Talk:Deaths in January 2019

January 11

I'm wondering whether Shirley Boone (Pat Boone's late wife) warrants a redirect link to his Wikipedia article, at least until she has her own article. 203.196.41.161 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Editrite!

She may well get a redirect, but not from myself, and mainly due to a lack of standalone notability. Her "acting" (or "TV show appearance") credits are extremely slim, she was a second unit director just the once that I can see, and otherwise majors in "philanthropy" (donating money or fundraising). Perhaps someone at the Pat Boone talk page might be interested in doing that? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC) EditOnlyIfRite!

She got one mere hours after the OP, which will remain here for the 30 days. — Wyliepedia @ 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Which is perfectly acceptable; however, I don't think it is necessarily incumbent on Deaths page editors to create such redirects, which was our Editrite!s point or request. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

30 days or 30 daze?! 203.196.41.161 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Editrite!

Re: François Protat

Hello,

I'm curious. I usually try and update the articles in this listing to reflect the death of said individual. However, when looking at François Protat and the citation that corresponds (my French is remedial at best) it says he disappeared. That doesn't necessarily mean he died, does it? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It’s a common mistranslation I see a lot when I translate articles as well. It does support his passing but it comes out wrong in a translation. Sort’ve similar to death reports using terms like “slipped away” or “is no more”. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, in many African publication reports the term "Jack Anonymous has gone away" is also employed, and that usually means they're dead too, with acknowledgement as such in that country, or at least by that publication. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's particularly tricky in this case, because "disparition" actually can mean either thing — it's not a bad machine translation so much as a genuinely ambiguous wording on the part of the source itself, because disparition can genuinely mean either "disappearance as in he wandered off and got reported missing" or "disappearance as a euphemism for death". They probably do mean that he died, because the first editor to attempt to add his death to the article did so a few hours before even this source existed and thus may have had insider information, but what we really should do here is wait for a less ambiguously worded source, if somebody has better luck than I've had at finding one, rather than relying on this one. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Me I speak french and he died January 18, 2019. I saw a post by his son Martin Protat on his facebook page that say in French he died Friday January 18, 2019. He specifies in this post that there will be no commemoration. I know facebook is not a good source for wiki but it's all I found on him to date for his death date -> here. Cordially. --Danielvis08 (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We dare not use Facebook (or Twitter) to confirm any death details for him.(It has apparently also been widely circulating in the Twitter feeds, especially on the website for Rendez-vous Québec Cinema.) As the 22nd is not a confirmed date of either "disappearance" or death, it has been marked as "death reported on this date" for now, until clearer information becomes available. No newspaper reports a living physical disappearance so casually, whereas an announcement of death is often subject to a reportage delivered in a more resigned or accepting tone, like the one for Protat in the single presently available source being used. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I fullscreened the image attached which is a screenshot of the Aqtis website. That works by itself. Rusted AutoParts 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What image attached where? I don't understand how this information backs up date of death in this case. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The image the Facebook link shared, it’s from a French film website [1]. Regardless it does work to cooborate DOD. Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Then surely you need to use that link as the inline source, instead of the Films Quebec one, otherwise I'm afraid (going by past experience) you may find the date being regularly or continously challenged. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We would probably need to find a way to use both, because (a) Films du Québec is by definition a more reliable source than a screenshot of a social media post, and (b) the Films du Québec source also enabled me to add a bit of new information to the article that had never been reflected in any other source I've seen before (i.e. the fact that he moved to Canada from France and wasn't born here). Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by a totally new (and more convenient) source being used. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

3rd January: do all these people satisfy this page's requirements?

No, I would suggest looking at previous yearsBashereyre (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please be more specific! You have made a generalised observation resulting in a wide-ranging claim, which is certainly not clear to this editor. Unless you can expand on exactly what you mean, you risk being ignored or this thread being removed. Thanks, hoping to hear further from you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think I can answer what I suspect your question to be; by asking two questions. Do all the subjects reported as passing away on January 3rd have an article written about them (answer: yes)? Are there independent reliable sources provided to support the inclusion of each one (answer: yes)? In which case, by the previously stated rules of the Deaths pages, they certainly do satisfy all the requirements. In fact, as none are redlinks they may well stay archived within the Deaths logs long after January 2019 is gone. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2nd -- Source of sports writer Jerry Magee's death

Greetings ....

On January 2nd Jerry Magee, longtime sports writer for the San Diego Union-Tribute, passed away. The original entry for Magee on the "Deaths in 2019" page used a Fox Sports brief as a source -- fyi, that was https://www.foxsports.com/other/story/longtime-chargers-nfl-writer-jerry-magee-dies-at-age-90-010319

That particular source only made mention of Magee's death with no extended details of his life and career. Furthermore, there were unrelated autoplaying videos attached to the Fox page, as well as unrelated stories of other subjects.

I (Fgf2007, this poster) searched for a better source, and found an excellent article right off the web-site of Magee's paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the specific source link being -- https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-jerry-magee-obit-san-diego-canepa-20190102-story.html

Several hours later, I became aware that a change of source (make that two changes) had occurred. First, the source was changed -BACK- to the original FoxSports link, and then it was changed to one from the Seattle Times newspaper site, the specific link being -- https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/longtime-chargers-nfl-writer-jerry-magee-dies-at-age-90/

With all due respect to the most recent revisioner, the San Diego Union-Tribune link is more detailed than the Seattle Times link, and there are no annoying videos or other issues (at least known ones) present.

For the moment, I have chosen to leave the Magee death source (Seattle Times) "as is", but I would like tho ask the regular editors to evaluate and consider the San Diego Union-Tribune source at https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-jerry-magee-obit-san-diego-canepa-20190102-story.html It is the better one.

Thank You Most Kindly, FGF2007 Fgf2007 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fgf2007: Per this edit, you will see that the SDUT website isn't available internationally, thus making fact-checking difficult abroad. Hence, we use the available and more-global Fox Sports or now ST source. — Wyliepedia @ 04:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. If the editor followed the edit history attached to Magee (and more importantly, the San Diego Tribune reference), they would have seen that the Trib source got tagged for blocking some countries in Europe - thus why it was changed to the working Seattle Times link. I'm afraid that the Tribune Group source links are virtually unusable in large parts of the European continent (including the UK), possibly the whole of the European Union, due to the Trib reaction to new privacy laws by the EU. To change it back would be folly for a large chunk of the world's readers, including myself, and I would only end up tagging the source again when there are other perfectly good ones without favour to any particular news outlet. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Situation Understood -- albeit most reluctantly. How unfortunate it is that the best sources can't be freely and fairly accessed. Sounds like the Euros have created an information highway nightmare. Meanwhile, page editors are forced to use some of the poorest sources. Thanx-A-Lot Fgf2007 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Same scenario as trying to access some Euro sites here in the States, not necessarily a certain "nightmare". — Wyliepedia @ 19:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Raymond Ramazani Baya

Congolese refers to a national identity not a nation there are two Countries with the name Congo in their statehood Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo Congolese is the wring wording because it could mean either and the Democratic Republic used to be Zaire. He was the foreign minister of the Democratic Republic- Williamsdoritios (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Then Congolese can be piped to the name of the country. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Like it’s not too confusing. A click onto Baya’s article can make the distinction. So I don’t see Congolese as being misleading or confusing. Rusted AutoParts 03:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The demonym, which we use, at both links above is "Congolese". And frankly, he was born pre-1960 (before the DR era began), so wouldn't that make him "Belgian Congolese"? — Wyliepedia @ 04:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that his status at birth can still change with time. Plus the empirical connotations of using the phrase "Belgian Congo" mean that it's not politic to use that term in the modern arena, surely? Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

True, but neither is listing him as "Democratic Republic of Congo politician", when both forms use the Congolese demonym. — Wyliepedia @ 08:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the stated description is way too much of a mouthful. So I would go with Rusted AutoParts and leave the shared demonym - it's not an untruth after all, and as he says visiting readers can click though to the subject article to confirm which is which. There seems to be a tendency for some to try to fine tune a death entry overmuch sometimes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with disambiguating the ambiguous word "Congolese". Why is the Joe Stapleton movie credit pointed to Spotlight (film) and not just Spotlight? Because the disambiguation assists the reader. Having a blue link for nationality does not "break" any of our guidelines. WWGB (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No-one mentioned anything about bluelinks in assisting disambiguation. You wouldn't need to bluelink, as it's a lingo difference dealing with two elements of a well-known country. The source of annoyance to one, or some, was in accentuating or not accentuating the difference between the two Congolese peoples, whether you bluelinked their descriptions or not. Using a film/story difference to illustrate a point about a nationality split or convergence also seems strange. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple citing as a standard action in massive lists such as the archived Deaths in January 2019, and why

Hi. I'm opening this topic here because a number of regular and committed editors are having to take up rafts (?) of time on this particular archived month page in converting many many instances of full cited referencing back to simple cites (so, just URLs and main visible headlines) - it is unclear who (or what bot) decided to convert to full cites, but there is a good reason why simple cite is used here. Page loading times, when considered in tandem with the sheer length of each archived month page, are in danger of being painfully slow on limited speed broadband computers and other devices. Simple cites reduce the bulk of the code in the page, and do help with that problem, even in the smallest way. Here's hoping that the source code remains lean and mean for its archived future. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I see it's an incomplete job still. I shall return - in the meantime, PLEASE don't convert back to full citing in this page! Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's your culprit [2]. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a witch-hunt, but thanks anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)