Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2019

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WWGB (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 1 January 2020 (moving December-related talk to Talk:Deaths in December 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

British nationals

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

I'd say, be guided by whatever the description is in their article, if one exists. Certainly if the country of birth (neither Britain or the United Kingdom are countries) is not clear, "British" is an acceptable encompassing label. Nationalists will never agree with you though (for example, hardened Scottish independence campaigners would in fact hate to be called British, you'll find). Ref (chew)(do) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Guide to finding UK nationality provides some advice on this matter. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who was a "hardened Scottish independence campaigner" would therefore have reason to be called "Scottish"...but they can't decide the proper description of other Scots indifferent to the issue.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I add people from the Kingdom, I usually link their birthplace to their nationality (eg born in Wales, then Welsh). There are many exceptions however b/c of the Troubles in Ireland and the six counties and some others. Scotland especially these days is getting touchy about such things with good reason why. And it only makes sense i guess with all of the people using Hong Kong, Taiwan and Puerto Rico...might as well use Manx and Jersey and all of the others as people dont care about who really controls the territory these days and it is fairly specific to their identity. And I am fine with that as long as it used as a standard (with exception) instead of hit and miss. Thats the thing, we are trying to be specific on this page and not use weasel words like businessman/woman. These people are notable and we should be able to be specific about them whether its their work or where they are from.Sunnydoo (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The British are coming ...

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

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

I think this belongs in "British nationals" at the top. Give it a conclusion, stop the petering! But yeah, never trust Wikipedia alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, November 24, 2019 (UTC)
 Done. WWGB (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

”Done” simply means this discussion was joined with the earlier one , as suggested by Hulk. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Noted - sorry for the misunderstanding there. Ref (chew)(do) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is terrorism

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

Recipients often say "terrorists". Those on the other side would say they are "freedom fighters" or "activists". It's not our job to decide which is which in a game of right and wrong. Just to add info encyclopedically and not "judgmentally" based on our individual prejudices. And I'd appreciate no abuse using the word "sympathiser" in any replies here (or elsewhere, as has been the case over many years of pointing this out). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what expression of forceful opposition to your stance gets through to you most effectively?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to this change is grounded in the Manual of Style, namely MOS:LABEL, which represents a wider level of consensus than we editors can reach here. If you wish to change the ISIL-related descriptions, a discussion on the MoS talk page must occur first. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@12.144.5.2: No amount of force would get me to change my stance on that or any other baseline of encyclopedic requirement at Wikipedia. It's just a shame that your "stance" is so entrenched in flagrant bias. Stay as an IP editor and don't get an account here, unless you can modify that. Ref (chew)(do) 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an "IP editor" here off and on for sixteen years and been paid to edit published reference books years before that.When Wikipedia policies are foolish there's no excuse to accord them undeserved respect.12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you state is "undeserved respect" above, I've described as consensus several times. However, consensus can change, and the first step in that process for this case is here. Arguments from authority are of less use on this project, as on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, even though some notable Wikipedians are recognized experts in their respective fields. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lords and barons, ladies and baronesses

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

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

That discussion is for Talk:Edwin Bramall, and should take into account WP:NCPEER. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our entry now includes "Baron Bramall" in the lead, and that omission (or very similar) was the only reason I brought this up. If the editors at his article can't see any folly in calling him "Edwin", that's up to them. We can be better than that. Ref (chew)(do) 22:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First apparel executives are ridiculous, then fatal asthma attacks are impossible, now giving a baron his given name is foolish. Which is it? Will you explain how you know better than us mainstreamers about remembering November dead, or will you keep greedily holding these truths self-evident? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, November 14, 2019 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, Edwin Bramall, so titled, appears on Wikipedia's main page as a 'recent death'. Just saying. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It needs to get somewhat personal, you're the only one who seems to know why we (the list) would be better than them (the bio and front page) by ignoring "Edwin". If you have actual knowledge of something that'll make us all look like an unruly mob of ingrateful nutpickers in front of the Queen, spilling the whole scoop would be for the greater good. If you want to keep it bottled up forever, that's fine, too.
I'm not judging you here, I'm just the interrogator. We're buddies, see, I've never met you, you've never met me. But if a lot of fancy people are going to get butthurt and you know how, you need to open the door and talk to us. For their sake, brother! Trust me, you might feel better once you get it off your chest.
I'd ask the same of any Necrology Department colleague exhibiting a similar pattern of disconnection from what I believe to be reality, nothing personal in that regard. I'm not suggesting you're crazy. You may be right, for all I know. Just say how, and everyone can go back home to whatever mainstream business awaits individual lords and ladies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, November 14, 2019 (UTC)
Well, OK. In the UK, the deference shown to the titled "ruling classes" is a matter of etiquette and not an actual "doffing of the cap" to an actual existing class system. The idea is that, if you offend the lord or lady in name or otherwise, you offend the king or queen who gave them the gift of the title and all that goes with it. Hereditary peerage is a different matter. For instance, Alexander George Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, may often be referred to as just Alexander Thynn (but usually with his title following closely behind), and his son Ceawlin Henry Laszlo Thynn, Viscount Weymouth (still only heir to the Bath title) is often labelled just Ceawlin Thynn. (His more famous wife, Viscountess Emma Weymouth - the dancing Lady from BBC programme "Strictly Come Dancing" recently - is serially just "Emma Weymouth" also.) As a footnote, I'd just say that there are probably a number of left-wing, anti-Royalist UK editors here who are steaming from the ears over what I've just said, as they can usually see no reason for such deference. Quickly, the "executive" opinion was just that - opinion and not fact - and the "asthma" thing accrued knowledge from having someone in my family who suffers badly with it (I like to read up in such cases). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 07:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your honesty. I'm kind of a Royalist myself, easier than remembering a bunch of rotating ministerial and gubernatorial titles, but I still have a mild simmering disdain for the various nobility and their inconsistent stylings. You're free to leave, sorry for any perceived besmirchment! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, November 14, 2019 (UTC)
No worries - a "slightly less animated" approach might work better in future! (Not for me - I'm getting used to you...) Cheers. Ref (chew)(do) 04:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Cue "Alzheimer's isn't a killer"

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

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

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

This is not a medical website. We publish based on “verifiability, not truth”. If a RS states cause of death was dementia,Alzheimer’s or cardiac arrest then that is what we publish. We don’t need to overthink it. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To devalue truth will always be bad policy.In any case,this article has had a consistent policy of changing claims that Alzheimer's was the direct cause of anyone's death for medical reasons and dementia would seem a similar issue.The Associated Press story (by a writer I was in CompuServe groups with decades ago) attributes that claimed cause to a statement by unidentified family members whose RS status seems questionable.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to cdc.gov, "Alzheimer’s disease is ultimately a fatal form of dementia. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States".[2] If Long's death source had instead reported "the cause was cancer, her family said", I doubt we would be questioning that. The only local "policies" here are listed on the top of the talk page. I do not recall any consensus to add "complications of" when that is not in a reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 21:49, November 24, 2019‎
Aye. Relaying questionable causes is fine. Inventing our own for anyone who happens to die after diagnosis is OR. A death certificate is certainly more trustworthy than most relatives, but these typically aren't publicized for celebrities on Long's level, unless foul play's suspected. We use what we can. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

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

"Sir Jonathan Miller CBE who sadly passed away today from Alzheimer’s disease". And that is from the Alzheimer's Society! WWGB (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it earlier, precisely for lacking a reference exactly like that one. Maybe it could be more useful inline than back here? Just a thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

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

The ticker

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

I think (as a UK person and as a world person) that journalism and their sources are often to blame by quoting the wrong type in their reports. Two or three differing reported heart "causes" for the same death make things even more vague for the average editor, wherever they reside. It's true that sometimes editors plainly interpret causes wrongly, but then none of us (apart from those who studied prefessionally) are experts in medicine. It is, I'm afraid, a case of correcting mistaken causes as and when you see them, as I try to. Ref (chew)(do) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, a number of sources are reporting that Godfrey Gao died from a "cardiac arrest" (or even "cardia arrest", whatever that might be), while the majority quote a "heart attack", either "suspected", "apparent" or "what producers have said was". Sift throught that little lot for the truth. Ref (chew)(do) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiac arrest is always true, provided the subject is dead. But not every dead subject is a human, especially in acting and modeling. So, (without recommending we do this) we have a more logical need to specify Gao's species than to inform readers his heart stopped on the day he died. Heart attacks, even suspected and apparent ones, are truly more useful in telling one death from another. A majority of sources providing such useful information, absent contrary claims, is good enough reason to relay it. "Cardiac arrest", either used properly or as a synonym, casts precisely zero doubt on "heart attack" allegations. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, December 6, 2019 (UTC) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thats part of the problem. Cardiac arrest is not recognized in the US as a cause of death- although it seems to be in the Royal areas of the world. So it is a terminology thing like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the US v. motor neuron disease wherever the UK was. Whichever way you go, its probably best you follow the source material as there are several true causes of death that cardiac arrest can be caused from. Everything from various organ and systemic failures, drug overdoses, poisonings, heart attacks and about 10 different other cardiac related problems covering a range from abnormal heart rhythms to electrical problems in the heart falls under that umbrella...which is one reason why the CDC guidelines were written the way they were. Sunnydoo (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I maybe dumb, but definitely not American, so what are 'CDC guidelines' please ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Here in the land of Imperial Cheese, we don't take cardiac arrest as a valid single answer from our coroners, either. It's India's problem, at least in the news, the idea that it means heart attack. Somewhat see it in Filipino press, too, but there are way more obits about Indians overall, so blame them in particular, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
This is the guidelines I was referring to. In the US, the CDC along with the NIH standardized reporting so as to be able to provide valuable data to the medical field upon peoples' untimely demise (why is always untimely?). Internationally you would know them from the outbreaks of several diseases such as Ebola where they help the WHO by providing manpower and knowledge to help stop epidemics.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanations. Do the Americans have an exact age at which one's demise is proper and 'timely' ?! What happens if one exceeds this - do you become untimely again. Also, presumably, the epidemic situation is to ensure that the WHO "Won't Get Fooled Again". - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries and complications

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

In the interests of following sources and informing readers, we have over time conflated causes of death and manners of death. Terms such as "suicide", "shot" and "fall" are not causes of death, but more like manners of death. Suicide causes death by asphyxiation, exsanguination etc, being shot causes death by ballistic trauma, organ damage etc and a fall causes death by blunt trauma, subarachnoid haemorrhage etc.
We tend to overthink such things and bring our own knowledge to the table. As always, we should follow reliable sources, and use what they publish. If the NYT says someone died from "complications of a fall" or "suicide" then that is what we use. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Mind you, if the NYT says anything to readers who haven't registered with them, they won't see it at all because of that. Ref (chew)(do) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dystonia is fatal now, according to my esteemed colleague, Dr. AutoParts. We're at war again! See Caroll Spinney's obits if you want to pick a side. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, December 8, 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how that’s relevant here. Rusted AutoParts 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conflation, overthinking, not following sources, complications and death. But no falling, hospitalization or the rest. I didn't want a new section for what may likely be a brief edit skirmish. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation

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

Does that mean that you want to give the "period" the bullet?! But seriously, technically you're probably right . . . but the linked Wikipedia article is not a good example, as many times punctuation has been used on that page after bullet points. Editrite! (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MANUAL of Style is a guide (not a List of Style Regulations or Laws), and our lists are certainly not fragmented sentences. A fragmented sentence is where one starts off in prose form, then lists a number of different facets within the sentence by using a new line for each facet and a bullet point to start each line. Our lists are just lists, not fragmented sentences of the kind meant in the MoS. I actually think the main criteria within that page, as it refers to our very extensive lists, would be the following line: "List items should be formatted consistently in a list." Which we ensure they are, by making every bulleted line end in a (full) stop. Ref (chew)(do) 07:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What someone spend their free time complaining about... — Wyliepedia @ 00:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's wrong, but I'm hooked on the feeling of normality it gives here now, so if you're proposing I stop, I'll do it later (unless my peers insist we don't have a problem, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
What problem? I seem to sense a will to keep the consensus already in place, which is bulleted lines with a stop. Ref (chew)(do) 07:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, let's keep rolling with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2019

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

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

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

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User-duck and Nohomersryan: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not uncontroversial. This is standard formatting for the main deaths page, which always lists the current month. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, this has been the standard format for years. Each month gets moved to their own page 7 days into a new month. Rusted AutoParts 22:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per same argument as previous commenter. Month by month, the title "Deaths in 2019" is a navigational tool designed to show the most recent deaths in that year - for reasons of space and unmanageably bulky page coding, each month archives from the main focus page. Ref (chew)(do) 22:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This page has always been a rolling calendar. The information is always fluid in this area not only in the deaths, but also in the time and space. This entire lists rolls up nicely into both the year list and another master list which you can find here [3] and here [4]. And we have a team of dedicated individuals that take care of the flipping and listing every month in a timely fashion on the 7th. You can also find a list of the earlier months of the year's deaths at the bottom. So all of the info for 2019 or 2018 or whatever year is always at the ready on the entire page. There is no need to over complicate this matter further. There are many other things that already too complicated regarding this subject.Sunnydoo (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The current format is just fine as it is, and is already maintained accordingly with each passing month. There is no need to unnecessarily try and build a better mousetrap. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strongly Oppose! - We just went through this not too long ago with someone having a bug up their.. It is nice & easy to just type Deaths In 2019 & get right to the current deaths. If it aint broke DONT FIX IT! Now can we close this discussion FOREVER & not have it come back from the dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.134.50 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Changeover to Deaths in 2020

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

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

CAWylie, can you or any other admin please protect Deaths in 2020, to spare us from unneccessary vandalism in the new year. Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott Burley: was on it very quickly at the start of 2019, so I think it's covered if he's page-watching us. Ref (chew)(do) 18:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Burley hasn't edited since October. Perhaps MilborneOne would be willing to protect Deaths in 2020. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these deaths listed in reverse chronological order?

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

Reverse chronological order makes it easier for editors to add deaths to this list, so that contributors don't need to scroll down further each day. When the month ends, a regular maintainer of this page will put them in proper chronological order, and move them to a separate monthly list. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2019&oldid=933458833"