Talk:List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

Note: First part of thread was initially on a user talk page. Moved here so others can participate.

I strongly disagree with your edit here though: [1]. It's unnecessary because the table is the entire subject of the article. There's only two things in the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. The lead, and the list itself. Even if someone is using a screen reader, common sense would dictate that the table on the 'List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication' is the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is exactly what I used to believe, but after more study I now religiously add captions to tables I work on. Table captions are required for people using screen readers. See: Help:Table#Captions and summaries. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Timeshifter: That guideline says table captions are recommended, not required. My argument stands that I believe in this isolated case, it's unnecessary due to being obvious. You haven't explained why that shouldn't be the case. Saying that 'after more study' you add captions 'religiously' is only a factual statement of your behaviour. It's not a logical argument for why it's necessary here.

More importantly, I refer to this edit of yours: [2]. You're very aware your contested change was reverted, yet you reinstated it anyway. The relevant policy here is WP:BRD, not "WP:BRRD": WP:AIN has held many times that once an edit is reverted, the ONUS is on the person wanting the change to seek consensus for the change on the talk page. It is not acceptable to edit war it back in.

I did not just revert without explanation, I linked to the guidelines. See diff. For most people that is enough.

After a blind person with a screen reader said it mattered, I followed the recommendation. You should too. See:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H39

It is linked from:

See: Help:Table#Captions and summaries.

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You only linked to an optional recommendation. Once you're aware something is contested, the established norm on Wikipedia is to discuss it on the talk page, rather than reinstating it with a new justification.

Yes, I think captions for blind people is a great idea. I think it's extremely important in an article, especially one that may have multiple tables, or a table that does not have the same title as the article itself. However, this isn't an article, it's a list that consists only of a table and an introduction. I think its pointless on this particular case because when one opens a list that is titled 'List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication', they would expect to find a List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. This reminds me of those warning labels on peanut butter saying it contains peanuts. It's really not necessary, becasue what else would you expect to find. When something is only recommended, that's acknowledging that a one-size fits all approach is not always the best answer. I understand what the guideline recommends. However, is there an established consensus or guideline for explicitly captioning a list that only consists of a table, where the contents of that table will be obvious from the name of the list? If there is, I'll happily reinstate it. If not, I think it's better without it. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have edited many list articles. Many list articles have more than one table. There is no way a blind person can know this except from table captions.

See also:

https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.2

There are also many other pages on the web explaining it all. I don't have time to pull them all up for you. You could just take my word on it that it matters. A lot.

And my point about many list articles having more than one table addresses your point adequately anyway.

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Citing all the external guidelines you can find, even if you had the time, does not help your case. Wikipedia is not required to follow external guidelines. I unfortunately learnt that the hard way when I was involved in a dispute with terminology surrounding mental health earlier this year. I pointed out the terminology psychologists recommended using, though WP:RFC pointed out that Wikipedia is not required to follow external recommendations, no matter how widespread they are, and even if Wikipedia's guidelines acknowledge that they exist. I do take your word that they exist, and I maintain they are not helpful in this particular instance.

I'm sure your intention is good, but no, your point doesn't address my concern. You say there is no way for a blind person to know a list has more than one table without a caption. Firstly, that's not true in this case. The lead of this list itself makes it clear there's only one table. It explicitly states "This alphabetical list contains 632 notable people". Directly below that, is the one and only table which contains the list that has just been mentioned. The prose makes it clear what the table is. What you're proposing is tautology. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Screen readers provide a list of tables, but only if they are captioned. The users of screen readers skip around just like sighted readers. If you bothered to go out on the web, and read more about how they work you would see. But obviously you don't care about blind people. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You've crossed a line here. Accusing me of "obviously" not caring about blind people, especially when I've explicitly made it clear I think captions are great for blind people in most circumstances, is a personal attack and a clear violation of WP:UNCIVIL. We've now reached an impasse, because I'm not going to continue talking to someone who has to resort to this behaviour. You have every right to disagree with me, and you have every right to not like me and think that I am wrong, but you have no right to resort to making heinous personal attacks when you don't get your way immediately. It's clear we're not going to reach a consensus between the two of us anyway. Either wait for a third opinion as I will, or escalate this to WP:AIN, where I'm confident your personal attack will be dealt with in the usual fashion. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I struck out the offending words. Not that I don't believe it. As you said: "you have every right to not like me and think that I am wrong". But accusations in print, I agree, are another matter. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

As per my comment in the section below, I've reinstated the table caption even though I don't agree with it. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I request also that Henry Friendly be added to the list as a notable inclusion. GuardianH (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi GuardianH. The source at his article just states he was found dead by suicide with prescription pill bottles by his side. Even though that would strongly indicate drug overdose, it's not good enough proof. We'd need a source that specifically stated drug overdose. I may have time to go looking for one at some point in the future. If you already have one or are able to find one, post it here and I can add him to the article if you don't know how to do that yourself. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SNUGGUMS: I refer to your edit and edit summary here [3]. Firstly, the "cherry picking" was done based on who had a suitable free image that could be used. Secondly, the montage was only added in the first place as it was explicitly requested at the FLC when I nominated the list for promotion. Thirdly, I have no idea what "whoever decided to use "notable deaths" wasn't even trying to be subtle with their personal opinions on the deaths" means. Can you clarify what personal opinions you are publicly accusing me of having? My only intention was only to comply with the request at FLC in the hopes of having the article promoted. I do not appreciate your tone or your accusation when I was only trying my best in good faith to comply with FLC requests. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The caption implied that their deaths mattered than others caused by drugs, perhaps even including others mentioned within the list. In retrospect, it wasn't a good idea to request a compilation of random individual images like that, especially with how undeniably selective it was. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's even mentioned in the poe article. Either this one is wrong or the other one os. Why was my edit reverted??? Deadlyops (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My best guess is it was reverted because your explanation in the edit summary was written in a way which could be interpreted as you just stating your opinion, rather than linking to something that would verify your assertion. Many edits to this article are made with either no or limited explanation, and while in an ideal world each one would be investigated thoroughly, people are time poor. I didn't revert your edit but I probably would have done so as well if I had seen it first. You haven't done anything wrong, but I suggest a better edit summary would have been "Poe's cause of death was never confirmed - see Death of Edgar Allan Poe". You're clearly right that the cause of death is not agreed upon. However, this article does indeed still list people whose cause of death is not agreed upon, as long as the fact it is not agreed upon is clarified in the table. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

someone should create another article listing all the countries of the world by their rate of drug-related deaths per 100,000 people. 72.193.210.80 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply