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 79.24.120.120 (talk) at 10:44, 12 December 2020 (→Jazzhands90). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Full stops?

Why is there a full stop at the end of every line? Most of these aren't sentences and shouldn't have full stops. – PeeJay 18:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've been there many times before - trust me on that - and the consensus amongst regulars prefers the full stops. You are also not correct - this list takes the form of a vast collection of sentences, each on new lines, which would normally qualify for a stop. However, I will leave this section open for debate on the matter once again. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't sentences. Look up any definition of a sentence and none of these lines follow such a definition as they do not contain any verbs. Do tell me if I'm missing something, but each of these lines is barely a phrase, let alone a clause or a sentence, and thus they don't need full stops. – PeeJay 00:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full stops have been used since Deaths in January 1998. If there is a consensus to remove them, an editor with lots of time can start back there and work through the 274 intermediate months before we change the current month. Minor standardisation is sometimes not worth the effort. See also Talk:Deaths in 2019/Archive 2#Punctuation and Talk:Deaths in 2018/Archive 1#Use of full stop/period after each entry WWGB (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did as you asked. The Cambridge English Dictionary says it's "a group of words, usually containing a verb" - "usually" indicates to me that the verb is not compulsory in a sentence. Dictionary.com then says "a grammatical unit of one or more words that expresses an independent statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc". Each line in the Deaths page is a statement of decease. Tell me where I have misunderstood the context of those explanations. Ref (chew)(do) 04:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. None of the lines would stand on their own as a clause of any kind. You say they're "statements of decease", but they're not. There is nothing about "Shegufta Bakht Chaudhuri, 86, Bangladeshi economist, Governor of Bangladesh Bank (1987–1992)" that would indicate that that person has died. We only know that from the context of the article. Even those lines where a cause of death is given, when taken in isolation, don't actually make it clear that a death has occurred. If the line said "Bangladeshi economist Shegufta Bakht Chaudhuri, 86, who was Governor of Bangladesh Bank from 1987 to 1992, died on November 11." then you might have a case, but that's not what's happening here. – PeeJay 07:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the bullet points are sentences that implicitly state that the persons have died, and therefore the full stops are correct. It is the same as the example of "Two." being a full sentence in the example given in this article: Sentence (linguistics). --Marbe166 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in those fragments that implicitly states anything. Please indicate the clause that is implied by any one of the lines in this list. – PeeJay 07:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an introductory sentence at the top of the list. The advice from the Imperial College London here, regarding bullet-pointed fragments and full stops, is to use a full stop in lieu of a semi-colon for each and every line when this occurs. If you were to remove the opening sentence at the top, you might have a case overall. However, removal of the sentence at the top would also remove the context of the list, and so you would be hard pressed to avoid being reverted on that score. I note you have not scolded us for failing to use semi-colons? Ref (chew)(do) 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym wars

It is not the practice for this article to note that some Germans are Bavarian. It is not the practice for this article to note that some Spaniards are Castilian. It is not the practice for this article to note that some Italians are Sicilian. All these defunct kingdoms are regarded as obsolete nationalities, and indeed if Lubomir Strougal were to die regulars would race to remove any implication that he was a national of the country of which he was prime minister even though it existed as recently as 1993. And yet, one finds (is it only the regular who has been hair-splitting about sub-dialects of Shtokavian?) a point being made of specifying that various nationals of the United Kingdom are "English", or "Scottish", et cetera, rather than the comparable and proper "British". I would say that the only time the sub-nationality is relevant is if it is an important part of the person's notability (an organizer of eisteddfods, a Scottish Nationalist Party leader, an advocate for a new English Parliament, or the like). It feels like a passive-aggressive denial of the legitimacy of the Union to call them anything but "British" otherwise, akin to claiming American states as "nationalities". And now we have the people confusing "Slovenian" (a nationality, a citizenship) with "Slovene" (an ethnicity). To presume that all Slovenians are Slovenes is like calling all English Anglo-Saxons or all Israelis Hebrews. Can we have a little more consistency and rationality? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We use adjectival forms here, not demonyms: Caroline Wozniacki is a Danish tennis player (adjective), versus Caroline Wozniacki is a Dane (demonym). The two can often be the same. I agree that we should stick to British, unless there is a clear link to a particular country. (Sean Connery was Scottish). In the case of Slovenia, List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations lists Slovenian and Slovene as adjectives (without reference). The article Slovenia uses Slovenian, so I guess there was some consensus reached. I agree we need to determine and maintain a consistent form here. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency at least, we should certainly stick to one form over another. For instance, the last time I counted in Deaths in 2020, there were two Slovenes and just the one Slovenian causing the ruckus for no reason whatsoever. There cannot be any "I'm right" in this because neither choice is wrong - the two are interchangeable as nationalities or citizenships (Google it). "British" is always used where there is doubt over the exact country of birth within the union, so that's not an issue today. Ref (chew)(do) 08:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which misses my point that, for consistency at least, "exact country of birth within the union" should be ignored for Great Britain just as it is for Italy or Germany etc. unless it is a key component of a subject's notability. Defaulting to "British" should be just as automatic as calling Sicilians "Italian". 96.250.80.27 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't know the minds of the devolution lobbies in any of the British union countries then. The mood of the UK government has for a long time been towards the establishment of more self-determination where it won't damage the union, though that may already have gone too far in some instances and definitely in one instance (hence the repetitive debate regarding the possibility of one specific country's independence from the union). Oh, and Sicily is an "autonomous region" within Italy, not a separate country inside the national structure. Poor comparison. Ref (chew)(do) 12:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how NPOV allows siding with the "devolution lobbies" rather than treating the UK like other countries that have been created by the fusion of former kingdoms like Sicily or Bavaria into a single citizenship.96.250.80.27 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the article header says what's to be included is "country of citizenship at birth". Though as I've noted I see this routinely discarded if that country has since dissolved, the UK at this point has not dissolved and to pre-emptively dismiss it seems to express a wish that it dissolve. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "British" issue is explored at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, which is only an essay and not policy. WWGB (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, if there is no consensus generally, as explained in that essay, there can be no right or wrong regarding my stance on this, nor that of 96.250.80.27. So the question we are debating naturally reaches an unresolvable impasse. Ref (chew)(do) 14:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog

I removed dog from list as it is frivolous and disrespectful- please don’t just add it back. Post comment here if you think animal’s qualify Timmytimtimmy (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you edit this talk page please pay careful attention to the fourth entry on the FAQ above, which explains that animals that have their own articles are to be included. There was an earlier attempt to delete this particular dog on the grounds of "notability is not inherited" but that line generally also fails for those who already have their own articles (Rita Sargsyan, a schoolteacher married to a successful politician, is on this list now, and if Wikipedia had existed at the time I suppose Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, an infant born and quickly lost to a successful politician, would have been in Deaths in 1963 since an article was written for him). The only privilege humans have over animals on this article is that humans get 30 days as a redlink while the animals must have had articles while living. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous user is completely right. Apart form the fact I did not "try to remove" it because "notability is not inherited", I removed their owners like you would remove Sargysan's husband if needed from her entry.--79.24.120.120 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am the one above. --Folengo (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see the FAQ “above” but a dog having a page is ludicrous too. Let the dogs and cats set up their own waggapedia Timmytimtimmy (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I delete the dogs page? Timmytimtimmy (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try and stick to editing, cos the stand-up comedy ain't working. Ref (chew)(do) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to further blow your mind, we also include trees such as the Eisenhower Tree, racehorses and other zoo animals. I believe we also had a Fungi at one point as well a few years ago. Being human is not a requirement to obtaining notability for this article.SunnyDoo, 19:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a question on the entry- we normally put the breed in instead of the generic "dog". So it should read English Cocker Spaniel. Does anyone have a problem with that? Thx.SunnyDoo, 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Not a fan of animal entries, but I was wondering why it was identified as a Royal dog when there is no such canine hierarchy in the world? You could remove that notability by association to the Royal family if you like. I can't be bothered. Ref (chew)(do) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, anyone still looking for the minute guideline on animal entries should look at the top of the text box in edit mode in the main page, not this page.) Ref (chew)(do) 20:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also FAQ#4 above. WWGB (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who play flutes

the occupation of this person should be flautist not flutist. Konrad Hünteler, 73, German flutist.[293] Juliani (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - thank you - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Flutist" is American English, "Flautist" is British English. I would advise not to change one to the other once established in the page, as I've seen edit wars break out over much less. They're an "either/or". Ref (chew)(do) 23:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put him back to flutist, notwithstanding the previous discussion and the fact that I hate the spelling myself. The person requesting it had changed it from flutist to flautist on the article (actually in one place out of two, which is hideous, but never mind) but I don't think that means it's good to come here and ask for it to match. Indeed it is rather the other way round as the US-resident editor who started the article spelt it flutist and in the absence of any other evidence this is how it should stay – if in doubt please check WP:ENGVAR. So I have changed it back in both places. Whoever (Refsworldlee , sorry!) warned about the potential for escalation into insane edit wars (funny link contemplated but decided against here) was exactly right. We would be better off if people counted to 10 then another 10 before switching languages. Always. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said above, once a common word which spells differently in two parts of the world has been entered, it should not be changed for the other. Notable exceptions would be, for example, if an "English flutist" died. That would be a valid change to "flautist", as that's the spelling in force in the part of the world from which the deceased came. And vice versa, avoiding an "American flautist". Edit wars are always ungainly and seldom resolved, but should never occur over the most trivial of matters. They do though. Ref (chew)(do) 13:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and absolutely agreed, thanks Refsworldlee. This article and the subject's target article are now back where they started – with "flutist" – which is how it should be, and I hope will not change further. And yes on the warring. Gruesome. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver and bronze medals

Why are we reporting silver and bronze medals in individual events? We don't report runners-up in team sports (World Sup, Super Bowl etc), so why are we reporting "runners-up" in individual Olympic events? It seems to be a double standard. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original amateur Olympic ideal was that all three medal winners were "winners". That's the only reason I can think that it persists. I'm easy either way, as you and I usually end up finishing off Olympic entries to standard here and it would ease our burden. Ref (chew)(do) 04:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. I see the "Super Bowl", for example, as having a winner and a loser. No middle ground. With Olympic medals, all who finish in the top three are honored; that is to say, a silver medal or a bronze medal is -- in itself -- a "winning" status, i.e., an honor or award. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have grasped the concept - however, in the big bucks world of modern sport, that not-really-winning mentality is now alien to all go-getting sportspeople. Ref (chew)(do) 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do list just participating in the Olympics. To me that's even less notable than winning a medal. Nukualofa (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALS as a cause of death

This is a question I've been mulling recently, but is ALS a direct COD? This is a premise based on remembering previous discussions about whether Alzheimer's disease or dementia being what killed someone, or the complications/effects being the cause. I've found this article published when Stephen Hawking passed, and noticed these sentences:

  • "Although Hawking's cause of death has not been reported, his family said he died peacefully in his home, according to the BBC". On his entry in March 2018, we put ALS.
  • (This is the paragraph that makes me ask the question): "Most people with ALS die from respiratory failure, which occurs when people cannot get enough oxygen from their lungs into their blood; or when they cannot properly remove carbon dioxide from their blood, according to NINDS. In ALS, this happens because the disease can eventually lead to paralysis of the muscles that control breathing, according to the Mayo Clinic".

The article also goes on to name things like pneumonia, dehydration, etc. so it just made me curious as to whether it's accurate to put it as COD or not. Or add "complications from" ahead of it. Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a progressive degenerative end-of-life disease that affects muscle control, so therefore I think the COD should include "complications". Wyliepedia @ 01:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Complications from" sounds good. Over-thinking leads down the road of original research, so caution is needed as usual. Ref (chew)(do) 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sub forum for Recently Discovered Deaths....

I hope I am not confusing by my title. Why I am asking is I check Deaths in 2020 daily to see who died in the last day or 2. However I just found out the actress Abby Dalton died on a newspaper website. Wondering why I didnt see it on Wiki. It seems she died a week ago Nov 23 so she is listed under the Nov 23 Deaths. This seems to be a case of someone dying but the public not finding out till later (Most famous I remember was Beth Howland of Alice fame).

So can there be some sort of Sub Page for deaths that happened more than 5 days ago that just get announced so they do not get overlooked in the mass of other listings. Would be a temp type page & names only kept up for 2-3 days just so people dont miss a late announced death. Thanks. 2604:2000:1003:ceb:e00b:2ba:3b2d:8094 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not something that would be done here, because EVERY death included in Wikipedia MUST be confirmed by reliable source. There can be no inclusions of death announcements without such confirmation, and if such unsupported death claims are included in the encyclopedia (for that's all it is, not an obituaries page or a forum), then it risks being removed as unsubstantiated. Ref (chew)(do) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think you misunderstood. I do mean reliably confirmed deaths. My question is a sub page for those deaths that in effect go under the radar for a period of time so that by the time the death is found out about it could be overlooked. Example today is Dec 1. Say Celeb X died on Nov 15 but the news of the death just gets released on Dec 1. On Wiki the death is listed under the Nov 15 deaths as that is the date of death. However most people just look at the last 2-3 days of deaths so would miss a Nov 15th death.
So could there be a mini sub page for deaths that happened say 5 days or more ago but just got announced after 5 or more days. Would be a temp type page. Say keep the listing up for a week at most. Just so it wont be lost in the mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1003:CEB:E00B:2BA:3B2D:8094 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some people create their own sandboxes for that type of thing. Most people should be glad that "Deaths in 2020" is really just deaths in the current month, plus seven days of the next one, rather than the entire year. Frankly, Wikipedia visitors should be lucky we have pages like Deaths in October 2020, monthly pages, to keep track. Wyliepedia @ 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page is one I would never find time to maintain personally. Ref (chew)(do) 06:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikipedia article has a history, which reports "updated since your last visit". Surely a sufficient way to keep track of edits since one's last visit? WWGB (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hilarious"

@Refsworldlee: Thanks for removing my stray phone addition. What is actually funny is, at the time, I wondered if we should include vice-mayors. I suppose my phone answered my thought. Wyliepedia @ 05:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't had time this morning to see who actually made the edit. Nothing nasty meant by it. Ref (chew)(do) 06:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for Soufis Subri, he gets mentions in Indonesian Wikipedia articles and technical files, but seems to me to be a minor player not earning his own article there, and right on the edge of notability anywhere (@WWGB:). Ref (chew)(do) 06:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzhands90

[2] He's back to adding complications from COVID-19 again. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an unresolved issue, so there's no point highlighting every instance of changes being made. And I would advise not to focus too much on one user in your comments, as it easily offends. Ref (chew)(do) 21:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually ask you to consider the medical facts. COVID-19 does not kill per se - COVID-19 does badly affect and eventually kill some with "underlying conditions". These conditions can be anything which naturally lowers the human immune system responses, such as diabetes, cancer and a host of other terrible diseases. The combination of an "underlying condition" and the coronavirus therefore is the real killer, and the description "complications of/from COVID-19" is not a million miles away from the truth. I'd invite all editors in here to re-discuss it if it helps. Ref (chew)(do) 16:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It won't help, but I'll note Tommy Lister's diagnosis is premature speculation, original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I just wanted to point out that he was adding complications from COVID-19. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To what end though? You wish for an edit war to start up over it? Not worth it for two extra or two fewer words. "COVID-19" is the absolute crux, and anything extra is dressing. Ref (chew)(do) 19:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lister's CoD is reportedly unknown, though, no crux determined. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lister's CoD is not confirmed. COVID can kill even without underlying issues, but that's a rare occurrence. Anyway COVID is referred to the disease associated with the virus and not the virus itself. It is a pretty general term, including pneumonia or cardiovascular problems triggered by the virus. So COVID-19 is broad enough to be a CoD. Unless the person was not positive at the time of his death, but died due to the damage he suffered. I'd recommend "complications from COVID-19" in that case. --79.24.120.120 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lister Jr.

Can TMZ be removed as a source? It is not a reliable one, and I found a better link from Variety that can be used instead. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • TMZ has never been declared an unreliable source by Wikipedia, just one that should be used with caution due to its gossipy entertainment nature. For things they break such as this that quite obviously happened, there is no real issue. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked his wrestling career to a movie, rather than WWF and/or WCW. Both characters are the guy from the movie, WCW just had to skirt trademark law. Exceptional style, but both exceptional angles, it makes sense this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The TMZ source got replaced with CNN. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the movie that doubled as a match is now just another movie, which kinda works, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s why TMZ is not always a reliable source. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, just be aware that the bible for sources exists here, and any trust or anti-trust deviating from that long list may be challenged elsewhere in Wikipedia at any time. Replacing links which editors personally believe are unreliable, when the formally consensual list says otherwise, can be validly altered or reverted back. Ref (chew)(do) 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Does CNN contradict TMZ? I think they agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Sutton COD

Just checked the reference for her death. Only the article & news story titles mention COVID-19, no official source of any kind backs it up. As such, I think any mention of COVID in COD must be removed at this time. Thoughs, comments. 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Only the article & news story titles mention COVID-19". That's why her COD is here. Wyliepedia @ 03:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the sources. That's all we need. As well-respected news outlets, the burden of fact-checking and verification is on them, not us. By the way, if you're going to keep posting in bold, you may as well SHOUT for all the good it will do here. Ref (chew)(do) 03:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2020&oldid=993763850"