Talk:List of suicides

Japan relative

Ichiro Nakagawa（1983), politician, hanging（on curtain）[Sourse:Japan National Police Agency] Unsigned (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I added a signature for this unsigned comment by copying from the talk page history. 211.30.128.19 (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the source? Nightscream (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Why won't the Jan Palach photo get to the same size as the others?

I probably won't remember to check here again, but if somebody knows how to fix this, plead do.

One photo is smaller than all the others List of suicides #P "Jan Palach". I'm not sure why the usual size setting doesn't work on that one image.

211.30.128.19 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The original of the photo is quite small and the size parameters are not going to resize it up. You'll notice that the photos shown have varying sizes, it's not a rule that they all have to be the same size. If you are thinking this is disrespecting Palach, you have a few options. The photos are optional, so this photo could be removed. It may be possible to find a different photo of Jan Palach with a larger size (resolution) to upload in place of this photo. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. @Jmcgnh I'm not familiar with his story, I was just trying to make the page look neater. The images are currently all different heights, but matching widths. I'll have a quick look for a bigger photo. Is there a way to force it? even if it looks a bit blurry? 211.30.128.19 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC: REVDEL?

Hello everyone. Sorry to bother you with this, but I didn't find a suitable REVDEL noticeboard because it is not copyright or any other urgent matter. I added Annie Robinson, a Titanic survivor, but I noticed that my edit summary was Ann Robinson, who is another person and still living. Given that it is such a sensitive matter, can someone correct my mistake or otherwise strike the summary? CoryGlee 11:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

To request oversight, follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight#How do you contact us? Mitchsavl (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: No way is this a WP:RFC matter. By launching an RfC, you have drawn extra attention to something that you want the exact opposite for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Split proposal

It looks like the last WP:SPLIT proposal was on 15 August 2022 by User:WhatamIdoing when the article size was "only" 464,165 bytes. The article is now 642,114 bytes! That's a full 38% growth in just 3.5 years, and it was oversized back then. There are 1589 citations and roughly 1500 entries in the list. Not counting the citations themselves, there are 15,000 reader-facing words, 121,000 characters, and pasting it into a Word document creates a 100-page document (and that's not counting those citations).

Discuss options on how this article could logically be split.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that the best thing is to split by time/century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I cannot imagine reading through 1500 entries and manually sorting them by century or by clusters of centuries. I asked an LLM and gave it a sample of about 50 entries, and asked if it would be able to sort them without changing any of the coding or characters, keeping them alphabetical, but sorting them into centuries or century groupings. The answer was yes. As long as it isn't a huge human undertaking—which you know that no one will execute—I think this is a great idea.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I just now discovered that the article could be split by alphabetical-groupings )or century-groupings), and display the same horizontal style of table of contents using {{Compact TOC}} instead of {{Horizontal TOC}} which allows for sending readers to another article but using one table of contents. Instructions are at Template:Compact TOC#Sub-articles. This method could be useful whether the article is split into alphabetical groups (example, A-E, F-J, K-O, P-T, U-Z) or by century groupings (example, BC, AD 0-500, 600-1000, 1000-1800, 1900s, 2000s).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the splitting three ways would be good enough:

• before 1900 (a few hundred)
• 1900s (~700)
• 2000s (~700)

but if it's easy to split, then I'd suggest BC + 0–999 AD + 1000–1899 + 1900s + 2000s + 2010s + 2020s.

If you don't trust AI for this, then it should be possible to do it with grep because each line starts with * and contains a consistently formatted date (e.g., find all lines with BC) for the BC list). AI sorts should be diff-able against the original; if any individual words (rather than whole lines) get highlighted, then that would indicate an unauthorized change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like List of suicides in the 21st century already exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I did a sample exercise and emailed you the results of sorting just the "A" list into your suggested century buckets.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC) I notice that List of suicides in the 21st century is (a) a table (yuck), and (b) has duplicates to this open-date list. It's possible an LLM can also sort those into a bulleted list, and maybe even compare for duplicates between the two articles.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: After doing a series of tests with an LLM, the massive size of this article is hindering any real useful results. I did several tests and emailed you the results. Unless someone has access to an LLM that allows large inputs and outputs, then I can't help you sort them into century-groupings. I doubt seriously anyone is going to manually sort and extract 1500 entries. I'm afraid splitting this article along alphabetic lines (like A-F, G-K, etc.) is probably the only realistic solution.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that nobody should manually sort this. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#GREP for an article split. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like we've got the pages in the Draft: namespace. Do you want to handle everything from here, or do you need help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Uh, I wasn't planning on doing the split; I just proposed it. You're the one who wanted it sorted by century-bundles. You asked for that 3.5 years ago. I just wanted to add a wikilink and after waiting a long time for this article to publish, I noticed the size. I'm willing to help with the drafts to whittle down some of the errors, but the vision for the finished product was yours. That said, I fixed the BC article problems, so you can now check that one. I might keep going until I get to the 300KB files (the last two).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup

List of draft articles:

• Draft:List of suicides (BC)
  • Basic cleanup done; needs side-checking.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Draft:List of suicides (1–999 AD)
  • Basic cleanup done; needs side-checking. Someone please remove most of the 14-citation overcite for Judas Iscariot.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Draft:List of suicides (1000–1899)
  • Basic cleanup done; needs side-checking.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Draft:List of suicides (1900–1999)
  • Checked A-Z for date range. Checked images only A-F.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Draft:List of suicides (2000–present)
  • Some cleanup of out-of-date prose and images; not complete.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for all your work. I've moved them to the mainspace. The Draft: namespace is m:where articles go to die. If we want them cleaned up, it's best to have them in the mainspace, so other editors will notice and help out.

  I think the next step is to get this article mostly blanked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've taken care of the rest of the images. This is largely done except for needing to reconcile List of suicides in the 21st century with the List of suicides (2000–present). I've tagged both of those and left an explanation at Talk:List of suicides (2000–present)#Merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Previous consensus was to keep one article, no consensus has changed this

Here we go again.

Previous consensus discussions have resulted in the maintaining of this as one article, and no subsequent consensus dicussion has decided otherwise. As the editor responsible for a third of all edits to this article, and over 71% of its text, I do not want it in multiple sections.

You already tried this before, and we are NOT splitting the article without a proper consensus dicussion involving a signficiant number of editors participating. If a signficiant swath of editors participating in such a discussion decides that it be split, then fine, I will accept this. Otherwise, we are not splitting it just because one or two editors want to strong-arm the matters while violating Wikipedia polcies on consensus discussions. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree on some facts.

• Do you agree with me that this page, with ~16,000 words, exceeds the "> 15,000 words Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" level in WP:SIZERULE?
• Do you agree with me that this page, with 1,590 separate refs, has a WP:PEIS problem that can only be worked around by using a non-standard #invoke method?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nightscream: The article size was entirely too large to manipulate at over 600,000 bytes. You say there was a prior consensus but you didn't link to any prior discussions nor say when that was (per WP:CCC), and consensus can change. When I thought the article needed splitting, I rummaged through the talk page archives and only found the one split-suggestion from WhatamIdoing 3.5 years ago where no one chimed in and no changes happened. The split has been done; many editors worked on the solution to how it could be achieved. Making the change might have been WP:BOLD, but considering the amount of work that went into it, I'd say it's too late for WP:BRD. Better to get consensus about keeping it or reverting it, rather than reverting it and then discussing it, at this point. The split was too difficult to achieve to just throw it away. If you want to seek a wider consensus, then try to get some.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Just because I did not link to those discussions doens't mean they didn't happen. I don't have an eidetic memory, nor do know if they're are bookmarked, so I'm sorry I dont' have that handy, but having heavily edited this article since March 2009, and I can assure that those discussions happened.

I do not see the article length or number of references as a problem. I don't dimiss the rules of thumb you cite, but at the same time, we don't have to adhere to them slavishly. A rule of thumb, after all, is a practical, approximate, rather than precise, scientific calculation. WP:PEIS appears to speak about article size as it pertains specifically to "expanded wikitexts generated by templates, parser functions and variables", whatever that means. (If someone wants to fill me in on that, pleaase do so.) But it doesn't appear to prohibit article size, and the page itself, is not a policy nor guideline, but just an "information page." Ultimately, we should do that which makes the article better.

You say the article is "entirely too large to manipulate at over 600,000 bytes." And yet, here I am, manipulating it having not problem doing so since 2009. I still have no problme with it.

Again, we do this by consensus. If you want to begin a consensus discussion, with a reasonable number of editors participating from which we can glean a representative number of opnions (while adhering to WP:CANVAS), and a signficiant consensus decides to split, then I will accept that. If not, then having one or two editors -- who haven't even edited the article that much -- change it unilaterally, is a violation of the spirit of how the editing community does things. So let me know how you wish to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You must be referring to the September 2021 discussion at Talk:List of suicides/Archive 2#Split proposal and 'inclusive size/scope', which didn't result in a consensus "not to change", whereas it actually had 5 other editors supporting some sort of split, including users Zsteve21, Blubabluba9990, Onetwothreeip, Xurizuri, & HappyWaldo. That was 4.5 years ago with no consensus to keep things the same, and absolutely a consensus to "do some sort of split". Though the discussion fizzled out, no changes were made, and the article has grown 50% since then. I find no other split discussions in the talk page archives.

I will start an RFC.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, time truly flies, doesn't it?

I still think the article needs to be smaller. zsteve21 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion: Should "List of suicides" be split into chronological subarticles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Should List of suicides remain as a single large page, or be SPLIT into subarticles with chronological groupings? The article currently is the 12th largest article in Wikipedia with over 640,000 bytes, 16,000 prose words and 1,500 references. That well exceeds the "almost certainly should be divided" threshold per SIZERULE.

Several editors have already completed the work for a full split of the article into the following subpages:

• List of suicides (BC)
• List of suicides (1–999 AD)
• List of suicides (1000–1899)
• List of suicides (1900–1999)
• List of suicides (2000–present)
• List of suicides (a shortened overview/disambiguation-style hub linking to the sublists, before it was reverted back to the large article)

The article should be split for the following reasons

1. Article size: The page is 643,328 bytes, far exceeding WP:SIZERULE. Pages of this size, word count, and ref count "almost certainly should be divided". Editors have been requesting this article be split for at least the last 4.5 years (since September 2021) and it grew 50% more since then, requiring reconsideration.
2. Technical instability and structural problems: The article contains 1,590 references, requires a non-standard #invoke workaround to display them (see WP:PEIS), and has "duplicate ID lint errors". The page transcludes 203 templates and has 62 hidden maintenance categories. These are symptoms of an article that is too large to function normally, and it is ranked 12th on the Wikipedia Long pages list.
3. Readability and navigation: A 600 KB list is difficult to load, search, and edit. The large article has 86 images in it, which per WP:CHOKING can cause time-out errors on mobile versions (two-thirds of Wikipedia's readers). Chronological sublists are standard practice for large lists (for example, deaths, shipwrecks, films, earthquakes).
4. Split-work is completed: The work for making the split has already been completed collaboratively by multiple editors, and the resulting subarticles are stable and functional. (The changes to List of suicides were reverted, which is the reason for filing this RFC.)

For these reasons, I believe the split is necessary and consistent with Wikipedia policy.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I took the liberty of numbering your reasons, which typically facilitates discussion. You can revert that if you disagree. -The Gnome (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC) Thank you; it's perfect. :)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm adding a timestamp after the first paragraph, to help the bot per WP:RFCBRIEF. There's no particular need for this whole thing to appear on pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate support or oppose and provide reasoning.

• Support a split, by any means necessary, an article of this length is impossible. However, I am not sure if the date period we're going with is the best option. Alphabetical might be better. Still, time period weirdness is better than the status quo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The succinctly delineated reasoning is reasonable. In fact, it's high time the list is rendered useful. -The Gnome (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support splitting or deleting Currently WP:TOOBROAD. If this is to be useful you'd need to split it up somehow, or just get rid of it because it isn't useful (Category:Suicides exists). Polygnotus (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Nightscream: Please don't reinsert everything, this is a silly thing to editwar about. The RfC is open, voice your opinion here. If it results in consensus to include it then all that stuff can be put back. For now lets follow WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. Polygnotus (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: Stop violating policy. There is no consenus for a split, and no such split should be made during a consensus discussion, nor before it is included. Stop trying to frame this as a matter of "inclusion." It's whether to split the article, or keep it as one, which has nothing to do with "inclusion."

Above comment made by User:Nightscream.

• Keep as one article, per above. As the editor responsible for the editor responsible for a third of all edits to this article, and over 71% of its text, since I began editing it in March 2009, I find splitting it to make it harder to monitor it for the addition of uncited/unsourced edits, and other edits I make to it, such as adding cite publication info; copyediting to keep addition in line with the article format, etc. I do not have a problem with its size. Nightscream (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Nightscream Which policy do you think I 'violated'? If you want to include disputed content on Wikipedia, you need consensus behind that. That is why we are here. Polygnotus (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reverting against an established consensus? Reverting during an consensus discussion? Nightscream (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reverting against an established consensus Which policy says that is not allowed, according to you? Please post a link and a quote I'd like to read it in its context. Thanks. Please also post a link to this alleged established consensus. Are you familiar with WP:EDITCON, which is part of the Consensus policy?

  Reverting during an consensus discussion? Which policy says that is not allowed, according to you? Please post a link and a quote I'd like to read it in its context. Thanks. Also, since there is a split discussion above which was started before your revert on May 1 2026, wouldn't that be something you are guilty of? Note also that WP:ONUS is policy. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  It would be preferable that this article be deleted than kept in its current state. It is simply impossible to maintain, so many people have killed themselves. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. Polygnotus (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA: There seemed to be earlier discussions about the scope and size of the article, and inclusion criteria. The main "custodian" assured other editors that the entries would be kept in a standard/common format, and that each entry was a person sufficiently wiki-notable that they had a standalone article. The current large-article is too large, and the entries are being added faster in the 21st century (courtesy of the internet, I'm sure). If the current century starts running away with us and that article gets too large, we can always revisit another split or a tightening of the inclusion criteria. How do the current smaller subarticles seem to you?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's better than what we're doing now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I interpret your input as suggesting that keeping the list as it is is worse than deleting it. Which, I would guess, is a fair assessment for lists so large as to be unusable. -The Gnome (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• As the editor responsible for the editor responsible for a third of all edits to this article, and over 71% of its text, since I began editing it in March 2009, I find splitting it to make it harder to monitor it for the addition of uncited/unsourced edits, and other edits I make to it, such as adding cite publication info; copyediting to keep addition in line with the article format, etc. I do not have a problem with its size.

I'm sorry, but this is just straight up ownership behavior. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not. It's a response to the assertion that "The article size was entirely too large to manipulate." I've been the primary one "manipulating" with no problems, and my comment above was meant to underscore this point. How can it be "too large to manipulate"? Manipulate how? Just how much editing on the article User:Grorp done on the article, and in what way was he/she unable to do so because of the article's size? How can he say it's too large to manipulate when the primary editor responsible for so much of its content says it isn't??? 02:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"How can he say it's too large to manipulate when the primary editor responsible for so much of its content says it isn't???" Every person does not edit on the same device that you do, nor on a device that is as good as yours is at handling extremely large pages. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 03:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

How can he say it's too large to manipulate when the primary editor responsible for so much of its content says it isn't??? With all due respect, this is also ownership behavior. See WP:OWN#Statements entry #2: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)

The article size guideline says that articles over 15,000 words in length Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not I edit the article [routinely] is irrelevant in the face of (a) I did edit it once, it was slow, and I discovered the size was the reason, and (b) Wikipedia guidelines are clear about oversized articles. An oversized article affects the participation of other editors, which is probably why you are the predominant editor... because so many others decided not to mess with a list that large. It isn't just the technical size and the type of device an editor is using, but it's also the intimidation factor, like 1500 references!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

A major contributor to an article has only as much right to control what happens to it as does any other editor. You are not the only person in the world who can monitor the list for unsourced additions and add references; others can do so at their volition, and with the article split into small subpages it will be much easier for them. Also, just because the size does not cause problems for you does not mean that it does not cause problems for everyone else. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 18:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Your stance, Nightscream, is not helped by invoking "right of article ownership," quite blatantly in fact, though it seems you do not realize it, despite many editors pointing it out. Leave it out, please. -The Gnome (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@The Gnome, RandFreeman, and Grorp: I never invoked "right of ownership", nor implied it. I thought I clarified this above, but since some of you here apparently have difficulty comprehending plain English when it's not explicitly spelled out, I'll explicitly spell it out now:

I do not own the article, I do not think I own the article, and I agree with WP:OWN: My comments to date pertain to one thing and one thing alone: The claim, by User:Grorp, that splitting would ameliorate the difficulty he and others like User:RandFreeman say may be encountered by editors with other devices, which Grorp said happened when he edited it "once". Again, I ask him and others: What devices are you using??? Are you using a dial-up 56K modem, or something? Again, I ask, how is this relevant when the person who has added more material to it than any other editor doesn't have a problem with the article's size? Why can this question not be a part of the dicussion? Why does asking prompt the seemingly knee-jerk response of "OWNERSHIP"? That is not ownership. It is simply one point, or question. Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Continuing to refer to yourself as the person who has added more material to it than any other editor as if that gives you the right to override WP:SIZERULE considerations is in fact a form of ownership behavior, and your argument is explicitly mentioned as an example at WP:OWN#Statements: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with SuperPianoMan9167, as above. I would kindly suggest a recess to Nightscream. -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No. You do not get to decide who participates in dicussions, nor for how long. Issues are being discussed, accusations have been made, and I will respond to them, whether it offends your sensibilities or not. This discussion, and the participation of editors in it, will run its course naturalistically, without your smug attempts to "push" it —— or them —— along. Nightscream (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

My personal device and internet connection is irrelevant. It was the unusual lag that I experienced in my one and only small edit that was the symptom. My curiosity led me to discover "holy cow, look at the size of that article!" I am familiar with SIZERULE and the reasons behind it. The SPLIT proposal was my suggestion for the community, not for any personal desires to continue editing the article. I don't recall using the term "ownbehavior". Between what you said recently, what you did several times (reverting previous splits), and what the talk page archives showed and didn't show, was that you were the only person wanting the article to stay in one piece, others have wanted it split, others have performed splits, and you have unilaterally reverted them without further discussion... suppressing collaboration and participation. That is ownbehavior. I wish you could see why SIZERULE was created for the benefit of the encyclopedia, its readers, and all editors. Your stewardship in maintaining the article's entries as concise, cited, and uniformly formatted is valuable and very much appreciated. It is my earnest hope that you will continue your stewardship even if/when the article is split.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge your situation, and appreciate your compliment. It appears that a preponderence of editors here favor splitting, and I accept that. Thank you for your more judicious and calm responses, Grorp. ;-)Nightscream (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Split. I don't see how you can look at a 600,000 byte article and think it's not too long. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Split - Every time I open the original article it lags out the browser on both my phone and my computer. Neither devices are old. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 18:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Split. The only argument to not split is effectively one of WP:OWNERSHIP. The article in its entirety is not navigable for readers. I would support specifically a split by time period, as it would permit the addition of contextual information on how suicide has changed over time. For instance, a list of suicides from 1800-1900 might be able to add sourced prose information about the history of suicides in that time period (e.g. statistics), which an alphabetical split would not permit.Katzrockso (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Split. While I dislike making things difficult for one the main contributors/enforcers to this page, it's too long for readers and exceeds our technical limitations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support split by chronology: As nominator of this RfC and one of the workers on the 6-article split, I support the splitting. I want to additionally point out that in 2014 another editor performed a split by pulling out the 2000s entries, created List of suicides in the 21st century, and removed the entries from List of suicides. The removal from List of suicides was reverted, placing the entries back into the article, without turning the then-new subarticle into a redirect. What has resulted is a 12-year-long 250,000 byte WP:FORK of information, with both articles gaining entries from the 2000s. If consensus to this RFC chooses this 6-subarticle split, we need only reconcile duplicate entries between List of suicides (2000–present) and List of suicides in the 21st century, and make the latter a redirect.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  I just now noticed that another split of this article was accomplished in November 2025 (split: A-M and N-Z) which remained for two months before Nightscream reverted the split without discussion. That's a long time to "not notice" that one's article had been split, especially with his/her assertion of being the "primary monitor" of the article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Split proposals are not a matter for RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I guess that just means that we can close this in a week instead of a month.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Redrose64. The absence of the RfC template technically renders this as a non-RfC discussion. To avoid similar, though most certainly well meaning, objections, I took the liberty of removing the "RfC" term from the headline. -The Gnome (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  @The Gnome: Your change of heading broke 14 links to this discussion. Please fix.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  I reverted your heading change. If you want to change it to 'discussion' and not 'RFC', then fix all the links at the same time.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  This problem is usually addressed with the {{subst:anchor}} template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  I tried that and it failed to work, so I reverted it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC) I think it's because there is a " mark in the title, and anchors can't have " in them.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  Template:Anchor#Limitations lists the Ampersand codes (e.g., " for ") if someone wants to try again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed and renamed the section and subsection. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yay. Works great. Thanks.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Split for technical/performance reasons. While RfC is indeed not the preferred way to discuss a split, Wikipedia:Splitting explicitly mentions it taking place as a hybrid discussion/straw poll, which is de facto what is being done here (especially since the discussion is not currently tagged as {{rfc}}). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support split for ease of navigation. The page is far too unwieldy and caused lagging. Additionally, if one looks at the categories for suicides, the possible additions to simply one page is impracticable. I can't think of one good argument for keeping it as one article when it would be better managed as several articles. ExRat (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Apology. My sincere apologies to all and sundry (Grorp, WhatamIdoing, SuperPianoMan9167) who had to put extra work to mend the formatting damage I caused. Good intentions do not negate responsibility. -The Gnome (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia works best when we all work together, and I think this was an example of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleopatra

(This thread has been moved to Talk:List of suicides (BC).)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)