![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi. Another Wiki editor has recently added a template to the top of the source page coding which produces the following line:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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! — Wylie pedia @ 22:49, 13 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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. — Wylie pedia @ 04:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi. Another Wiki editor has recently added a template to the top of the source page coding which produces the following line:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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! — Wylie pedia @ 22:49, 13 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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. — Wylie pedia @ 04:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)