with questionable entries based on a single reference, usually a local newspaper using an eye-catching headline, with the body of the text not mentioning any unusual/strange aspect. I think enforcement of the noted as being unusual by multiple sources criteria mentioned in the lede would cut down a lot of the bloat. - Aoidh (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, a lot of these are referenced by small newspapers or the like, describing farm accidents or car wrecks as 'strange.' Bkatcher (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wholly agree with that description. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd personally go with 1, if there's nothing that can verify it happened (outside of antiquity cause we don't have a time machine), then it shouldn't really be on here in the first place TeeVill (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

My favorite option is #3. This has previously been done with List of last words and List of fictional astronauts, among others. I took part in the process of chopping up List of fictional astronauts and made some mistakes in the process, but someone else came along and corrected them, and the resulting articles have been going strong for several years now. This option also has the fun factor of choosing a new lead image for each article rather than just being stuck with Aeschylus' death. (I would also support removing all the Biblical figures other than Eleazar Avaran, although even that would be unnecessary if List of unusual deaths in antiquity were a separate page.) Gildir (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No real objections to #3, as long as the criteria for inclusion were clear and largely consistent. Re #5: ".. adjust the qualifications for inclusion.." - the current instructions at the top of this page say ".. the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional." Maybe there is a case for explicitly requiring at least two RS sources for every entry (the current instructions are slightly ambiguous)? I think this would see a large number of entries disappear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I personally think we should delete all the ones that don't explicitly say unusual and that have unreliable sources. I also think we should keep Eleazar Avaran but Sisera since both have other historical documents backing them. Bdblakley29 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bdblakley, you've now just added: James A. Moon, Andrew Westlake, Thad Jackson, James Gough or Goff, Morris Quinn and James Ferrera, Charles Salow, and 12+ cows, which all seem to be sourced to very brief reports in 19th-centruy regional newspapers. Are you prepared to argue for retention of all of these? Might it be a good idea to agree a pause on any additions while this discussion continues? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And now Gwynette Erica Morgan? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am fully willing to argue why these should be kept and I don't think It would be a good idea. Bdblakley29 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit is a very good example of why the "more than one reliable source" criteria that has been part of the article since 2012 should be the standard and be enforced in the article itself. Otherwise this article will continue to expand with questionable entries sourced to local papers who use eye-catching headlines to describe deaths. A local community may consider many things unusual for their community that the wider world would not, and the easiest way to check against that is to enforce the requirement that there be at least two separate reliable sources for an entry. Simply enforcing the criteria that has already been in the prose of the article for the last 12 years would cut down on the size of the article tremendously and would help ensure that the entries listed are in fact actually considered unusual. - Aoidh (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to formally propose a pause in the addition of new entries while this discussion is in progress. What do other editors think? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. Gildir (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if new entries need to be paused completely, but at minimum they need to meet the article's current criteria of multiple reliable sources absent a consensus that says this should not be the standard for inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you agree that the existing wording, ".. deaths for whom there are reliable sources", is ambiguous? That it, it doesn't explicitly state that each separate entry needs at least two reliable sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The banner at the top of the talk page referencing the 2013 RfC is ambiguous to the question of whether one or multiple sources is needed. However, the prose of the article is not. The 2013 version of the article (which also mentioned the multiple sources criteria) was ~80k bytes (122 entries) and is now ~535k bytes (523 entries). It is expected that the article would grow in that time period, however the page has grown by ~200k in the last year alone, mostly due to questionable entries sourced to a single local source that does not meet the article's own criteria (the lede states the list is for deaths noted as being unusual by multiple sources). - Aoidh (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the lede is unambiguous. Although in practice "multiple" is taken to mean "at least two". I think all of those recently added, with a single source, usually to a regional newspaper, should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no issues with this; I would just add that potential new entries should probably be placed in the Holding Tank instead of just page history. I'm also comfortable with Aoidh's suggestion that new entries be permitted so long as they have at least two reliable sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting that all proposed new entries first go in the holding tank? Or just those that do not have at least two RS sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh beg pardon, I meant that if new additions are paused altogether, putting them in the Holding Tank instead of just undoing them seemed like a good idea - especially for contributors that aren't actively following this discussion. It'd feel pretty terrible to submit an entry and have it removed because of a discussion you didn't realize was happening.

If not paused altogether, I would support Holding Tank-ing entries with just one source, and keeping those with 2+. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of, I should make sure my recent additions have 2+ sources each, looks like I'm OK for the Dunns and McDermott, but need more for Wynekoop, Hilda, and McCullar...

i agree with number 3. i think we should divide each time period into its own page. i think it makes the bite count a bit more smaller and less laggy. Chaliceborn777 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Given that there's been no suggestion or consensus that the inclusion criteria mentioned at the beginning of the article should be changed, in the next few days I plan to start going through and removing entries sourced to a single reference if I can't find a secondary source for them, which includes the recently added entries that do not meet this criteria. @Chaliceborn777 and Bdblakley29: You have both been adding a lot of entries in the past few days that do not meet the inclusion criteria of more than one source and/or use highly questionable sources such as WordPress blogs. This HistoryCollection from this addition is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source with no claims of editorial oversight or review for accuracy, for example. I would ask that if you would like these additions to remain in the article, to go through and add sources, and to ensure that new entries meet the criteria before adding them, to avoid their removal. - Aoidh (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Looking at Long pages it now appears at No.65 with ‎[509,540 bytes]. Bear in mind that WP:Article size says "> 15,000 words Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the first thing to do is split off deaths of people who are independently notable. Abductive (reasoning) 23:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would still prefer a split by time period. Just my two cents. Gildir (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I would very much like to see WP:CHALLENGE applied to this list. For example, hunters getting shot when their dog steps on the trigger is very common, as evidenced by this Washington Post article, In the past five years, at least six Americans have been shot by dogs. Yet somehow an item about that is disgracing the page right now. Abductive (reasoning) 23:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Surprised that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't also also apply to dogs (in some states)... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Well, they're dogs, not bears... NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I always keep an SKS-style rifle handy for the golf course... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

• Update as of 10/28/2024: it's now #208 [448,857 bytes], smaller than 97 other lists, and option #1 hasn't fully been implemented. We've made some great progress, y'all.

To add in my two cents, option #3 seems like the most permanent solution, but I'd prefer implementing #2 first (of course, after we define what sources are questionable). ZionniThePeruser (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found this one thing on a list of strange deaths in history and this one incident about a farmer being pushed off of a cliff by 60 sheep. It seems like a freak accident, but let me know. RBainbridge2000 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got two reliable sources calling it a freak accident? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trying to find some reliable ones, but I'll keep ya updated. RBainbridge2000 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most folks who've commented on the informal RfC above seem to agree that splitting the article would be the most permanent solution to the whole size issue, and discussion seems to have wrapped up 2 weeks ago. I understand that WP:THEREISNORUSH, but we got to get stuff done, eventually. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember if I've said this before, but the easiest solution is to split unusual deaths of notable people off from the people notable only for their unusual deaths. Abductive (reasoning) 00:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that arrangement would make intuitive sense to most readers. I still think a division by time period is the way to go, although I'm reluctant to do it myself because my skills on how to do that without losing edit history information are rusty. Gildir (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could try and take a stab at it, but I'm a bit of a newbie. Intuitively (I haven't taken a look at the policies on this yet), I figured, based on the above-mentioned Lists of fictional astronauts, just creating new "list" pages, with this acting as a "central hub" of sorts, would work; but what are you referring to by "losing edit history information"? Do you mean if moving this page to a pluralized form, like what you did with the astronauts? LaughingManiac (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have split the page into multiple lists, basing the new structure closely on Lists of fictional astronauts and retaining the edit history. Any changes or refinements to the new arrangement would be greatly appreciated. Gildir (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks clear and logical to me. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic! Great job. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Amazing job! Hopefully, we've put this size problem to bed once and for all. Huzzah to a new future! ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found two sources about an unknown girl who had two lovers, but her along with another man got shot before the shooter killed himself. They both call it "strange", but idk if it's usual. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/34314630/4218665 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/89367419/8601928 RBainbridge2000 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was in 1925, so I guess you could now move this thread to Talk:List of unusual deaths in the 20th century? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply