Talk:Deaths in 2019/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Surprised

Rather surprised at how quickly 2018 was "put to bed" ! ! ! I came to check on deaths for 31 December 2018 at 5:56pm MST (Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.) and found only 1 January 2019 immediately available for reading/viewing. I know this is a "year" change-over, but it is also just a month change-over; and in the past, the new month can be up to seven days 'old' before the previous month is relegated to a link (aka "put to bed"). I just think the suddenness of getting rid of 2018 before the year has actually ended is wrong. Especially considering that where it is still 2018, prominent people may still die and the "31 December 2018" entries will have to be updated. Just because UTC time is 2019 should not mean that local times should be ignored. In my opinion, the change-over should not occur until at least the 31st has passed into the 1st all around the world. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You can still see December 2018 deaths at Deaths in December 2018. A new date is always added when the new day starts at the most easterly place (Kiritimati). If we waited until every nation reached 1 January, where are we supposed to post deaths that occur on 1 January elsewhere in the world? We cannot put 2019 deaths in 2018! WWGB (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: The above reasoning pertaining to UTC+14:00 is why I edited recent deaths to point to Deaths in 2019 before UTC 1 January 2019. I thought I explained myself, but seem to have left the automated edit summary instead. I apologize for not explaining my thought process sooner. Vycl1994 (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the duplication?

Can anyone justify why we need both a See also section and a Deaths by month navbox at the bottom of the article? They cover the same material. Given that the navbox is more efficient, it should be retained over the See also section. The span of the navbox could be increased to match the newly-expanded (to 1979) See also section. Of course, a Previous months section will be added from February 2019. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and a top rate point from you. My choice (and I think a choice will have to be made) is that the clunky "See also" section is removed in favour/favor of the navbox, which is comprehensive and also collapsible. Personal opinion, not necessarily a vote unless one is needed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to boldly remove the section before I thought of checking here if there was some sort of justification for it. I also agree that it should be removed as redundant, and the MOS agrees as well: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Opencooper (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove. I just expanded the {{Deaths by month and year}} navbox to include those remaining years. No need to have a double purpose, especially if Wikideath annual pages continue. (Update: I was reverted.) — Wyliepedia @ 17:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Formally, Remove then. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Unanimous support to remove, which I am doing. It can always be restored if there is a late swing towards retention. Thanks for your input, WWGB (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The only issue is the navbox doesn’t appear for mobile users (albeit unless they switch to the desktop version). Rusted AutoParts 20:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That would appear to require some consideration. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

How about we have a See also section with one entry: Lists of deaths by year. It's like a navbox, but it works on mobile devices and it's not cluttered. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That should work. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral language

It is 2019. Why are we still using and defending the use of gendered terms like "actress" on this page? Here is an example [1]. The gender-neutral term is "actor" and it should be used. There are male actors and there are female actors - both are actors. We don't have doctoress, lawyeress etc. and we stopped using "aviatrix" many years ago. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, which largely describe Braakensiek as an actress [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc. Also, the acting industry recognises the term with awards such as Academy Award for Best Actress, Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama, Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, AACTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, Logie Award for Most Outstanding Actress etc. While other gendered terms may have fallen into disuse, actress most certainly has not. Common sense has not been overturned by the gender police. WWGB (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed per WWGB --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

And your complaint really needs to be taken to a higher level within Wikipedia, as we merely follow the conventions set by other more lofty idealists working nearer the top of the chain of editors, rather than down here on this humble list. I doubt we will be adopting a pioneering stance on this subject, given our modest status within the encyclopedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: yes, the cheese-sitters that we are. — Wyliepedia @ 05:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Ni-Vanuatu"?

This is the English Wikipedia. In the English language I would expect people from Vanuatu to be called something like "Vanuatuan"... "Ni-Vanuatu" just doesn't sound English, it sounds (ahem) Ni-Vanuatu. If we use "Luxembourgish" instead of "Luxembourgeois" we should be consistent.LE (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Constructing new descriptions for nationalities or ethnicities is slippery ground, and original research. Not going there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Using indigenous designations in a foreign language is uncomfortably slippery to me. NPOV can't let the "Ni-Vanuatu" be treated any differently than the Francais, Deutsch, Norsk, etc.LE (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

According to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, Ni-Vanuatu and Vanuatuan are both acceptable. The article Ni-Vanuatu points out that it is the more popular term, and favoured by style guides. Other adjectival forms also do not "sound English", such as Seychellois, Burkinabé, I-Kiribati, Malagasy etc. WWGB (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Then be bold and change it if minded to, I'd say. Who would I be to revert? Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a translation service?

UNLESS headlines in other alphabets are translated what use are they to any English-language reader checking a reference?LE (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure of your frame of reference (pardon the pun)? And "alphabets"? — Wyliepedia @ 23:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The reference on Masazo Nonaka's death was reverted from an English translation to Japanese characters with the edit summary "Not a translation service". Untranslated anyone reading in the language of the article has no idea what it is (if the language at least used the Latin alphabet one could guess).LE (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That would be this edit by Refsworldlee, who was absolutely correct. By listing the translated source title, it causes visitors here to think the source is in English, which is clearly false, hence why he put the original source language with it. That said, an English source has since been added. — Wyliepedia @ 01:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

We insert headlines verbatim. The fact they are not in English is just hard luck, if you see it that way. And, who cannot access Google Translate in this day and age, really? Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: "Mr. Nonaka's death The world's oldest" certainly seemed from GT. Lol. — Wyliepedia @ 09:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Though I meant from the visiting reader's perspective, of course (I use it tens of times a day during my surf activities). Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Halls of Fame

I see a recently deceased wrestling-entertainment performer is listed with a "Hall of Fame" link to the WWE Hall of Fame. Since this HoF is a form of recognition given by a private business to its own past employees I suppose it's on the order of Disney Legends. Is there a HoF for that profession independent of any particular employer? Links titled simply "Hall of Fame" are I think overused when there are many entities so described.LE (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That'd be the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. I've been torn lately on whether that or the WWE Hall of Fame is the "realer" one. Both cover famous wrestlers from around the globe, though, so (in my eyes), they're more suitable here than those from a National Radio Hall of Fame (no offense to Bruce Williams, 86). Then again, if you consider a HoF induction in the entertainment industry to be like a media award, we do traditionally go with the highest in their own country. But if it's more like a sporting championship, we'd use the normally higher standard for those. The Radio Hall seems to be both the biggest in America and on Earth (but not so for Stephen Negoesco's National Soccer Hall of Fame). Tough call. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WWE has an entirely separate "WWE Legends" system to keep old workers somewhat in the limelight and paid. These are often, but not always, WWE Hall of Famers. That might be more like the Disney Legends setup. Also, while Disney Legends need to have worked for Disney, some WWE Hall of Famers never worked for WWE. And to split a final hair, wrestlers are independent contractors, not employees. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

How independent are the contractors when their characters are owned by the promotion?LE (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the essence of WWE's terms and conditions are best summed up in the lyrics to Triple H's theme song, and some of these issues have been raised at the well-named WWE Concussion Lawsuit News website. But that's just one (huge) promotion; only a small number of traditional journeymen sign their lives (and social media presence) away to it. Some who work there get to be who they were before and use the same movesets (to an extent). These include "new" guys like Samoa Joe and AJ Styles, and "old" folks like Morales and Okerlund. Not everyone's doomed to be Dolph Ziggler forever.

Anyway, are you content with using the unaffiliated HoF where possible? And do you have an opinion on what to do about American soccer and radio? And would it change anything if you believed WWE to be a publicly-traded company rather than a private business? Used to be private in Pedro's day, but also used to be a "slave" to the National Wrestling Alliance's shady handshake deals. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to add to the uncertainty, Fernando Clavijo is in the same Soccer Hall as Negoesco, but goes uncredited here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"shot" vs "stray bullet" vs "gunshot wound"

All three have been used as the same person's COD lately. I have a problem with "shot" when nobody actually tried to aim a gun at the person killed by the bullet. There needs to be a way to differentiate the deliberate from the accidental (what about someone who's cleaning a loaded gun that goes off?) LE (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the circumstances, we would use “shot”, “suicide by gunshot” or “accidental gunshot”. WWGB (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

So we end up with none of those three, as it stands.Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I should add that, technically, the "cause of death" would be just the entry and effect of the bullet from the gunshot, not whether that shot was actually deliberate or accidental. I think there's a danger of over-elaboration in what is after all just a leader description of the deceased's death details. Finer and fuller details should, in my opinion, then be gleaned by onward transit to either the source, the subject article, or both. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

MacArthur Fellowship

What would be the stance in regards to recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship? Is it noteworthy enough to list as an achievement, such as for individuals Seweryn Bialer. Rusted AutoParts 23:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A fellowship is not unlike a scholarship. Given the large number awarded annually, I don’t think the award is notable. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Addition to top-of-page preamble

Hi. Another Wiki editor has recently added a template to the top of the source page coding which produces the following line:

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

It bears mentioning here because an addition of this nature usually requires a consensus across many contributing editors to qualify its inclusion. My personal view is that it can only enhance the list by encouraging others to add to it (albeit with the strict proviso of notability). Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Expand list should be used thus: "an incomplete list is any well-defined list which is missing obvious entries". Our list does not have any obvious omissions, otherwise they would be included. The template is better suited to articles like List of Super Bowl commercials where there are glaring omissions. I am tempted to remove the template here since it was added without consensus, and just clutters the page, but I will wait till others weigh in with an opinion. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I will probably change my mind then, given the context that WWGB has put on it - as it's a rolling date-driven list which is regularly updated only as and when supportable information becomes available, I think for each date of the month it's as complete as it can be. It will, in fact, probably NEVER be complete in its archived form, but that's not for this particular page I suppose. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's an incomplete list, unless people postpone dying until 2020. Firstly, the person who placed did not leave an edit summary. Secondly, the person has never made any entries/edits prior to. Thirdly, the hat invites everyone to edit the page, which is not how things work here. — Wyliepedia @ 09:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikignomes hardly ever do make such mundane things as everyday edits. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the list's incompleteness should be noted, however {{Dynamic list}} provides a more appropriate message in my opinion. Danski454 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue I see with using {{dynamic list}} is that, in an effort to make it more complete, there may be an influx of sourced, non notable listings ("Jane Doe, Earthian human, favorite relative of User:Example.") or entries that break the consensus-backed rules for this page, such as redlinked animals. I would prefer no such hatnote, with WWGB's reasoning as stated above. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the edit history of the person who put in that line, I say remove it.

There is also another viewpoint reaction. I come to the Deaths page to see who of "notability" has died even though a good 99%+ of the people/animals/"celebrities" mentioned I've never heard of. This list is the most complete and comprehensive list I've found online. As such, I consider it to be an extremely valuable resource. By adding an incomplete preamble, it comes across to me as something amateurish and not being reliable. I've mentioned this to several other people and they have similar feelings.

If something comes across as seeming to be amateurish &/or not reliable, people will no longer use that thing or even come to (visit) that site. And with that 'view,' they're are not going to feel it's worth it to even try to "enhance" the list.

In short, the preamble must go. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No consensus to keep, I am removing it. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire, I would say the mood of the editors who posted in this thread amounts to a consensus to remove - a slightly stronger position for future challenges. (And, yes, I did change my mind to Remove, if anyone's spotting that.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Retitle article to "Recent Deaths"?

Unless the article (not a navbox) has links that cover all deaths in a given year it should not have a title "Deaths in [year]". There are apparently no other post-1999 articles now that have such a title (the Lists of deaths by year refer people to sections of the articles on the years that relate to deaths in those years and the navbox refers only to lists of deaths in specific months). If this article is not to be the central portal for the entire year's deaths it should have a title that reflects this.LE (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There’s no need to rename the page, it’s to the point. Rusted AutoParts 21:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • How is the title "to the point" if it stops being accurate as soon as any months are archived and keeps getting less accurate as the year goes on?LE (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s accurate for the time it needs to be. This is accurately a list of “Deaths in 2019”. And next year we’ll be cataloging Deaths in 2020. This is a classic “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” scenario”. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

When they took out the links to archived months of the current year it became "broke". A "Recent deaths" title however will be permanently accurate.LE (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose again (we faced this suggestion quite recently as I recall). "Deaths in 2019" has a solid and fixed place in a timescale. Just what exactly is "recent" supposed to mean within a timescale? It's a non-specific point. Makes no sense to me. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If the content of the article is perpetually limited to the most recent month or so the implication that it covers the entire year is inaccurate while "Recent" will always be accurate.LE (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It chapters the year while in essence archiving months that have passed. It’s not inaccurate at all. You’re over complicating it for yourself. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It only "chapters the year" if it includes links to the archived months. If it only includes the most recent month's deaths the title is misleading. As it stands the previous months of the current year are just as remote from the article text as are those who died in any prior year.LE (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Links to previous months are provided in both the "See also" section, and in the template at the foot of the page. Removal of explicit previous months was discussed here. If you want to re-open that discussion, go ahead. Besides, this page is viewed over 38 million times per year, and is one of the most visited pages in Wikipedia. Tampering with its recognition would be foolhardy. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If there were still links to previous months in the "See also" section I would never have proposed a name change; their absence makes all the difference. I reinstated them today and got reverted. LE (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Because as pointed out there was a discussion and consensus to remove them. Rusted AutoParts 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In the opening post of that very same discussion, there appears the language "of course a Previous months section will be added from February 2019." That is what makes the difference as to whether the proposal merits approval. Giving people no alternative to the template or the Lists of deaths by year article (which both treat all previous years equally with the current year) obliterates the particular connection of this article to its titular year. LE (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. The "Earlier months" section was not affected. The discussion related to a listing of previous years. I have added previous months of 2019, which should have been added from February. Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support re-introduction of "previous months" list - which is different to my opposing the name change. I always thought that the collapsible menu right at the bottom is insufficient on its own. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

RSS feed?

Is it possible to add/create, or does anyone know of an existing, RSS feed for Recent Deaths on Wikipedia? FrunkSpace (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Outside my remit here, so I've no personal knowledge of one. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. RSS feed exist for ages on Wikipedia, try this (and for talk page). Unfortunately, there is a 10 entries limit which is a bit short for high-traffic pages like "Deaths in...". Regards, Xavier 90.40.56.26 (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus links

I was wondering if it’d be ideal to include links to discussions that cemented major consensuses to the top of the talk page for easy access. You know like the consensus to block pictures, Ro3 (if there was one), etc. Rusted AutoParts 15:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. There are so many "rules" on this page one needs an encyclopedia to keep track of them. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reserved opinion. This is because I would like to see firm proof that the already cumbersome Talk Header (a massive slab of information stating mostly the obvious) is not extended significantly further by a menu of consensus links, resulting in relevant and important talk sections and topics being relegated even further down the page than they already are. Replace the Talk Header with something which addresses consensus by all means. IMO, that quick link to the Table of Contents is already not enough of a compromise to justify the grist of the conversation subjects being pushed ever more towards the bottom of the Talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Only four of the FAQs (Q2, Q3, Q4, Q6) are rooted in consensus. If someone has the time to find the original consensus in the annual talk archives, it can be added as a bluelink or bare link without taking any more space. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Racehorse age

Industry sources will say Pioneerof the Nile was a 13-year-old horse because all thoroughbred racehorses born in calendar year X are eligible for 2-year-old races in year X+2, 3-year-old races in X+3, et cetera rather than their actual birthdays being given any weight. Somebody added the horse based on the official stat and somebody else amended it based on "doing the math". Only if readers are notified of the racing policy in some fashion will reading the entry make sense.LE (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

All northern hemisphere horses have their official birthday on 1 January. In the southern hemisphere, it's 1 August. [8]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Jack is correct. Pioneerof would be 13 under rules of thoroughbred racing. His actual birthday does not matter. Pioneerof technically wasn't 3 years old when he ran the Kentucky Derby, but did so because of the rules.Sunnydoo (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As per my reverting edit to the entry earlier, I also think we need to "reign in" the use of hidden messages in source, such as that claiming to be info on the subject of a horse's age. (See what I did there?) Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you confused "rein" and "reign"... LE (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC) - - - (Touché!) Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"will reading the entry make sense." Horse sense? Sunnydoo (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is primarily run and read by normal people (so to speak), we shouldn't treat any dead subject by the (some might say) "weird" rules they worked under in life. If their birthdays are a certain number of years apart from their death dates, there you go. Today we let horses play their reindeer games, tomorrow it's appeasing Tibetan Buddhists who believe the Dalai Lama simply rolls back to zero. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to get all meta physical about it, they did just prove last week Einstein's theory that there is no time. You exist on a line, being multiple places at once. Of course it doesnt play well with Newtonian law, but hey...they will find one is macro and the other micro.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Source? I only see three from "recent weeks" last summer. There's no time to Google madly! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

[9]. The linear nature is the Einstein macro level of quantum physics. The thermodynamic model they are referring to is the Newtonian physics. Of course they are pandering to the masses with the play on a time machine, but that is not what this is all about.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The horse's age per his article infobox is 12, based on years elapsed from birth to death. Age 13 is merely an artifice of the racing industry. He was not a teenager! WWGB (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Problems

Hello friends, I am talking about wikipedia in Spanish. We are having problems with a self-checker and reverser called Pichu VI. All the editions made by any citizen, even though it is very true, I indiscriminately delete them, I ask for help in this very uncomfortable and annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobelgentil (talk • contribs) 16:42, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

You didn't sign your post, and I have no idea what you mean. Sorry. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like you've run into some disruptive or tendetious editing at the Spanish Wikipedia. If so, maybe those links have some helpful advice on how to deal with a disruptive editor. If you mean you indiscriminately delete all the very true editions by any citizen, breaking that habit would make things more comfortable and less annoying for everyone. I think you'll find better solutions if you ask a Spanish Wikipedian, though. We mainly talk about Wikipedia in English on this page. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems the OP has been blocked in the es-wikiworld for intimidating, personal attacks. — Wyliepedia @ 04:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a bigger problem than I'm ready to solve. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So if the original poster above is supposed not to edit the ES Wikipedia, would it not be prudent to remove this section as irrelevant and generally against the spirit of the worldwide Wikipedia? Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a worldwide Wikipedia spirit. I tend to think policy enforcement is a site-by-site thing, and what seems intimidating in Spanish may lose some crucial nuance in translation. We should probably wait till he's busted for something in this domain, like how it works offline. I've been slapped on the wrist in my country for things that would get me hanged in others, and I'd like to think I can still safely visit (most of) them. Is he to be considered a fugitive escaping justice or a refugee fleeing persecution? That question alone could drag on for years, absent some definitive precedent or rule (which I've never seen).

As to the irrelevance of it all, you might have a strong case. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

He is pushing his view in a different Wikipedia without declaring what he possibly thought was a hidden agenda from another, and is probably being no less provocative here than he was there. I certainly think entertaining his ideas would be inadvisable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, neither his actions nor his post here reflect on the DI page (this isn't es:Anexo:Fallecidos en abril de 2019) and, therefore, require none of our attention for now. — Wyliepedia @ 00:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

RSS or subscription for this list

Is there a way to subscribe to the Recent Deaths list, like there is for On This Day, etc.? FrunkSpace (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A link to the RSS feed for deaths in 2019 is given here. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsafe abortion

Interested editors may want to visit Talk:Deaths in February 2019#Caroline Mwatha, where another editor wants to declare a cause of death as "complications of an unsafe abortion". WWGB (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

European access blocks

Hi. For some time now, I have been diligently monitoring the availability of website sources in the European Union, from my vantage point of the UK. For the first time maybe, I have been reverted because there was an editor who doesn't believe me can't see the block as they are not operating their PC systems from in the EU area. It concerned the online news source St Louis Today and the entry for Kenneth Rothman. Well, here is all I get whenever I try to access STL Today from the UK:

"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact sitehelp@stltoday.com or call 314-340-8000.

Please reference the IP address: 86.112.169.179 when contacting us."

For those outside the UK, or those using a VPN, I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it. If the site is visible in parts of Europe but not the UK, there would still need to be a tag attached to the link until such time as a universal source becomes available (every single different reference I tried today for Rothman came up blocked). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ref, you have been doing a fine job in this regard. It's unfortunate that you were challenged this time. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The editor seemed to think that, because his location the Commonwealth of Australia has close ties with the UK, it was somehow part of the EU (although clearly never possibly part of the EEA). Geographically and politically, Australia is far-detached from the demon Brussels machine - lucky devils. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh please, I never stated that I didn't believe you and I certainly did not ever regard Australia as being in Europe (lol), although we do perform at Eurovision. I just was merely pointing out the fact the source was visible from here (and presumably several other countries), and that it was credible. No problems my end aside from the idiotic assumptions. Cheers, —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

All good faith, Jonny, yours and mine. I don't bother getting stewed up over editing any more (been doing it probably too many years), though I do tend to "stand my corner" on issues where I'm sure I'm correct. So no hard feelings here. And there's never any discredit to any source I discount whenever I stick in the 'Better Source' tag. I accept fully that all the sources I have tried in an effort to include an unblocked one yesterday are innately reliable. It's just that some of their editorial boards are a mite sensitive to the possibility of the EU suing them on privacy grounds. I have struck through the disbelief slur, so good editing to you, and to me. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting horse from list of deaths of people

"Dunaden, 13, French racehorse, Melbourne Cup winner (2011), complications of a paddock accident." April 30 entry.

I cannot sign in to edit this entry. But methinks the deaths of horses, pigs, dogs, cats, cows, snakes and marmots, while tragic, ought to have their own page, and not be included in the list of "notable deaths" of human beings who have made an impact on society. I suggest deletion of the "Dunaden" entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8000:1c7d:9528:f33:616:6698 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't sign that post, and Strong Oppose, as we have been over this subject time and time again without losing the animal entries. Although I was always against their inclusion, I accepted the consensus then and intend to continue to do so. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. — Wyliepedia @ 13:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the editor knows we accept animal entries per the FAQs at the top - what the editor is doing is challenging the consensus, which requires interested editors to enter a "vote" in bold, not point to already arranged rules as though they are unchallengeable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Pardon me, but it sounded as if the OP was going to be bold and delete Dunaden's entry and couldn't, then suggested it here: "I cannot sign in to edit this entry." — Wyliepedia @ 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If the editor had actually made an edit against consensus, then a slapdown would have been absolutely correct. You can't slap down editors, signed in or not signed in, for challenging a consensus. More "votes" and less blather would do the trick here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the operative word here is "suggest". Consider it suggested. Editrite! (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If it’s living, if it’s breathing, if it dies, it qualifies for the list. Rusted AutoParts 04:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Animals can in many cases be just as notable as humans, so I oppose the suggestion of removing them. Nukualofa (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Article is not named, as suggested by OP in section header, Deaths of People in 2019. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 22:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A similar proposal was previously discussed last year. Consensus seems now, as it was then, not to remove notable animal or plant deaths from this list. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless they're redlinks. The OP might be happy to know humans are still the chosen people, so far as that goes. We'll never be pressured to learn about a self-hating white cat who became Internet-famous for sitting at a keyboard and shaming other white cats for not hatching as black cats. No lofty tales of a pine tree standing proud and supportive behind all its cones, not only those who would use the pollen and seeds they were assigned at birth. And we'll almost certainly never be bothered by an individual fungus, bacterium or amoeba; as far as I know, the closest thing we have to a celebrity from those kingdoms is Toad, who doesn't even "die" per the rules of his/her/its own little world, just "loses a life".

It's not too soon to establish a consensus for or against particular forms of artificial intelligence, though. Shall we lean more toward bipedal androids with reasonable approximation of faces, or certain nodes of the sprawling mycellum-like web that learn like we do and directly impact our chances to procure food, shelter, sex, entertainment, education, tax and funeral resources online? Or wait till those sorts combine into something a bit more "human"? Some of us may remember the Martian rover affectionately named "Opportunity" was recently (and quite briefly) featured here; perhaps that at least suggests precedent against the proverbial "every thing that creepeth upon the earth", even (or especially) those that go where no man has gone before. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to believe if someone or something is important enough to merit a page (perhaps even a stub) then it should by all means be included here. Snarkiness of above poster aside, Grumpy Cat does belong here and so do the, eg, Kentucky Derby winners. Just my two cents. FWIW, wicked coincidence on the cat comment. 209.83.18.154 (talk) 23:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Just a query

If the member of a notable band dies, and the name of the band appears in brackets in the description with a blue link, is there any point in also having a redirect link to the band from the band member's name? Of course, I refer to band members who are not notable in their own right i.e. outside the band, and do not have their own Wikipedia article. Editrite! (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If redirects are not deemed notable after thirty days, they are moved from this list. Until then, business executives are redirected to companies and band members are redirected to bands. Such redirects can be tagged {{r from member}} until they are expanded. Vycl1994 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's more to do with the likelihood of a band member receiving their own article. Anyone can initially assume that a musician in a band won't have done enough significant work in their lives to warrant an article, so a redirect is the next logical step, to give some context to their overall contribution to their major "employer" during their time. However, a redirect can be changed to a person article at any time in the future if it's deemed suitable for them to deserve their own article (and if it's clear enough that it wouldn't get speedily deleted). I agree that it's strange to have two links in one subject line both arriving at the same band article, but the redirect would be there to serve a wider Wikipedia purpose than just our Deaths page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It could also be a user trying to pad their page creation stats. I've seen that a lot as well. — Wyliepedia @ 05:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicities versus nationalities

Evidently, not only do casual contributors to this page have to put up with the regulars here engaging in an arbitrary manner, but a capricious manner as well. Witness this edit. Um, "ethnicities don't matter" since when? Some of you act as though you forget all about past months the instant they're moved to other pages, so let me remind you:

• In Deaths in September 2017#25, we see this entry:
  • Nora Marks Dauenhauer, 90, American Tlingit author, poet, and scholar.
• In Deaths in July 2014#5, we see this entry:
  • Don Wright, 84, American Gwich'in politician, President of the Alaska Federation of Natives (1970–1972), involved in negotiations for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
• In Deaths in October 2007#11, we see this entry:
  • David Salmon, 95, American Athabascan tribal chief, cancer.

There are probably many others as well. Why bother with precedents if you're going to change it on a whim just so you have something to fuck around with? Maybe others don't have this kind of time to play around; I know I don't anymore. The numerous inconsistencies which abound on this page have resulted in my decision to contribute as little as possible to it. From looking at the vast number of deceased people who are portrayed as still living across the encyclopedia, I'd bet that many others feel the same way. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In the three cases listed, ethnicity was central to the notable role of the deceased: they either wrote about or represented their ethnicity. In the case of Bill K. Williams, it does not appear that his ethnicity (Tlingit ) was critical to his role (that is, he was not elected because of his ethnicity). If that is not correct, please restore his ethnicity, with appropriate evidence. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I did it. I get that there's a certain pride when a smalltown boy makes it in the New World that a tribesman from Africa or Asia just doesn't get, because it's still so normal over there. But they're all people, and we consistently ignore their clans just fine, as we disregard other people's gangs, political parties and church groups. So long as they're famous for generic human stuff, anyway. I'm not endorsing forced assimilation or suggesting we wipe all record of his people from Wikipedia forever. Just here, for brevity's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Williams updated removal. His office isn't related to his ethnicity. (Ketchikan, Alaska, is 60% white and around 8% Tlingit) If he were a tribal leader or historian, there wouldn't be an issue. — Wyliepedia @ 13:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And again this is a sore subject with me. US and Canadian Indians are independent Nations even though they are inside those National States. Government agencies such as the FBI and Royal Mounties can not go onto Native American lands without tribal agreement. In the US, the affairs are handled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They negotiate with each tribe and then report back to Congress. So its not really an ethnicity, it is a nationality. Thats one reason why gambling has taken over in the US. For years you could only gamble in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and on Indian lands. States like Louisiana and Oklahoma that were deep in the Red Christian South had gambling and there was nothing the Church or State could do about it b/c the tribal lands are separate from the rest of us.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

At least in Canada, the whole First Nations is (more or less) treated like a single distinct nation, despite the name. The particular tribes and bands are something like provinces or towns, which we don't note for Federal folk or Québécois (unless they ruled there). I'm not as familiar with the American system, but it seems from your Wikilink that the Bureau is "responsible for the administration and management...of land held in trust by the United States". If a regular US government agency really does hold, administer and manage the lands, that suggests stronger dependency than the responsibilities outlined in Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada do. That's not to knock anyone, just to say we probably won't find a one-size-fits-all rule for both sides of the border (and I'm 99% ignorant on how Mexico works). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous Americans are members of sovereign nations, this stems from treaties as well as the court decisions Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia. I think it is not that different from identifying someone as British and Welsh, or Hong Kong Chinese. People may have more than one national identity at once, 2602:306:BD0F:1C80:59BD:8528:D60C:54C8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Dementia

On July 8, we had a guy dying of dementia. That's just a symptom. We either die from doing something stupid while demented, or of whatever neurodegeneration also caused the confusion. Or of unrelated old person stuff. This guy was explicitly reported as dying of a complication of dementia, so that's clear. But others are reported as dying "after a long battle" with it, or just as being diagnosed back when. In those cases, it sounds similar to cancer death notices, but we shouldn't presume the CoD the same.

Senility stays till we die, regardless of how; if a real killer isn't reported, leave it blank. Same as we would for a crippled, bald, saggy, impotent, incontinent, jaded or otherwise incurably afflicted person. Our hearts, lungs and livers literally don't consider our cognitive functions before failing or not, but our brains can and should consider the whole body before making any sudden movements, lest they fart in public.

Not trying to raise a kerfuffle or blame anyone for brainfarting (accidents happen to build character, dagnabbit), just saw a neurology complaint department and figured I could speak now or forever hold my peace. Too young to finally shut up yet! OK, I'm done now. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A day later, we have the coincidentally curious case of Jim Bouton. Reported as "suffering with dementia in recent years". No cause of death given, please don't invent one. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually we should change the definition. Instead of "Cause of Death", we could put "What he/she was suffering from when he/she died". Dementia would be surely accepted. --Folengo (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing the definition just to get "dementia" included in the subject line? What's wrong with simply following what is said in the source or a well-researched article CoD and putting that - and, if no cause of death is given straight away, having a little patience and waiting to add it as we do right now? You'd open a whole new can of worms by sucking in myriad medical conditions being suffered at time of death. ONLY the cause is relevant here at the moment, and I say it should stay that way. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I say so, too. Even a cold can potentially kill someone with a bad heart, one good kidney, no good lungs, a stupid immune system and/or dissolving neurons. Or you might sneeze wrong and fall on a wrought iron fence birds have pooped on, necessitating a trip to the drugstore weeks later where you're shot by the guy stealing your antidote, so you shoot him in self-defense, but your state doesn't cover drug protection so you get the chair. I say beauty killed the latter hypothetical beast, if it's up to original research (I'm not bluffing, either). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not more than two or three ailments and only if life-threatening. Won't put "cold" for example. --Folengo (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

We report what is confirmed in reliable sources. We don't guess.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

First off, dementia is a disease not a symptom. It is an umbrella encompassing Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and a host of other smaller forms including Lewy Body Dementia which the NFL football players have been getting as of late. The reason some people call it dementia and not specifically one of the others is because some people have different forms covering several spectrums and sometimes a diagnosis cant be made (again see Lewy Body Dementia...it can only be done at autopsy). And yes you can die from any of those. Basically in laymen's terms your brain stops functioning right and it causes a host of problems. Now you can die from complications of dementia like a fall or you can even choke to death with Parkinsons b/c of the atrophy to the throat muscles. You can die from other diseases such as pneumonia because it weakens your immune system (along with some of the drugs you take to stop progression). And in late stages your body just shuts down including eating and using the restroom because the brain no longer supports the body. A little fyi self disclosure here, my dad is in middle to late stages of Alzheimer's. The facility he is at has lost 3 patients in the last month in his section...2 to dementia and 1 to parkinsons. Its not pretty. They stop eating and usually they are gone in 3-5 days.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And for Folengo's point, this is something we have talked about several times over the last few years. On a Death Certificate, under causes of death, you will find everything they suffered. Usually there is a primary cause such as pneumonia and then a secondary cause such as cancer that they had been riding out. The reason why they are both listed on a death certificate is because in all likelihood they wouldnt have had pneumonia if they hadnt had cancer. The cancer could have suppressed the immune system or the drugs given to counter the cancer could have suppressed it. Thats why some of us use terms like pneumonia as a complication from cancer. It tells the more complete story.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And here is the short form instructions for the Death Certificate from the CDC if you are interested [10] in what they look like. You can request these in most states from the local health department or coroner's/ME office under the Freedom of Information Act. This is why I am perplexed with some folks on here who try to walk Cardiac Arrest as a CoD. It clearly states in the instructions that that is an event not a cause of death. But that is another long running argument.Sunnydoo (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Said symptom, meant syndrome. Sorry, it's my curse. But yeah, dementia can help kill. Just not so overwhelmingly to point the finger every time an old demented person expires. Age helps death, too. If a source doesn't attribute the death, nevermind the battle or suffering, that's all. Usually refers to the mental and social struggle, and is included in news to evoke a sense of "at least they're at peace now". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You and I know better than most people about physiology, but I know people who think craziness itself kills, either by sucking the spirit into the void or literally inducing pulling the trigger. That's what "death by dementia" suggests to people I don't know, too. Fatal emotions. Slippery slope, even if technically different from anxiety, drowsiness, rage or loneliness. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly enough...a new story out on the problems with diagnosing of dementia in patients. Science is closing in on the disease diagnosis. [11]. I can tell from the experience with my father and the testing that it is not cut and dried- even with MRIs, spinal fluid and other brain scans.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Olympic medals

Abdul Hamid, who died on June 12, was both an Olympic champion and a silver medalist. However, InedibleHulk believes that "silver only matters here when it's the best an Olympian could do. Just like bronze. Or fifteenth."[12] I say, bullshit, any and ALL medals that fall within the "rule of three" matter! — Wyliepedia @ 22:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone who reaches the top of their field collects lesser trinkets on the way (up or down). Rule of three applies to work, not awards. We go with the big one for actors, singers, writers and athletes, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See five-time Comrades Marathon winner Jackie Mekler on Canada Day for an example of Commonwealth silver fully representing one's prime. Or centenary Sid Ramin, without his crappy old Grammy and Daytime Emmy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: This is a borderline "I don't like it" argument from you, but I'll reply to your yet-again-off-topic comments: the Comrades Marathon (national) is not the Commonwealth Games (international), and Ramin's awards are 3/4 of an EGOT, even though he's a composer. — Wyliepedia @ 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd find our treatment of Matthews, North and Dinev early last month more relevant. No mention of world silver, Olympic bronze or fifth-place Olympic participation. Just the big ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dinev's entry was correct, although his entry as "Olympic wrestler" should've been "Greco-Roman wrestler" with no mention of his Olympic "participation". In fact, I think I had it as such once. Matthews' entry was correct, and North's entry should, at least, have both Olympic medals as well as his world champion ones. — Wyliepedia @ 02:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And now we have Craig Fallon, minus his silver. Somebody out there still thinks the big one rightly overshadows. Not naming any names, but it wasn't me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wyliepedia on this one. While everyone's entitled to their opinion, Inedible Hulk's lack of logic weakens his argument. On the one hand, "we go with the big one for actors, singers, writers and athletes, I THINK", but on the other hand "his crappy old Grammy (best singer) and daytime Emmy (best television actor)" somehow don't matter. You can't have it both ways, they either matter or they don't. As for athletes, all world championships including Olympics, and even other international championships reward the top three, and since you mentioned the Comrades Marathon, the gold medal is awarded to the top TEN male and female finishers. Editrite! (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant "crappy" relatively and a bit facetiously, probably a poor choice in hindsight. But it does go to show we normally go with one top prize, even if the rest are reasonably not crap in their own right. With art awards, differences are subjective (maybe films are "bigger" because they're longer and more expensive than albums and episodes). In sport, silver objectively means not winning that year, just almost, akin to an E/G/O/T nomination. Waters down the actual win for people who don't need any consolation. My logic may be critically panned, but I stand by it (in spirit, will abide by consensus). Still 100% unconvinced Ramin won his Grammy for singing or his Emmy for acting, for what it matters. Bob Newhart, now there was a best new singing act! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Any form of an EGOT win is still an EGOT win. A composer's work is rewarded, same as a guest-star Emmy win. Or do you watch TV and film with the sound off??? — Wyliepedia @ 03:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I may have confused you, because this reply confuses me. Ramin's EGO wins are indeed wins (one arguably bigger than others), but Hamid's silver signifies losing in the final, like the runner-up composers Ramin beat in his different-but-similar field. When I was a lad, I watched porn with the sound off to not disturb my mom, but totally get how AVNA-winning soft jazz funk fusion can compensate for a weak plot or accentuate a strong one. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk . . . no, Sid Ramin didn't win his Grammy for singing or Emmy for acting. I suggest that you check out his article, if you haven't already done so, to avoid uninformed commentary in the future. You just might learn something. Editrite! (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. I suggest reading your commentary before knocking mine. You copied my "crappy" line, but added your own parentheticals ("best singer", "best television actor"), which we now both agree are 100% false. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you know very well that I QUOTED not copied your "crappy" comment to highlight a double standard . . . there's a difference. I don't copy "crap". In a subsequent post, I also detailed some other different Grammy categories. Anyway, this topic was supposed to be Olympic medals until you diverged. Editrite! (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't diverge, and kept like things to one standard. Silver is worth less than gold and a film with music is worth more than the music alone. You copied my crap in order to quote me instead of steal it, but (aside from your marginalia) the two are identical. I'm not claiming copyright, just freely releasing the truth here. Yes, sometimes the truth stinks. You want me to take the fall for slightly sidetracking this train, pay me! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that silver and bronze awards are just as noteworthy as gold, and shouldn't be devalued by exclusion from subject achievements here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Notable deaths by definition means notable achievements, not necessarily world's best, otherwise the majority of departed people here wouldn't make the list, which would make it less diverse and interesting. On the subject of Grammys, it's obviously slang for gramophone or sound recording, be it any vocal or instrumental (e.g. orchestral) which also includes spoken word (hence comedy). Technically, any (c)rap vocal without musical accompaniment could be classed as spoken word. Editrite! (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Deadpan comedy has rhythm, dammit, and if that's what it takes to get the crowd clapping, stomping, nodding and memorizing the lyrics, it's not crap. All I'm saying is if I were a famous composer, I'd rather people remember the films I didn't act in than the songs I couldn't play live. Just audiovisually all-around bigger and brighter productions. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And everyone listed here is and should be remembered for their notable achievements, but awards aren't achievements, they're prizes in recognition of those achievements. Unless you have podium fright, accepting the fruits of your labour is so easy, almost anyone can do it. That's why you never see VH1, Wrestling Observer or any Teen Choice awards here, or provincial hockey trophies. They're notable "crap" next to the respective golden standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My input on the matter is closed, and, as of this timestamp, I will no longer add any medals, awards, or "participation" for any entry. — Wyliepedia @ 04:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@CAWylie: I will add one thing here: in your edit summary reinstating the Grammy win for Sid Ramin, you asserted it was part of EGOT. I’m not certain if you were saying it’s because Ramin is an EGOT member, but if it is that’s incorrect as Ramin is not listed on List of people who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards as being EGOT. Rusted AutoParts 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Ramin was half-EGOT. Sorry for the confusion. The other day, I misread that section and thought he was three-fourths, but the Emmy was just a nomination. — Wyliepedia @ 09:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wyliepedia . . . just to be clear, according to Variety (magazine), one of the sources for the Wikipedia article which may be ambiguous, Sid Ramin DID win a Daytime Emmy (1983) which makes him an EGO member, after all. Editrite! (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Another example of how Wikipedia is incorrect. — Wyliepedia @ 18:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Death by Notability not by Chronology

Was Ronald Reagan an actor, then Governor, then President....or was he President, etc then actor. Deaths should be regarded by notability not chronology. We dont for instance put Actors films in chronological order or Musicians songs...why should office holders be different. So Li Peng's first job as member of the Communist party supersedes his accomplishments as Premier and Vice Premier? Utter disbelief that someone thinks this way. Been reverted three times over this nonsense.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And a further point, if you open their individual articles, you will see they are listed as President (Essesbsi) and Premier (Li Peng) first and foremost.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "Death by non-chronological notability" (to Rule of Three), as long as all the salient points get a mention somewhere in the subject line. Jostling positions within that line is often time-wasting nonsense in itself, and life is too short for all that anyway. And I haven't even been involved in this potential edit war, so take it purely as an opinion. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Myself, I usually go by infoboxes, if their article has one (if they have an article), not caring how the entry is here. Some editors tend to just pull notabilities from article leads. As long as three potential offices/occupations are covered, I don't care about how they fall here. (But listing nn ministries is stupid, personally.) — Wyliepedia @ 11:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to whether "the big one" goes first or last, but vehemently detest seeing it in the middle. Thankfully uncommon sight. Chronology shouldn't matter in entries, I think, but reverse order is still great for the death dates. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal, re: language link icon coding

Hi. As you may be aware, the language link icon template for {{xx icon}} (where xx is the specific language ISO code lettering required, e.g es, fr, de, and so on) is up for discussion here, and with what appears currently to be a slight consensus build towards a change, to {{LL|xx}}, as a future means of achieving the language guidance we place alongside our foreign language sources. There is a danger, from what I read, that the styling {{xx icon}} will actually end up being a deleted template. I propose that we should start inserting the new styling (which already works) as soon as agreed - or not, if otherwise decided by consensus here. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm all in. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus update: There's now a bit of a swing towards Oppose as of my timestamp. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Until it's settled there, the lang-icon template will have the additional "See TFD" tag in our references. — Wyliepedia @ 03:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I see there's been a massive enterprise to turn all current language icons to the proposed format {{LL|xx}}. The discussion has not reached a conclusion, the change has not yet been accepted, and so inserting the old icon template instead of the proposed one is still a valid exercise, and one which I personally will continue with until such time as the old icon method is deactivated or deleted. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Until it's settled" ..... best of luck to all who are waiting on a resolution, I say. An analogy used in the football soccer world is "they have moved the goalposts", and indeed that's happened a couple of times already since June 9th, but have come no nearer to closing the TfD with any kind of decision. And then today, someone came in with a fresh idea to replace the original proposition. This one could run and run. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For crying out loud. This patent non-subject has been relisted to this page. I can see no end to it before summer is out. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The result of the above Template For Discussion on closing was Merge to Template:Link language. However, deletion and/or deprecation of the {{xx icon}} format will be held over to more specific discussions focussing on each particular language. (Quote: "... little-used templates such as {{aa icon}} or {{ab icon}} may find an easy consensus to delete as unused/unnecessary as a group".) Therefore, it is still relevant to insert the {{xx icon}} format here, certainly for more regularly used and important languages, though it may be advisable in the longer term to switch to the {{LL|xx}} format, as being used by some editors here already. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, as I mentioned above, the {{xx icon}} templates were adding the additional discussion tag with it, which extended the ref section entries and adding extra load times. Now that the discussion is closed and the extra bit has disappeared, I say use what feels comfortable. I, for one, won't correct something for consistency, as long as the proper source language is given. — Wyliepedia @ 11:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I had only one view on the "extra bit" - if it wasn't included in the tooltip display and clicked thru, fewer people would have been aware of any discussion going on about it at all, and therefore consensus would have been harder to reach (as it turned out anyway!). So the automatic flag they put on serves a deeper-lying purpose than just the worry of page load times for a limited period. I'm just glad it's out of the way - for now..... Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That's true, I suppose, about the discussion consensus. I just mentioned it here, in case we had hundreds of tooltips, and initially came to post about the discussion before I saw you had started one. — Wyliepedia @ 18:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad Morgan

User Mohammad Morgan has been undefinitely blocked because of sockpuppetry. Personally I think it is a huge loss to this page or this, as the user was always great at content level of contribution. This guy was not a dork. "Deaths in 2019" gets edited by dozens of dorks who fill it with redlinks (legit, but annoying) or simply can't format referenceres and entries correctly. Mohammad Morgan's contributions were great.

This page, which is the most visited on Wiki, is run by very few people, I think 7-8 may be the number. The rest are occasional contributors who usually can't properly work. If there is not a renewal in contributors this page will be dead in a few years. Blocking a valid contributor is indeed a very very stupid thing and Wiki loses this time. Sincerely I can't give a .... if he was a sock. It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black, what matters is if he catches mice. He caught a lot of mice. Let me know your opinions. --Folengo (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the account from which said user sprang has a history of repeated block evasion in order to add widespread unsourced material across WP over the years. Regardless of the "huge loss" of contributions to this page (only 133 in two months as the sock), respecting global WP rules come first. — Wyliepedia @ 09:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Number of edits matters less than quality. Anyway if you are all happy with this, that's enough for me. I'm not happy with this, but I respect the policy. --Folengo (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Would personally rather everyone played it by the rules. Loveable rogues aren't acceptable here, IMO. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't recognize either of those names, despite long checking these histories to find out which of you Dudley Do-Rights did me wrong on a personal pet peeve level. And as many of you milkdrinkers know, my petty stylistic persecution casts a wide net. If I complain about everything and have never minded this muppet, he can't be that bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

From my personal Talk page:

2019 Deaths reverts

Refsworldlee, I can't find anything that says we retain the hyphens, double-hyphens, emdashes, endashes, etc., from the sources we use. Rather, the WP style guide (WP:MOS) and consistency are the primary editing guidelines. Indeed, the WP MOS "always has precedence". I read this as meaning "edit for style according to WP guidelines and don't mix inconsistent styles" in articles. ("The sources might edit the way they want to, but WP is going to edit the correct way.") Also, MOS:HYPHEN says hyphens indicate "conjunction", which is not the case in my edits. (Is there other guidance I should look at?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

While not a hard and fast rule in the MoS, the retention of the source headline, or URL description, with its formatting exactly as presented by the source being used has always been employed here (as long as I have been editing the relevant pages, at least). Along with yourself and many others, I too make relevant exchanges for endash outside of that specific parameter, and that's as it should be. But it has always been de rigueur that we quote exactly what the source is claiming in its leader line, and how it is doing that. For instance, some headlines which have poor grammar, punctuation and which often make no sense in English are all left as is because that is how the reliable source has decided to display it in their web page, correctly or incorrectly. This is surely part of the integrity of the source - if one interfered with the formatted hyphens and dashes, one might just as well proofread the whole line into sensible form. It would be great if you could open up a section on this subject at the talk page so that a renewed consensus on this particular matter could be built. I promise that the existing consensus does preclude endashing headlines. If not though, I will probably open the matter again myself. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Observations and comments on this would be appreciated, as it appears we need to rebuild consensus on this point. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I note that MOS:ALLCAPS says we should change source titles when ALLCAPS are involved. Doing otherwise means different citation styles are used. We ought to maintain a consistent style in our articles, and not vary from hyphens, endashes, spaced endashes, spaced emdashes, etc. Again, WP MOS always has precedence. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition to my original comments, I would also like to point out that source headlines as used inline for verifications of death form a quote from an outside agency other than Wikipedia, and I believe that for this reason alone all formatting, punctuation, etc. (and even typos) should be included as is and not edited in any way, apart from your reasonable lower-casing of capital letter words. I also believe that "tabloidisms" such as "Latest:" and "Breaking:" should be left out, but that's almost a separate issue. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I recently capitalized "ex-MLB" while remarking how sad it is to read of a human stopping months short of 100. I regret to inform, Tom Jordan was nine days away! But the show must go on, so don't mind my moping. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue at hand is interfering with the formatting and content of quoted "headlines" which show up in tooltip or in the references listing, not necessarily just capitalization or not capitalization. Just to make sure all are clear about this. More renewed consensus on the whole subject of source headlines is still needed. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I generally prefer the verbatim use of source titles as published, with the exception of ALLCAPS. We do not need to include temporary flags like "breaking", which can even change meaning ("Wind Kills Rock Climber" versus :Breaking: Wind Kills Rock Climber). WWGB (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ditto WWGB. A "breaking" or "developing" stinger could alert readers that information may be sketchy yet, though, or prod editors to find a more static story. I'm happier today, as an aside, because Frances Crowe made it to 100. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: a "style guide" is a reference piece for guidance as to style. It is not, and never has been, a law book within Wikipedia which might be jackbooted into every project going, irrespective of individual consensuses agreed within such projects. I hope for such a consensus to be clarified here at some point in the near future regarding the direction in which this article should go, and hopefully without the sledgehammer of the MoS being overly-wielded. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Altering_citation_titles_to_comply_with_WP_MOS, plus the MOS:CONFORM and MOS:TITLECONFORM links. The concern is "how does Wikipedia present material in its text". Not how do the sources present material. Our Manual of Style tells us how we should use dashes, hyphens, etc. In the referenced discussion, the cited material uses Lithuanian quote marks, but the WP editor is using English quote marks. But the analogy is clear -- we want our readers to see a consistent style/presentation of punctuation marks. Quote marks are part of punctuation – as are dashes and hyphens. Because our MOS says use unspaced emdashes in sentences—like this—we should not mix those emdashes with spaced endashes. And hyphens should not be used in date-spans. (Example: 1948-2019 vice 1948–2019.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion does involve "how do the sources present material", because the discussion is designed to lean towards changing the presentation of such. Please note that the MoS advice (which is what it is) always says "should" be used and not "must" be used. Which is why I believe this topic is rightly up for renewed consensus here. Be warned though - with many hundreds of entries accumulating within one month, the proposal to finely tune the style presentation in tooltips and reference sections is going to be a massive enterprise - one which individual editors may not bother with, and certainly one which I am not prepared to invest my time in. As with other "fine tune" edits, many editors will put in the least amount of information and wait for others to bring it up to the mark, like I do in present agreed consensual styling. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice this has reared its head once more today, with myriad changes against perceived wishes expressed above (or probably due to a lack of opinions offered in order to secure a new consensus). As the consensus from above appears to still be "do not change source formatting in the Deaths project", I have reverted them until such time as all agree on a change to the consensus. Feel free to discuss further below. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

And again today. What is so annoying is the "cherry-picking" nature of such editing. There is no attempt to go through every archived month and year of Deaths to make sure that EVERY single instance of original-but-MoS-wrong punctuation is "corrected", even if consensus was clear for such actions to be taken. With a couple of exceptions, the silence is deafening on establishing a new consensus, by the way, fellow editors. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As only hyphens are recognizable on my keyboard I will continue to use only hyphens (single or double) for any form of dash.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, though the best way to make sure the source headline contains the original formatting is to copy and paste from the source to the edit text box of this article. A selection of auto-insert hyphens/dashes are available below the edit text box in the full web version of Wikipedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Edwards

Why on Earth all of a sudden do we leave the Congressional district and state of a deceased congressman off of their listing. I have always seen that info listed. Has there been a change of consensus on this or just the decision of one editor? Even state legislators have the state and legislative house listed.Williamsdoritios (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This list includes offices held, as well as terms of office, but discards constituencies/electoral districts. Subnational legislatures are are listed with provincial or state name, to avoid potential confusion with similarly named national legislatures. Vycl1994 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We publish "reason for notability". According to WP:POLITICIAN, Edwards and his ilk are notable for being in the US House of Representatives. He is not notable for representing a particular district in Alabama. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And that's why (guilty) I removed the sub-textual reference to Alabama. Per above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not listing the state a Congressperson represented is unconscionable in my opinion. Especially when up to 3 sports teams are listed for athletes sometimes eeven if they only played a handful of games or some guest appearance/minor movie role is listed for an actor. It's just further evidence of how far this page had descended from its once greatness. BurienBomber (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)