Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in 2020

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shadow2700 (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 4 May 2020 (→Tom Lester). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Death citations

Was skimming the 2020 death category and saw some names in there I have been unable to find some sources for. Putting the names here so editors can keep an eye out for them:

Will add in any other names if any can't be cited throughout the month so we can see which names to look out for. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Cobert and Franzese who are dead according to tweets or blog posts in the past few hours. Vilkomir now has a source (albeit an offline one) on his page. Satisfactory for the Deaths in 2020 page? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some kind of linking claim to a newspaper or suchlike is needed if it's offline. That's the only way it could be used as a reliable source, though a hard one for individual editors to verify if they don't have a copy of the newspaper. Ref (chew)(do) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work for DeDe Lind? Emk9 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not clear that this is the deceased's own site. It could be a fan site. Besides, it would be difficult to report your own death. See WP:FACEBOOK. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could everyone please delete entries here as they are added to the page and cleared with sources? — Wyliepedia @ 01:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are people happy with this FindAGrave page for DeDe Lind? I know some users are a bit funny about it, but IMO it's just as good as Legacy.com as the pages are often built in the same way. If we get a consensus we can finally remove her from the list. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is an unreliable source that can be edited by anyone. WWGB (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Koecher and James Garbutt – I was the editor to add the death dates and sources to these pages. Why are they listed above rather than just being added to Deaths in 2020 with the respective sources? Is the suggestion that Baseball Almanac or Aveleyman are not good enough sources? Some clarity please. Thanks. Also, Pietro Cugini. There's a source on his page too! His university put up this death notice here. Shouldn't this section be reserved for people we can't find sources for? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koecher done, aveleyman.com (Garbutt) appears to be a self-published source. Dubious reliability? WWGB (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Never understood this term "self-published source" thrown around by some editors on here. Aren't the majority of websites out there, excluding businesses and media, "self-published websites"? Of course they are. Aveleyman is compiled by people who archive films and television shows as a hobby. Baseball Alamanac compiled by a man who researches baseball players. These people are more in "the know" on their select topics than a journalist, or even a Legacy.com page which anyone can submit (and yet the reliability of these are never questioned). I'm all for being cautious over the reliability of sources, particularly when it comes to Wordpress type blogs, but abiding by common sense is a better way forward for this page, rather than being pedantic at every turn. This section faces becoming quite a long exhaustive list if we do this, with so much time wasted as users squabble and go round in circles with bios of persons who have clearly died. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Different sports have different terminologies, and there seems to be a perception among a few misguided editors that a person who plays cricket is not called a cricketer, but a cricket player. If you care to look through any Wikimedia or elsewhere, you'll find that is not the case. Just thought I should clear up any misconceptions, to set the record straight. Editrite! (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are interchangeable. Steve Smith is a cricketer, Richie Benaud was a cricket player and commentator. Try Googling "cricket player" and see how many hits you get. Neither misguided nor misconceived. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least it’s close contextually, unlike the global divide of “soccer player/footballer” and the gridiron players. — Wyliepedia @ 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's obviously commenting on the use of "cricket player" as a standalone term, when no other involvement or position (such as "coach") is involved. And if used on its own, he's perfectly correct to clear that up, as we do with "football player" and "footballer". Ref (chew)(do) 04:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about more than a standalone term. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of that particular edit then, the editor is clearly wrong to make it according to existing consensus relating to the describing of more than one role in sports such as football and cricket. Agreed. Ref (chew)(do) 09:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: What makes you such an authority on cricket? That means the vast majority of editors (that's what they call consensus) are wrong, and you're one of the few who's right. Maybe they should have checked with Google . . . oh no, wait a minute, cricket was around long before Google or television or even radio, for that matter. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Editrite! (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, back off now with the sarcasm. You don't need to be an authority on a game to know how to sensibly insert English grammar into an article of the kind we edit here. It's English language terminology and flow, not sports knowledge we are talking about in these instances. You are mistaking the consensus being referred to. Multiple roles held in sports such as football and cricket have long resulted in editors of the Deaths pages setting the referential divisions you are so against. It's not as if the reversal of your cricket edit was the first or only correction of this type made due to an existing consensus held among regular editors of the Deaths pages (not consensus of the wider nature you seem to be inferring). (By the way, trying to pick fights with individual editors never ever works in the attacker's favour.) Ref (chew)(do) 00:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the points you make, even though my comments were not addressed to you (as you know). It was always made clear that this is about sporting terminology, and nothing else. In an (online) encyclopedia accuracy should be paramount. You may recall the hockey/ice hockey example. Otherwise, what's the point? It's not about grammar. If you go back through the "deaths" history, cricketer is used far more than any other cricketing term and rightly so, (if you know anything about cricket) whether you like it or not. To suggest that a cricketer stops being (called) a cricketer, if they do other things in life after cricket is nonsense, and you should know better. It defies logic apart from anything else. They're either a cricketer or they're not. You can't have it both ways. By the way, I wasn't the one who raised the subject of Google, which was a pointless exercise anyway, as the game and its terminologies were invented long ago. Editrite! (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One reply. "To suggest that a cricketer stops being (called) a cricketer, if they do other things in life after cricket is nonsense". Well, that's clearly not the case, as you have more than one editor repeatedly reverting to the "multiple tasks" description (so not just me - try engaging with all the editors who read this Talk page rather than singling out just the one you don't like). Ref (chew)(do) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking COVID-19

Probably the most famous disease in the world right now (and modern fame is certainly the most prevalent kind), I think people are familiar enough to not need such a glaring reminder anymore, even only in the first entry each day. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly should not be wikilinked by now, or at least only the top-most one should be, as is the case in any other article where multiple references are made to any one phrase or word. But if so who is going to look after the housekeeping of moving the link up the list of reverse order entries each time a new day results in a new victim? Ref (chew)(do) 11:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I suppose I am saying wikilink them all or don't wikilink any. Ref (chew)(do) 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't link any. Like we don't link any heart attacks, traffic collisions or strokes. Those are older concepts, but relatively unpublicized lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better off with a consensus - just feels like one of those trivial technical things which could blow into an argument. Anybody else? Ref (chew)(do) 18:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote (I know this is not a vote, as such) to not wikilink this COD. Surely there can not be many people unaware of what this virus is by now. Apart from the fact that it will probably appear on virtually each day's entry for the foreseeable. Sadly... - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First mention on the page only, the others dont need a link which is more usual practice. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: : As I mentioned, then who is nominated to keep moving the link up the page, as it operates in reverse order with newest date (and link each day!) at the top? Ref (chew)(do) 20:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a huge problem its not rocket science to remove one link if you add one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I’m not going to link the first mention on a new day, then seek out those below it to delink them. Link all (unless multiples in one day) or not at all. — Wyliepedia @ 22:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither (tedious chores needn't be rocket science to suck). Besides, usual practice here has never worked like in "real articles". Wikilinks are for exceptionally obscure jobs, nationalities, genres and causes, not first in a series. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not worry about that now. When March rolls over to its own page, we can link the first occurrence of COVID-19 (probably Mohammad Mirmohammadi on 2 March), then unlink the rest. That is consistent with other articles. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's consistent with every other addict's stance, too. No worries, next month, just one won't hurt, not a huge problem. Listen to yourselves! You two agreeable to a three-day cold turkey trial run, starting now? If you still feel the overwhelming urge to overlink by then, at least you tried. I think you can kick it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the @WWGB: remedy. Ref (chew)(do) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to blue link every COVID-19 case? We usually save the blue links for a small subset of diseases that either dont kill a lot or dont effect a lot of folks- meaning they are usually unfamiliar to everyone but specialist doctors. I would think by now everyone on the planet would be familiar with COVID-19, so is there really any more reason to keep blue linking the deaths?Sunnydoo (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it noted that InedibleHulk is now linking the first instance of every COD now, for example: traffic collisions and cancer. — Wyliepedia @ 03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False. Just those three. They're common (thus special). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two were both quickly remedied. "Common COD here" for the car crash and "thanks didn't know what cancer is" for the tumor. But the commonest is resistant to the exact same rational jabs, because... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Still against the rules, still ignoring it, still no consensus nor reason offered for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WWGB, in seven days, it won’t matter and most will be de-linked (not by me) at DIM. Wyliepedia @ 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a damn thing's changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did half, wasn't easy. Someone with a real computer do half, it's easy! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emk9 is awesome! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I meant delinking at Deaths in March 2020 after the move. Wyliepedia @ 01:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "DIM" was "Deaths in Month", but what's done is done. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate List for COVID-19 Deaths?

I got to this page by Googling "celebrity deaths from coronavirus". While I'm very glad to find that there's a complete list of deaths, I would recommend that there be a separate but related page for deaths from COVID-19.

It would be best if there were some way to use this page as the "system of record" for all deaths this year, and to have the COVID-19 page just subset this page. I don't know if there's a way to do that.

Thanks, John Saunders (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section, which already has a similar discussion about this under way. I find it unlikely that a separate page will be created, given that the aim is to defeat this virus eventually and bring the number of deaths towards zero. Please note that confirmed deaths are already clearly marked COVID-19 at the end of each subject line. However, feel free to start this discussion. For my part, I would prefer not to see a separate article on this occasion. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way would be to recommend a tab on the Talk page for COVID-19. When we record the deaths here, we will also change the tag on a bio from living persons to Category:2020 deaths (for this year). It then rolls to a separate page where you can see all of the deaths for this year by alphabetical order. You can check anyone's category at the very bottom of their article screen.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a page at List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Connormah (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, @Connormah: - job done and case closed here? Ref (chew)(do) 22:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objections to including List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the See Also section? Rusted AutoParts 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could do that. It's relevant. Ref (chew)(do) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with that also. Anything to stop this disease and its mad linkage.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the relevant page to the See Also section, so this discussion appears to be closed with a consensus. Ref (chew)(do) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks: entering them into an article/list and not personally intending to write the articles

Hi. You realize that @Vanjagenije: today blew a big hole in the consensus here that any entered redlinks should stay for thirty days and only be removed if no article has been written in the meantime, or if a written article is deleted at any point within that time? The editor's rationale follows WP:WTAF, which states that at the very least an editor who adds a redlink should have a clear intention of going on to write an article about the subject him/herself. Subsequently, a large number of recently-added subjects with redlinks were removed (despite many of the subjects having corresponding articles in other languages through the Inter Language Link facility). Thoughts please. Ref (chew)(do) 19:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not helpful. Not all of us have time to spend writing articles or even stubs on all of the subjects we come across. Even if we did, some communities here on Wiki have their own thoughts and ideas on how articles/stubs should be written for lets say Chefs. If someone who is perusing one article sees someone notable that already has mentions on Wiki like Floyd Cardoz who died today, why wouldnt they bring that information up so that someone who specializes in that area can see it and write an article. Another good example is State Politicians. We have nowhere near the totality of American politicians. Several times a month a redlink American politician will come across and RFD or one of the other editors will pick it up and write a stub/article for them. And as far as not linking other Wiki content, that is complete nonsense. I was not an early adopter of that program by any means, but it does provide a useful service to the reader (especially with a translator like Googles in Chrome). So I have come around on that and think all of the Wiki's should be linked together. I just think some people have a color phobia on here...if they see Red or Black sometimes they just completely lose their minds. Wiki by no means still has all of the stuff written that it needs to.Sunnydoo (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTAF is merely an essay, it is neither policy nor guideline. One editor, even an admin, does not override consensus on this page when such consensus does not breach policy.WWGB (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, that still leaves the many links he removed missing, all but Floyd Cardoz, who got restored by someone later. WP:WTAF is an ideal, in fact, and not a standard to be met. Ref (chew)(do) 03:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored all of the deleted redlinks. Don't think I missed any? WWGB (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it! (Not counting!) Ref (chew)(do) 03:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least one editor isn't sure if they're red links or red blinks! Editrite! (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid deaths

It might be interesting to mark articles, that were just created after the person has died from this disease, eg. with (NA) for no article. This gives an idea if a person was already before his/her death considered sufficiently notorious to warrant the actual work for an article. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting, but it's a statistical exercise which we never get involved with here. Also, because the sheer bulk of the coding in the average full page causes ever-longer page loading times, we always keep extraneous info to a minimum. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I considered it easy enough for manually handling; no need for programming or additional server-load. "(NA)" is just four letters. Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a dismissal of your particular idea. It's choosing not to embrace any extraneous ones. If we took on board your idea, then others would be right to demand we do the same for theirs. Overall, it's trying to keep manageable the vast mass of words that the Deaths page becomes towards the end of any given month. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fairly easy to tell if a person’s death warranted, for lack of a better term, their mainpage article. For several months, a death from the pandemic caused a surge in new articles. There’s a start for you to check, if said articles aren’t speedy-deleted for that lone notability. Again, to check pseudo-notabilities here, all you have to do is check a blue link’s article history, especially if they began as red ones here. (Example: Bernardita Catalla didn’t exist in the Wikiworld until her death, but dedicated editors started and notably expanded her article; and hers began before it was listed here.) Wyliepedia @ 17:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how our "Deaths in 2019" pages don't attribute a single death to influenza, despite it causing 300,000 deaths worldwide last year. Are we being inconsistent when we decide what the actual cause of death is? Epbr123 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be exact, we don't decide. We just include death causes (where given) which other official or reliable sources report out in public. If we, as editors, can't see a reliably reported cause of death, we don't put it in. If anything, I think your issue should be taken up with those who diagnose and report causes, such as doctors and coroners - and reliable journals which jump the gun and assume deaths are from COVID-19, thus causing us to assume the same with their reports as back-up. Ref (chew)(do) 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drilling down into your point further, influenza is also not deemed to be a pandemic as such, because there are myriad strains all vying for position across the world at the same time. As non-pandemics, only the final cause gets reported, the two most common being pneumonia and heart attack. In fact, the final causes in COVID-19 are usually identical to the outcomes with influenza but lumped under the single-strain pandemic banner. Ref (chew)(do) 08:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the bright side, this cold hysteria has seemingly cured the Alzheimer's crisis (one reported case in 34 days). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. Perfect example. Upon the death of the Italian shoe designer Sergio Rossi, The Guardian (UK) reports, without any confirmation, that he MAY have died from COVID-19. Why say that when it may be untrue? No wonder we're jumping to conclusions ourselves. Ref (chew)(do) 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts has changed Rossi’s source to WWD. Wyliepedia @ 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn’t aware there was a discussion about this. I swapped the source as it stated it was the coronavirus that killed him, and I was seeing other sources being written that were citing WWD. Rusted AutoParts 15:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to express my point of view. Where I live this month there have been more than three times the deaths there were last year in the same months. COVID-19 is not a cold, it can kill anyone, expecially if adequate care is not given. Obviously it kills more those with underlying issues, the more severe are these, the most likely is death. But I'm pretty sure even the sickest folk on the list could have lived at least a few more months without COVID. So it is the ultimate cause of death. If I have diabetes and get run over by a car I did not die because of diabetes! So, you shouldn't be surprised at all at how many people is killing this (you insists to call) cold. Even young people, with no issues. Obviously it could be worse, much worse, but it's already bad.
That said, I do not understand the frenzy about reporting everyone who dies of COVID here. Half of the COVID deaths more or less had articles created after their death. That's stupid, as COVID is not a reason of fame by any means. I hate when this happens, and it is more and more frequent. There are already scores of legit notable people dying from it, don't search some other! And as our ethics imposes, we cite it as a CoD when it is reported on the sources as it; Gilbertini's article explicitly says "it is not linked to COVID", yet someone added it, maybe believing everyone in Italy dies of COVID.
Frenzy and underestimation are two sides of the same medal and I hate them both. Be sensible.--Folengo (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All we can do is link entries, whether red or blue, with reputable sources. That’s been done at this page in the near-ten years I’ve been a WP editor. We can’t cherry-pick entries and not list anyone because a news agency rushed to report the now-common COD. It’s not on us to create articles from entries here, I merely expanded Rossi’s redirect to avoid confusion with his company. Wyliepedia @ 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a particularly nasty cold, but still a cold, no diminishment intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And (stuck record on this) never just assume it's a COVID-19 death just because the source mentions the phrase in their article or obituary - get the confirmation and then stick it in. Ref (chew)(do) 19:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please can I ask editors not to "assume" that any deceased of a "certain age" has expired due to the pandemic virus? It gets a little tiresome reverting clearly unsupported insertions all the time. It would sure help if EVERY addition of a CoD (not just COVID-19) was accompanied in the edit summary by the reliable source link which inspires you to add the cause. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put that link inline like normal, if possible, only hardcores dig through edit summaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Call me hardcore then. That's where it should be mentioned (not all CoD links are appropriate for general info on the death), that's what they're for. Be honest, do you really not look at them? Ref (chew)(do) 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not appropriate how? And yeah, you know I'm hardcore. But even I give up if the summary is from beyond the first hundred recent edits, so WP:CITE is nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Gonzalez

I think a death listing for April 5 was deleted. If I'm not mistaken, the entry for "Bernard Gonzalez," a French doctor who committed suicide after being diagnosed with COVID-19, was removed. If this is so, why was his entry deleted? Am very curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who removed him seemed to feel that the doctor was only written about by the national press because a) he had been diagnosed with COVID-19 (just a topical subject), and b) the doctor committed suicide because of this (bordering on sensationalist reporting). Although I see he was employed by the notable Stade de Reims football club, I tend to agree with the editor that he in himself is not baseline notable and so I will not personally be putting him back in. Others may think differently when reading this. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 02:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. But curious, was it just one editor who made the decision? If that's the case, shouldn't there have been some type of discussion and consensus instead of a 'blanket' removal based on one person's 'whim'? It's possible, as you say, that "others may think differently when reading this." And I'm thinking those others may be the French. And, if I understand Wikipedia's policy, if it had been one of the club's players, he'd be automatically listed just because he's an "athlete." Pardon me if I fail to see a distinction in club occupation as a reason of non-notability. Thanks 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of someone removing an entry due to non-notability, another editor may sometimes revert that edit if they feel that notability does exist. On this occasion though, no-one has reverted and the removal has stood. If there had been a revert and the removing editor objected, then no doubt the discussion would have started here, as you would wish it to. Like it has with us. And, as I say, it may still be the case that the result of this discussion is the reinstatement of the entry. But, as I've already indicated, despite his position at the French professional football club, I don't see enough notability for that restoring editor to be me. The best course now is to see what, if any, reaction there is to this discussion. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 03:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Gonzalez does not appear to meet any notability guideline. He is ineligible for WP:NFOOTBALL, and fails WP:GNG as sources for his death are limited to tabloid and parochial media. Of course, our IP editor could always write an article about Gonzalez and see if it survives deletion review. WWGB (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yun

Hi. Better let this one stand the 30 day test, as there are already reverts and revert reverts happening frequently with Yun. Not worth the edit war, as I don't think an article ultimately comes of this person. (If the above link turns blue, you'll know I was wrong.) Ref (chew)(do) 07:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Figi

Charlotte Figi was an American girl who had a strain of medical marijuana named after her (Charlotte's web). She suffered from seizures, but they stopped after parents had her use a form of marijuana that doesn't a high. The girl died from Covid-19 on April 7. Her brief bio is on the page cited. Does she warrant an inclusion? B-Machine (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article notes a "negative" on COVID, so if that was the driving force behind inclusion, forget it. If Dravet syndrome or CBD awareness is the idea, fair play for 30 days. If because she was young and tragic, meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some pandemic fan has given her an article, so that settles that on this level. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or cannabinoid legalization nut. Ref (chew)(do) 06:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of those would've done it while she was was winning, I think, dying of a seizure isn't a good look for anti-seizure medicine. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

It seems that the Daily Mail remains an unreliable source, per this RfC. It should therefore not be used as a reference on these pages. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's obviously high time that this fact was flagged up either in the editorial guidelines for the Deaths page, or by way of a templated tag (if one exists). The entry which has generated this discussion was initiated (utilizing the Daily Mail source) by another editor, not myself.
As I read it, the wording coming from those discussions (the original 2017 ban and the 2018 review) appears to say "generally prohibited", and allows for its possible use "where no other reliable source yet exists". I am happy to avoid using it myself, given my deeper research into those discussions. Ref (chew)(do) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, neither "utter rubbish" nor just my opinion. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. Ref (chew)(do) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald O. Glenn

Like Bernard Gonzalez above, Gerald O. Glenn was a regular person who flashed in the mainstream pan due to catching COVID after previously suggesting he wasn't afraid of it. As was his wife. This is a one-note anecdote about dumb luck/irony/nyah-nyah, not the basis of a Wikipedia bio. His congregation was small, his sermons unremarkable and his death muddled by diverticulitic fever. Two editors have deleted his redlink, two have restored it, time to talk about our problems again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, like Michael Yun above, the entry should be allowed to stand or fall on the 30 day rule. That's where the ultimate merits or demerits will be found. The 30 day rule was a brilliant solution for allowing redlinked possibly notable persons to exist while article creation was considered, or to be removed because the month had passed. I don't understand this sudden wish to bypass that test. Ref (chew)(do) 23:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fine test for borderline notable people. Entertainers, politicians, inventors and a few other types that might reasonably affect the wider world. Preachers, cops, teachers and other neighbourhood fixtures are in another boat (at least they were before COVID reinvented the wheel). If I were an asshole, I could fill this page with hundreds of infamous local figures (including Flossie Johnson above). There's a line, though, and they don't approach it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 30-day "rule" was introduced to stop edit wars on this page. To that end, it has served us well. There are still some entries, like the local store owner or the spouse of the fire chief, so lacking in notability that no-one objects when they are deleted immediately. For me, the pub test has been: does someone restore the entry if it is deleted before 30 days? If so, then it should remain for the balance of the grace period. Yes, we do sometimes see this page "flooded" with redlink entries by zealous contributors from a particular nation, but they soon lose interest when they see their contributions disappearing one month later. As a personal aside, I don't mind the entry for Gerald Glenn remaining for a while, if only to reinforce that the Darwin Awards are still flourishing. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flourishing if you focus on the cherrypicked exceptions to the rule, anyway. Almost everyone who figured the risk to them personally was slim is still asymptomatic and alive. That's exactly why this makes good "News of the Weird" weekly wrapup fluff. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it will certainly be interesting to see if Gerald O. Glenn gets an article in the end or not. My guess would be no at the moment. Ref (chew)(do) 03:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally phasing out "complications of", or only for COVID-19?

I've long found it a bit wordy, but others have liked "complications", especially when sourced. So what's going on now? Are we continuing to reflect the media on complications of other things? Should we maybe stop treating the new killer as exceptional for how common it's become? Or shall this be a total moratorium on this familiar caveat? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a technicality that may not be served on this page. Technically you die from ARDS, not COVID-19. Its kind of like traffic collisions. You dont die from the traffic collision or cardiac arrest (that is the event), you die from blunt force trauma, exsanguination, etc. But its usually not picked up in the media like that. Much easier to say COVID-19 or traffic collision, although it is incorrect. We should stick with the sources even though they are wrong. I dont understand the Dennehy thing. It was sourced and stated as cardiac arrest as a complication of sepsis, but someone changed that. People just dont get what a cause of death is and what an event death is and how they are related as a complication. Much like the mental diseases dementia, alzheimers, etc which is the cause but ultimately it is an event or a complication like pneumonia that sets it off. Which is why on death certificates all of these things are listed. Maybe we could consider a notation like "cardiac arrest c* sepsis" to shorten things up.Sunnydoo (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was me on Dennehy, whole other recurrent deal, everyone here ended in cardiac arrest, needs no note regardless of other sources noting it. Complications or "related complications" aren't so universal. I think they should be noted when sources do, especially for people with multiple fatal illnesses in the death notice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If sources report "complications of", that's what we should put in too. If it's a confirmed death from COVID-19 however, "complications" is a bit of an anachronism, as (according to a medical source I have been reading) its natural "complications" are pneumonia (lungs cannot disperse phlegm, causing internal drowning) or cardiac arrest, heart attack, whatever you wish to call it (the stress and exhaustion of trying to breathe efficiently is too much for heart); so, like the delinking of COVID-19 in pages, it needs no mention because it's become a "known" thing. If sources are saying COVID-19 was present but heart attack was unrelated, then surely report the heart attack. Too over-simplified? By the way, I do not like the notation idea, as that forms a club which knows what it means, and could exclude newbie editors. Ref (chew)(do) 11:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 can also be asymptomatic, but in most cases it’s not the proverbial nail in the coffin. I think that’s why on some state/nation categories for entries, you’ll see that a younger group might have the most reported cases, but the elderly die quicker from it, due to “underlying conditions”. That could read as “complications”, but I think it’s simpler and more understood to just list the abbreviation. I don’t think that’s as tenuous as detailing a manner of suicide, for example. Wyliepedia @ 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lester

Okay, so since @Shadow2700: is hellbent on edit warring over this then talking here, I’ll start: Shadow, why is Gordy so disagreeable to you? Rusted AutoParts 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jonny Nixon: too. Rusted AutoParts 19:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can stop editing every post I make because somehow you feel that you always know which credit is better. It's no secret. No one had heard of Gordy, and you yourself, always indicate "better" known credit. Wiki can be edited by all. There are no experts here. No one has a monopoly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow2700 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’re being needlessly aggressive and acting in total bad faith. I don’t think I know better at all. Doesn’t matter if you haven’t heard of Gordy, it doesn’t make it suddenly not apart of Lesters filmography. Rusted AutoParts 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, Shadow? Gordy is a notable film covered by 43 Wikipedia projects, as well as Lester being the second credited actor and having a mention in his own article's lead. Meanwhile, he appeared in 6/222 episodes of Petticoat Junction (which is covered by a WHOPPING 3 Wikipedia projects). Was it a childhood favourite, perhaps? —Jonny Nixon (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the lack of additional comment from Shadow it feels this is more or less just an instance of WP:OWN. The core stance they took was to lash out at me for changing the credits. Rusted AutoParts 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a personal attack, but you do change my credits every single time, and that is frustrating as we work together to produce the best possible work, so feel free to quit the sympathy and victim card. Despite my editing, I do not know the ins and outs, so I don't know how to sign this. Again, let's worth together rather than assuming one is always better than the other. Shadow2700 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 April 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
You throw a tizzy every time a credit is switched and make remarks towards me as if I’m just singling you out to do so. You also said in a newer summary that I’d come here to “make a threat”. Why is that about? Like Nixon said, Lester only did 6 PJs. He was a main in Gordy. That’s clearly the more notable credit. Rusted AutoParts 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize - I meant come here and start a "thread" - I did not mean threat - that was a typographical error. I am honestly not trying to be difficult, but please know it's just my frustration as you do change a credit on every single actor/actress entry (not just mine - true, look back). It just comes across as arrogant as if you know better than I or someone else. I think, at time, the treatment here is inconsistent. I think credits should be well-known, but also if someone appeared in a television show in a notable role, why shouldn't that be included. I think we both overreacted but had the same intent - make Lester's entry the best it can be. Shadow2700 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Me changing a credit isn't me trying to be arrogant and thinking I know better/pick and choose what goes in, it's to try and reflect what their most notable credits are. Everyone's going to always have a differing perspective, I get that, but I'm certainly not trying to assert anything when I change a credit. Rusted AutoParts 21:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So here's my take on actor/actress listings: if they've had memorable performances on stage and in film and television, I try to add entries from all three venues, if possible. Having more or all of them from only one gives a sense of imbalance, possibly unfairly. In Lester's case, if GA and PJ were his only notabilities, they should be listed, if the appearances number more than a couple; however, he is known more for Gordy more than the PJ episodes (but he played the same character in both shows, as well as on The Beverly Hillbillies, totaling a dozen episodes). Wikipedia is all about collaboration, and this page is all about recognizing an entry's accomplishments and contributions to this world trying to stop the spiral to hell in a handbasket. Wyliepedia @ 11:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is this consensus for reinstating Gordy? Don't want to rush to readd it if this isn't the case. Rusted AutoParts 22:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a consensus to make one credit edit! Do you know what I do? I choose my max 3 credits for a subject entry and add them if no-one else has - then I totally leave it alone. If someone else sees it differently, they can change mine, but I've had my say and it is never worth arguing over, to my mind. Ref (chew)(do) 05:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Typically yes, but since the credit in question was contested, I figured I should confirm there was an agreement. Rusted AutoParts 19:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow2700: In response to this edit summary, please refer to WP:OWN. Rusted AutoParts 18:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was in the process of editing my entry when you started editing it less than one minute after I posted. Given that you edit your posts with three or four successive edits (base entry, and follow-up credits), I should be given the same opportunity and courtesy. Much appreciated. (Shadow2700 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Are you seriously annoyed I added to the entry? You don’t own the entry, anyone can add or subtract from it. This is such a weird thing to be irritated by. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You began editing my entry less than one minute after it was posted knowing full well one would naturally be in the process of adding credits. All I am asking for is the same courtesy that you are provided when you edit your entries with three or four successive (and immediate) edits, i.e., Michael Keenan. (Shadow2700 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Simon Barrington-Ward - Covid

The Times has published the Rt. Rev.’s obituary and I understand from Peerage News that it indicates he died from covid-19. Does anybody have access to confirm this? Would also be great to flesh out his page based on the info from the obit. Thank you --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Times needs subscribing and Peerage News is blog-ish, so that's a "no" from me. Wyliepedia @ 00:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have access to the Times and can confirm it says he died from Covid-19.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BM1196 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BM1196, that's great, I'm so happy for you. Unfortunately, it's still a paywall for most of us. Wyliepedia @ 10:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully then in time when a non pay wall source rounds up notable covid-19 deaths it can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BM1196 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Rogosin

I've been reading several articles, and a lot of them say that he died on Tuesday. However, some of them say that he died on Sunday.

The articles that say Tuesday: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

These articles say Sunday: [7], [8]. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the articles which say Sunday know something that the others don't. It appears that the others, reporting on Wednesday, may have assumed that the death occurred the day before. It is more likely that the death occurred on the earlier date, and only some of the journals mentioned may have been told this. I would leave it as is until all those outlets change to a common date of death. (The source currently in use says Sunday, so I'd leave that in there.) Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, of course, someone changed it to Tuesday with selective sourcing to suit. Ref (chew)(do) 10:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked again tonight, sources are still running at about 50/50 between claiming a Sunday death and a later Tuesday death. Ref (chew)(do) 23:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death announced on this date

I'm curious to know what death announced on this date means. Thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the actual date of death is unclear from sources. So, the next best indicator is the date on the news sources that announced the death. For example, it is not clear when Tina Girouard died, but this source announced on 23 April that she had died. We also use "body discovered on this date" if someone dies alone and their body is found some time later. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Gascoine

Why does my edit keep getting reverted in the Deaths in 2020 section? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are pushing a tabloid source (Daily Star) when a better-quality source (The Guardian) is available. WWGB (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageous. Tabloid sources are valid (apart, of course, from the Daily Mail). Outright prejudicial censorship, if that is what's happening. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Ref (chew)(do) 15:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're being serious or not but The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail. as per consensus Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if either of those publications happens to be the ONLY source available at a certain time, you keep out what will turn into a valid entry because of that? Great state of affairs if so, and it is undeniably censorship by consensus. Don't sound so puzzled - I'm purely making a point based on my opinion, not arguing for my ability to ignore the convention. Ref (chew)(do) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILY MAIL provides that is should not be used as a source in articles. So, if that's the only available source, the death ain't listed. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that we should keep unreliable sources in an article because no better sources are available goes against, like, every part of WP:V as a policy. Praxidicae (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Smith

Why was my edit reverted on this? It says that he died on the 27th. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was because you just deleted the entry and didn’t move it to the date you’re saying is the right day. Rusted AutoParts 21:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikaelaArsenault: I have to point out that it's not the first time that's happened either (I put one right some days ago). More careful editing is crucial for you as you go forward here. Ref (chew)(do) 23:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the date that I said was the right day, but it ended up getting reverted again. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MikaelaArsenault: What reliable source did you use to determine that Smith died on the 27th? WWGB (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used this, [9]. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That source does not say he died on 27 April. WWGB (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Lloyd

I've been reading different articles, and some of them say either brain cancer/cancer or brain tumor. Should it be changed, or leave it the way it is? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing. A brain tumour is a manifestation of brain cancer. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it should be kept at brain tumor then and not be changed to brain cancer? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A good rule to follow here. Ref (chew)(do) 18:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually going to throw a flag here. We need to investigate this. Variety has stated he died from complications of lung cancer which makes sense. It is one of those weird connections where lung cancer spreads through the body and it hits the brain first. So this either should be a brain tumor as a complication of lung cancer, metastatic cancer or complications from lung cancer. Your pick...here is the link: [10].Sunnydoo (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when I saw this b/c the US media usually state which of the 2 brain common cancers (astrocytomas or glioblastomas) it was. Neither was cited but this makes sense now that it was lung cancer.Sunnydoo (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going by his page, the brain tumour was a result of metastatic lung cancer that spread throughout. Rusted AutoParts 22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NYT corroborates complications from lung cancer, and they phrase it as “Kevin Turner, a representative for Mr. Lloyd, confirmed his death on Saturday. He died of complications from lung cancer, his family said in a statement.” Case closed in my books. Rusted AutoParts 03:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nothing to investigate. Ref (chew)(do) 05:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That clears everything up. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Lihua age

The age for this May 1st entry bounces around from 88 to 90. The accompanying source (here) states "Ms. Yu Lihua was born in Shanghai in 1931" and "The 90-year-old Yu Lihua contracted this wave of new coronary pneumonia and died in Washington on May 1" via Google Translate. Is there a reason it is being changed back to 88?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where sources are vague (or just plain wrong) with their information, we always go to the person article to quote information researched there. Her article clearly gives the November 1931 birthdate and states her age as 88 (which would correctly tie up). What happens in the case of any queries or disagreements with information contained within her article is that her Talk page is approached and not this one. If the details in her article change, then we would probably change accordingly here. In other words, as a general list we're mostly led by her own article and the sources approved in it. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Fox

The American pornographic film actress named Samantha Fox passed away on April 22 according to this: "Sad news to report. I heard from Samantha Fox’s sister this afternoon that Samantha passed away on April 22nd". The suspected cause was cardio-vascular illness with CV-19 complications. She will be sadly missed. Can this be added? Thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No social media links. Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELFPUBLISH applies here.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikaela, please read the FAQs at the top of this page. They will answer most of the questions that you post here. WWGB (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will, thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix an issue when clicking on a page for deaths

Hi Wikipedia users!

Please can you fix an issue that when clicking on a page on "Deaths" and going back, it redirects to the top of the page while it should redirect to the page that we clicked (for example: Name Surname - Died on XX XX XXXX) when clicking on it and going back, it should redirect to the page we last clicked on.

Regards RejsHajredini95 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no idea what you are talking about. I can find no problems with clickback reactions within the page at all. Please check your personal browser settings on your computer. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 05:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds like a web browser problem. There have been times if I jump to a date here using the TOC, that my phone kept going to that date for a few days every time. I suggest either clearing history or restarting phone if using one. Wyliepedia @ 12:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MLA as a title

"MLA" for Australian politicians is unacceptably ambiguous, potentially referring to membership of any of six different bodies; it is essentially the same as it would be calling US politicians "state senators" in this list without specifying which state. It is not excessive to spell the name out in full. Frickeg (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Folengo: a) I did take it to the talk page, as you see; b) we absolutely have not always done it this way; c) you've breached WP:3RR. Frickeg (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, it doesn’t bother me how it’s filled out as long as it’s not overly wordy ("excessive") and linked. (We have over 1000 entries at three days into May.) I’ve even seen British MPs not even linked, like it’s assumed people know, so links don’t matter. I think, at some point years ago, I had an entry linked as "NSW MLA" to distinguish the office, and that was even shortened. But it shouldn’t be "member of the XXXXXXX Legislative Assembly" every time, just like "Australian rules footballer" has been clipped before. But it should also be noted that some LA pages mention their members are known as "MLAs", so that might factor into things. Wyliepedia @ 12:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Political titles and affiliatory bodies very often are too wordy when included in full. My rule of thumb (and it does depend on the screen width for a particular device, of course) is to aim for a total entry not running into a second line. As I always have tooltips set to show, I merely hover my cursor over the abbreviation to find out what the full title is in the pop-up balloon and thus disambiguate it for myself in that way (do not many others do that?). (If I'm further curious, I absolutely have no problem with quickly clicking thru to have a look.) So abbreviate on, I say. Ref (chew)(do) 14:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the parliament is unclear, just do something like this. WWGB (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, to recapitulate: (for Australia) NSW MLA, Queensland MLA, South Australian MLA, Tasmanian MLA, Victorian MLA, and Western Australian MLA. Wyliepedia @ 16:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now we also should do it for Indians and Canadians. E.g. Tamil Nadu MLA, Chhattisgarh MLA. Same rules for everyone. --Folengo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While "NSW MLA", "Queensland MLA" etc. is vastly better than simply "MLA", it still seems less than ideal. "MLA" is by no means the kind of abbreviation we could expect an average reader to know (unlike "MP"). 95% of the time, spelling out "member of the XXX Legislative Assembly" is not going to have something go to a second line, so I don't really understand why we should be unnecessarily withholding information from our readers in this way - especially given the link is not even to "Member of the Legislative Assembly" so they have no way of knowing what MLA (or MLC, or MHA, or any other equivalent title) actually stands for. (And definitely should be for all countries, too. I see a "MPA" there for Pakistan, and although I can deduce, as a fairly politically informed person that means nothing to me by itself.) Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a further complication, many Australian states now use the postnominal MP rather than MLA for members of their lower house.[11] [12] [13] etc. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See? If you're patient, a problem will solve itself. Wyliepedia @ 04:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, not really. "NSW MP" is just as often used to refer to a federal MP from NSW as it is to a state MP. I mean, you could use "NSW state MP", I suppose, but I still haven't seen a good reason not to just include the whole thing. Frickeg (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frickeg, now you're splitting hairs. The page has been updated to show the states' MP/MLA distinction. Any future confusion can be found in links, if provided. We're not here to hold readers' hands. Wyliepedia @ 09:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of a federal MP from New South Wales referred to as "NSW MP". As for truncation, "member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly" has 56 characters, whereas "ACT MLA" has 6. Nuff said. WWGB (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty common, especially in the regional press. But it's also beside the point. Why do we not have room to spell out a parliamentary body, but we do have room to include up to three sample roles for actors, or three bands for musicians? "ACT MLA" is a step up from "MLA", but I don't see saving 50 characters as worth baffling anyone who isn't intimately familiar with state/province-level politics, of any country. People above are talking about how they've got their settings set to show hover text, but we're not writing this page for other editors, we're writing it for readers. I do not think spelling out what "ACT MLA" stands for counts as holding readers' hands, and I do not see that space is at such a premium on this page that it matters. There's being concise, and then there's being pointlessly opaque, and the latter is what is happening here. No one should have to click on a link to find out what an obscure acronym stands for. Frickeg (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cady Groves

Why was my edit of natural causes removed? And I’m very curious to know where the May 2 date came from. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because "natural causes" is a common COD here, unless specified in a source. Even if "natural causes" is sourced, we still don't list it because it is a vague COD. And May 2 (which you have fixed) is reported, tweeted, shared by most people who knew her. Wyliepedia @ 09:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aldir Blanc

Now come on. If the guy was a "physician" or a "psychiatrist" as well as a songwriter, show us the evidence - don't just throw it into the entry without explanation. Thank you. Ref (chew)(do) 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Greenfield

"Greenfield died on Sunday having contracted the virus after a prolonged stay in hospital for heart problems.". So, we cannot say that COVID-19 was the cause of death - it may have accelerated his death, or it may not - the source does not say, it simply says that he tested positive for COVID-19. This is a systemic problem - everyone who died with COVID-19 is said to have died from COVID-19 when that may not be the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Statement on the Band's official website refers to him losing his fight against COVID-19 so I take that as if it did contribute to his death. BM1196 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement does not say that he lost his fight against COVID-19. It may have contributed, but that's not an explanation of why only COVID-19 is listed. The statement says: "Following a stay in hospital for heart problems, Dave tested positive for the Covid-19 virus last Sunday but he sadly lost his battle last night.". That's his battle for life, not necessarily his battle against COVID-19. There is a wider issue, of which this is one example - that all deaths of people testing positive are being given as deaths from the virus, when we do not know whether that is the case. It may be a contributory factor, but only one among others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s a bit inferring on your part. They wouldn’t have mentioned COVID if it didn’t play a part in his ultimate passing. Heart problems is incredibly vague and can entail many ailments. Would those heart problems have killed him by themselves the day he died if COVID didn’t play a part? Rusted AutoParts 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that demonstrates the problem. If someone dies having tested positive for COVID-19, it will be mentioned, because the current situation demands it. "Would those heart problems have killed him by themselves the day he died if COVID didn’t play a part?" We have no idea. "Would COVID-19 have killed him if he hadn't had heart problems?" Equally, no idea. But we are choosing one above the other, without any justification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2020&oldid=954893607"