Talk:List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

Table caption

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image caption

Your proposed wording has poor grammar. It violates MOS:NUMNOTES. It contains unnecessary and embarrassing over-detail. All humans have good understanding of the size of small denomination coins, let alone arguably one of the world's most famous. In the extremely unlikely event that some person wants to know the exact measurements of a US penny, they can click on the Wikilink provided. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not just revert. I addressed your concerns. See diff. And I made changes like using the old reference format (with additions).

So people know what is being talked about:

Fentanyl. 2 mg (white powder to the right) is a lethal dose in most people. US penny is 19 mm (0.75 in) wide.

References

You are the first person to complain about this concerning this image caption. From the Commons image page is this:

"This image has currency in it to indicate scale.

"Using coins for scale is discouraged as it will require people unfamiliar with them to look up the dimensions or guess, both of which defeat the purpose of the object in the first place. Coins can also reinforce a geographical bias, and some coins' designs are copyrighted.

"Ideally, a photograph should include a ruler with the subject (example) or an added scale marking. SI ("metric") units are the most commonly used worldwide (see meter and centimeter)."

As for the grammar, feel free to correct it.

--Timeshifter (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not just revert. I addressed your concerns.

That is not a true statement. You did not address all my concerns. You addressed the referencing. You didn't address others, and you even reinstated the MOS:NUMNOTES violation despite the fact I explicitly pointed the issue out.

As for the grammar, feel free to correct it.

I do keep correcting it, and then you keep reverting my corrections.

You are the first person to complain about this ...

Pointing out that someone is the first person to complain about something is not a valid argument in itself. It shouldn't be assumed that there is a tacit consensus just because nobody has stated they believe something can be done better. Most of my work on Wikipedia is improving things that nobody has complained about. This is what this list looked like right before my first edit: [3]. Nobody had complained that it wasn't long enough. The fact nobody complained wasn't a valid reason for me to not expand it.

Thanks for pointing out the NoCoins guideline on Commons. That was something I was previously unfamiliar with. In that case I'll happily reinstate that part. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"2 mg" is actually correct according to MOS:NUMNOTES, not "two mg." You instead spelled it out to "Two milligrams". Are you going to use number names for "US penny is 19 mm (0.75 in) wide". As in "US penny is nineteen millimeters (0.75 inches) wide"? Most people want image captions shortened where possible because it is valuable real estate on the right side of an article where images are stacked. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well this is ironic. 'Valuable real estate' is one of the reasons I was modifying your quote to begin with. The explanations of powder and coin dimensions were unnecessarily long-winded. Just for the record I was happy to reinstate the penny dimensions to keep the peace, but I think the intention of NoCoins doesn't really apply here and that is still isn't necessary. A speck of powder that size is going to looks the same no matter how big the coin is.

I presume you're referring to the NUMNOTES guideline "Adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in different formats". That clearly only become an issue after I reinstated your penny dimensions. It's easily fixed, and I've already done so. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In context with your above quote according to MOS:NUMNOTES "2 mg" is correct, not "Two mg". "Only figures are used with unit symbols (12 min not twelve min); but figures or words may be used with unit names (12 minutes or twelve minutes), subject to the provisions above." You seem to be one of those editors who like to cite guidelines without actually thoroughly reading them. Wikilawyering 101. Like with NoCoins you didn't read it well enough to understand that coins come in all sizes, and that Wikipedia has an international audience, especially for the English-language pages. A non-US resident is unlikely to know how big a US penny is without some indication of measurement. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to cite guidelines without actually thoroughly reading them yourself. NUMNOTES also says not to start a sentence with a figure. So starting a sentence with "2 mg" is not correct, but "Two milligrams" is fine. So my original rewording of the caption adhered to NUMNOTES. Things only became problematic when you wanted the coin size added back. Congratulations on snookering me there by the way. You wanted text added back which would conflict with what was already there, then complained when I fixed the issue you pointed out because that conflicted with a third issue that had yet to be raised. Perhaps you didn't plan that in advance, and perhaps it was taking Wikilawyering to advanced levels. Unlike you, I'll assume good faith and accept the first possibility. And in any case, this new issue you've raised is once again easily fixed, and I've already done so.

You're only embarrassing yourself if you accuse anyone of not understanding coins come in different sizes. I did read NoCoins. You, however, appear to have not read my reply and are now misrepresenting what I said. My point is I don't think a small speck of powder is going to look any larger or smaller next to a different sized coin. The point is moot anyway as I have conceded for the text to appear in the caption. You appear to be one of those editors who just wants to continue arguing for the sake of arguing even after you've won a point. Don't do that please. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Saying "You're only embarrassing yourself" is a personal attack. As is accusing me of "snookering" you. See your reply accusing me of a personal attack higher up. I quote you earlier on: "All humans have good understanding of the size of small denomination coins". Now you say differently above: "understanding coins come in different sizes." That includes small denomination coins. See Commons:Template:NoCoins: "require people unfamiliar with them to look up the dimensions". We solve the problem by putting those dimensions in the caption. I have long added the dimensions to the caption where I have posted that image. MOS:NUMNOTES says "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". The word "avoid" is not a requirement. If it is important to you then you can add "A" in front of it as you did.

All of these multiple long threads could have been avoided by fixing the problems instead of reversions. None of the problems were serious enough to require instant reversions. But since you apparently WP:OWN this page you reverted everything. Often in mistake as with the table edits you reverted and then apologized for.

Here is my image, caption, and reference before your first reversion:

Fentanyl. 2 mg (white powder to the right) is a lethal dose in most people. US penny is 19 mm (0.75 in) wide.

References

Here is your final version:

A 2 mg dose of fentanyl powder (right) is a lethal amount for most people. US penny is 19 mm (0.75 in) wide.

References

All of this discussion for so little change in the caption. Change you could have done without reversion. And I see you have again removed the most important part quoting the archived caption: "photo illustration of 2 milligrams of fentanyl, a lethal dose in most people". It is no longer in the current reference caption. It is only in archives. Someone was removing the image from multiple pages because of the lack of verifiability, linking to WP:V. So I added that info, and they were happy. I stated this in an edit summary here, and you are ignoring it again. I link to the diff yet again: diff: "Fentanyl image caption. Using article's reference formatting. Plus additional info specifically requested by other editors on other articles with the image. Image was being deleted due to WP:V without the archived caption being linked and quoted. White powder was hard to notice by some editors." Did you think I was lying about that? WP:AGF. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a big difference between a mild accusation and a clear personal attack. A mild accusation is you saying I'm Wikilawyering like you did above in your last response here, or me saying that a condescending remark you made is more embarrassing towards yourself than the person you're directing it to. A clear, undeniable personal attack is what you did in the above thread. If you disagree, that would mean you've made many personal attacks (I.e saying I'm Wikilawyering) for longer than I originally said above. I myself, however, don't think that's the case. And I didn't accuse you of snookering me on purpose. The fact remains you accomplished it regardless of intent, as is often the case in the game the term is derived from.

Well you've proved my point about still wanting to argue over the coin issue even though it's resolved. I myself do not want to continue arguing by pointing out what I believe is wrong with your comment above, and would rather leave the issue resolved. I added the text back, and I've now pointed out twice I don't intend to remove it. So please drop the stick and move on.

No I don't own this article, and no, I didn't revert everything. That's another false statement to add to the list of them that you've made. Among other things, not only did I not revert you deleting 32,000 characters from the table [4], I thanked you for it and acknowledged it was a lot of effort [5]. Pointing out that I'm completely willing to apologize when I realise I've made an error is not helping your accusations that I'm owning the article.

Yes, the final version of the caption is not very different from the original. However, the first change was. When I took this to the talk page, I thought it would be a simple discussion. Obviously, that was not the case. That doesn't mean that wanting to achieve consensus on talk pages, rather than reverting each other, isn't a bad idea in general. In fact, it's one of Wikipedia's cornerstones.

Sounds like you're giving this one editor who complained about the image elsewhere a lot of weight, and based only on what you've said, it sounds like that editor's reasoning was insufficient. There's a difference between assuming good faith, and blindly accepting what someone else said once. All I have is hearsay of what you said happened. Hearsay shouldn't be used to make decisions; typically we link to original diffs to prove a point, rather than linking to a diff of someone talking about them. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet again you missed my main point in my last post. I even bolded it. An editor was removing the image from article after article because the current reference page at the DEA does not say "photo illustration of 2 milligrams of fentanyl, a lethal dose in most people". That is only found in some archive pages (depends on the date of the archive). So the editor justifiably deleted the image based on WP:V. Please put that back in the reference so that the image is not deleted. Future editors reading that reference will not necessarily know to go to the archive. In fact why would they believe there is more info there?

A different editor was complaining about not understanding the image, the powder, etc.. I added a few words to clarify the image. No big deal. But you made a federal case about adding a few words for that and the coin size. I added the words right away after the editors pointed out the problems. The editors and I didn't have a long discussion about it. No need. I am accommodating. You are not. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You completely missed the final point in my last post. I pointed out you never provided diffs of these things happening. No I'm not accusing you of lying, I very much believe you when you say that someone complained. But as is customary on Wikipedia, when the crux of your argument relies entirely on some individual edits, you need to provide the diffs showing them. You're the one citing it, so the onus is on you is to provide evidence of it. For example, when taking disputes to AIN (or anywhere really), they never accept your word for things, they require you to provide diffs for any edits you mention before they'll consider your argument. This isn't because they think you're lying, it's so they can look at the evidence themselves to get a better understanding of what happened. Bolding a whole heap of text is not a substitute for actual evidence.

I've linked to the archived version of the DEA source with the caption that is missing from the live version in the meantime though. If that addresses your concern there, save yourself some time and don't worry about the diffs for that anymore.

But in the absence of you providing diffs for the people complaining they couldn't see the powder, I'm going to have to make a guess. If this guess is wrong, please don't become angry, becasue I'm doing my best with the limited information I have. From what you're telling me, I'm getting the impression the caption used to be "Fentanyl. 2 mg is a lethal dose in most people", and then you added the text "(white powder to the right)" to address that the white powder was hard to see by some editors? Is that correct? If that is the case (and keep in mind you haven't showed me the posts of what the people complaining actually said so I'm forced to guess), don't you think the reason they couldn't tell what the fentanyl was is because nobody had clarified it was in powder form? Clarifying the picture has fentanyl somewhere in it by only mentioning the word fentanyl in an initial one-word sentence would be a particularly poor way of explaining things, and if that was the case it's no wonder that caused confusion. If the word powder isn't in the caption, and someone has bad eyesight, it's reasonable to assume they'd miss that. It's very faint after all. This is the assumption I reached from what you told me. Specifically because of that, when I copy-edited the caption to remove the wording and NUMNOTES issues, I still clarified the fentanyl in the picture was in powder form, and I specified it was on the right so readers know where to look. Accordingly, I honestly don't understand what the issue still is. Even someone with bad eyesight knows what to look for, and where to look for it. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I just found a better image, and put it in the article (see diff) in place of the penny image:

A two milligram dose of fentanyl powder (on pencil tip) is a lethal amount for most people.

References

My edit summary: "Better image I just found. Feel free to reword any part of it or the reference. I rarely use citation templates since I can get the same result faster without them. If you also want to put both images up, feel free, but there may not be room at the top. Could put old image after the table."

I used your caption for the most part, and substituted "on pencil tip". Many Americans (and others) have no clue what a milligram is. So I spelled it out and linked it.

I personally would put a small gallery section after the table. Title the section "Gallery". Then it would be easy to get to via the table of contents. Put the penny image there since it is difficult to find good images from reliable sources that can be trusted as to the size of fentanyl that can kill. Put in a few individual images of people who have died. It would make the article more meaningful. The composite image at the top is not enough in my opinion. A lot of people will not click the composite image to get to the larger size. But it is a good image at the top. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. If we have a stand-alone image this is much better for several reasons, including the fact Wikipedia discourages using coins for comparison entirely. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out why this small edit has created such a protracted discussion, and I think I understand now. I think both of us are too defensive because of our past experiences with the image and the list. I think you've been defensive about the old image because you had to go through the experience of someone trying to delete it previously. I've been defensive because getting this list to featured status was incredibly difficult and time consuming. It took well over a year or regular editing just to get it in a good enough shape to nominate it. Featured status has insanely high standards, one of which is making sure all references of the same type are formatted in the same manner. An additional image was not required during the featured review, so when you added something that is not required for featured status but contained different reference formatting, I reformatted the reference so that your addition would no longer violate the featured criteria. When you reverted that and made it violate the featured criteria again, I got defensive about that and anything else that wasn't a requirement for featured status that also didn't look like an improvement to me. Obviously there were other issues, but I think that's how it started and I just wanted to say it's regrettable the conversation deteriorated and I apologise for any grief cased. You don't have to respond to this. I still think the table caption is silly and unnecessary as per my previous comments, but I'll reinstate it as a sign of goodwill since the guideline does indeed recommend it. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to add Henry Friendly

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

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)

Montage image

@SNUGGUMS: I refer to your edit and edit summary here [6]. 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)

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)

Poes death is famously unknown

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)

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)