Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caryeastwood (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 14 May 2021 (→please fix: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Job titles

Following recent reversions of Mayor/mayor, can we confirm our position on listing job titles, consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES? I thought we were using lower case universally. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister and President are both job titles. Nanerz (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which means they should be written as prime minister and president unless starting a sentence. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same follows for ceo and chairman. I put them in this way and someone invariably changes.SunnyDoo, 03:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are aware that CEO is an acronym. Nanerz (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking colloquially, it is a fact that US job titles are often capitalized regardless of the rules, when other countries prefer to stick to lower case correctness. How do you solve that quirk? Seems to be something to do with titles not looking important enough to some unless capped. Ref (chew)(do) 10:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick with the shortcut suggestion that capitalization is "not required" (unless the office/position is an acronym), and, by using the "z" there, I'm American. Wyliepedia @ 19:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that they are an acronym. The point though is that it is pretty stupid to be "president of the United States", but have an acronym that is POTUS. That is the definition of inconsistency.SunnyDoo, 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stupid. As I say, it doesn't sound important enough to some. Ref (chew)(do) 17:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no more stupid than abbreviating corona virus disease to the acronym COVID. Just because an acronym uses caps does not mean the expanded term must. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The English teacher wants to chip in here:
IF you are referring directly to an official office title e.g. "President of Zimbabwe", "Mayor of London", then the title is always capitalised at the front. Pages like Sadiq Khan, Michael Bloomberg and Virginia Raggi are well constructed articles which demonstrate this in the lede for "Mayor of X"
IF you are informally referring to their role rather than the office itself e.g. "he was a mayor for the city of London" or "he was a president of Zimbabwe", then mayor isn't capitalised, (but in the Recent Deaths section, we're referring to the office, and even linking to the page of the office in many instances).
and IF you are referring to "Mayor" as a substitute for a name e.g. "Nice job, Mayor", it is also capitalised.
This, in my opinion, is a bastardisation of the English language which has been recently spearheaded by a select few editors, and I think we should promptly revert back to the older (and technically correct) way in which this was always done (random example: see Deaths in March 2012). I strongly doubt any user is about to volunteer their time to decapitalising all the entries on over two decades worth of "Deaths in" pages. I'm interested to hear the input of more editors on this. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entries like 'President of the United States' or other similar political positions should be capitalised as appropriate. GiantSnowman 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS if you want to change the status quo and remove capitalisations, start a RFC. GiantSnowman 22:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:JOBTITLES which specifically includes "president of the United States" with a lower case p. I have no intention of starting an RfC to apply an existing guideline. WWGB (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Folengo: Re this edit, have you read MOS:JOBTITLES? A relevant example there is "Richard Nixon was a president of the United States". That is no different to our death entry reporting "Mauro Favilla (was a) mayor of Lucca ". Lower case for the job title is appropriate in both instances. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB:, where are you getting the modifier "a" from in "(was a)"? Or even the "was"? Even if you interpret the bullets as sentences (questionable), offices are presented as independent clauses. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, it is "Mauro Favilla, ... Mayor of Lucca." Even if you include the "was", it's "Mauro Favilla (was) Mayor of Lucca (the case directly referenced by MOS:JOBTITLES). It's still "president", "prime minister", "ambassador to X" (as opposed to "of Y to X"), etc. when the geographic unit is excluded, as is generally the case due to the nationality being listed (and private-sector title should generally not be capitalized), but written standalone, it's "Governor of Montana", "Bishop of X", etc. There are places where you have to be careful, e.g. "Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court" and "Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri", but not the other way around, and "Secretary of State of Illinois" as opposed to "Illinois secretary of state", but that's how they should be referenced regardless. A case I'm slightly unsure of: "Governor (years) and State Treasurer (years) of Oklahoma" vs. "governor (years) and State Treasurer (years) of Oklahoma". The latter looks and is silly, but I'm unsure of whether a syllepsis constitutes a "reworded description"; I would think not, and the parentheses in the middle don't affect anything gramatticaly. Star Garnet (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have written over 200 words, applied terms like "modifier", "independent clauses" and "geographic unit", and I do not find the situation any clearer. Frankly, there is nothing to be gained by using a capital letter when a particular set of unclear conditions is met, it just leads to inconsistency and confusion. Why can it not be kept simple, using lower case for every job from president down? We don't need Mayor of Lucca any more than we need Rat Catcher of Hamelin. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it comes down to whether or not you plan to comply with WP's MOS. As it's relevant here, MOS:JOBTITLES essentially boils down to: full (or a version of full, like United States → U.S.) official title without a modifier → capitalized, otherwise not. As it hinges upon modifiers, I'd suggest familiarizing yourself. They are rarely in use here. Star Garnet (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting ridiculous. We are now seeing people lower-casing things like "minister for the interior", "speaker of the House", "leader of the opposition" - usages that are literally never seen outside Wikipedia. Frickeg (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "never seen outside Wikipedia". The NYT Manual of Style and Usage includes examples like "cabinet titles, United States and foreign, are capitalized only when they precede names" and "lowercase titles except when they directly precede names, and place long titles after names: Lee P. Milori, minister of internal affairs". The Chicago Manual of Style provides "Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (traditionally replacing the title holder’s first name). In formal prose and other generic text, titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name". I don't know why the confusing Wikipedia MOS cannot summarise in such a clear and concise way. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year arrangement when linking to Grammy Awards

Hi. There is a link in the credits for Ethel Gabriel entry (this edit) which does not tie in with the information held at the article Grammy Award for Best Historical Album as regards the 25th Annual Grammy Awards. Those awards were held in 1983, to reflect material produced in 1982, but are earmarked as "1983" nevertheless. The year keeps being changed to "1982" in the entry, despite the assertions of that Wikipedia article. Discuss please. Ref (chew)(do) 10:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure what to discuss here, from what I remember when we began this award format when placing the year it’s always the year of the ceremony, to reflect the year of the win. Rusted AutoParts 11:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Refsworldlee: didn’t realize this had been an issue, apologies for removing the dubious tag. Rusted AutoParts 11:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my understanding that awards are year-stamped in the year that they were won, not the year that they were earned. Hence Gabriel's Grammy should be dated 1983. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even see the point. The article obviously states she won the award for her 1982 work, awarded in 1983: in fact, it doesn't at any point state she won the award in 1982. The format of the page has ample consensus on listing Oscars, Grammies etc with the year of the ceremony so it definitely should be 1983, which does not contradict the source at all. Huferpad (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. I thought it was a globally accepted and understood fact that Grammys, Oscars, even Blues Music Awards are granted in year "Y" for work published in year "X". This is not a Wikipedia 'quirk' - surely no consensus needed. 1983 it is, no doubt. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: Not a problem, and not at all an issue until one other editor and myself approached 3RRs most recently, a violation which I don't partake in. I maintain that piping the link to 1982 when it is a 1983 occurrence would be tantamount to Wikipedia lying to itself. Pedancy for some is exact information for others, including me, and I had no intention of entering a slanging match with the editor involved, who I otherwise respect and who does sterling work here. Dubious/discuss was the only way forward I could see. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know why we're having this discussion, as it's a straightforward subject. We all know, I presume that the Grammys are PRESENTED or held early in the year AFTER they are ACTUALLY WON (or earned, one and the same thing), for the body of work in the previous calendar year. It would be virtually impossible to present them in the same year, obviously. The year they are presented is basically irrelevant, as the Grammy website confirms i.e. 25th Grammys of 1982. You don't win or earn something in 1983 for doing nothing in that year, if you get my drift! Editrite! (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here had Gabriel winning at the 24th Annual Grammy Awards, which clearly did not happen. That said, the Grammy Awards website refers to Gabriel's award as 25th Annual GRAMMY Awards (1982), so perhaps we do need to review which year we tag to an award. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t think we do. The 25th awards ceremony objectively happened in 1983. Since we include the award category in the “X winner” section, we link the ceremony in the year. So there’s really no other year to list but the year the ceremony happened otherwise in my opinion there’d be quite some confusion as to why the year, in this example, is 1982, when that award was not presented to that person in 1982. Whether they decided the winner in 1982 or another year aside from the ceremony is irrelevant (and kinda OR? How do you know when they chose the winner?), as they are being awarded the prize in the next year, this case 1983 Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was opened because, as it stands, the year piped does not relate to the article it's linked to (a 1983 occurrence). This misinformation still exists in the Deaths page. For comparison please note: the Jessica Walter entry gives a pipe to the 27th Primetime Emmy Awards and gives the exact year they were AWARDED (1975). Naturally and logically. Ref (chew)(do) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Let's get down to the nitty gritty. The linked Grammy article introduction clearly explains that the awards ceremony was being held in 1983 to recognize achievements in the previous year. I think we need to give our readers credit for having at least some intelligence. However, to avoid any possible ambiguity, I suggest as a simple solution that (1982) is placed right next to the heading in brackets as part of the heading, which agrees with both the article and article source, which also happens to be the Grammy website (surely an impeccable source). In answer to a previous post, my first edit was based on the assumption that the original entry was correct, which in hindsight was clearly not the case, but was corrected in my second edit anyway (the only reason that the previous edit wasn't reverted). All major awards ceremonies, as far as I am aware, are usually held early in the year after the awarded work was produced, simply because in theory, the last eligible day is December 31. The sealed results are held in advance by auditors under tight security until the events. Editrite! (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about giving an impeccable source to prove they are awarding the achievements of 1982, the fact of the matter is they are officially announced and awarded the prize in 1983. It would be deceitful to list the year as 1982 because it’s just not true they won in 1982. The thought process of “well technically they decide this then, etc” is needless overthinking. Keep it basic and to the year of the ceremony. Rusted AutoParts 01:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point completely. Obviously nobody is saying that she won IN 1982. She won FOR 1982. There's a difference. It would be more misleading to say 1983, when it was achieved in 1982. She may well have done nothing in 1983. Editrite! (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we put if for the year they were winning it for that doesn’t really make any sense. Yes, their work came out that year, but when it comes to winning the award and physically being handed it that happened in 1983. Rusted AutoParts 14:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may not make sense to you, but that's the way the industry works, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, and we can't arbitrarily change the way they view their own industry. Nobody is really interested in when the ceremony was held, only in when the work was CREATED. You're looking at it from the wrong angle. As I've said before, the award is actually won before it's presented. Think of it as the first official public announcement of the win . . . then maybe you'll understand better. Editrite! (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't hear to change the way the industry or readers look at things, what are you talking about? We are literally just noting when they won an award... Rusted AutoParts 23:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Think of it as the first official public announcement of the win" that's exactly what we do already because that's what's being put. This nitty gritty overanalyzing over their voting and winner decisions is unimportant. We're just noting what award they won, and when it was won from the perspective of when they were announced to win it. Rusted AutoParts 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the Grammy website (link in one of the above posts), if you haven't already done so (in which case, there's no hope), which is the primary source, by the way. The bottom line is that it clearly says "25th Annual Grammy Awards (1982)" NOT 1983. Wake up. We're here to present the facts, not our version or interpretation of the facts (like the mainstream media do too often). The ONLY way we can do it your way is to add "announced on this date". I won't comment on the first of your two previous replies, but let others judge for themselves. Editrite! (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To break the stalemate, I thought it may be helpful to look at the other EGOT awards. Emmy and Tony awards are presented in the same year as the performance, so no help there. The 92nd Academy Awards were presented in 2020 for performances in 2019. Well, oscars.org refers to them as "2019 (92nd)". [2]. So, it seems that both the Grammies and the Oscars label the winners according to the year of performance, and not the year of presentation. The evidence is building that we should do the same. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But this literally doesn’t change when the deceased in question is presented with that award. The point isn’t to highlight what the awards organization does in their voting process or what year of film/music/tv/etc, it’s highlighting when the deceased individual won the given prize that has been linked. Jessica Walter won her Emmy in 1975. Larry McMurtry won his Oscar in 2006. Why would we need to highlight what the awards organization is doing when it’s about the person? Rusted AutoParts 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This just popped up for me on YouTube actually, but on the official Oscars YouTube upload of Steven Spielberg winning best director for Schindler’s List (1993), they put it as the 1994 Oscars. Rusted AutoParts 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ref . . . According to WWGB, the Emmys are awarded in the same year (see post above). If that's the case, your earlier 1975 Jessica Walter Emmy example is not a good one. Editrite! (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was my example, and it is a good one. The show she was nominated for debuted in 1974. And aside from that the Emmys have a set timeframe of an average television season that spans 11 months. This most recent ceremony covered May 31, 2019 to June 1, 2020. Regardless how does this negate my point of it being about the winner, and not the inner workings of the organization? Rusted AutoParts 09:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's NOT a good example because the Emmy winners are shown and awarded in the same year UNLIKE the Grammys . . get it. Anyway, since when have you been signing posts as Ref, or are you the same person? Editrite! (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question remains as to what you're talking about on both fronts now. The first front being this "shown and awarded in the same year UNLIKE the Grammys" nonsense. I literally explained how Walter's Emmy performance began in 1974. Also if you mean nominated and awarded the same year, Grammys absolutely do it the same year too. Nominations were announced in January 1983. The award ceremony was a month later. As for "Anyway, since when have you been signing posts as Ref, or are you the same person?", I have no idea what you mean. Either you're being snide at me responding to something you meant for Ref, or that your tried to ping Ref to criticize them for a point I made as well. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RAP . . If a message is addressed to a specific person (which you've admitted) why would anyone else take it upon themselves to give an opinion, when they weren't asked for it? Have some manners. It's called netiquette. Don't do it again. All this Emmy nonsense is only a distraction from the real issue which is the Grammys (not the nominations). Editrite! (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being so insanely rude? Like I said I made the same point, and since Ref hasn't remarked here since it's inception, why not address it? And the Emmys were always supplemental proof of my point. If we're just going around in circles now, seeing as I pointed out this particular Grammys ceremony saw it's nominations and broadcast take place in 1983, and all I've seen from you is ooing and awing about original research-fueled notions about when they meet to form their nominations, then I think this discussion has reached it's conclusion, and the consensus agrees that what's important is when they won. Rusted AutoParts 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that won't ping me. @Editrite!: this is the proper way. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've not replied because I've nothing to add, and this circular discussion has been going on so long that the contentious issue has now departed for the separate page Deaths in March 2021. Neither I nor the other editor can call the play, as we are the main "protagonists", so I'd appreciate someone coming in and making a consensus decision and perhaps removing Ethel's tag in line with that decision. Right now, I couldn't care less either way as it's ancient history on the timeline of my personal editing. I will just repeat - the link can tell the truth as to where it leads, or it can lie/mislead as it does right now. Ref (chew)(do) 12:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So given the just about two week gap in replies, I feel comfortable believing that the status quo is to be maintained due to lack of consensus. Rusted AutoParts 09:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loose ends

My thanks to the dedicated crew that keeps this page going. If you're already seriously busy doing that, fine. If you would like to go to the next step (besides the obvious task of updating the main article for the person who has died), perhaps you would like to help me find other pages where the person's year of birth is shown, but not the year of death. The following RegEx search quickly finds most such pages:

~"Simon Bainbridge" insource:/Simon Bainbridge.{0,30}1952[^–\}\{\]]/

These are pages such as Peacock (surname), List of xxxx composers, List of people from Xxxx, David Hull (disambiguation), and place names, e.g. Montreux. This search also finds date ranges where a hyphen was used instead of an en dash, as in (1952-2021); if such formatting is not of concern to you, just insert a hyphen after the caret (^) and you won't see them:

~"Simon Bainbridge" insource:/Simon Bainbridge.{0,30}1952[^-–\}\{\]]/

Most days there are about 20–30 names added to this page. It takes me roughly an hour to find and fix all the loose ends. I don't bother with the red links, as people without articles are seldom added to list pages, and are often quickly removed. This is quite a load for me to carry, and would be glad to let others have a chance to experience the satisfaction of stamping these out. If you want to claim one day of the week, let me know, and I'll stay out of the way that day. Do you know of any other places where we might find editors interested in this? Chris the speller yack 16:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

I thought one of the criteria for inclusion in this list was to have at least one Wikipedia article in any language. Can someone clarify for me? Thank you in advance. PhillyHarold (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, a death listing without any Wikipedia article may remain for one month to allow an article to evolve. If there is no article within that month, the death listing is removed. Some deaths, such as clearly non-notable people and those with a previously-deleted article, may be removed immediately, without waiting for one month. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. PhillyHarold (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Inter Language Links (ILLs) are purely voluntary, so if one editor declines to add an ILL (should it exist), another may decide to include one. And I'd just point out that opinions on baseline notability can be the subject of much debate from time to time. Ref (chew)(do) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are the criteria for adding ills in the same month? I've had ills I've had in preceding months reverted (fairly sure that's consistent), but I'm not sure why an ILL I added to a link from earlier this month was reverted without explanation and rapidly, so I suppose there must be some rule I violated by just adding it... ELSchissel (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors add an ILL to a redlink to note that the deceased is considered notable in another Wikipedia. ILLs should never be added or remain on a blue link. There are no “rules” around ILLs, someone may remove an ILL that someone else considers valid. If in doubt, maybe ask the editor who removed it. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never seen an ILL get reverted for no reason - they can be taken out if: a) the foreign Wikipedia article it leads to gets deleted by their admins, or b) an English article is created about the subject in the obit line, in which case the ILL gets masked by the English bluelink and is removed as not needed when this is noticed. Ref (chew)(do) 08:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I'll double-check it then, thanks. Thanks for the explanation. ELSchissel (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a table?

Is there a consensus that the format has to be bullet pointed text? A table seems much more easy for the reader– is it just a matter of someone doing the legwork? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some earlier discussion of tables at Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 2#Visualizing Deaths. Generally unpopular, due to increased load times and a perceived lack of compassion. WWGB (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also Manual of Style/Tables. With over 1000 entries around the 37th changeover date now, a tabled page would be ungodly unsightly. Wyliepedia @ 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And imagine going back through the years to 1996/1997 changing all those too, for consistency's sake. No thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ELSchissel (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the list was much much smaller it could be a feasible enough concept, but there’s way too many names, and way too many Deaths in X articles to go back and convert. For that reason I’m out. Rusted AutoParts 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative Politicians formatting

Ok guys, looks like we may have to go over this again. If we want to undo the current consensus then lets discuss that. But the consensus is on members of the legislature that we use the form "members of XXXX", where XXXX is the Senate, House of Representatives, Legislative Assembly, Chamber of Deputies, Knesset, or Parliament. Now because of the English law formatting, some countries do use the term MP (which means member of Parliament) and MLA (member of legislative assembly) and we have allowed that abbreviation. However, when you switch the format to a job title such as Senator or Deputy or whatever, you are changing the format out of what we commonly have agreed upon. So lets choose one form or the other. MP does not equal Senator or Deputy. They are completely different formats as one is part of a body and the other is a job title. The US and other similar bicameral legislative models do not use MS for member of Senate or MHR for member of the House of Representatives. Thanks. SunnyDoo, 01:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the simpler "senator" is not better than the long-winded "member of the U.S. Senate". They are even called senators at the article List of current United States senators. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because in the U.S. there are 2 levels of Senators...one at the State level, the other at the Federal level. When you would say Georgia Senator...would you mean Georgia State Legislature or one of the 2 Georgia senators that represent in the U.S. Senate.SunnyDoo, 03:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In countries like Belgium, as far as I know, there is only one Senate in the country, so a simple "senator" should suffice. In the US, it could mean anything, that's why we should clarify between national's and a state's. Also, with this now being a renewed discussion, changes to the entries shouldn't be made. Wyliepedia @ 04:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing with that is you are non-standardizing the process and treating different entries differently. We should be trying to keep things uniform in one way or the other. Now we are going to have Deputies, Senators, MPs, MLAs and whatever else which are different forms of the same thing. It looks like a mess to me.SunnyDoo, 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, we are following the MoS on job titles, not de-standardizing anything. You cannot standardize those things which are not specifically related to each other, and anyway Wikipedia is not remotely an exercise in tidiness. Different countries have different title forms. Ref (chew)(do) 06:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to think "member of the xxxx" is far clearer than the hodge-podge of abbreviations that are currently being enforced. If space is the concern (and it is the only justification I can imagine), using the above format still leaves most politicians well short of some of the entries we end up with for actors, etc. We may know what MLA, MHA, MP etc. means, but our readers may not, and we shouldn't require them to click on a link to find out. Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly what links are there to do - to allow the visitor to find out more about a subject, or a set of abbreviations if that be the case. The full title would be linked to the same page anyway, so why dispense with abbreviations to make a subject line longer and increase page loading times for those unfortunate enough to have slow internet or inferior devices? Most people have tooltips enabled I believe, so just hovering over the linked abbreviations will give the full title without even clicking thru. Ref (chew)(do) 09:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable awards

Recently, we are seeing a greater number of "awards" being attributed as reasons for notability. I refer to awards like Russian Federation Presidential Certificate of Honour, Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, People's Artist etc. Are these truly notable awards, or are they handed out in the hundreds and thousands, and merely bloat our ever-lengthening entries? WWGB (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any of those awards are the entries' claim to fame, but I do think none of them (awards, that is) merit adding to this page. Dime a dozen, in some instances. Wyliepedia @ 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those national awards are entered as a device to "big up" the deceased without reference to real notability. Only international awards deserve line space in what should be a limited length entry, or at least as concise an entry as possible. Ref (chew)(do) 12:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Began removing "People's Artist" today. Wyliepedia @ 10:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata reports

Wikidata report pages Wikipedia:Database reports/Recent deaths and People without an English Wikipedia article are important maintenance pages for this Wikipedia page. To make them easily accessible, can we get any consensus to place them at the page (this can be an option), or maybe on top of this talk page? Thanks, SportsOlympic (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is to place this below {{Talk header}}:

Is this possible? SportsOlympic (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As maintenance tools, they certainly do not belong on the article page. I am interested in whether other editors would find them useful on the talk page. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note the talk page already has links to find new input "Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL". SportsOlympic (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in using these tools, but strictly accessed through the talk page and not the main page. Ref (chew)(do) 14:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think hardcore wikignomes would have these pages on their watchlists, but, if it reduces sifting through individual news sites, I'm all for it being added to the talkpage, as this is a pseudo-wikiproject. Wyliepedia @ 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CAWylie:, yes I have them on my talkpage. But this page is the most watched Wikipedia page. So this page will attract a lot of potential new editors (and inexperienced users etc.) When showing such tools, we can encourage people to help editing. And after an edit; a next edit will follow ;) Even I as an experienced editor, I didn’t no before where to look to help on this page. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Could you please add actor and stuntman Chuck Hicks who passed away on May 4, 2021. He was 93 years old. There are currently no obituaries online, but I found a memorial page from his old school. I know it counts as blog, but it was all I could find. I also know he doesn't have his own Wikipedia-page, but British actor Tony Armatrading who is listed under May 10 doesn't have one either.

http://burbankhighblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/chuck-hicks-bhs-47-1927-2021.html 194.69.14.132 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need something more reliable than a blog to publish a death. WWGB (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but there is no guarantee that anything more reliable will turn up. I sent an obituary request to Hollywood Reporter, Variety and Deadline but nothing happened...194.69.14.132 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a rush anyway given Hicks has no wiki page. Rusted AutoParts 06:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Connery

Please add Scottish actor Neil Connery, brother of Sean Connery. Neil Connery passed away on 10 May 2021. He was 83 years old.[3] 194.69.14.132 (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong with the source I added, Why is it not reliable? I dont quite understand Wikipedias rules, and I personally dont see anything wrong with the link. Frankly I find it quite rude to just dismiss my request without a proper explanation. Not reliable, OK, but on what grounds? 194.69.14.132 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fansite and therefore user-generated, despite gleaning Connery's death from Facebook. (Sidenote: The Scottish Sun has reported the death, but it is also an RSP.) Wyliepedia @ 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Drewsky1211 with a Yahoo Sports source. Wyliepedia @ 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date

Please move British Neil Connery to his correct date of death on May 10. These sources say he died Monday morning.[4],[5] 217.213.99.144 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Notable” deaths?

I cannot believe this question has not come up already, but a search of the Talk page reveals no consensus has been arrived upon as to what exactly constitutes a “notable“ death? What qualifies someone to be added on this list? What does one have to do to be considered “notable“? When is someone not notable? My mother was known all over town for her apple pie. Is she notable? I was on television once after being interviewed when my son sucked a pin cap down his windpipe while he was at school. Am I notable or, for that matter, is he? I believe there needs to be a discussion about this notability requirement and a consensus needs to be obtained regarding who gets on this list and why. If such a consensus exists already, and surely it must, will someone please point me to that discussion page. Thank you. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they're notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them, they're notable enough to appear here. If you think someone is notable enough to have an article written about them but there isn't one currently you can add their name, but it will be removed after a month if the article never gets written. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTABILITY. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and unfortunately, one sometimes has to search talk pages attached to Deaths pages from years ago to discover where and when a particular consensus was reached. Such is probably the case regarding notability. I've still never seen the Talk page which granted redlinks one month's grace so that they might have an article written about them. Not that I disagree with that principle, it's just that it appears sometimes we have to take another editor's word that a particular consensus does exist historically. Ref (chew)(do) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Please move Swedish singer Svante Thuresson to his correct date of death on May 10. He is currently listed under May 13.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/portratt-jazzmusikern-svante-thuresson

217.213.99.144 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Just fixed the citation Run n Fly (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Run n Fly Thanks, but remember that only simple cites are used on this page and that the entries should be in alphabetical order under each day. I have fixed it now. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marbe166, Oh thanks for that. Run n Fly (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please fix

5/12/2012 lists Blackie Dammett as dead. The link goes to a singer from the Red Hot Chili Peppers that uses Blackie Dammett as their stage name, not the actual actor.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2021&oldid=1023072149"