Talk:Deaths in 2019/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New York Times

Hi. Heads-up, if not aware. Only just recently, the online version of this newspaper has become a subscription-only read - either that or I have run out of a mystery number of free articles (which I doubt - I've never had any problem with even a hint of a subscription suggestion at this outlet before). Thus, if a non-subscriptioned article is available from a different reliable organ for the purposes of referencing here, I will change the source to that one so that as many people as possible can read the full article and details. If not, I will mark the source inline with the tag {{subscription}}, which warns the reader that either none or only part of the linked page will be viewable without having paid up. I see the actions on newspaper registrations and subscriptions as being equal to what becomes necessary with European access blocks.

I've been doing a lot of this alternate source changing of late, and I believe it would be a better exercise to avoid using the NY Times completely until they decide to relax their paid stance, and that could be a long time coming, if ever. If anyone has any views on this, now's the time to mention them. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I still feel that they’d be a preferred source, as they’re sometimes the source that gives any missing details or correct details that were wrong prior (like age or DOD, maybe even occupation). Rusted AutoParts 14:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

But if we editors don't subscribe individually, or in some cases register, we can't verify for ourselves whether things are as they're said to be. We'd end up either taking a subscribed editor's word for it, or searching Google for an alternative to confirm the death or other details. As I said, it's very similar to what happens with the Euro-block. Wikipedia is still very much on the free internet side of things, so why should it be seen to rely on people paying (or registering) to read about things which are still free in other corners of the world wide web? It's verification in the eye of the beholder, surely, not another editor saying "trust me, it says that"? Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It happens to me too. That’s when I go into incognito mode on my phone and get the full thing lol. Doesn’t block you that way. Rusted AutoParts 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've never sneaked (snuck?) around behind a VPN, and never will. (Otherwise, how would I, a Brit, know when a Euro-block was being used? And I'm not accusing you of sneaking around either!) Wikipedia shouldn't expect that of its readers either. I still intend to change sources where necessary, so that as many people as possible can see the nuts-and-bolts of the obituary report without having to resort to VPN, newspaper registration (albeit usually free), the dreaded subscription, or having to take the word of another editor for granted as to source content. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I usually get five full views a month, then can only see the lead followed by a subscribe banner. But I haven't checked lately. — Wyliepedia @ 21:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too carried away with the New York Times as a "preferred" source, because even they can get it wrong. A good recent example is that of Juanita Abernathy in September. Their headline said she was 88, but the birthdate in the text made her 87, confirmed by other sources like CNN. More and more media sources are going for paid subscriptions, which makes it harder to find free sources. Editrite! (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe anyone here should be playing favourites by utilising a "preferred source". The preferred source is simply the absolute best source available at any given time in support of information being introduced into a page, as long as it's completely reliable - and hopefully viewable by the largest number of visitors possible. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT has been reducing the number of free articles per month,but has it actually reached zero?...regardless,sending readers there is inconsiderate.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I clicked around till I lost count, still apparently welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Format of the Deaths pages

It strikes me as rather odd that things are formatted something like (old example from the first thing that popped up in my browser history) this:

• Sonny Bupp, 79, American child actor (Our Gang, Citizen Kane), last surviving credited cast member of Citizen Kane.[1]

when they really should be formatted something like this (that is, dates of birth and date ought to be in the listings):

• Sonny Bupp (born Moyer MacClaren Bupp) (January 10, 1928 – November 1, 2007), [was an American child film actor and businessman (etc etc etc)].

It makes sense for there to be a summary different from the text of the article, but not including full dates of birth and death in the listings seems absurd. Granted you may not want to put date of death, since that is what things are listed under, but including the DOB seems logical). So, even if you choose not to include reiterating the date of death in the listing, it ought to be something like this:

• Sonny Bupp (born Moyer MacClaren Bupp) (b. January 10, 1928), [was an American child film actor and businessman (etc etc etc)].

Though obviously pulling both dates in makes it a lot easier to index and move over from the rolling deaths pages to the historical listings by month.

Something like this would also make it easier for people to add aggregate pages for some things and pull data for modification of larger articles or stubs that might include these people later (lists of Nobel Prize winners, people in certain movies or franchises or bands who've died, etc).

- 65.88.88.156 (talk), 21 October 2019, 16:05 (UTC)

Makes everything needlessly wordy. The format it’s in now is perfect and precise. I’m not sure why you have such issues with the page but it’s fine. No changes needed. Rusted AutoParts 16:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We are writing death listings here, not obituaries. If a reader wants to know the date of birth or the birth name of the deceased, they just have to click through to the subject's article. WWGB (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what the IP editor is going on about, and (more importantly) why, all of a sudden. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No thanks, slippery slope. First you want a birth name and date, next guy wants alma mater and children, some other gal demands famous quotes and finishing maneuvers. Nobody's going to click our bios if they can absorb the essence here for free. A lot of people have worked variously hard on those articles, sometimes for 15 years, wouldn't feel right for us ghoulish gatekeepers to steal their thunder at the moment of death/renewed public interest.

And some notable people just aren't that interesting, insofar as their pseudonyms, zodiac signs, preparation, offspring and suspected killers go. Less is more for skimming purposes; seeing a bunch of days of months under each day of the month might alone get confusing damn fast for some folks. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not forgetting the age-old problem (not so much with modern broadband speeds) of slow page-loading times, caused by unnecessary bulk to each subject line. Cut it to the bone, I say. As is. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Senator/senator, caps or not?

Hi. Simply - the US Senate is a capitalized organization, the position of senator within it is not. (In response to a no doubt contentious - but correct - set of edits today.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. But it should not have been contentious. The MOS section which clearly applies to this matter is found here. Afterwriting (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I anticipate it yet being contentious, simply because that is the norm around here! Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This looks familiar... — Wyliepedia @ 19:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

According to MOS:JOBTITLES there is an exception: "They (job titles) are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office".

Now Gerald Baliles was the Attorney General of Virginia (1986–1990). So, by my reasoning, his title and his time in office are a "substitute for his name" and therefore should be capitalized. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And so it goes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: I think you saw the two instances where "substitute" capped titles were used - "President Nixon" not "president Nixon" (US), and "the Queen" not "the queen" (UK). So, by that reasoning, your example should read "Gerard Baliles was the attorney general of Virginia (1986–1990)", and should convert to "Attorney General Baliles" (subst given name, as with Richard Nixon above) - and that seems to be the only leeway that MOS:JOBTITLES allows in context. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Businessmen are OK but businesswomen aren't?

Gert Boyle got changed from "businesswoman" to "business executive" because it's "more neutral"...but there are nine decedents whose identifications include "businessman".If posthumous spaying/neutering is de rigeur what's neutral about only directing it at women?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

She was president of Columbia Sportswear for about 40 years, that's why. It should also be noted that there are more "executive" entries than just hers as well. — Wyliepedia @ 15:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What? I can assure IP that if a male is labelled a "businessman", I would be quite happy to change that equally to "business executive" or see it changed by some other enlightened editor, just as with the feminine. Where's the difference as far as neutral descriptors are concerned? Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm usually downright thrilled to specify executive-class businesspeople's industries, only staying vague for those with their fingers in too many pies. I noticed this "apparel executive" today and not nine others, but it was because she was near the top, not because she was a woman. Now that I see this, I feel compelled to track down the nine others, but as if it were a chore. No need to thank me, the lack of payment and negligible chance at promotion are all the carrot this woke donkey needs! Seriously, it's an honour to serve strangers when they complain about reasonable things online. You're a breath of fresh air in this toxic death department, 12! Anyway, that's enough chit-chat, back to work. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I clarified twelve of the nine (no overtime here), but can't deduce what P.E. MacAllister did or did not do. His reference is a blank page, literally. If someone with adequate tools can see it, we can make it an even baker's dozen and split the silent admiration of our colleagues down the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sake - there's simply no need to be so specific - for example, as in what type of industry they were an executive (apparel? Please!). All we are supposed to be doing here is providing a good general clue as to what they did for a living, not in what sphere. This thread started out quite rightly sorting out a gender issue, and all of a sudden is now a tweaking exercise for exactly what they did and where, in which area of business. No wonder outsiders think all us WP editors are nuts. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"Please" nothing! Columbia Sportswear sells apparel and this executive woman's business depended entirely on the ebb and flow of the industry. Call it fashion, call it clothing, call it garment. But every pro here executed some business transaction in some market or another. At least in this damsel president's case, her company name has a strong hint. Not so for many firms (or not in plain English). "Outdoor apparel" would have been slightly too exact, I think, but no apologies for general field clarity. Only two of the twelve generically labeled associates I allegedly fixed did the same broad thing for a living (ran banks). The people should know, without clicking through hoops. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Didn't intend for my change to start a gender bend, or I would've made my edit summary as a specification. But any "businessman, -woman, or -person" description is very generic and, daresay, lazy. Being more specific, i.e. executives or founders, separates them from being a common vendor of services. But yes, the type should remain as "sports" or "business", and hopefully a link to the service exists. And, as always, our entries are only as good as the leads in their articles, sadly. — Wyliepedia @ 01:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A sports executive is a business executive, just in the sports sector. Even in amateur leagues, the bosses get paid. Seems an arbitrary line to draw, or no? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And on. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you insist, I do have some follow-up questions. Do you or have you ever favoured splitting STEM workers, athletes, artists or civil servants by their chosen field, discipline, medium or civic role? If so, what's the difference? If not, would you like the rest of us to blur those lines? Can you read P.E. MacAllister's citation? If so, can you tell our readers anything about how he made or spent his obscured fortune? Can you see how he might be different from the other dozen in any way worth knowing whatsoever? If not, can I delete his entry? Is meteorology more about the facts or the presentation? If you could answer just one of these questions, which would it be and why? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I truly hate the use of the word "Businessman" and wish we would not use it at all. Why? Because it is totally unspecific. Anyone care to take a guess at how many different types of commercial businesses there are worldwide? These people are all notable (or we wouldnt be here in the first place). The very least we could do as editors is to be as specific as possible about their accomplishments that got them here in the first place. Yes I understand some people were involved in several different genres of the business world and we may have to focus on 2 or 3 of their accomplishments rather than listing them all. But by in large almost all of the big guns out there have at least 1 notable area that we could focus in on at least. So, the next time you go to tell us that it is a "Businessman/woman" please please please use something like Technology executive instead. At least it provides a better encapsulation to the reader. Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I changed Modi from Modi Enterprises to a "conglomerate executive" from "entrepreneur". We (WWGB and Co.) compromised on "business executive". But looking back, though it seems that group does a lot, the only brand in its article with an article itself clearly sells tobacco. Any objection to "tobacco executive", or do his obscure niches deserve equal prominence here? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, in my mind, "[specific] executive" can sometimes look faintly ridiculous or completely ridiculous (remember "apparel executive" from earlier in this thread?). At the risk of our "nuts" reputation getting worse, feel free, but I won't be over-specifying anything - because we are a deaths announcement page which is supposed (I thought) to give a general outline on certain aspects before the reader moves on to any linked articles within the outline so as to learn more specific info about the deceased. Or so I thought. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You thought correctly. We give readers the general idea that an executive ran an oil/lumber/software business, and so give choosers a faint idea of whether they're interested in learning so much more. Some readers like pharmaceuticals, some like restaurants, some like basketball. Some avoid banks, cars and sex toys. I remember our apparel executive, but still see nothing ridiculous about her job. Google it, people are seriously aspiring to sell clothing. And why not? I buy them, you buy them, parents buy them like hotcakes. Would "cloth merchant" sound realer to you? Sounds archaic to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks

@Yestertempest: I saw your edit summary about redlinks. See, the fact that someone is redlinked on the site is an indication of non notability, especially for lists like these. There are kept for a month to encourage people who, if they feel someone redlinked is notable, they can create their article. A month goes by and that doesn’t happen, they can’t be kept. These are lists of notable deaths in a year after all. Rusted AutoParts 17:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Got no problem with someone being removed after a month or so, but their redlink status, to me, is not a surefire measure of notability. Many notable people around the world are not notable to us, but they are quite notable in their home countries. I run across a fair number of notable activists, writers, actors, etc who may not be as well-known in the US or UK, for example. It is rather haughty of us to make judgments of notabilty just because they are not as notable to people in the West.Yestertempest (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Generalisations about what one thinks a redlink is, and everyone "filling the page" with them [see @Folengo: edit summary], is not a true indication of what they are nor why they're acceptable at the beginning. Rusted AutoParts describes it better than some do. However, when I saw the added subject had been removed (a tattoo artist notable only for generating multiple Google links to reports of his being murdered) by @Folengo:, I was, and still am, inclined to agree with it - he is not now, nor ever will be, truly notable, ad memoriam or otherwise. Better advice is just to make the removing action using an edit summary of "non notable" or "nn", without trying to qualify, justify or defend reasons for removing it, but the removal was correct all the same, I think. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As a member of the Gender gap task force and Women in Red, my immediate task is to check the source, especially if it's a woman, to see their notability. Of late, I've noticed several city council people being allowed here. In my opinion, they "too local" and thereby not notable. I see nothing wrong with yanking some from our 600–700 entries if they're non-notable redlinks. — Wyliepedia @ 21:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The subject of notability (and by extension, redlinks) is a thorny one. All a Wikipedia article really means is that someone is sufficiently interested in that subject to put the information online (notable in their eyes, maybe but not necessarily notable to others). A good case in point is Ishmael Levenston on October 19. I had not even heard of Saba (but Sabah, yes), a tiny island in the Caribbean with a population of barely 2000 apparently, let alone one of their politicians, and venture to say that most Wikipedians would agree. It seems to be a clear case of "no"tability! On the other hand, I have seen redlinks before that could have, and probably should have been turned into articles, but weren't because there was nobody with the time, interest or knowhow to do something about it. Editrite! (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically the page is being filled with not notable people and all those redlinks will be erased in 30 days. What's the point? When I search for deaths I find thousands of results which could lead me to add a redlink here. Well, I don't. IMHO one should create the page and then add the link here (like our Chinese and Bangladeshi friends do). What you are doing, @Yestertempest: is just filling the page. If everyone did it we'd have THOUSANDS of redlinks. That's not the way. If you want to contribute properly learn how to find about deaths of people with Wiki pages. I guarantee no particular abilities are needed. Good day, --Folengo (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your attitude is territorial, condescending, and overly-dramatic. Saying things like “that’s not the way”, “if you want to contribute properly” or telling me that my contributions are pointless or “just filling the page” is rude and dismissive. I happen to believe that listing every footballer who has a two-sentence wiki page is pointless, but I don't make a big deal about it. Yestertempest (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the red tide has ebbed. WWGB (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Truckloads of redlinked philanthropists

The last few days has seen a huge rise in the number of not-very-notable local businesspeople and philanthropists, mostly people with no chance of ever getting an article. Leave them for 30 days, or clean-up? Any strong feelings? Nukualofa (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Just saw that this was already addressed further up. Nukualofa (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been visited so many times, I doubt if the consensus is ripe for change on this. You have to give baseline notability its 30-day chance, as far as I can see (and as far as I think too). Many redlinks are real real oversights, where lack of an article is through lack of time or interest to create, rather than lack of notability. Certain ones we can be immediate judge and jury with, as plainly non-notable (or sometimes ridiculous), but others require careful thought, and that 30 days breathing space. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Let notability resolve itself

I thought the understanding was that notability regarding redlinks would resolve itself. If after 30 days the person in question doesn't have a wiki page, he or she would be removed from the Death list. That said, removing entries unilaterally—— like Jean Lareus Cordilo, a trained folkloric painter of Haitian people and their culture would be moot.[2] Yestertempest (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"He was undiscovered. He was known by me and a few other people". Hardly sounds like a notable artist (WP:CREATIVE). For a redlink to remain for one month, there must be a semblance of notability. That's why I removed him. WWGB (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would only add to this by saying remove the obviously non-notable - they are honestly easy enough to spot. For all the rest of the complained-about redlinks, let them have the chance of their own article by 30 days time. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with flooding the page with non-notable redlinks is it allows page-watchers to create articles for non-notable people, usually stub articles, because they saw it here, believing the entry worthy of Wikipedia, and letting others decide whether the entry is notable to keep (like those footballers mentioned above) in the mainspace. Again, I'm all for building the web of those non-English folk who have been overlooked, but notability holds precedence. — Wyliepedia @ 02:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The method you describe just there is sometimes the only way that admins get involved in notability issues. All to the good, then, as I trust them to sort the wheat from the chaff in a much better way, via the speedy or contested delete system. In a less than perfect encyclopedia, it's not much to ask that we tolerate the chaff for 30 days, surely? Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Myself, I usually leave the reds, unless it's someone's non-notable pet or relative that slip through. Heck, as a member of the Women in Red committee (trying to make redlinked women blue), I usually start here anyway, then research to create an article, albeit postmortem. But it is definitely helpful that we have protection here so that requests must be made. — Wyliepedia @ 22:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

British nationals

To my tastes people from the UK should always be called "British" unless their English,Scottish,Welsh etc. identity was central to their notability.I take it prevailing sentiment here differs?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say, be guided by whatever the description is in their article, if one exists. Certainly if the country of birth (neither Britain or the United Kingdom are countries) is not clear, "British" is an acceptable encompassing label. Nationalists will never agree with you though (for example, hardened Scottish independence campaigners would in fact hate to be called British, you'll find). Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide to finding UK nationality provides some advice on this matter. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who was a "hardened Scottish independence campaigner" would therefore have reason to be called "Scottish"...but they can't decide the proper description of other Scots indifferent to the issue.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

When I add people from the Kingdom, I usually link their birthplace to their nationality (eg born in Wales, then Welsh). There are many exceptions however b/c of the Troubles in Ireland and the six counties and some others. Scotland especially these days is getting touchy about such things with good reason why. And it only makes sense i guess with all of the people using Hong Kong, Taiwan and Puerto Rico...might as well use Manx and Jersey and all of the others as people dont care about who really controls the territory these days and it is fairly specific to their identity. And I am fine with that as long as it used as a standard (with exception) instead of hit and miss. Thats the thing, we are trying to be specific on this page and not use weasel words like businessman/woman. These people are notable and we should be able to be specific about them whether its their work or where they are from.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The British are coming ...

This is a recurring issue on these pages, but we really need to do better in reaching a position that can be supported by the contributing gnomes here. The above discussion petered out without any conclusion. More recently, Ref has implemented his own preference to align the death list nationality with the lead of the deceased's article. To my mind, this places undue weight on what may be nothing more than the whim of the article's creator. There is no reason why "our" list should be subservient to the singular writing of another editor.

In the absence of any clear Wikipedia policy on the matter, I prefer that we leave British/English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh as written by the creator of the death listing, unless there is clear evidence that the deceased had a clear personal preference. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this belongs in "British nationals" at the top. Give it a conclusion, stop the petering! But yeah, never trust Wikipedia alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

However, in all other ways we remain subservient to the description already in the subject article - we rely heavily on that description to formulate our own - and we also glean exact notability linkings such as achievements, memberships from the subject article too. My proposal is simply that we should do the same when it comes to country or nationality issues. You say "the whim of the article's creator" - well, that's not true now is it? Because each and every article, including this one, is subject to further editing by one or more who did not create it, yet have a differing view to the creator on certain points, and will change the article over time to reflect their view. Any conflicts of view will be resolved between editors (hopefully without edit warring) to give a balanced set of facts when the process has run through. Personally, I think we have a duty to make our description as close to the person article one as possible, if only for consistency's sake. (By the way, "done" is certainly not "done", at least not by merely juggling the views of three people in this latest round of discussion in this section, so hang fire please.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

”Done” simply means this discussion was joined with the earlier one , as suggested by Hulk. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: Noted - sorry for the misunderstanding there. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism is terrorism

Sometimes,accuracy demands what others call "judgmental labels",the "Islamic State" is not part of the community of nations...if claiming to "have no borders,only battlefronts" is not terrorism directed at the whole rest of the world,what is?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Recipients often say "terrorists". Those on the other side would say they are "freedom fighters" or "activists". It's not our job to decide which is which in a game of right and wrong. Just to add info encyclopedically and not "judgmentally" based on our individual prejudices. And I'd appreciate no abuse using the word "sympathiser" in any replies here (or elsewhere, as has been the case over many years of pointing this out). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So what expression of forceful opposition to your stance gets through to you most effectively?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Opposition to this change is grounded in the Manual of Style, namely MOS:LABEL, which represents a wider level of consensus than we editors can reach here. If you wish to change the ISIL-related descriptions, a discussion on the MoS talk page must occur first. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@12.144.5.2: No amount of force would get me to change my stance on that or any other baseline of encyclopedic requirement at Wikipedia. It's just a shame that your "stance" is so entrenched in flagrant bias. Stay as an IP editor and don't get an account here, unless you can modify that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been an "IP editor" here off and on for sixteen years and been paid to edit published reference books years before that.When Wikipedia policies are foolish there's no excuse to accord them undeserved respect.12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What you state is "undeserved respect" above, I've described as consensus several times. However, consensus can change, and the first step in that process for this case is here. Arguments from authority are of less use on this project, as on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, even though some notable Wikipedians are recognized experts in their respective fields. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So...Usman Khan doesn't get neutral terms?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, because he was previously convicted of terrorism offences. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Lords and barons, ladies and baronesses

Hi. In all cases of titles bestowed on people by the Queen of England, in the UK it is disrespectful to refer to any of them by their former first given names, and especially in death. Some allowance of their royal titleage has to be shown in the subject line when reporting a death here. You choose which way, but none of this "Edwin Bramall" nonsense for the lord and baron recently deceased. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This listing if changed may need a redirect, as the article is in the name of Edwin Bramall. Alternatively, the article may also need to be renamed to make it more respectful. Editrite! (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That discussion is for Talk:Edwin Bramall, and should take into account WP:NCPEER. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Our entry now includes "Baron Bramall" in the lead, and that omission (or very similar) was the only reason I brought this up. If the editors at his article can't see any folly in calling him "Edwin", that's up to them. We can be better than that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

First apparel executives are ridiculous, then fatal asthma attacks are impossible, now giving a baron his given name is foolish. Which is it? Will you explain how you know better than us mainstreamers about remembering November dead, or will you keep greedily holding these truths self-evident? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, Edwin Bramall, so titled, appears on Wikipedia's main page as a 'recent death'. Just saying. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

What's a mainstreamer when it's at home? All I do is comment whenever general knowledge acquired over time conflicts with something being introduced into these pages. As does everyone from time to time, in some shape or form. There's absolutely no need to get personal. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs to get somewhat personal, you're the only one who seems to know why we (the list) would be better than them (the bio and front page) by ignoring "Edwin". If you have actual knowledge of something that'll make us all look like an unruly mob of ingrateful nutpickers in front of the Queen, spilling the whole scoop would be for the greater good. If you want to keep it bottled up forever, that's fine, too.

I'm not judging you here, I'm just the interrogator. We're buddies, see, I've never met you, you've never met me. But if a lot of fancy people are going to get butthurt and you know how, you need to open the door and talk to us. For their sake, brother! Trust me, you might feel better once you get it off your chest.

I'd ask the same of any Necrology Department colleague exhibiting a similar pattern of disconnection from what I believe to be reality, nothing personal in that regard. I'm not suggesting you're crazy. You may be right, for all I know. Just say how, and everyone can go back home to whatever mainstream business awaits individual lords and ladies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, OK. In the UK, the deference shown to the titled "ruling classes" is a matter of etiquette and not an actual "doffing of the cap" to an actual existing class system. The idea is that, if you offend the lord or lady in name or otherwise, you offend the king or queen who gave them the gift of the title and all that goes with it. Hereditary peerage is a different matter. For instance, Alexander George Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, may often be referred to as just Alexander Thynn (but usually with his title following closely behind), and his son Ceawlin Henry Laszlo Thynn, Viscount Weymouth (still only heir to the Bath title) is often labelled just Ceawlin Thynn. (His more famous wife, Viscountess Emma Weymouth - the dancing Lady from BBC programme "Strictly Come Dancing" recently - is serially just "Emma Weymouth" also.) As a footnote, I'd just say that there are probably a number of left-wing, anti-Royalist UK editors here who are steaming from the ears over what I've just said, as they can usually see no reason for such deference. Quickly, the "executive" opinion was just that - opinion and not fact - and the "asthma" thing accrued knowledge from having someone in my family who suffers badly with it (I like to read up in such cases). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty. I'm kind of a Royalist myself, easier than remembering a bunch of rotating ministerial and gubernatorial titles, but I still have a mild simmering disdain for the various nobility and their inconsistent stylings. You're free to leave, sorry for any perceived besmirchment! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries - a "slightly less animated" approach might work better in future! (Not for me - I'm getting used to you...) Cheers. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, removing Sir Jonathan Miller's knighthood reference (to just "Jonathan Miller") does not carry the same weight in the UK and is not seen socially as a snub or slight. In fact some might see the inclusion of "Sir" in his piped link as being overly deferential. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Damn right "some might"! You don't see anyone else getting a title piped in over their common name, not even the Right Honourable dead. But when I last tried to lead a rebellion over this, most regular smallfolk who heard the call said they're happy just the way they are, so I changed my stance to Okily-dokily do in overt deference to the mob of nonbelieving neighborinos and sulked off to find another hill to die on, before realizing it wasn't the end of the world after all. Probably still isn't, even now that you mention it. Join us in perfect harmony, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 1#RfC Mention some titles? re consensus for the inclusion of "Sir" and "Dame". WWGB (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I refer of course to UK social etiquette where titling is concerned, and not regarding such a consensus in Wikipedia - which is why I have not removed "Sir" from "Sir Jonathan Miller". Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Cue "Alzheimer's isn't a killer"

That correction has yet to hit John Mann...12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree - his entry modified. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I see Catherine Small Long's entry has had "dementia" (the symptoms of which Alzheimer's is the leading cause) described as her cause of death,then changed to "complications of..." and then per WWGB saying "we follow reliable sources",reinstated.Now,either it is medically possible for dementia to be a cause of death all by itself,or it isn't.The AP story says that her family said the cause of death was dementia but they may well be oversimplifying or unaware of the nuances.It's not a death-certificate level of authority.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a medical website. We publish based on “verifiability, not truth”. If a RS states cause of death was dementia,Alzheimer’s or cardiac arrest then that is what we publish. We don’t need to overthink it. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

To devalue truth will always be bad policy.In any case,this article has had a consistent policy of changing claims that Alzheimer's was the direct cause of anyone's death for medical reasons and dementia would seem a similar issue.The Associated Press story (by a writer I was in CompuServe groups with decades ago) attributes that claimed cause to a statement by unidentified family members whose RS status seems questionable.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

According to cdc.gov, "Alzheimer’s disease is ultimately a fatal form of dementia. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States".[3] If Long's death source had instead reported "the cause was cancer, her family said", I doubt we would be questioning that. The only local "policies" here are listed on the top of the talk page. I do not recall any consensus to add "complications of" when that is not in a reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 21:49, November 24, 2019‎

Aye. Relaying questionable causes is fine. Inventing our own for anyone who happens to die after diagnosis is OR. A death certificate is certainly more trustworthy than most relatives, but these typically aren't publicized for celebrities on Long's level, unless foul play's suspected. We use what we can. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Now Sir Jonathan Miller has had bare "Alzheimer's disease" listed.The mechanism is usually Alzheimer's leading to something else that is the direct cause.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Sir Jonathan Miller CBE who sadly passed away today from Alzheimer’s disease". And that is from the Alzheimer's Society! WWGB (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed it earlier, precisely for lacking a reference exactly like that one. Maybe it could be more useful inline than back here? Just a thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As a former Society president, maybe he had a vested interest . . . but seriously, the current CEO saw him a few weeks before his death suffering from "advanced" Alzheimer's disease. Editrite! (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The ticker

I know this talk page has been through this subject before... several times. But, we still seem to suffer from editors failing to differentiate between cardiac arrest, heart attack and heart failure. From memory, different nations/cultures/doctors/coroners/medics etc., also seem to blur these differences in their terminology. Sorry if I am turning over old bones, pun not intended, but is there a consensus that Wikipedia death page editors have previously agreed upon over this matter ? As an Englishman, I am specifically asking from a non-U.S. perspective. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think (as a UK person and as a world person) that journalism and their sources are often to blame by quoting the wrong type in their reports. Two or three differing reported heart "causes" for the same death make things even more vague for the average editor, wherever they reside. It's true that sometimes editors plainly interpret causes wrongly, but then none of us (apart from those who studied prefessionally) are experts in medicine. It is, I'm afraid, a case of correcting mistaken causes as and when you see them, as I try to. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

As an example, a number of sources are reporting that Godfrey Gao died from a "cardiac arrest" (or even "cardia arrest", whatever that might be), while the majority quote a "heart attack", either "suspected", "apparent" or "what producers have said was". Sift throught that little lot for the truth. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest is always true, provided the subject is dead. But not every dead subject is a human, especially in acting and modeling. So, (without recommending we do this) we have a more logical need to specify Gao's species than to inform readers his heart stopped on the day he died. Heart attacks, even suspected and apparent ones, are truly more useful in telling one death from another. A majority of sources providing such useful information, absent contrary claims, is good enough reason to relay it. "Cardiac arrest", either used properly or as a synonym, casts precisely zero doubt on "heart attack" allegations. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem. Cardiac arrest is not recognized in the US as a cause of death- although it seems to be in the Royal areas of the world. So it is a terminology thing like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the US v. motor neuron disease wherever the UK was. Whichever way you go, its probably best you follow the source material as there are several true causes of death that cardiac arrest can be caused from. Everything from various organ and systemic failures, drug overdoses, poisonings, heart attacks and about 10 different other cardiac related problems covering a range from abnormal heart rhythms to electrical problems in the heart falls under that umbrella...which is one reason why the CDC guidelines were written the way they were. Sunnydoo (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I maybe dumb, but definitely not American, so what are 'CDC guidelines' please ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Here in the land of Imperial Cheese, we don't take cardiac arrest as a valid single answer from our coroners, either. It's India's problem, at least in the news, the idea that it means heart attack. Somewhat see it in Filipino press, too, but there are way more obits about Indians overall, so blame them in particular, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the guidelines I was referring to. In the US, the CDC along with the NIH standardized reporting so as to be able to provide valuable data to the medical field upon peoples' untimely demise (why is always untimely?). Internationally you would know them from the outbreaks of several diseases such as Ebola where they help the WHO by providing manpower and knowledge to help stop epidemics.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. Do the Americans have an exact age at which one's demise is proper and 'timely' ?! What happens if one exceeds this - do you become untimely again. Also, presumably, the epidemic situation is to ensure that the WHO "Won't Get Fooled Again". - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Injuries and complications

There has been kerfluffle about Alzheimer's...I also see "complications from" pneumonia cited...now someone removed "injuries sustained in" from Leonard Goldberg's fall.People die from sequences of causes...I have my parents' death certificates and there's an A-due-to-B-due-to-C format with room for further underlying contributing conditions.What to allot in a brief listing depends on the circumstances.Goldberg died in a hospital where they were trying to treat the injuries he received when he fell...if he had died simply from the fall wouldn't he have been dead at the scene?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of following sources and informing readers, we have over time conflated causes of death and manners of death. Terms such as "suicide", "shot" and "fall" are not causes of death, but more like manners of death. Suicide causes death by asphyxiation, exsanguination etc, being shot causes death by ballistic trauma, organ damage etc and a fall causes death by blunt trauma, subarachnoid haemorrhage etc.

We tend to overthink such things and bring our own knowledge to the table. As always, we should follow reliable sources, and use what they publish. If the NYT says someone died from "complications of a fall" or "suicide" then that is what we use. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Mind you, if the NYT says anything to readers who haven't registered with them, they won't see it at all because of that. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Dystonia is fatal now, according to my esteemed colleague, Dr. AutoParts. We're at war again! See Caroll Spinney's obits if you want to pick a side. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how that’s relevant here. Rusted AutoParts 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Conflation, overthinking, not following sources, complications and death. But no falling, hospitalization or the rest. I didn't want a new section for what may likely be a brief edit skirmish. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation

Shouldn't the bullets end without final punctuation (the period)? They're sentence fragments. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean that you want to give the "period" the bullet?! But seriously, technically you're probably right . . . but the linked Wikipedia article is not a good example, as many times punctuation has been used on that page after bullet points. Editrite! (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The MANUAL of Style is a guide (not a List of Style Regulations or Laws), and our lists are certainly not fragmented sentences. A fragmented sentence is where one starts off in prose form, then lists a number of different facets within the sentence by using a new line for each facet and a bullet point to start each line. Our lists are just lists, not fragmented sentences of the kind meant in the MoS. I actually think the main criteria within that page, as it refers to our very extensive lists, would be the following line: "List items should be formatted consistently in a list." Which we ensure they are, by making every bulleted line end in a (full) stop. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What someone spend their free time complaining about... — Wyliepedia @ 00:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I know it's wrong, but I'm hooked on the feeling of normality it gives here now, so if you're proposing I stop, I'll do it later (unless my peers insist we don't have a problem, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What problem? I seem to sense a will to keep the consensus already in place, which is bulleted lines with a stop. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point, let's keep rolling with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against - WP:SNOW close. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Deaths in 2019 → Deaths in December 2019 – This page contains only deaths occurring in December. I cannot move the page since the destination page exists as a redirect. User-duck (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• @User-duck and Nohomersryan: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not uncontroversial. This is standard formatting for the main deaths page, which always lists the current month. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, this has been the standard format for years. Each month gets moved to their own page 7 days into a new month. Rusted AutoParts 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per same argument as previous commenter. Month by month, the title "Deaths in 2019" is a navigational tool designed to show the most recent deaths in that year - for reasons of space and unmanageably bulky page coding, each month archives from the main focus page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This page has always been a rolling calendar. The information is always fluid in this area not only in the deaths, but also in the time and space. This entire lists rolls up nicely into both the year list and another master list which you can find here [4] and here [5]. And we have a team of dedicated individuals that take care of the flipping and listing every month in a timely fashion on the 7th. You can also find a list of the earlier months of the year's deaths at the bottom. So all of the info for 2019 or 2018 or whatever year is always at the ready on the entire page. There is no need to over complicate this matter further. There are many other things that already too complicated regarding this subject.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The current format is just fine as it is, and is already maintained accordingly with each passing month. There is no need to unnecessarily try and build a better mousetrap. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Very Strongly Oppose! - We just went through this not too long ago with someone having a bug up their.. It is nice & easy to just type Deaths In 2019 & get right to the current deaths. If it aint broke DONT FIX IT! Now can we close this discussion FOREVER & not have it come back from the dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.134.50 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The RM mentioned by the last !voting IP is Talk:Deaths_in_2018/Archive_2#Request_to_move_page_to_Deaths_in_November_2018, and since then, some edit requests (May 2019 example) have also concerned page moving. Such suggestions have been regularly declined. I'd also like to state that, although it is standard operating procedure for this page to include seven days of a new month, this practice is not observed when the year turns, as explained here. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Changeover to Deaths in 2020

As usual, the seven-day "overlap" period at the end of each month does not apply at the end of December.

The reason is that Recent Deaths on the front page of Wikipedia will be pointed to Deaths in 2020 (already queued up) from January 1. This means that deaths from that date need to be reported on Deaths in 2020, rather than staying on Deaths in 2019 for the first seven days (which does not make sense in a new year anyway). — Wyliepedia @ 03:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

CAWylie, can you or any other admin please protect Deaths in 2020, to spare us from unneccessary vandalism in the new year. Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Scott Burley: was on it very quickly at the start of 2019, so I think it's covered if he's page-watching us. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Burley hasn't edited since October. Perhaps MilborneOne would be willing to protect Deaths in 2020. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done by two other admins, with thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are these deaths listed in reverse chronological order?

Most any other list is in forward-chronological (or another order). Why are these deaths listed in reverse chronological order? Does a robot fix them when the month is over? tahc ^chat 16:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverse chronological order makes it easier for editors to add deaths to this list, so that contributors don't need to scroll down further each day. When the month ends, a regular maintainer of this page will put them in proper chronological order, and move them to a separate monthly list. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)