1. 2 January – 14 April 2007
  2. 15 April – 22 July 2007
  3. 23 July – 23 October 2007
  4. 24 October 2007 – 17 January 2008
  5. 18 January - 10 April 2008
  6. 13 April 2008 - 29 July 2017
  7. 21 August 2017 - 26 February 2019

Ref(chew)(do) 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths in 2019Edit

Hi, what is the criteria for removing answered requests from the Talk:Deaths in 2019 page? You removed the answered request about Scott Walker approx. six hours after I answered it, and now the same user has added the same request again. Wouldn't it be good to leave answered requests on the talk page for, say, 48 hours? Cheers. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no criteria that I know of. Revert my removal as you see fit. Ref (chew)(do) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping meEdit

With the death of Jerónimo Bello, I didn't know how quadriplegic was spelt in English. Thanks. LLcentury (talk)

No problems, that's what any editor is supposed to do. Also remember, there are never "former" occupations in the Deaths pages. Whatever made them notable at one time stands until death and beyond. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 20:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankie SmithEdit

I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Frankie Smith, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to the page of Frankie Smith. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've replied at your IP address Talk page, and tidied up your lack of knowledge as to how to post properly on someone else's Talk page. Look and learn (oh, and do eventually accept that Frankie has passed on, because a watertight reference WILL turn up, and it'll be one that even you can't naysay his death on). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
That still doesn't cut it. One man's reliable is another man's unreliable here, and you well know it. And PLEASE reply properly in the correct sections! (I constructed this section just for you, so use it please.) Ref (chew)(do) 15:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I replied to your post on my talk page, but for your convenience I'll copy paste my reply here: BlackAmericaWeb isn't a blog. It's a part of Reach Media, which again is a part of the media conglomerate Urban One. It should be accepted as a valid source, as it is in fact a journalistic news site. However, I suggest we leave this one open until further to look for a different source. Nukualofa (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If regular editors at his article want to continue to deny the death of their star, there's little I can do about that. However, given that the source I found is from a reliable enough base which will have checked its own info sources, I have re-introduced the subject into the March 2019 Death list. For the last time, as any more attempts will be 3RR in my case. (I see the original blog source actually contained info from a relative of Frankie Smith announcing his death, so I am not chasing a fallacy here.) Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 05:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


Firstly, thanks for your help and support so far. I would like a bit of advice regarding a suggestion that I have for the Wikipedia powers that be. In your opinion, where is the best place to send it. Is the Deaths' talk page an appropriate place or not? By the way, it's to do with logging in as a registered and qualified Wikipedian. Editrite! (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this post, and glad you are about to embrace the perils and pleasures of editing in all its glories. The Deaths talk page would probably be the last place to start discussing a general technical or policy change, which is what your idea sounds like. As far as I can see, the page you want is at the Village pump, where you will find five categories. Whether you see your tweak as a Policy change or a Technical change would be up to you to decide, though the Idea lab looks a good place to start on figuring that one out. Whichever it is, good luck with it and good editing ... rite. Thanks again. Ref (chew)(do) 06:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful advice. They say one good turn deserves another, and so I have a friendly piece of advice for you based on my observation. This is not meant to be critical in any way. The rule normally for the use of either/or and neither/nor is in that order. In other words, an easy way to remember, if in doubt, is that the two words starting with "n" always go together. Editrite! (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that also (**scratches head but takes in good part**). I hope your idea is met favourably by that community. Ref (chew)(do) 03:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry if you can't remember, but my observation relates to a comment that you made in the Deaths' talk page a while back, where you used the combination of neither/or . . Editrite! (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I don't recall, but sage advice anyway. Cheers. Ref (chew)(do) 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The death of Bishop Bernard UnabaliEdit

I had noticed the duplication of his death listing about the same time as you, apparently. The thing is that the date of his death seems to be disputed, with his article supporting the earlier date that you have left in place. However, the two sources given seem to disagree, with one opting for the later date. I have done a quick Google search, and am none the wiser, except to say that the later date, if anything, looks slightly more likely. Maybe it's best to leave as is, at least for the time being, until it becomes clearer. Editrite! (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In cases like this, we tend to go with the date in the person's article, if any. That's the 4th in this case, so I based it on that. As long as he's not in twice, I don't really mind what happens. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 03:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's official (August 10) now. Editrite! (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Deaths revertsEdit

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 diplay 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)

Bill Vitt editEdit

I received your message and would like to make two quick points. How was I to know that it was your website? Even I did, it's reassuring to know that you don't seem to have any faith in the veracity of your own sources, or is it more of a conflict of interest matter. By the way, this is how you spell "de rigueur". Editrite! (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I do have faith in the sources I use for the music obits I create at God's Jukebox. But I am not a reliable source in that format as God's Jukebox is a social media messageboard which plays videos inside its "Wall" structure, and I am merely one of many user accounts. As a lower echelon social media platform, it cannot be use in the Deaths pages for references, as is the norm with that type. Thanks for the spelling correction. Ref (chew)(do) 03:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fulati GidaliEdit

Thanks for your contribution on 2019 deaths on the death of Fulati Gidali. Please, don't remove ETV Bharat link. Because, newdunia24x7 is less reliable than ETV Bharat and newdunia24x7 article don't have 100% proper Bengali spelling.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, and I bow to your better knowledge. But if they publish a permalink to that one report instead of a list, please insert that instead. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 05:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Bishop of London in OntarioEdit

That is however the formal phrasing of the Catholic bishop's title,similar to the arch/dioceses of "Toledo in Ohio" (not the original in Spain),"Portland in Oregon","Alexandria in Virginia" (not Egypt),or "Los Angeles in California" (not Puebla de Los Angeles,Puebla,Mexico).When one diocese has a name and another is created in a namesake place,the "in" construction is used in naming the younger diocese and its bishop's title. (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find one instance anywhere of "Bishop of London in Ontario", only "Bishop of London, Ontario", so I certainly won't be changing it back. Perhaps someone else with an account who agrees with you would do so. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 03:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Slang nonsense?Edit

"Ace" is a rather well known term for a fighter pilot who has shot down five or more enemy planes. (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You just quoted the encyclopedic name "pilot", rather than your tabloidistic nickname for the deceased's achievements. A pilot is a pilot is a pilot, and we aren't here to differentiate between an "ace" and a "poor" pilot - their articles are designed for that. Keep it encyclopedic, as it should be. Ref (chew)(do) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Being an ace is what makes a fighter pilot notable... (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Not sure what your issue is, but please refrain from personal attacks, such as this. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Many would appreciate it if you could format your entries into Deaths pages more fully, as they are sadly underdone at the moment (and I'm not the only one who feels this way). That's not a personal attack, that's just plain speaking (and those comments are made in edit summaries, not in posts to Talk pages). Thanks for your message. Ref (chew)(do) 15:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. WP:REFILL can you help you. Thanks for your message. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
And of course it could help you. Thanks for the link and your correspondence in this matter. Ref (chew)(do) 16:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of "humorist"Edit

Hi. I'm wondering what makes you think that "humourist" is the normal English spelling of this word. "Humorist" is far more common in the UK. See Category:English humorists. Deb (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about Sir Jonathan Miller, of course, who was British. Here's just a sample source for his death details, and please note the footnote heading: "Sir Jonathan Miller, the eminent playwright, director, humourist and writer who lived in Gloucester Crescent, Camden Town has died."
I mention this not to try trumping your rationale, which is completely fine, but to illustrate that the use of "humourist" truly is an alternative British English spelling of the term. Nothing in the English language is ever cut-and-dried or black-and-white, especially between two very differing cultures using the same linguistic methods. However, I don't intend to revert your pedantry, so rest easy and good editing. Ref (chew)(do) 18:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that it's a possible spelling, but it's certainly not the most common one - I'd call it archaic. In any case, you've already reverted my change. Deb (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Judging what is and what isn't archaic can never be objective - it's totally subjective because it depends heavily on differingly-held opinions across a wide spectrum and timeline. However, if yours was the spelling in the original post, by all means put it back to how you want it if you really have such a vast amount of time to spend on the minutiae of such edits. I've already said I won't be reverting again. Ref (chew)(do) 19:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


I recall some time back a "cyclist" being amended to "racing cyclist" to make clear he didn't just ride recreationally...doesn't that apply to those who do orienteering?-- (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

As you'll see at the person article, I've amended the lead-in to reflect the fact that they were a "competitive orienteer", rather than the double-back "orienteering competitor". So, by your rationale the two comparisons should be either a "recreational orienteer" or (as I've edited it) a "competitive orienteer". There's no getting away from the fact that, in descriptive English language, someone who takes part in orienteering is an orienteer - I hope it's not that which you object to? Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


I know you're a soccer buff, but I'm surprised and disappointed to find that you're either blissfully ignorant of, or won't accept the fact that a person who plays cricket is called a cricketer, (not a cricket player) as the source rightly says. If you look through any Wiki media or elsewhere, you'll find this is so. Further, if you go back through the history of death listings, the vast majority use cricketer. Are they all wrong? Be serious. The very small minority who don't, either don't know or don't care. Even your reasoning for the change is flawed. A "cricket player and administrator" implies that it's a cricket administrator, but doesn't HAVE to be. It could be a (business) administrator or in other sport/s, as I have seen elsewhere. Unless you actually spell it out as I have, is it specific for clarity. Your football analogy is irrelevant, as different sports have different terminologies. By the way, we don't change source info to suit ourselves, anyway. As a footnote to your December deaths talk page comment, "one man's verifiability is another man's untruth" . . . in the Donald Trump school of fake news, maybe. Editrite! (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned my rationale for [cricket] "player and administrator" being similar to [football] "player and manager" during my edit. Therefore, this conversation is pointless - it's not as though I've done what thousands of others do and not say WHY they are making an edit in the summary (blank summary, in other words - probably the most frustrating thing about editing is the "mystery edit"). I agree with footballer as much as I agree with cricketer, and don't treat one above the other. But when the subject has fulfilled two roles of notability in the same sport, those differing descriptions from the norm should be applied. (As has already long been established in the football field - or on the football field, if you like.) Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 06:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this right . . . so if an ex-cricketer is notable for other things, as well, he is no longer called a cricketer. Give me a break. Where's the logic? This is my final word on the subject. Enough already! Editrite! (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For other things IN CRICKET. He could be a "cricketer and restaurateur", because the notabilities aren't in the same sphere. My final word too. Cheers. Ref (chew)(do) 06:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Key to The New York TimesEdit

Have you tried simply walking in with Javascript off? Blocking third-party cookies? Works perfectly on multiple browsers and computers for me, and I'm no hacker. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In case you're curious, Beverly Pepper's final quoted words are "I just want to live in a factory." It made sense in context. But if you want to read about those other girls, with their diamonds and fur coats, you know what the big city press requires. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, the New York Times asks me to register every time, regardless of what my settings are. I don't understand why this is deemed important enough to post me a question here (you're the first and only one to do so). It's just a fact of internet surfing - where I encounter it, I tag it. NY Times, UK Telegraph online - it matters not. If they won't let me read it, I'd like to go elsewhere for a source that will. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, are you US-based? Because they may feel that they should offer something free to home-based users, but decide to beef up the charging mechanism when they detect that it's us Brits accessing their site. Ref (chew)(do) 21:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
No, Canada (IP and everything). And when I accidentally visit with JS on, a friendly pop-up tells me to enjoy the article, because it'll be my last! Typical southern hospitality. Anyway, just seen you slightly perturbed by this continually for months, so figured I'd share my secret for success. It's not fleeting, either, that was a damn long obituary. Skipped most of it, personally, but can see why someone might want to buy a suscription despite the seemingly open door. I'll show myself the door here, enjoy your alternative death media. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will! Funny, I don't get that "because it'll be your last!" message - just a Register/Subscribe banner obliterating the bottom half of my web page (I'm pretty sure they're targeting Europe, no doubt as some kind of equivalence with the accursed "access block" employed by so many other sites). No probs with you messaging me, to be honest, but I still feel I need to put up a reg or sub free source wherever I spot it. (I think I would probably be doing fellow Europeans a favour by keeping on top of that, though obviously now I'm not a real European due to Brexit!) Thanks for your comments. Ref (chew)(do) 00:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting those "too creepy for Europe" sorts, nobody should have to lie to a server about where they're from just to check if Kirk Douglas is really dead this time. But I have a feeling this NYT thing is unrelated, somehow. Anyway, the literal last word on Spartacus' epic New World metropolitan tribute is "words". I think I can leak that much to you under Five Eyes and fair use conventions, just don't run tell any Prussians, Austro-Hungarians or Ottomans. They've been through enough since Canada left them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

More Than A FeelingEdit

Sobhan was formally sentenced to die for specific crimes against humanity. The big three are in his cited obit. Of course they're emotive words, but so are "cancer", "heart attack" or "death". They objectively describe inevitably touchy subjects, but they're still the best words we can use. Criminals should be remembered for their general crimes, not just a too-general indication of some past criminality. Mass murder is very noteworthy, in any profession, with mass confinement and torture only slightly less so. "War criminal" could describe a traitor, rapist or embezzlor; too vague, that's all. You OK with just "convicted mass murderer", for brevity and accuracy's sake? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I am. Laying one epithet on top of another in such glowing terms IS emotive though, and therefore steps outside being encyclopedic by a long mile. Folk look at it and think "what a judgmental lot those Wikipedia editors are", and that matters to me personally as a perception of us. Feel free. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 06:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
"Epithet"" is a bit harsh; I could think of far worse things to call a guy like this in my own voice. But yeah, three in a row after "politician" seems a tad insulting, even if reliable sources and Bangladeshi judges say it's true. I get how kidnapping can (usually wrongfully) make somebody think of the sleeping children, but what the hell do "detainer" or "confiner" suggest? Some sort of definite container, if you ask me. "Torture" is the trickiest. Some nations sincerely believe all suffering in the world is just God's plan for the global economy. Others consider merely keeping a captive awake and alert for 72 hours bad enough. Where modern Bangladesh draws the line is probably beyond the scope of our encyclopedic niche, indeed. But a long mile? Never really thought about it like that, thanks for putting it so poetically! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The word epithet is a technical term in English, and shouldn't be perceived as an insult in any way. As for my "long mile", I think as individuals we all have different perceptions of its length, in terms of what we find acceptable. I try to play devil's advocate quite a lot of the time, and think "what are others seeing that maybe I, and my fellow editors, are not seeing, and does it look detrimental?" Anyway, thanks for the cut-and-thrust (to lay even more poeticism on you!). Ref (chew)(do) 08:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought you were accusing me of piracy, banditry or cutpursitude, but Cambridge assures me you mean it kindly. Thanks again! And I just meant calling a descriptor an epithet is a bit of a reverse euphemism. But digging into this case a bit deeper, the trial evidence seems vague, so maybe a "rough" label like "war criminal" does fit best. Folengo likes it, and he's no scallywag, either! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Roger MayweatherEdit

I know that you're a soccer buff, so this is for your enlightenment regarding another sport, specifically boxing and the Roger Mayweather entry on March 17. Light welterweight, junior welterweight and super lightweight are all equally correct, and mean exactly the same thing. Super lightweight is the relatively "new kid on the block". The reason I included light welterweight is that both the source and the article use that term, as they should. It would also have been known as that when he won the title (see the Wiki list of light welterweight champions). Editrite! (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Ref (chew)(do) 01:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)