Talk:Deaths in 2020/Archive 1

Archive 1

Coincidence?

How rare is it to have six deaths of wikipedially articled persons in a day? Is it a known phenomenon of new year's eve? הראש (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, 29 "articled" people died on 1 January 2019, so I don't think there is any "coincidence" or "phenomenon". WWGB (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Plus, three articles were created after adding the redlink deaths here... an average day if not dull. --79.24.121.54 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the killer deciding to target a rising rapper, a declining baseball player and a contemporary Bulgarian for a consecutive year is good enough to file this under M for Coincidence, but not a D-4 scenario by any stretch (that's code for "phenomenon", rookies). But since this probably happens to other threes on other dates, I'm with 79, and not just because of the striking resemblance to a pretty good year for rap, baseball and Bulgaria (averaged out, I mean). Less like those two days of which U2 remind us all, and more like that one about nothing changing on the day of the series of events in question. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, you said New Year's Eve. Nothing to see in 2018 but a Irishman with a "kill" in his name, same as his father. Pretty normal stuff, at least in Irish morgues. Last year, just "Allik", means nothing going forward. If O.Y.G Redrum 781 dies in a bathtub in 11.9 months and his tattoo spells it out in English to detectives via closer inspection of his mirror, then we should start pointing fingers at the calendar and rambling to the unimpressed local authorities about a new Black Christmas or My Bloody Valentine copycat lurking in the sewers, eh? Besides, the MPAA already caught New Year's Evil forty years ago, and presumably burned every copy. What could possibly have gone wrong? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Any amount of years?

Please direct me to consensus implying that we must add this many years to the listing of a politician who has been in and out of various offices. Is there any limit at all to this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That seems a bit much. It can/should be cleaned up a bit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's everywhere, all over the page, especially in India politics. — Wyliepedia @ 23:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is what it is. This is a consequence for the style of government based on party polling instead of candidate election. Unfortunately for all of us, there is no perfect form of government. You just have to live with each of their flaws in their own way.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This escapes Rule of Three because Ro3 refers to through-linking of course. However, if any of the year spans are onward-linked, they can then be subject to Ro3. Or one could build consensus towards limiting year spans to three sets when unlinked. Otherwise I don't see a way round it as it stands. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Limit different year spans (tenures in office) to three sets for anyone listed.

• Support too much as is now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, though finding out which sets we exclude and which we keep will be challenging. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Before we start applying ad hoc rules, we should examine whether terms in office are necessary. Going back to the mid-2000s, terms in office were rarely if ever reported here. Now, some editors add them zealously. Does the typical reader actually care whether the deceased was an ambassador in 1995 or 1999? Terms in office are generally not reported in the death citation, so their inclusion here means poring over the Wikipedia entry of the deceased. Conversely, if William Ewart Gladstone had died now, the proposed "rule" would prevent us from including all four terms as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Discussion here should be much broader than support or oppose, and should include the need for, and benefit of, reporting terms in office. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with WWGB as above. There seems to be a wish to apply date based padding to 'political/public service' careers on this page, which is somewhat disproportionate to their 'owners' overall worth. When Paul McCartney expires, I would hope that many editors do not find it necessary to add styling approaching, "The Beatles (1960–1970), Wings (1971–1981)" etc. Plus the American obsession to quantify almost everything, seems somewhat of an odd approach to the rest of world's humanity. This page is a global, broad based, deaths listing - if the reader requires the quantitative details, then let them press the blue button and gorge themselves. Overall, on this supposedly simple list, less really is more. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: To me, it seems like the dates are unnecessary. But, then I wonder ... what about other occupations, besides politicians? Won't they also come into play, if we create this new rule? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: in addition to my "vote" above (and possibly leading to its withdrawal, depending on further input). If we are now saying that date range sets are unnecessary in the first place (which has become extremely unclear, due to the sheer and vast number of them in each page), then I would go with that instead of doing a Ro3 job on them. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support, Endorse and Condone Threes are neat, and every set of four or more like things has its less-important items to ignore in favour of a tidy general overview, not just things attached to links. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal II (alternative to above)

Do not include any year spans (such tenures in office or other) for anyone listed.

• Support (while I also support my proposal above) they are not needed and unnecessarily cumbersom in this context. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support we shouldnt try to squeeze in detail in what is a quick summary that they have died, a link to the subject is more than enough for an interested reader to find out more. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Question: I asked this above, also. OK, this proposal makes some sense. Yes. But are we only talking about politicians? Or are we talking about other professions, also? We list parenthetical dates/years when people are in the Olympics, or win an Oscar, etc. Is that somehow different? Or is it all the same thing (as far as this new proposed rule)? I know that being in the Olympics or winning an Oscar is not a "tenure of office", but it seems like the same idea. The gist (behind this new rule) is the same, no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reply. Well, both proposals refer to "tenures in office", so I think we are only considering positions like politician, ambassador or CEO. Awards like Olympic medals and Oscars are not "offices" so I guess they are not included in the current proposals, and we would still report the year of the award.. WWGB (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What if they win an award/participate more than, say, three times? — Wyliepedia @ 01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Not covered by Proposal 1, which relates only to "offices". So an entry like this one for Guido Messina would remain. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB: You missed my point. — Wyliepedia @ 02:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. We can all agree that Olympic medals and Oscar trophies are not "offices". But, that misses the point of the question. Why do we want to get rid of parenthetical years for political offices ... yet maintain parenthetical years for Olympics and Oscars? It's the same idea. The office (or award) is important ... the year, not so much. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

And "Guido Messina" is a perfect example ... listing five years! But, if he were a politician, we can't list any. Being an athlete, we list five ... or, maybe six or seven or whatever. I am asking for clarification on why political offices are being considered differently from Olympics, Oscars, and the like? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Only @SergeWoodzing: can answer your question specifically, since he moved both proposals to include offices only. In my opinion, linking the year of an award or medal serves a further purpose, as it is inevitably linked back to the wikiarticle for that award or event. Thus, the reader may see the specific nature of the achievement with a single click. Also, visually, listing a single year (1996) is less cumbersome than a term (1996–1999), and possibly easier on the eye. I think we have quite a way to go before we achieve consensus. WWGB (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

True. Except that ... oftentimes ... Olympic champions and Oscar champions win multiple times. Hence, we are listing multiple years, not single years. Just like that "Guido Messina" example. He has five ... actually, six ... years specified. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, Disapprove and Condemn Times change, especially for government. Good to know if the dead served in wartime, an economic boom, a pandemic, civil unrest or whatever (even boring years let us know their contemporary ages). Also gets slightly easier to medal at the Olympics the further back one tries, because athletes are slowly improving everywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Clarification: I have amended Proposal II - it's meant to cover any & all year spans. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Knowing that a politician was in office when they died is useful so that other articles can be properly updated, such as Montana House of Representatives from the 29th. This would be much harder to track if no dates were listed for any politicians. Emk9 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

But that's not remotely the purpose of the entries in the Deaths list. They start out as merely an acknowledgment that someone has died, with additional or peripheral information being picked up when surfing through to the article of that person (years and office spans can be gleaned from there). That's from where you should take stats for reasons of update elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That's true if I was the one that added the death here, but I don't often add names to this article. I do edit pages based on listings here. So knowing that a politician was in office allows me to know if other pages might need edits. Emk9 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It's important to know when someone were in charge and how long. B. J. Habibie was President of Indonesia for a year, Daniel arap Moi was president of Kenya for 24 years. Without dates they would be indicated the same way, as Presidents. But their tenures were really different. Let everything as it is; at least for important offices. --Folengo (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose to know years of tenure is helpful to identify articles of these latest, that can be interesting to read (as for me, it works)--Noel baran (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It is extremely useful to see tenures and to see what an individual may have been a part of. Sunnydoo (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Tenures, if known, save visitors (and editors) a click to check them. Perhaps one day all countries will have term limits so there won't be six given here. As for sports, even though I loathe cherry-picking, I usually try give a best finish of medals rather than list all those won. — Wyliepedia @ 10:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

People born in former countries

Michael Berridge was listed as Rhodesian-born, which was correct as far as I know, and is now listed as Zimbabwean-born, which is incorrect. The reason given was that we don't list Soviet-born people. To me this shouldn't really be that hard. Take the Soviet Union: A person born in say Moscow in 1960 was born Russian and a Soviet Union citizen. If he lived his life out in Moscow, he died a Russian citizen, and should be listed as a Russian somethingsomething. If he however relocated to e.g. France and gained French citizenship, he would be a Soviet-born French oompa loompa. Was he born after the fall of the Soviet Union, he would be a Russian-born French dude. The same should go with all other nations that have disappeared, be it Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Rhodesia or the Carthaginian Empire. Nukualofa (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment, he should be listed as British or Southern Rhodesia-born. Rhodesia was never a recognized country but was an overseas territory of the Crumpet brigade. At the time of his birth, it was known as Southern Rhodesia which was a Royal colony until 1980. Furthermore, I dont think this was ever a formal policy here. I can recall being the last person to be able to list the Ottoman Empire on a death and a few more of a similar nature. Yugoslavia is a tough case because of the Civil War and the self-declarations associated with it. But I definitely agree with Czechoslovakia and the rest of the former Russian influenced states. Maybe in the last few years we have been Balkanized.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hold on though - we've never referred to birth countries historically. As the country name changes, it gets backdated to include forebears and always has done in this article. Which is why Soviet is always wrong, Yugoslav too, and Czechoslovak. Those terms are out-of-date, as is the Rhodesia reference. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Eugen Plesak (pardon the Romanization) may have turned Croatian in the '90s and continued to ride his bicycle in obscurity, but to claim he was a Croatian cyclist specifically in the 1972 Summer Olympics is confusing, untrue and contrary to our articles about Croatia at the Olympics and Yugoslavia at the Olympics (among many others). I get that Communist dictatorships look bad in hindsight, but they happened. We can't remember this history in some articles and bury it arbitrarily in others (or probably shouldn't, at least). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. The Soviet state is very different than Russia. Two completely different animals. Saying that Latvia or Lithuania or any of the other 15 is their birthplace now, would be completely wrong and it would be doing a disservice to those that had to live through the regime. Another case in point would be those born 1949-1990 in East Germany. Saying they lived and were from "Germany" would be a huge historical blunder and oversight, because East Germany bears no resemblance to Germany. This is about Nationality not Geography...East Germany and Germany are 2 different Nations, as are the Soviet Union and Russia and the rest of the Eastern States. Sunnydoo (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Another example...if Julius Caeser were alive and died, we would put him down as Italian instead of the Roman Empire? Methinks not.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Eugen Plesak, being compared to the Roman emperor Julius Caesar, is that? Anyway, be that as it may, how this article has come to describe (and, as I venture, update) citizens of those countries which have become obscure in relation to the modern world precludes any harking back to the old orders, as it stands at the moment (there are multiple edits from even the very recent the past which restore modern namings when archaic ones are first inserted). The consensus appears to need a shift away from the modern country namings if anything, so I would urge those who want a change to put forward some good rationales. Bearing in mind that any endorsement of "old orders" brings with it political issues, and not just in the country naming sphere. The only example that springs to mind readily is the perpetuation in Bristol, Avon, UK, of landmark namings involving the English merchant, philanthropist, Member of Parliament - and slave trader - Edward Colston. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere, and his name is commemorated by several Bristol landmarks, streets, three schools and the Colston bun. However, there are constant moves afoot to expunge his name completely from the city due to his slavery connections, amid much rancour and political agitation. Be sure not to shake that kind of hornet's nest when deciding whether to freely accept past orders which some may think should never again be mentioned in polite company. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Listing a person's actual citizenship at birth shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of any political views the nation had. Most of us here aren't very supportive of North Korea, but we still list people from there as North Koreans. A person born in Yugoslavia might, or might not, be supportive of the government, but either way he was still a Yugoslav. Our own political views shouldn't be taken into consideration here, only facts should. Removing Colston's name from places named after him really isn't the same thing as changing the citizenship a person was given at birth. Nukualofa (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with the relevant criteria for notable deaths' entries at the top of the Deaths in 2020 page . . . "country of citizenship at birth, subsequent nationality (if applicable)" . . . which clearly means, or at the very least implies what the country was known as, at that time. As I've said before, you can't rewrite history, and in the original example here, he was born in a country known as Southern Rhodesia (NOT Rhodesia which happened much later, and wasn't recognized anyway). What it's now known as i.e. Zimbabwe should only be relevant if he died there. Editrite! (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Language icon templates

Be aware that all lang templates, bar {{in lang|XX}} (where XX is the country language denomination), are again being included in Templates for Discussion, and already appear to have been consigned to the bin. This seems a natural progression from the mechanised bot which has been visiting the Deaths pages in recent months changing all the lang formats to {{in lang|XX}}. I personally have taken to saving the bot the trouble of bothering (where I spot them). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Footnote: The template {{LL|XX}} appears to have been excluded from the list of templates to be deprecated, at least for now. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Death reports without date

Would people please note that in cases where all available news reports only state that a person "has died," without giving a date, it can NOT be assumed that the death occurred on the date of the report? Mewulwe (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we usually add “(death announced on this date)” in those cases...if we catch it. — Wyliepedia @ 17:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

COVID19

So are we going to have a distinction for those who died from it on the same day, like we do for plane crash victims?

Example, March 16: “International deaths from COVID19:

• Nicolas Alfonsi, 83, French politician, MP (1973–1988, 2001–2014) and MEP (1981–1984).
• Hashem Bathaie Golpayegani, 78–79, Iranian ayatollah, member of the Assembly of Experts (since 2016).
• Fariborz Raisdana, 71, Iranian economist.
• Ahmad Taheri, Iranian futsal coach.

— Wyliepedia @ 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that protocol is limited to deaths from a single event, such as a plane crash or terrorist attack. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And, anyway, if corralled into a sectioned list like event victims are, each list within our list risks becoming outlandishly longer as each day passes, according to worst case predictions. I favour keeping CoD in individual entries as per the norm. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with outlandish length, but agree with not treating something this nebulous as a cluster. I'm happy to report that Day One since you shared that dire prediction saw zero new cases! Sadly, with an average age of 72.9, this pattern of Death in 2020 predominantly targeting those closest to it seems likely to remain "the new normal" for the foreseeable future. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Where are you? Never mind the new cases - from Tuesday to Wednesday this week, UK deaths rose from 77 to 104 in a single day! Please don't be complacent about the threat of this virus. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm at home with the doors locked, of course. Not downplaying any threat. Just saying our new cases (of notable dead) haven't escalated daily. At least in the short-term. It's only a silver lining, not a ray of sunshine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Your point accepted. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Saudi sources on Iranian deaths

Can we get a non-Saudi source for Hamid Kohram? Or at least a Saudi source that doesn't so blatantly hate Iran? I can Google, but I can't paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone already did that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Still Al Arabiya on my end. CAWylie simplified the link. But that's different. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Googling (in English) finds next to nothing else, but Tunisie Numerique copies the pertinent paragraphs, omits the taint, go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Langroudi has the same problem with his citation, but a better source right there at the top in his article, go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I thought you meant the obituary itself, as written, was showing negative signs towards Iran. The obit is actually written in quite neutral language. If Al Arabiya becomes deprecated on Wikipedia, then obviously it won't be used. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

TN (in Kohram's case) doesn't call Iran a "regime" and prattle on about all the other death, immediately preceding a giant video of "religious fanatics", and stories about blame-shifting, failure and abandonment. Just the pertinent facts. I'd go for it (if I could). And no, this isn't an obituary, but yes, that "read more" crap is in the article itself (unlike the sidebar). Neither the objective source nor the enemy one verifies his age, so that's no factor. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus?

"Coronavirus" is correct and acceptable (broad category reference). "COVID-19" is correct and acceptable (more specific category reference). But thank goodness editors who are also readers of UK newspaper The Sun don't regale us with the journal's quite ridiculous "Snake Flu" buzzwords. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't read The Sun, but "snake flu" is relatively catchy. Thanks for sharing! Not sure if correct, but quite acceptable. For personal use, anyway; for here, I think "coronavirus" is more pronounceable in the typical reader's head than "COVID-19" (do I spell it or say it?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus refers to a family of viruses. The term has been around since the 60s. The variant that is killing people recently is the COVID-19 variety, so that should be used. WWGB (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure people will understand it's the variant that kills people recently, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: most news broadcasts, if they don’t say it as “coronavirus”, use “co-vid nineteen” than “cee-oh-vee...”. — Wyliepedia @ 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Reminds people of "corvid". Nothing scarier than a dead bird with its brain "confirmed" as freakishly large in a sterile laboratory environment. Unless it's a deceptively-branded invisible Ukrainian gas that has sent at least one perfectly healthy genius to the 27 Club in recent days (and technically still shows no sign of stopping). Anyway, call it what you will, people will get it. But seriously, we're aware that "nitrous oxide" makes it sound less fun and imitable, correct? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This just in, the death toll from Caucasian Chess Player Misadventure (CCPM-20) has risen by 33%, the highest one-day spike since the first two cases were reported in Moscow three weeks ago. It is unclear whether the Armenian patient had come into contact with any gas, but investigators say a partially filled tank was found at the scene. She was 33. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: The Sun is notorious for choosing the lowest common denominator as a journal of the people; sadly, this nickname is completely wrong in relation to the strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) being reported on. That newspaper will never change. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we have Sun media and snake myths in Canada, too. Different, but mostly the same. I blame humans for transmitting swine flu, bird flu and monkey pox to humans (in most cases). Whichever zoonotic origin is scapegoated this time, billions of snakes/goats/black cats being humanely gassed won't make anyone happier or healthier. Completely wrong whacking boy, but catchy name. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If we are taking a poll, COVID-19 would be the correct tag. The common cold can also be a coronavirus (most of them are rhinoviruses), but you dont die from it. SARS, MERS and the other similar viruses are known by their designation, so we should do the same thing as it is the same family.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As usual, the more specific we can get the better, as long as the naming is simple enough. I can't see a problem with referring to it as COVID-19 - half the medical world seems to be calling it that now. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And even I grew bored with "snake flu" two weeks ago, if anyone's wondering. I now call it "CROW-na virus", in honour of Max von Sydow. Nobody's corrected me so far, so it must be accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Separate List for COVID-19 Deaths?

I got to this page by Googling "celebrity deaths from coronavirus". While I'm very glad to find that there's a complete list of deaths, I would recommend that there be a separate but related page for deaths from COVID-19.

It would be best if there were some way to use this page as the "system of record" for all deaths this year, and to have the COVID-19 page just subset this page. I don't know if there's a way to do that.

Thanks, John Saunders (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

See the above section, which already has a similar discussion about this under way. I find it unlikely that a separate page will be created, given that the aim is to defeat this virus eventually and bring the number of deaths towards zero. Please note that confirmed deaths are already clearly marked COVID-19 at the end of each subject line. However, feel free to start this discussion. For my part, I would prefer not to see a separate article on this occasion. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to recommend a tab on the Talk page for COVID-19. When we record the deaths here, we will also change the tag on a bio from living persons to Category:2020 deaths (for this year). It then rolls to a separate page where you can see all of the deaths for this year by alphabetical order. You can check anyone's category at the very bottom of their article screen.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We do have a page at List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Connormah (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, @Connormah: - job done and case closed here? Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is also Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there any objections to including List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the See Also section? Rusted AutoParts 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Could do that. It's relevant. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am good with that also. Anything to stop this disease and its mad linkage.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone added the relevant page to the See Also section, so this discussion appears to be closed with a consensus. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks: entering them into an article/list and not personally intending to write the articles

Hi. You realize that @Vanjagenije: today blew a big hole in the consensus here that any entered redlinks should stay for thirty days and only be removed if no article has been written in the meantime, or if a written article is deleted at any point within that time? The editor's rationale follows WP:WTAF, which states that at the very least an editor who adds a redlink should have a clear intention of going on to write an article about the subject him/herself. Subsequently, a large number of recently-added subjects with redlinks were removed (despite many of the subjects having corresponding articles in other languages through the Inter Language Link facility). Thoughts please. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is not helpful. Not all of us have time to spend writing articles or even stubs on all of the subjects we come across. Even if we did, some communities here on Wiki have their own thoughts and ideas on how articles/stubs should be written for lets say Chefs. If someone who is perusing one article sees someone notable that already has mentions on Wiki like Floyd Cardoz who died today, why wouldnt they bring that information up so that someone who specializes in that area can see it and write an article. Another good example is State Politicians. We have nowhere near the totality of American politicians. Several times a month a redlink American politician will come across and RFD or one of the other editors will pick it up and write a stub/article for them. And as far as not linking other Wiki content, that is complete nonsense. I was not an early adopter of that program by any means, but it does provide a useful service to the reader (especially with a translator like Googles in Chrome). So I have come around on that and think all of the Wiki's should be linked together. I just think some people have a color phobia on here...if they see Red or Black sometimes they just completely lose their minds. Wiki by no means still has all of the stuff written that it needs to.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:WTAF is merely an essay, it is neither policy nor guideline. One editor, even an admin, does not override consensus on this page when such consensus does not breach policy.WWGB (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. However, that still leaves the many links he removed missing, all but Floyd Cardoz, who got restored by someone later. WP:WTAF is an ideal, in fact, and not a standard to be met. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored all of the deleted redlinks. Don't think I missed any? WWGB (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it! (Not counting!) Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinking COVID-19

Probably the most famous disease in the world right now (and modern fame is certainly the most prevalent kind), I think people are familiar enough to not need such a glaring reminder anymore, even only in the first entry each day. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly should not be wikilinked by now, or at least only the top-most one should be, as is the case in any other article where multiple references are made to any one phrase or word. But if so who is going to look after the housekeeping of moving the link up the list of reverse order entries each time a new day results in a new victim? Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So I suppose I am saying wikilink them all or don't wikilink any. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't link any. Like we don't link any heart attacks, traffic collisions or strokes. Those are older concepts, but relatively unpublicized lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Better off with a consensus - just feels like one of those trivial technical things which could blow into an argument. Anybody else? Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I vote (I know this is not a vote, as such) to not wikilink this COD. Surely there can not be many people unaware of what this virus is by now. Apart from the fact that it will probably appear on virtually each day's entry for the foreseeable. Sadly... - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

First mention on the page only, the others dont need a link which is more usual practice. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: : As I mentioned, then who is nominated to keep moving the link up the page, as it operates in reverse order with newest date (and link each day!) at the top? Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a huge problem its not rocket science to remove one link if you add one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I’m not going to link the first mention on a new day, then seek out those below it to delink them. Link all (unless multiples in one day) or not at all. — Wyliepedia @ 22:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Me neither (tedious chores needn't be rocket science to suck). Besides, usual practice here has never worked like in "real articles". Wikilinks are for exceptionally obscure jobs, nationalities, genres and causes, not first in a series. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not worry about that now. When March rolls over to its own page, we can link the first occurrence of COVID-19 (probably Mohammad Mirmohammadi on 2 March), then unlink the rest. That is consistent with other articles. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That's consistent with every other addict's stance, too. No worries, next month, just one won't hurt, not a huge problem. Listen to yourselves! You two agreeable to a three-day cold turkey trial run, starting now? If you still feel the overwhelming urge to overlink by then, at least you tried. I think you can kick it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with the @WWGB: remedy. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to blue link every COVID-19 case? We usually save the blue links for a small subset of diseases that either dont kill a lot or dont effect a lot of folks- meaning they are usually unfamiliar to everyone but specialist doctors. I would think by now everyone on the planet would be familiar with COVID-19, so is there really any more reason to keep blue linking the deaths?Sunnydoo (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like it noted that InedibleHulk is now linking the first instance of every COD now, for example: traffic collisions and cancer. — Wyliepedia @ 03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

False. Just those three. They're common (thus special). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Two were both quickly remedied. "Common COD here" for the car crash and "thanks didn't know what cancer is" for the tumor. But the commonest is resistant to the exact same rational jabs, because... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: Still against the rules, still ignoring it, still no consensus nor reason offered for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WWGB, in seven days, it won’t matter and most will be de-linked (not by me) at DIM. Wyliepedia @ 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a damn thing's changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I did half, wasn't easy. Someone with a real computer do half, it's easy! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Emk9 is awesome! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I meant delinking at Deaths in March 2020 after the move. Wyliepedia @ 01:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought "DIM" was "Deaths in Month", but what's done is done. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid deaths

It might be interesting to mark articles, that were just created after the person has died from this disease, eg. with (NA) for no article. This gives an idea if a person was already before his/her death considered sufficiently notorious to warrant the actual work for an article. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It might be interesting, but it's a statistical exercise which we never get involved with here. Also, because the sheer bulk of the coding in the average full page causes ever-longer page loading times, we always keep extraneous info to a minimum. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I considered it easy enough for manually handling; no need for programming or additional server-load. "(NA)" is just four letters. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a dismissal of your particular idea. It's choosing not to embrace any extraneous ones. If we took on board your idea, then others would be right to demand we do the same for theirs. Overall, it's trying to keep manageable the vast mass of words that the Deaths page becomes towards the end of any given month. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s fairly easy to tell if a person’s death warranted, for lack of a better term, their mainpage article. For several months, a death from the pandemic caused a surge in new articles. There’s a start for you to check, if said articles aren’t speedy-deleted for that lone notability. Again, to check pseudo-notabilities here, all you have to do is check a blue link’s article history, especially if they began as red ones here. (Example: Bernardita Catalla didn’t exist in the Wikiworld until her death, but dedicated editors started and notably expanded her article; and hers began before it was listed here.) Wyliepedia @ 17:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting how our "Deaths in 2019" pages don't attribute a single death to influenza, despite it causing 300,000 deaths worldwide last year. Are we being inconsistent when we decide what the actual cause of death is? Epbr123 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, to be exact, we don't decide. We just include death causes (where given) which other official or reliable sources report out in public. If we, as editors, can't see a reliably reported cause of death, we don't put it in. If anything, I think your issue should be taken up with those who diagnose and report causes, such as doctors and coroners - and reliable journals which jump the gun and assume deaths are from COVID-19, thus causing us to assume the same with their reports as back-up. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Drilling down into your point further, influenza is also not deemed to be a pandemic as such, because there are myriad strains all vying for position across the world at the same time. As non-pandemics, only the final cause gets reported, the two most common being pneumonia and heart attack. In fact, the final causes in COVID-19 are usually identical to the outcomes with influenza but lumped under the single-strain pandemic banner. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

On the bright side, this cold hysteria has seemingly cured the Alzheimer's crisis (one reported case in 34 days). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Here we go. Perfect example. Upon the death of the Italian shoe designer Sergio Rossi, The Guardian (UK) reports, without any confirmation, that he MAY have died from COVID-19. Why say that when it may be untrue? No wonder we're jumping to conclusions ourselves. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts has changed Rossi’s source to WWD. Wyliepedia @ 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wasn’t aware there was a discussion about this. I swapped the source as it stated it was the coronavirus that killed him, and I was seeing other sources being written that were citing WWD. Rusted AutoParts 15:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have to express my point of view. Where I live this month there have been more than three times the deaths there were last year in the same months. COVID-19 is not a cold, it can kill anyone, expecially if adequate care is not given. Obviously it kills more those with underlying issues, the more severe are these, the most likely is death. But I'm pretty sure even the sickest folk on the list could have lived at least a few more months without COVID. So it is the ultimate cause of death. If I have diabetes and get run over by a car I did not die because of diabetes! So, you shouldn't be surprised at all at how many people is killing this (you insists to call) cold. Even young people, with no issues. Obviously it could be worse, much worse, but it's already bad.

That said, I do not understand the frenzy about reporting everyone who dies of COVID here. Half of the COVID deaths more or less had articles created after their death. That's stupid, as COVID is not a reason of fame by any means. I hate when this happens, and it is more and more frequent. There are already scores of legit notable people dying from it, don't search some other! And as our ethics imposes, we cite it as a CoD when it is reported on the sources as it; Gilbertini's article explicitly says "it is not linked to COVID", yet someone added it, maybe believing everyone in Italy dies of COVID.

Frenzy and underestimation are two sides of the same medal and I hate them both. Be sensible.--Folengo (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

All we can do is link entries, whether red or blue, with reputable sources. That’s been done at this page in the near-ten years I’ve been a WP editor. We can’t cherry-pick entries and not list anyone because a news agency rushed to report the now-common COD. It’s not on us to create articles from entries here, I merely expanded Rossi’s redirect to avoid confusion with his company. Wyliepedia @ 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a particularly nasty cold, but still a cold, no diminishment intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And (stuck record on this) never just assume it's a COVID-19 death just because the source mentions the phrase in their article or obituary - get the confirmation and then stick it in. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Age-related CODs & COVID-19

Hi. Please can I ask editors not to "assume" that any deceased of a "certain age" has expired due to the pandemic virus? It gets a little tiresome reverting clearly unsupported insertions all the time. It would sure help if EVERY addition of a CoD (not just COVID-19) was accompanied in the edit summary by the reliable source link which inspires you to add the cause. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Put that link inline like normal, if possible, only hardcores dig through edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Call me hardcore then. That's where it should be mentioned (not all CoD links are appropriate for general info on the death), that's what they're for. Be honest, do you really not look at them? Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not appropriate how? And yeah, you know I'm hardcore. But even I give up if the summary is from beyond the first hundred recent edits, so WP:CITE is nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail

It seems that the Daily Mail remains an unreliable source, per this RfC. It should therefore not be used as a reference on these pages. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Then it's obviously high time that this fact was flagged up either in the editorial guidelines for the Deaths page, or by way of a templated tag (if one exists). The entry which has generated this discussion was initiated (utilizing the Daily Mail source) by another editor, not myself.

As I read it, the wording coming from those discussions (the original 2017 ban and the 2018 review) appears to say "generally prohibited", and allows for its possible use "where no other reliable source yet exists". I am happy to avoid using it myself, given my deeper research into those discussions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So, neither "utter rubbish" nor just my opinion. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Touché. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Finally phasing out "complications of", or only for COVID-19?

I've long found it a bit wordy, but others have liked "complications", especially when sourced. So what's going on now? Are we continuing to reflect the media on complications of other things? Should we maybe stop treating the new killer as exceptional for how common it's become? Or shall this be a total moratorium on this familiar caveat? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Its a technicality that may not be served on this page. Technically you die from ARDS, not COVID-19. Its kind of like traffic collisions. You dont die from the traffic collision or cardiac arrest (that is the event), you die from blunt force trauma, exsanguination, etc. But its usually not picked up in the media like that. Much easier to say COVID-19 or traffic collision, although it is incorrect. We should stick with the sources even though they are wrong. I dont understand the Dennehy thing. It was sourced and stated as cardiac arrest as a complication of sepsis, but someone changed that. People just dont get what a cause of death is and what an event death is and how they are related as a complication. Much like the mental diseases dementia, alzheimers, etc which is the cause but ultimately it is an event or a complication like pneumonia that sets it off. Which is why on death certificates all of these things are listed. Maybe we could consider a notation like "cardiac arrest c* sepsis" to shorten things up.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That was me on Dennehy, whole other recurrent deal, everyone here ended in cardiac arrest, needs no note regardless of other sources noting it. Complications or "related complications" aren't so universal. I think they should be noted when sources do, especially for people with multiple fatal illnesses in the death notice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If sources report "complications of", that's what we should put in too. If it's a confirmed death from COVID-19 however, "complications" is a bit of an anachronism, as (according to a medical source I have been reading) its natural "complications" are pneumonia (lungs cannot disperse phlegm, causing internal drowning) or cardiac arrest, heart attack, whatever you wish to call it (the stress and exhaustion of trying to breathe efficiently is too much for heart); so, like the delinking of COVID-19 in pages, it needs no mention because it's become a "known" thing. If sources are saying COVID-19 was present but heart attack was unrelated, then surely report the heart attack. Too over-simplified? By the way, I do not like the notation idea, as that forms a club which knows what it means, and could exclude newbie editors. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 can also be asymptomatic, but in most cases it’s not the proverbial nail in the coffin. I think that’s why on some state/nation categories for entries, you’ll see that a younger group might have the most reported cases, but the elderly die quicker from it, due to “underlying conditions”. That could read as “complications”, but I think it’s simpler and more understood to just list the abbreviation. I don’t think that’s as tenuous as detailing a manner of suicide, for example. Wyliepedia @ 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Death announced on this date

I'm curious to know what death announced on this date means. Thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It means that the actual date of death is unclear from sources. So, the next best indicator is the date on the news sources that announced the death. For example, it is not clear when Tina Girouard died, but this source announced on 23 April that she had died. We also use "body discovered on this date" if someone dies alone and their body is found some time later. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I did notice that a lot of these have been showing up lately especially yesterday and today. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Table?

Hi dudes and dudettes, it would be nicer if the data was presented as a (sortable) table, as for the 2019 cases. Makes it easier to work with and get an overview. Best regards, IP 77.191.123.107 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, Deaths in XXXX has never been sortable. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As it never is nor will be. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Was referring to List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019. Nevermind. Best regards, IP 77.191.123.107 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I knew exactly what you meant, if that makes it easier, no worries. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact - dude - when presented it has already been pre-sorted, by date and then alphabetically (hopefully!). Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was still a legitimate question / concern. Probably one that has been raised prior to this. But, legitimate, nonetheless. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

MLA as a title

"MLA" for Australian politicians is unacceptably ambiguous, potentially referring to membership of any of six different bodies; it is essentially the same as it would be calling US politicians "state senators" in this list without specifying which state. It is not excessive to spell the name out in full. Frickeg (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Folengo: a) I did take it to the talk page, as you see; b) we absolutely have not always done it this way; c) you've breached WP:3RR. Frickeg (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, it doesn’t bother me how it’s filled out as long as it’s not overly wordy ("excessive") and linked. (We have over 1000 entries at three days into May.) I’ve even seen British MPs not even linked, like it’s assumed people know, so links don’t matter. I think, at some point years ago, I had an entry linked as "NSW MLA" to distinguish the office, and that was even shortened. But it shouldn’t be "member of the XXXXXXX Legislative Assembly" every time, just like "Australian rules footballer" has been clipped before. But it should also be noted that some LA pages mention their members are known as "MLAs", so that might factor into things. Wyliepedia @ 12:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Political titles and affiliatory bodies very often are too wordy when included in full. My rule of thumb (and it does depend on the screen width for a particular device, of course) is to aim for a total entry not running into a second line. As I always have tooltips set to show, I merely hover my cursor over the abbreviation to find out what the full title is in the pop-up balloon and thus disambiguate it for myself in that way (do not many others do that?). (If I'm further curious, I absolutely have no problem with quickly clicking thru to have a look.) So abbreviate on, I say. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If the parliament is unclear, just do something like this. WWGB (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

So, to recapitulate: (for Australia) NSW MLA, Queensland MLA, South Australian MLA, Tasmanian MLA, Victorian MLA, and Western Australian MLA. Wyliepedia @ 16:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And now we also should do it for Indians and Canadians. E.g. Tamil Nadu MLA, Chhattisgarh MLA. Same rules for everyone. --Folengo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

While "NSW MLA", "Queensland MLA" etc. is vastly better than simply "MLA", it still seems less than ideal. "MLA" is by no means the kind of abbreviation we could expect an average reader to know (unlike "MP"). 95% of the time, spelling out "member of the XXX Legislative Assembly" is not going to have something go to a second line, so I don't really understand why we should be unnecessarily withholding information from our readers in this way - especially given the link is not even to "Member of the Legislative Assembly" so they have no way of knowing what MLA (or MLC, or MHA, or any other equivalent title) actually stands for. (And definitely should be for all countries, too. I see a "MPA" there for Pakistan, and although I can deduce, as a fairly politically informed person that means nothing to me by itself.) Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As a further complication, many Australian states now use the postnominal MP rather than MLA for members of their lower house.[1] [2] [3] etc. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See? If you're patient, a problem will solve itself. Wyliepedia @ 04:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. "NSW MP" is just as often used to refer to a federal MP from NSW as it is to a state MP. I mean, you could use "NSW state MP", I suppose, but I still haven't seen a good reason not to just include the whole thing. Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Frickeg, now you're splitting hairs. The page has been updated to show the states' MP/MLA distinction. Any future confusion can be found in links, if provided. We're not here to hold readers' hands. Wyliepedia @ 09:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard of a federal MP from New South Wales referred to as "NSW MP". As for truncation, "member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly" has 56 characters, whereas "ACT MLA" has 6. Nuff said. WWGB (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty common, especially in the regional press. But it's also beside the point. Why do we not have room to spell out a parliamentary body, but we do have room to include up to three sample roles for actors, or three bands for musicians? "ACT MLA" is a step up from "MLA", but I don't see saving 50 characters as worth baffling anyone who isn't intimately familiar with state/province-level politics, of any country. People above are talking about how they've got their settings set to show hover text, but we're not writing this page for other editors, we're writing it for readers. I do not think spelling out what "ACT MLA" stands for counts as holding readers' hands, and I do not see that space is at such a premium on this page that it matters. There's being concise, and then there's being pointlessly opaque, and the latter is what is happening here. No one should have to click on a link to find out what an obscure acronym stands for. Frickeg (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Suicide deaths

If someone has died by suicide, what is the "rule" about how we describe it? For example, there was a recent entry for a death where the cause was originally "suicide by hanging". This was later changed to suicide. I noticed a death yesterday (NZ time) where the cause of death was "suicide by hanging". I changed it to simply suicide as per the above example; it's been changed back to suicide by hanging. David French (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The method of suicide is included if it's reliably sourced. If not, it's left as suicide. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

@Shadow2700: In response to this edit summary, please refer to WP:OWN. Rusted AutoParts 18:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was in the process of editing my entry when you started editing it less than one minute after I posted. Given that you edit your posts with three or four successive edits (base entry, and follow-up credits), I should be given the same opportunity and courtesy. Much appreciated. (Shadow2700 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC))

Are you seriously annoyed I added to the entry? You don’t own the entry, anyone can add or subtract from it. This is such a weird thing to be irritated by. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You began editing my entry less than one minute after it was posted knowing full well one would naturally be in the process of adding credits. All I am asking for is the same courtesy that you are provided when you edit your entries with three or four successive (and immediate) edits, i.e., Michael Keenan. (Shadow2700 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC))

Stop calling it your entry, I have already said you don’t own it. Also it’s not “naturally known” someone is adding credits. Anyway I’m just gonna say it one last time: you don’t own entries, this is a bizarre thing to get angry about, and and stop with the insanely bad faithed remarks toward me. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

My two cents (or pence, depending on your IP), this page is a dynamic page, in that its structure changes daily, sometimes every second. Rather than create further chaos that this thread discusses, I suggest composing entries in a sandbox before adding them here. This prevents anyone updating the entry as you decide on how it should be presented, then add it here, save, and walk away. More times than not, someone else will come along and add to/decrease/delete it, as is the ebb and flow of Wikipedia, a collaborative conceptual website. Wyliepedia @ 07:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The good old "edit conflict" page is a firm friend of mine (I see it so often!). Basically, because I've not been quick enough to register an entry, someone else has invariably beat me to it. That's fair enough, so I leave it alone completely, unless there are tweaks needed to that entry. Beefing gets you nowhere here. (If the edit conflict is because of something else well, luckily, backspacing in Chrome displays the changes I tried to make and so I can try again - Microsoft Edge, however, is such a dog's dinner of the Chrome model that it completely fails to do that. Most frustrating.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this page needs retitled as "Deaths (and edit conflicts) of <year>", as it's notorious for it. I'm able to back arrow on my phone to my edit, copy it, then see if the EC happened on the same date I'm doing. Great if not, but not too horrible if so, unless there's a barrage of them before trying to squeeze mine in. Then, I just copy my addition, instead of the entire date. Or just give up. Wyliepedia @ 01:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

Different sports have different terminologies, and there seems to be a perception among a few misguided editors that a person who plays cricket is not called a cricketer, but a cricket player. If you care to look through any Wikimedia or elsewhere, you'll find that is not the case. Just thought I should clear up any misconceptions, to set the record straight. Editrite! (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The terms are interchangeable. Steve Smith is a cricketer, Richie Benaud was a cricket player and commentator. Try Googling "cricket player" and see how many hits you get. Neither misguided nor misconceived. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

At least it’s close contextually, unlike the global divide of “soccer player/footballer” and the gridiron players. — Wyliepedia @ 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

He's obviously commenting on the use of "cricket player" as a standalone term, when no other involvement or position (such as "coach") is involved. And if used on its own, he's perfectly correct to clear that up, as we do with "football player" and "footballer". Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's about more than a standalone term. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In the case of that particular edit then, the editor is clearly wrong to make it according to existing consensus relating to the describing of more than one role in sports such as football and cricket. Agreed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB: What makes you such an authority on cricket? That means the vast majority of editors (that's what they call consensus) are wrong, and you're one of the few who's right. Maybe they should have checked with Google . . . oh no, wait a minute, cricket was around long before Google or television or even radio, for that matter. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Editrite! (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, back off now with the sarcasm. You don't need to be an authority on a game to know how to sensibly insert English grammar into an article of the kind we edit here. It's English language terminology and flow, not sports knowledge we are talking about in these instances. You are mistaking the consensus being referred to. Multiple roles held in sports such as football and cricket have long resulted in editors of the Deaths pages setting the referential divisions you are so against. It's not as if the reversal of your cricket edit was the first or only correction of this type made due to an existing consensus held among regular editors of the Deaths pages (not consensus of the wider nature you seem to be inferring). (By the way, trying to pick fights with individual editors never ever works in the attacker's favour.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I will address the points you make, even though my comments were not addressed to you (as you know). It was always made clear that this is about sporting terminology, and nothing else. In an (online) encyclopedia accuracy should be paramount. You may recall the hockey/ice hockey example. Otherwise, what's the point? It's not about grammar. If you go back through the "deaths" history, cricketer is used far more than any other cricketing term and rightly so, (if you know anything about cricket) whether you like it or not. To suggest that a cricketer stops being (called) a cricketer, if they do other things in life after cricket is nonsense, and you should know better. It defies logic apart from anything else. They're either a cricketer or they're not. You can't have it both ways. By the way, I wasn't the one who raised the subject of Google, which was a pointless exercise anyway, as the game and its terminologies were invented long ago. Editrite! (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

One reply. "To suggest that a cricketer stops being (called) a cricketer, if they do other things in life after cricket is nonsense". Well, that's clearly not the case, as you have more than one editor repeatedly reverting to the "multiple tasks" description (so not just me - try engaging with all the editors who read this Talk page rather than singling out just the one you don't like). Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence . . . "you have more than one editor" (out of our many editors) . . . what more can I say. You won't win a war of words here, so we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Try not to take constructive criticism too personally. I have nothing against you. We all contribute with a common goal in mind, i.e. to improve Wikipedia. Editrite! (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Cady Groves

Why was my edit of natural causes removed? And I’m very curious to know where the May 2 date came from. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Because "natural causes" is a common COD here, unless specified in a source. Even if "natural causes" is sourced, we still don't list it because it is a vague COD. And May 2 (which you have fixed) is reported, tweeted, shared by most people who knew her. Wyliepedia @ 09:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a cause at all, just the unaccidental, unhomicidal and unsuicidal sort of manner. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s an incredibly vague term. It’s akin to putting death as the cause of death. Rusted AutoParts 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that vague, to be fair, "death" can mean all three manners of "traffic collision". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Just think of "natural causes" as actually saying "everybody dies", and then you should see why we don't ever include it. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts

@Lugnuts: please, if you’re going to add in new entries, please start including a full citation. I’ve asked you a few times before to do this now, and at this point it’s incredibly frustrating to see the request ignored. Rusted AutoParts 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Forget it - we've tried months ago to reach out and he heeds you not. Plus, there is absolutely no compunction for an editor to fine-tune his entries. Name, age, notability, source - basic pack drill. Look back, and you'll see who usually clears up after him (yours truly), so probably a waste of your typing this here. Heigh ho. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Half tempted to raise a motion to have him topic blocked on the basis of not conforming to the required format after repeated requests to do so. Just fixed yet another one. Rusted AutoParts 16:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I just said - there's no compunction for him to fine-tune, as the expectations stand. Why would you escalate this, other than having a real personal issue with another editor, frowned on here? Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it is beyond frustrating at this point. It’s very evident that’s a format utilized here that they’re just refusing to adopt after multiple requests. If I can get blocked for not adjusting my signature right away after several requests, surely there’s something to be done about this. Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know about your blocking for that ridiculous reason, but I suppose that was for inaction. His additions increase the content and our sum of knowledge (though not fully enough) rather than subtract, so he can't really be flayed alive for that. Anything that appears to be a vendetta (not is - appears to be) is not a solid base for complaint or reporting. By the way, to de-escalate this, just be assured I'm happy to plough through his shortcomings and let you ignore them yourself - I'll be along at some point soon to "develop LN entry", as I insist it's described in my edit summaries (he's already said he doesn't like me identifying his editorial lackings, but what's LN?). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly no vendetta, appearance or otherwise. I'm mostly just venting, but it's absurd how often they've been asked to fill out their sources, not just by myself, and how they just choose to ignore it each time. And though ultimately their entries are of benefit, the refusal to adhere to the proper source formatting is just so very irritating. Rusted AutoParts 01:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

World Cup

(from CAWylie's talkpage):
Re this edit, when was it decided that World Cup wins would no longer be reported? I know Rusted AutoParts does not like the reporting of team successes, but I do not recall any consensus to withhold. For me, a World Cup title is more notable than an Olympic team gold medal. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. World Cups are not played every year. They are extremely prestigious in whichever sport they are in...rugby, field hockey or soccer. And I think the team achievement thing is just terrible. Someone like Pele for example...not only did it, but did it on the grandest stage. He was the youngest player ever to score a hat trick in a World Cup...the grandest of all stages. Not counting that because it was a "team exercise" is ludicrous. I think he is one of only a handful that played on 3 World Cup winning teams.SunnyDoo, 21:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And if this is about Singh who I added last night, he was the manager of the '75 World Cup team for India. You can scream team all you want, but as the manager of said team, it is your strategy and player moves that will dictate what happens. So that is even more nonsensical in the "team" framework.SunnyDoo, 21:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Rather than being "more notable" (subjective), World Cups certainly rank at least as highly as the Olympics, and should be included when linking achievements. And because many links to Olympic team golds are included with deceased sportsmen every week, team sport World Cup winners should certainly qualify for inclusion too. Alternatively, if you want to leave out World Cup team credits, you should leave out Olympic team credits as well. However, one concern for me would be the overloading of the subject line with every conceivable occasion on which success was achieved in either or both. There has to be some kind of control. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Judicious use of the "Rule of Three" will always resist overloading. WWGB (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Readded, but in a better way. I no longer care about page format. Wyliepedia @ 02:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Individuals": humans only or dead Alligators too?

I refer to the entry for Saturn the Alligator in the article for Deaths on May 23rd, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.202.125 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQs at the top of this page. Dead animals with their own article are allowed here. WWGB (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

From the FAQ section- Q: Why are dead animals sometimes listed in the article? A: Many animals (like Lonesome George) achieve notability similar to humans during their life. This article reports the death of any notable biological life with its own article, not just humans. We have a wide and varied notable non human deaths over the years...from trees to horses (mostly race horses) to mascots to various zoo animals and pets. Either have to have their own article before entry or a master article like UGA or Bevo.SunnyDoo, 20:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This globetrotting dinosaur isn't just welcome here, but the first-billed star of our little nook on the Main Page. Serves him right for having an educational biography online. Most of "his people" don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

He even had a trophy wife...70 years old and he was messing around with 30 year olds...good times- when and if you have the energy i would suppose.SunnyDoo, 04:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not exactly worth bragging to your old war buddies about when she's as pug-truckin' fugly as all of you are. Now an alligator in his 30s landing a current-model Brigitte Bardot, there's something to make the boys tip their hats and stop to talk a while! But guys like Saturn don't get that satisfaction, they have to settle for what the good lord gave them, and it always ain't pretty! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely, though, animals cannot have nationalities. "American-born German-Russian alligator" reads like parody. Frickeg (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

They don't have citizenships, but are from or in places, and subject to those place's laws (as applicable, anyway). It's not even a personalization thing. Russian zoos, American aircraft and German newsreels are also not trying to be funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

But not in the same way as humans. An animal cannot identify with particular countries in the way humans can, which is what these designations are there for; the fact that the alligator lived in Germany for a while does not make it German. It was still an American alligator. Our own article on nationality makes it clear that this applies to humans only, and frankly if you don't see why "American-born Russian-German alligator" makes us look silly I'm not sure I can help you. Would we talk about an "American-born Russian-German newsreel" for a newsreel (or even "American-made"?) that had been made in America but spent some time in Germany and Russia? Frickeg (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have a Romanian dog. She came into the country on an official pet passport, as required by law for export/import between the two countries. And pet/animal passports are not exclusive to dogs, so I think the subject may bear a little more thought (I have no actual opinion either way on animal nationality, as I am one who would prefer not to see animals here at all). Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier after i reestablished the nationalities...each of the zoological creatures have extensive licensing and regulatory requirements that their keepers are responsible for. You cant simply pick up an alligator in one country and move it into another. Some of the species have to have immunizations in addition to their regular up keep. And in the cases of Pandas, they are leased to other countries but their citizenship is retained as Chinese as part of the breeding and showing program. All of this red tape, etc. is what it is...a nationality...maybe not in the human sense of the word, but in practice.SunnyDoo, 00:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And furthermore, if you clink on the blue link on the main page to nationality, you get the Wiki definition- "Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state." The licensing requirements, etc make up the legal relationship. If you look at the Oxford definition, it is "The status of belonging to a particular nation," which again would be met through the extensive paperwork.SunnyDoo, 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you wrote "a legal relationship between an individual person (emphasis added) and a state". Next thing, these beasts will want citizenship and suffrage. Oh wait, that would be a donkey vote. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The crucial issue with "legal relationship between an individual person and a state" is not with the "legal relationship" bit, but with the "person" bit - animals, after all, are not people. If I understand your argument correctly, you are contending that only captive animals can have a nationality because only they need paperwork to travel between countries (and then only sometimes); wild animals must therefore be stateless by this logic. As for pandas, they are not citizens of China, they are owned by China, a very different concept.

Ultimately, though, nationality is a fundamentally human concept. Applying it to animals is an extremely odd thing to do: in this particular case, Google searches for 'Saturn "russian-german alligator", 'Saturn "russian alligator"' and 'Saturn "german alligator" return 8, 14 and 7 hits respectively (the middle one says 1260 but actually produces only 14 once duplicates are removed, and they are almost all Wikipedia mirrors). The sources simply do not support ascribing nationality to animals, even if it were a sound concept (which it isn't). It would make much more sense, if animals are included (and I, like Ref above, would really rather they weren't, but that's a separate issue), for them to be referred to by their species, which is far more relevant and informative. Frickeg (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

State representatives

Who (@Star Garnet:) took the arbitrary decision to change all the "member of the XXXX House of Representatives" to "XXXX state representative"? That's not the way we do it. Should be reverted. Or do you find it better this way? Cause I don't. --Folengo (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You missed some. Wyliepedia @ 12:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess it makes sense to me. I'd advocate reserving "member of" for non-legislative bodies and where it's uncommon/awkward/confusing (Lord of Parliament/peer). MPs, deputies and national senators are referred to by their common monikers (pretty certain deputy and senator shouldn't be capitalized with the new-ish rules), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the case across the board. For the US, that would mean "representative" or "senator", and for its states, "state representative", "state senator", "state assembly(wo)man" and "state delegate". For other titles used in May, that would mean "member of the National Consultative Assembly" —> MP, "member of the (Nicaraguan) National Assembly" —> deputy, "member of the (Hong Kong) Legislative Council" —> MP(?), "member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly" —> Victorian MP, "member of the (Canadian) House of Commons" —> MP, "member of the Catalan Parliament" —> Catalan deputy. Star Garnet (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Not for that at all. What we have works as is, no need to get cute with common slang instead of the correct title/office.SunnyDoo, 20:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If we are using things like "Victorian MP", "Catalan deputy" etc., there is no reason the same shouldn't apply to the US. I am very strongly of the opinion that we should not do this for any country, and should use the proper term ("member of the [body]") in all cases. I do wonder, looking at some examples, whether the push towards abbreviation has been due to an increasing tendency to list multiple positions where I'm not sure this is necessary. Taking the first example I see on the page: Michel Gauthier was Leader of the Canadian Opposition. I don't think we need to include his period as a provincial MNA there (the MP terms maybe). Frickeg (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It follows the Rule of 3 like everything else...most notable office first. As for the US thing, we dont abbreviate elected offices here with acronyms like they do in the rest of the world. It is somewhat amusing to me this discussion, because usually it is the English countries that are always telling the Americans that they are killing the language with such things as hip hop music and then they come up with phrase contractions (like footballer...we dont have baseballers or basketballers, etc) or using acronyms in crazy ways. Different strokes, different folks. I will say that we do have people pushing the word "presser" instead of "press conference"...and that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. We need to get that nipped in the bud before it spreads further. SunnyDoo, 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And the follow up to that. It is local rules over global- which is why you have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the US and motor neuron disease elsewhere. Also why we have soccer players and you have footballers (maybe we should start calling them soccerers). And why we have regular football players and Canada has CFL players (although there are quite a few US notables that do play CFL as well and they are designated as such in cases where need be because of the different rules).SunnyDoo, 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You do say "US representative", "New York (or NY) state senator", etc., though, which I think is the point. No one is suggesting we invent acronyms. Frickeg (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is you guys say MP, which typically stands for members of parliament for the national branch of whatever country and is great for unicameral structures. However in the US, we will say member of the US House of Representatives for instance or member of US Senate in the national place as that is the title and cause of their notability. It is the same thing as member of parliament except we dont designate MHR or MS or even MC (as in Congress). Saying State Senator or Representative or whatever is actually making that different in form than the other as well as being a slanged contraction. Just because one is written out and one is an acronym doesnt make them different. They mean the same thing. Changing one or the other to some other form will make them different ie MP = member of the House of Representatives/Senate but doesnt equal US Representative or Senator.SunnyDoo, 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar- MP can also be misleading in bicameral legislative structures...one of the reasons I am in favor of places like India that do make an effort to split it up with the Rajya and Lok Sabha. We should be as specific as possible instead of using the generic term.SunnyDoo, 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think they're that different - they're both simpler, shorter forms of the same title. For us using, for example, "NSW MLC" for "member of the New South Wales Legislative Council" is still changing the form. "MP" is generally used for the lower house, but it is different in form from "member of the Australian House of Representatives" or "member of the UK House of Commons". As I said I'm against any of this abbreviation, but I don't think the US should be exempt from a rule that is being rigidly applied elsewhere. Frickeg (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Slanged contraction"? It's how they're referred to, both officially and in secondary sources, which are of course what WP is based upon. For example, results from the NYT: "member of the New York state senate": 21 articles, "member of the New York senate": 3 articles, "New York state senator": 572, "New York senator": 1391 (which of course doesn't always pertain to state senators), plus a small handful of the latter two abbreviating NY. Other legislators are titled as they would be addressed (e.g. MP Jogi, Deputy Goasguen, MNA Dufour, Senator Souplet, MLA Dallat, MPA Ansari), and it's strange that doesn't carry over to American politicians. (This is consistent with other offices, e.g. President Pajares, Prime Minister Youssoufi, Minister Lopukhin, Justice Nunn.) You are correct that bicameral legislatures should be disambiguated; in India, MPs should be referred to as MP Lok Sabha or MP Rajya Sabha. Star Garnet (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

ILL format: Wikidata?

See Beth Soldo as of my timestamp. Someone has linked throught an ILL tag to Wikidata (which tells us almost nothing helpful). Are we allowing this new development, as I don't think there is a consensus at the moment for that exact method in these pages? Input required below - the edit still stands (as of this timestamp, of course). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There was never consensus to use ILL either. It just crept in and no-one objected. WWGB (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

With language ILLs, at least the little link is concise (just squared parenthesis containing usually two letters). It seems to me that the new one plants in [Wikidata] obtrusively. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For those who wish for a glimpse to the past, {{ill}} use on this list was questioned in 2016, but had been in place before then. Consensus against Wikidata links via {{ill}} was formally established in 2018. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the historical consensus clarification. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Walter Lure

Can he be added to the 21st? He died from liver and lung cancer.[4] MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

His name redirects to The Heartbreakers, which means he has not demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. On that basis, he does not warrant inclusion here. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That call is made 30 days hence, as redirects are a quick and lazy device, and do not indicate either notability or a lack of it. Someone else has added him regardless. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion does not always need to wait one month. Lure could not get an article after living 71 years; death alone should not convey notability, although Robert Trump disproved that. I'm not about to dispute the entry (for now), just content that I did not add it. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused, what did you mean by that comment about Robert Trump? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: He means that Trump wasn't notable until he died. Wyliepedia @ 08:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure I would agree! But each to their own :-) I would like to point out he has had an article since 2017... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

He probably is independently notable, and creating an article about him has been on my "to do" list for a very long time. Hopefully, with reliable obituaries now likely to be published, someone will be able to start his article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Now this article is saying that he died on the 22nd and not the 21st:[5]. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That article cites a nightclub's Facebook post. Wyliepedia @ 10:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s a reliable source though. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you post it? WWGB (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, no need to be so... abrupt. We’re all friends here. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My stalker emerges yet again. How ..... typical! WWGB (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Remind me of the rules here, please

When a person has a redirect (but not a specifically named article) ... do they get listed on this Deaths page? Example: the article is 1993 Iowa murders ... the article is about Dustin Lee Honken ... Dustin Lee Honken is a redirect. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Simples. 30 days. After a month, all non-dedicated "multiple biographical" articles must go. Only singular bio articles should remain after a month. In other words, using your example, Dustin Lee Honken would need an article about him only and not his partner in crime or the event which dominates 1993 Iowa murders. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not exactly sure how "redirects" (like this) were handled. Thanks for reminding me. However, I do have a slight "tweak" to your response. If the article had been named Dustin Honken and Angela Johnson ... or ... Angela Johnson and Dustin Honken ... then, either / both people (Honken/Johnson) would be "eligible" for listing here, upon their deaths. Pretty sure that was a rule we all came up with several years back. I think it somehow originated with Ian Brady? (I think that his article was entitled "Moors murders" and not "Ian Brady"?) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet, by dint of publishing without their names on top, the article does NOT qualify? That certainly seems like an unfortunate quirk of the renaming process. I was pretty sure that a person bio had to be the only bio dealt with in an article, unless they were one of twins or shared a lifetime as one of a notable music duo. Perhaps someone could remind ME on that point? (According to your example, it is still called Moors murders (no redirect to Ian Brady or Myra Hindley). Therefore Ian Brady should not qualify for an entry in the relevant list. Which is ridiculous. Which is correct?) Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, Brady died on 15 May 2017 but has no entry at Deaths in May 2017. Without his own bio article, he is not considered individually notable. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure this issue has come up many times. But, I think I remember it re-surfacing when Ian Brady died. Some thought he was clearly "notable" (for the Moors murders) and should be listed on the Deaths page. Others said that he was not notable, because he didn't have his "own" article (i.e., Ian Brady, proper --- not as a redirect). So, in the end, the consensus was: if a person does not have his own bio article -- but his specific name is mentioned in the article title -- then he is "eligible" for entry in the Deaths list. One of the examples -- cited by me, I believe -- was Murder of Kitty Genovese. So, Kitty Genovese did not have a bio article. And thus, was not "notable". Through that consensus discussion, people like Kitty Genovese "became" notable (for Deaths entry eligibility) ... as long as their name was mentioned in the article title. That is how I recall the discussion. So, yes, Ian Brady is not notable ... even though the Moors murders are notable. Ditto with Honken/Johnson, and the Iowa murders. I guess it is an unfortunate consequence of the renaming process. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the Ian Brady discussion: Talk:Deaths in May 2017#Ian Brady. I guess I got Ian Brady confused with some other notable (or "not" notable) person, from over the years ... ? Regardless, I am pretty sure we still have that "Kitty Genovese" rule. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - despite how I still feel about (let's say) "notorious-non-notables" not appearing in the final list. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of murderers, but what they did made waves and changed lives albeit in a negative way. Were you to be a totally uninitiated visitor accessing the relevant Deaths page, you'd probably expect him to show up there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Brady probably should be listed on the Deaths pages ... but no one could really see a way "around the rules". In all actuality, he probably should have had his "own" article, rather than just being clumped in the "Moors murders". But, I guess that ship has sailed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Deaths across 2014

An editor has added many deaths across the months of 2014. Unfortunately, the wrong referencing format has been used. Needs a lot of work if anyone has the time. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Started - working from January 2014 to incorporate WebArchive cite links into simple cite structure. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Lee, are we talking about the same issue? I was referring to these edits, whereas you seem to be working on web archives. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's more specific - I had no idea exactly what you meant from your first post. That's just editor error. Have you pointed this out on his talk page, and maybe impressed upon him to go sort his own mistakes out? Why should we do that and not him? Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And 2013, I notice. A whole bunch of mistakes there too. I've left a note on his Talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have tried everything ,,, a friendly message, a warning template and even crude reversions. Nothing seems to work. I'm not even sure if he reads his talk page. Let's see how he responds ... WWGB (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Now he is doing a Sunnydoo (no headline). At least he is no longer using a fake template! WWGB (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's better. Still don't feel inclined to sweep up his spilt sawdust though - at the moment, perhaps. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Death citations

Was skimming the 2020 death category and saw some names in there I have been unable to find some sources for. Putting the names here so editors can keep an eye out for them:

• January 4 - Anton Schindling, 72, German historian
• January 7 - Igor Avrunin, 62, Israeli shot putter and discus thrower
• January 7 - Liliane Dévieux-Dehoux, 77, Haitian-born Canadian journalist and poet
• January 8 - Richard Fawkes, 75, British writer and film director
• January 9 - Abubakar Salihu, 70, Nigerian Air Force officer
• January 10 - Jean-Pierre Souche, 92, French rower
• January 15 - Frederick Darwent, 92, English bishop
• January 15 - Rudolph V. Tolbert, 81, American community activist
• January 25 - Carleton H. Sheets, 80, American real estate agent
• January 31 - Majdala, 75, Lebanese singer
• February 1 - Jean-Loup Gervais, 83, French theoretical physicist
• February 3 - Aurel Șelaru, 84, Romanian cyclist
• February 3 - Valérie Bonnier, French actress, screenwriter and novelist
• February 4 - DeDe Lind, 72, American glamour model
• February 5 - Bill Oates, 80, American basketball coach
• February 9 - Sergiy Vilkomir, 63, Ukrainian-born American computer scientist
• February 14 - Aharon April, 87, Russian-Israeli artist
• February 17 - Vic Fernandez, 80, Argentine football player and manager
• February 20 - Esin Atıl, Turkish-American Islamic art historian
• February 20 - Giorgio Stegani, 91, Italian film and television writer
• March 13 - Mofia Tonjo Akobo, Nigerian politician
• March 13 - Ivor Danvers, 87, English actor
• March 13 - Douglas W. Mitchell, 66, American economist
• March 20 - Arelo C. Sederberg, 89, American biographer and financial journalist
• March 23 - Vid Cencic, 85, Uruguayan cyclist
• March 25 - Karen Kamon, 68, American singer
• March 28 - Klaus Daweke, 76, German politician
• March 28 - Khristo Poshtakov, 75, Bulgarian author
• March 29 - Daniel Davisse, 81, German-born French politician
• April 1 - Kim H. Veltman, 71, Dutch-Canadian art and science historian
• April 5 - James Garbutt, 94, British actor
• May 6 - Mikael Cederbratt, 65, Swedish politician
• June - Karen Ranney, American author
• June 6 - Mitsuya Kurokawa, 68, Japanese guitarist
• July - Steve Madge, 71-72, English birder and author
• July - Philip McShane, 88, Irish philosopher and mathematician
• July 3 - Willie McGrotty, 67, Scottish footballer
• September 29 - Justin Connolly, 87, British composer

Most of the deaths listed above should not be reported in Wikipedia. The "death" is either completely unsourced in the bio article, or it has an unreliable source, like Facebook or Twitter. I have been removing any mention of death from the bio article, absent any reliable source. WWGB (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's why I started this thread. If it's a completely unfounded assertion, we can weed that out. But some do have legit proof that for whatever reason doesn't have a reliable source to allow inclusion. That includes social media posts. By all means remove the links from their page but I don't see why they get evicted from this list because it's meant to let editors know that name needs a reliable source to list. The social media post announces the death. We then just wait for an actual reliable source to publish an article. Rusted AutoParts 05:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If someone has a flaky death source, I don't mind them being listed here. If there is no source in the bio to confirm death, then they should not be here. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This list has not changed for about three months (no additions, no resolutions). I question its necessity or relevance right now, especially when considering retaining it outside the month(s) it was created in. (So, what relevance does a list dated January 2020 to July 2020 have with a Talk page devoted to September 2020 and soon to be October 2020?) Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was a bit hesistant to add in more I found within the Deaths in 2020 category as to whether there's relative provability of the person's death. I was figuring we'd send those names off to the separate month categories when the year was over. Rusted AutoParts 18:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fair comment of course, but nevertheless the list remains dormant. I seriously suggest it stays with the September 2020 Talk page when the split comes in 6 days and does not get transferred yet again to the refreshed Deaths in 2020. For one thing, the sheer coding space it takes up is not justified by the list use, or more succinctly lack of. It's a top-of-the-page obstacle to viewing more salient sections underneath. To finish, talk pages were never designed or intended to host a sub-project like this, and I believe thought should be given to starting a separate page dedicated to the search for deaths citations, if the concept is that important. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Since only one archive page exists for the year, I suggest we shuttle it off to it. (Its size would force future yearly ones to a second archive page.) Wyliepedia @ 12:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I was also starting to wonder if a section like this would be better off being compiled at years end. Rusted AutoParts 04:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

These deaths have no place in article space as there are no reliable sources to corroborate the deaths. We cannot have an article like "People who someone thinks dead but without a reliable source". The best we can do is allow the list to hover in talk space or shuffle off Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we're up for a consensual marking (vote? No, we don't vote!), I'm going for shuffle off. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Rule of Three - does it cover range of abilities in entry?

HI. A straightforward question - does the Rule of Three cover how many perceived notabilities a subject has, or can have displayed, in one entry line? Current seemingly overblown ones are:

• Ric Drasin - bodybuilder, graphic designer, author, professional wrestler, promoter and trainer.
• Philippe Daverio - French-born Italian art critic, gallerist, academic, and television presenter.

I can tolerate the latter, with four, but the one with six is ridiculously extended.

Where is a line drawn, if there is one? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, max 3 is the standard, 4 may be acceptable but 6 is definitely OTT. We must also remember that the subject must be notable in all of those pursuits, For example, do Drasin's books satisfy WP:NAUTHOR? Did his graphic designs win any awards? It looks to me like much of Drasin's article was written by a fan or a PR hack. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what WWGB said. Notability in job is the key.SunnyDoo, 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminal punctuation

These list items are sentence fragments, so they shouldn't end in periods, no? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's an incredibly big job if you really want it (unless you have a bot ready), because I think the rest of us are quite content with how it is formatted right now and in many years archived. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should bring this discussion to a full stop. Period. WWGB (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

ICWotUDidThere. Don't Stop. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Not watching". How punctual. Wyliepedia @ 11:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(Roman) Catholic

Why are we persisting with the archaic term "Roman Catholic"? The article Roman Catholic redirects to Catholic Church, so "Catholic" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We should therefore use that term here. Where another form of Catholicism arises, such as Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, we can provide disambiguation then and only then. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church included Roman/Latin Catholics, Syro-Malabar Catholics, Romanian (Greek) Catholics etc (together 22 Catholic Churchs sui iuris). If you indicate only "Catholic" prelate, but imply Roman Catholic, it's not correct and discriminative regarding to other, not Roman, Catholics. --Noel baran (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Full stops?

Why is there a full stop at the end of every line? Most of these aren't sentences and shouldn't have full stops. – PeeJay 18:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We've been there many times before - trust me on that - and the consensus amongst regulars prefers the full stops. You are also not correct - this list takes the form of a vast collection of sentences, each on new lines, which would normally qualify for a stop. However, I will leave this section open for debate on the matter once again. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But they aren't sentences. Look up any definition of a sentence and none of these lines follow such a definition as they do not contain any verbs. Do tell me if I'm missing something, but each of these lines is barely a phrase, let alone a clause or a sentence, and thus they don't need full stops. – PeeJay 00:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Full stops have been used since Deaths in January 1998. If there is a consensus to remove them, an editor with lots of time can start back there and work through the 274 intermediate months before we change the current month. Minor standardisation is sometimes not worth the effort. See also Talk:Deaths in 2019/Archive 2#Punctuation and Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 1#Use of full stop/period after each entry WWGB (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I did as you asked. The Cambridge English Dictionary says it's "a group of words, usually containing a verb" - "usually" indicates to me that the verb is not compulsory in a sentence. Dictionary.com then says "a grammatical unit of one or more words that expresses an independent statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc". Each line in the Deaths page is a statement of decease. Tell me where I have misunderstood the context of those explanations. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. None of the lines would stand on their own as a clause of any kind. You say they're "statements of decease", but they're not. There is nothing about "Shegufta Bakht Chaudhuri, 86, Bangladeshi economist, Governor of Bangladesh Bank (1987–1992)" that would indicate that that person has died. We only know that from the context of the article. Even those lines where a cause of death is given, when taken in isolation, don't actually make it clear that a death has occurred. If the line said "Bangladeshi economist Shegufta Bakht Chaudhuri, 86, who was Governor of Bangladesh Bank from 1987 to 1992, died on November 11." then you might have a case, but that's not what's happening here. – PeeJay 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

All the bullet points are sentences that implicitly state that the persons have died, and therefore the full stops are correct. It is the same as the example of "Two." being a full sentence in the example given in this article: Sentence (linguistics). --Marbe166 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in those fragments that implicitly states anything. Please indicate the clause that is implied by any one of the lines in this list. – PeeJay 07:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an introductory sentence at the top of the list. The advice from the Imperial College London here, regarding bullet-pointed fragments and full stops, is to use a full stop in lieu of a semi-colon for each and every line when this occurs. If you were to remove the opening sentence at the top, you might have a case overall. However, removal of the sentence at the top would also remove the context of the list, and so you would be hard pressed to avoid being reverted on that score. I note you have not scolded us for failing to use semi-colons? Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Demonym wars

It is not the practice for this article to note that some Germans are Bavarian. It is not the practice for this article to note that some Spaniards are Castilian. It is not the practice for this article to note that some Italians are Sicilian. All these defunct kingdoms are regarded as obsolete nationalities, and indeed if Lubomir Strougal were to die regulars would race to remove any implication that he was a national of the country of which he was prime minister even though it existed as recently as 1993. And yet, one finds (is it only the regular who has been hair-splitting about sub-dialects of Shtokavian?) a point being made of specifying that various nationals of the United Kingdom are "English", or "Scottish", et cetera, rather than the comparable and proper "British". I would say that the only time the sub-nationality is relevant is if it is an important part of the person's notability (an organizer of eisteddfods, a Scottish Nationalist Party leader, an advocate for a new English Parliament, or the like). It feels like a passive-aggressive denial of the legitimacy of the Union to call them anything but "British" otherwise, akin to claiming American states as "nationalities". And now we have the people confusing "Slovenian" (a nationality, a citizenship) with "Slovene" (an ethnicity). To presume that all Slovenians are Slovenes is like calling all English Anglo-Saxons or all Israelis Hebrews. Can we have a little more consistency and rationality? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We use adjectival forms here, not demonyms: Caroline Wozniacki is a Danish tennis player (adjective), versus Caroline Wozniacki is a Dane (demonym). The two can often be the same. I agree that we should stick to British, unless there is a clear link to a particular country. (Sean Connery was Scottish). In the case of Slovenia, List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations lists Slovenian and Slovene as adjectives (without reference). The article Slovenia uses Slovenian, so I guess there was some consensus reached. I agree we need to determine and maintain a consistent form here. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For consistency at least, we should certainly stick to one form over another. For instance, the last time I counted in Deaths in 2020, there were two Slovenes and just the one Slovenian causing the ruckus for no reason whatsoever. There cannot be any "I'm right" in this because neither choice is wrong - the two are interchangeable as nationalities or citizenships (Google it). "British" is always used where there is doubt over the exact country of birth within the union, so that's not an issue today. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Which misses my point that, for consistency at least, "exact country of birth within the union" should be ignored for Great Britain just as it is for Italy or Germany etc. unless it is a key component of a subject's notability. Defaulting to "British" should be just as automatic as calling Sicilians "Italian". 96.250.80.27 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You clearly don't know the minds of the devolution lobbies in any of the British union countries then. The mood of the UK government has for a long time been towards the establishment of more self-determination where it won't damage the union, though that may already have gone too far in some instances and definitely in one instance (hence the repetitive debate regarding the possibility of one specific country's independence from the union). Oh, and Sicily is an "autonomous region" within Italy, not a separate country inside the national structure. Poor comparison. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how NPOV allows siding with the "devolution lobbies" rather than treating the UK like other countries that have been created by the fusion of former kingdoms like Sicily or Bavaria into a single citizenship.96.250.80.27 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the article header says what's to be included is "country of citizenship at birth". Though as I've noted I see this routinely discarded if that country has since dissolved, the UK at this point has not dissolved and to pre-emptively dismiss it seems to express a wish that it dissolve. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The "British" issue is explored at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, which is only an essay and not policy. WWGB (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However, if there is no consensus generally, as explained in that essay, there can be no right or wrong regarding my stance on this, nor that of 96.250.80.27. So the question we are debating naturally reaches an unresolvable impasse. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Dog

I removed dog from list as it is frivolous and disrespectful- please don’t just add it back. Post comment here if you think animal’s qualify Timmytimtimmy (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The next time you edit this talk page please pay careful attention to the fourth entry on the FAQ above, which explains that animals that have their own articles are to be included. There was an earlier attempt to delete this particular dog on the grounds of "notability is not inherited" but that line generally also fails for those who already have their own articles (Rita Sargsyan, a schoolteacher married to a successful politician, is on this list now, and if Wikipedia had existed at the time I suppose Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, an infant born and quickly lost to a successful politician, would have been in Deaths in 1963 since an article was written for him). The only privilege humans have over animals on this article is that humans get 30 days as a redlink while the animals must have had articles while living. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous user is completely right. Apart form the fact I did not "try to remove" it because "notability is not inherited", I removed their owners like you would remove Sargysan's husband if needed from her entry.--79.24.120.120 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am the one above. --Folengo (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can’t see the FAQ “above” but a dog having a page is ludicrous too. Let the dogs and cats set up their own waggapedia Timmytimtimmy (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I delete the dogs page? Timmytimtimmy (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Try and stick to editing, cos the stand-up comedy ain't working. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And to further blow your mind, we also include trees such as the Eisenhower Tree, racehorses and other zoo animals. I believe we also had a Fungi at one point as well a few years ago. Being human is not a requirement to obtaining notability for this article.SunnyDoo, 19:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I also have a question on the entry- we normally put the breed in instead of the generic "dog". So it should read English Cocker Spaniel. Does anyone have a problem with that? Thx.SunnyDoo, 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Not me. Not a fan of animal entries, but I was wondering why it was identified as a Royal dog when there is no such canine hierarchy in the world? You could remove that notability by association to the Royal family if you like. I can't be bothered. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(By the way, anyone still looking for the minute guideline on animal entries should look at the top of the text box in edit mode in the main page, not this page.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also FAQ#4 above. WWGB (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

People who play flutes

the occupation of this person should be flautist not flutist. Konrad Hünteler, 73, German flutist.[293] Juliani (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done - thank you - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Flutist" is American English, "Flautist" is British English. I would advise not to change one to the other once established in the page, as I've seen edit wars break out over much less. They're an "either/or". Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've put him back to flutist, notwithstanding the previous discussion and the fact that I hate the spelling myself. The person requesting it had changed it from flutist to flautist on the article (actually in one place out of two, which is hideous, but never mind) but I don't think that means it's good to come here and ask for it to match. Indeed it is rather the other way round as the US-resident editor who started the article spelt it flutist and in the absence of any other evidence this is how it should stay – if in doubt please check WP:ENGVAR. So I have changed it back in both places. Whoever (Refsworldlee , sorry!) warned about the potential for escalation into insane edit wars (funny link contemplated but decided against here) was exactly right. We would be better off if people counted to 10 then another 10 before switching languages. Always. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As I just said above, once a common word which spells differently in two parts of the world has been entered, it should not be changed for the other. Notable exceptions would be, for example, if an "English flutist" died. That would be a valid change to "flautist", as that's the spelling in force in the part of the world from which the deceased came. And vice versa, avoiding an "American flautist". Edit wars are always ungainly and seldom resolved, but should never occur over the most trivial of matters. They do though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and absolutely agreed, thanks Refsworldlee. This article and the subject's target article are now back where they started – with "flutist" – which is how it should be, and I hope will not change further. And yes on the warring. Gruesome. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Silver and bronze medals

Why are we reporting silver and bronze medals in individual events? We don't report runners-up in team sports (World Sup, Super Bowl etc), so why are we reporting "runners-up" in individual Olympic events? It seems to be a double standard. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The original amateur Olympic ideal was that all three medal winners were "winners". That's the only reason I can think that it persists. I'm easy either way, as you and I usually end up finishing off Olympic entries to standard here and it would ease our burden. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting question. I see the "Super Bowl", for example, as having a winner and a loser. No middle ground. With Olympic medals, all who finish in the top three are honored; that is to say, a silver medal or a bronze medal is -- in itself -- a "winning" status, i.e., an honor or award. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You have grasped the concept - however, in the big bucks world of modern sport, that not-really-winning mentality is now alien to all go-getting sportspeople. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We do list just participating in the Olympics. To me that's even less notable than winning a medal. Nukualofa (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ALS as a cause of death

This is a question I've been mulling recently, but is ALS a direct COD? This is a premise based on remembering previous discussions about whether Alzheimer's disease or dementia being what killed someone, or the complications/effects being the cause. I've found this article published when Stephen Hawking passed, and noticed these sentences:

• "Although Hawking's cause of death has not been reported, his family said he died peacefully in his home, according to the BBC". On his entry in March 2018, we put ALS.

• (This is the paragraph that makes me ask the question): "Most people with ALS die from respiratory failure, which occurs when people cannot get enough oxygen from their lungs into their blood; or when they cannot properly remove carbon dioxide from their blood, according to NINDS. In ALS, this happens because the disease can eventually lead to paralysis of the muscles that control breathing, according to the Mayo Clinic".

The article also goes on to name things like pneumonia, dehydration, etc. so it just made me curious as to whether it's accurate to put it as COD or not. Or add "complications from" ahead of it. Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a progressive degenerative end-of-life disease that affects muscle control, so therefore I think the COD should include "complications". Wyliepedia @ 01:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Complications from" sounds good. Over-thinking leads down the road of original research, so caution is needed as usual. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible sub forum for Recently Discovered Deaths....

I hope I am not confusing by my title. Why I am asking is I check Deaths in 2020 daily to see who died in the last day or 2. However I just found out the actress Abby Dalton died on a newspaper website. Wondering why I didnt see it on Wiki. It seems she died a week ago Nov 23 so she is listed under the Nov 23 Deaths. This seems to be a case of someone dying but the public not finding out till later (Most famous I remember was Beth Howland of Alice fame).

So can there be some sort of Sub Page for deaths that happened more than 5 days ago that just get announced so they do not get overlooked in the mass of other listings. Would be a temp type page & names only kept up for 2-3 days just so people dont miss a late announced death. Thanks. 2604:2000:1003:ceb:e00b:2ba:3b2d:8094 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)

No, this is not something that would be done here, because EVERY death included in Wikipedia MUST be confirmed by reliable source. There can be no inclusions of death announcements without such confirmation, and if such unsupported death claims are included in the encyclopedia (for that's all it is, not an obituaries page or a forum), then it risks being removed as unsubstantiated. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think you misunderstood. I do mean reliably confirmed deaths. My question is a sub page for those deaths that in effect go under the radar for a period of time so that by the time the death is found out about it could be overlooked. Example today is Dec 1. Say Celeb X died on Nov 15 but the news of the death just gets released on Dec 1. On Wiki the death is listed under the Nov 15 deaths as that is the date of death. However most people just look at the last 2-3 days of deaths so would miss a Nov 15th death.

So could there be a mini sub page for deaths that happened say 5 days or more ago but just got announced after 5 or more days. Would be a temp type page. Say keep the listing up for a week at most. Just so it wont be lost in the mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1003:CEB:E00B:2BA:3B2D:8094 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Some people create their own sandboxes for that type of thing. Most people should be glad that "Deaths in 2020" is really just deaths in the current month, plus seven days of the next one, rather than the entire year. Frankly, Wikipedia visitors should be lucky we have pages like Deaths in October 2020, monthly pages, to keep track. Wyliepedia @ 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That page is one I would never find time to maintain personally. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia article has a history, which reports "updated since your last visit". Surely a sufficient way to keep track of edits since one's last visit? WWGB (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jazzhands90

[6] He's back to adding complications from COVID-19 again. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is still an unresolved issue, so there's no point highlighting every instance of changes being made. And I would advise not to focus too much on one user in your comments, as it easily offends. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would actually ask you to consider the medical facts. COVID-19 does not kill per se - COVID-19 does badly affect and eventually kill some with "underlying conditions". These conditions can be anything which naturally lowers the human immune system responses, such as diabetes, cancer and a host of other terrible diseases. The combination of an "underlying condition" and the coronavirus therefore is the real killer, and the description "complications of/from COVID-19" is not a million miles away from the truth. I'd invite all editors in here to re-discuss it if it helps. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It won't help, but I'll note Tommy Lister's diagnosis is premature speculation, original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just wanted to point out that he was adding complications from COVID-19. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To what end though? You wish for an edit war to start up over it? Not worth it for two extra or two fewer words. "COVID-19" is the absolute crux, and anything extra is dressing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Lister's CoD is reportedly unknown, though, no crux determined. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Lister's CoD is not confirmed. COVID can kill even without underlying issues, but that's a rare occurrence. Anyway COVID is referred to the disease associated with the virus and not the virus itself. It is a pretty general term, including pneumonia or cardiovascular problems triggered by the virus. So COVID-19 is broad enough to be a CoD. Unless the person was not positive at the time of his death, but died due to the damage he suffered. I'd recommend "complications from COVID-19" in that case. --79.24.120.120 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Still in the hands of the coroner's office. Reading up about him, it actually appears as though natural causes was the killer, though his end was probably accelerated by his previous successful fight against the virus. The time gap makes it very difficult to connect the two directly as far as officialdom goes. That's how I read it at the moment anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A mortal lingering injury from a fight against any virus already is "natural", in an official manner of speaking, no connection needed. But where it factors in amongst the more traditional causes and contributors (if at all) is the question. This is the sort of celebrity whose death certificate TMZ typically shares, so I think we'll be answered by Tuesday. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)}}