Talk:Deaths in 2019

Unsafe abortion

Interested editors may want to visit Talk:Deaths in February 2019#Caroline Mwatha, where another editor wants to declare a cause of death as "complications of an unsafe abortion". WWGB (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

European access blocks

Hi. For some time now, I have been diligently monitoring the availability of website sources in the European Union, from my vantage point of the UK. For the first time maybe, I have been reverted because there was an editor who doesn't believe me can't see the block as they are not operating their PC systems from in the EU area. It concerned the online news source St Louis Today and the entry for Kenneth Rothman. Well, here is all I get whenever I try to access STL Today from the UK:

"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact sitehelp@stltoday.com or call 314-340-8000.

Please reference the IP address: 86.112.169.179 when contacting us."

For those outside the UK, or those using a VPN, I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it. If the site is visible in parts of Europe but not the UK, there would still need to be a tag attached to the link until such time as a universal source becomes available (every single different reference I tried today for Rothman came up blocked). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ref, you have been doing a fine job in this regard. It's unfortunate that you were challenged this time. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The editor seemed to think that, because his location the Commonwealth of Australia has close ties with the UK, it was somehow part of the EU (although clearly never possibly part of the EEA). Geographically and politically, Australia is far-detached from the demon Brussels machine - lucky devils. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh please, I never stated that I didn't believe you and I certainly did not ever regard Australia as being in Europe (lol), although we do perform at Eurovision. I just was merely pointing out the fact the source was visible from here (and presumably several other countries), and that it was credible. No problems my end aside from the idiotic assumptions. Cheers, —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

All good faith, Jonny, yours and mine. I don't bother getting stewed up over editing any more (been doing it probably too many years), though I do tend to "stand my corner" on issues where I'm sure I'm correct. So no hard feelings here. And there's never any discredit to any source I discount whenever I stick in the 'Better Source' tag. I accept fully that all the sources I have tried in an effort to include an unblocked one yesterday are innately reliable. It's just that some of their editorial boards are a mite sensitive to the possibility of the EU suing them on privacy grounds. I have struck through the disbelief slur, so good editing to you, and to me. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting horse from list of deaths of people

"Dunaden, 13, French racehorse, Melbourne Cup winner (2011), complications of a paddock accident." April 30 entry.

I cannot sign in to edit this entry. But methinks the deaths of horses, pigs, dogs, cats, cows, snakes and marmots, while tragic, ought to have their own page, and not be included in the list of "notable deaths" of human beings who have made an impact on society. I suggest deletion of the "Dunaden" entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8000:1c7d:9528:f33:616:6698 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't sign that post, and Strong Oppose, as we have been over this subject time and time again without losing the animal entries. Although I was always against their inclusion, I accepted the consensus then and intend to continue to do so. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. — Wyliepedia @ 13:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the editor knows we accept animal entries per the FAQs at the top - what the editor is doing is challenging the consensus, which requires interested editors to enter a "vote" in bold, not point to already arranged rules as though they are unchallengeable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Refsworldlee: Pardon me, but it sounded as if the OP was going to be bold and delete Dunaden's entry and couldn't, then suggested it here: "I cannot sign in to edit this entry." — Wyliepedia @ 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If the editor had actually made an edit against consensus, then a slapdown would have been absolutely correct. You can't slap down editors, signed in or not signed in, for challenging a consensus. More "votes" and less blather would do the trick here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the operative word here is "suggest". Consider it suggested. Editrite! (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If it’s living, if it’s breathing, if it dies, it qualifies for the list. Rusted AutoParts 04:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Animals can in many cases be just as notable as humans, so I oppose the suggestion of removing them. Nukualofa (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Article is not named, as suggested by OP in section header, Deaths of People in 2019. Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 22:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A similar proposal was previously discussed last year. Consensus seems now, as it was then, not to remove notable animal or plant deaths from this list. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless they're redlinks. The OP might be happy to know humans are still the chosen people, so far as that goes. We'll never be pressured to learn about a self-hating white cat who became Internet-famous for sitting at a keyboard and shaming other white cats for not hatching as black cats. No lofty tales of a pine tree standing proud and supportive behind all its cones, not only those who would use the pollen and seeds they were assigned at birth. And we'll almost certainly never be bothered by an individual fungus, bacterium or amoeba; as far as I know, the closest thing we have to a celebrity from those kingdoms is Toad, who doesn't even "die" per the rules of his/her/its own little world, just "loses a life".

It's not too soon to establish a consensus for or against particular forms of artificial intelligence, though. Shall we lean more toward bipedal androids with reasonable approximation of faces, or certain nodes of the sprawling mycellum-like web that learn like we do and directly impact our chances to procure food, shelter, sex, entertainment, education, tax and funeral resources online? Or wait till those sorts combine into something a bit more "human"? Some of us may remember the Martian rover affectionately named "Opportunity" was recently (and quite briefly) featured here; perhaps that at least suggests precedent against the proverbial "every thing that creepeth upon the earth", even (or especially) those that go where no man has gone before. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to believe if someone or something is important enough to merit a page (perhaps even a stub) then it should by all means be included here. Snarkiness of above poster aside, Grumpy Cat does belong here and so do the, eg, Kentucky Derby winners. Just my two cents. FWIW, wicked coincidence on the cat comment. 23:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019

Request to change title to 'Deaths in May 2019'. Maxxoz (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Deaths in May 2019 already exists, it just redirects here until June. RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per previous requests and the rationale by RudolfRed. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a query

If the member of a notable band dies, and the name of the band appears in brackets in the description with a blue link, is there any point in also having a redirect link to the band from the band member's name? Of course, I refer to band members who are not notable in their own right i.e. outside the band, and do not have their own Wikipedia article. Editrite! (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If redirects are not deemed notable after thirty days, they are moved from this list. Until then, business executives are redirected to companies and band members are redirected to bands. Such redirects can be tagged {{r from member}} until they are expanded. Vycl1994 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's more to do with the likelihood of a band member receiving their own article. Anyone can initially assume that a musician in a band won't have done enough significant work in their lives to warrant an article, so a redirect is the next logical step, to give some context to their overall contribution to their major "employer" during their time. However, a redirect can be changed to a person article at any time in the future if it's deemed suitable for them to deserve their own article (and if it's clear enough that it wouldn't get speedily deleted). I agree that it's strange to have two links in one subject line both arriving at the same band article, but the redirect would be there to serve a wider Wikipedia purpose than just our Deaths page. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It could also be a user trying to pad their page creation stats. I've seen that a lot as well. — Wyliepedia @ 05:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Héctor Enrique Olivares

from User talk:CAWylie page

Hi! I saw that CAWylie put "shot" but he was shot on May 9, shouldn't the cause of death be "injuries sustained from gunshots"? Thanks. -- LLcentury (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It could be argued that every fatal shooting was by "injuries sustained from gunshot" but we don't write that. Olivares just took longer to die, but he was nevertheless "shot". WWGB (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A very vexing question

According to the "vexillologist" link for Frederick Brownell on May 10, the correct term is VEXILLOGRAPHER. Editrite! 203.196.41.161 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s hard to imagine that anyone could design s flag without first studying the art. So every vexillographer is probably also a vexillologist. But I won’t object if someone wants to change it. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not true. Anyone can "design" without studying the art. Just look at the variety of flag designs created during the American Revolution. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just give me a crayon, a rectangle and a toddler. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

Grumpy Cat

..... is Grumpy Cat is Grumpy Cat. No-one in the wider world knows this cat as Tardar Sauce (which redirects to ... Grumpy Cat), and in the Deaths pages we always use the name the deceased was most commonly known by. Discuss. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with using common names, but the wider world (at least the half with Internet) does get Wikipedia upfront on Google, and we've been outing her secret identity for years. It's not on us if they forget to remember. At least we're clear about who's who in Tartar sauce (not so much in secret sauce). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Just because an identity has been "outed" doesn't mean that the public (both literate and illiterate) will follow along and 'use' it or even recognize it. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro

Be careful trusting anything you hear from "Shelly Martinez", because she's apparently not Shelly Martinez. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

As for cause of death, the entry states "suicide" yet the cited reference never mentions a cause! As such, I think the "suicide" should either be removed or the correct suicide-reference cited. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the kind of shit I'm talking about (thanks, AutoParts). Maybe a hidden note is in order explaining how there is no correct suicide reference. She's as likely to have died from anything at all (except apparent homicide), and it does nobody any good to imagine a fake Shelly Martinez as some kind of cyber banshee screaming potential spoilers at us. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

Prepared to go with the hidden code warning about "Martinez" put into the entry source for Massaro this time, but let's not allow too many of them for other reasons (alpha warnings are good though). We do try to keep coding lean and mean where possible. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Query about adding people who have no pages

While I have a lot of respect for the Indonesian people, who have apparently lost a senior police officer, is there a reason that someone added that to the list? I've tended to go by the thought that the listings have been culled directly from the pages (ie, if someone has a page, then someone adds the death (with reference, if for some reason someone hasn't added that yet). Is this incorrect? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.132.190.146 (talk • contribs) 00:02, May 17 2019 (UTC)

His own Indonesian article is a stub and he's not mentioned in either Wiki article about his police department. It's not looking hopeful. I'm fine with deleting him early. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

But yeah, your thought is generally incorrect. Humans without articles are allowed to be listed here for 30 days, just in case they'd been overlooked during life (see FAQ #2 at the top here). An obituary is a often a good overview of a person's accomplishments, but not everyone with an obituary has done something an encyclopedia should remember. Editors should consider an entry's chances at a future here, but there's no rule against listing willy-nilly. Every case has its own merits, and you were right to start a discussion on this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

The officer is clearly notable in his own country though, if not the wider world. As usual, we are giving thirty days for articled (bluelink) notability to be proven, or otherwise, based on just a sniff of notability as a redlink (wot InedibleHulk said). Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicities versus nationalities

Evidently, not only do casual contributors to this page have to put up with the regulars here engaging in an arbitrary manner, but a capricious manner as well. Witness this edit. Um, "ethnicities don't matter" since when? Some of you act as though you forget all about past months the instant they're moved to other pages, so let me remind you:

• In Deaths in September 2017#25, we see this entry:
  • Nora Marks Dauenhauer, 90, American Tlingit author, poet, and scholar.
• In Deaths in July 2014#5, we see this entry:
  • Don Wright, 84, American Gwich'in politician, President of the Alaska Federation of Natives (1970–1972), involved in negotiations for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
• In Deaths in October 2007#11, we see this entry:
  • David Salmon, 95, American Athabascan tribal chief, cancer.

There are probably many others as well. Why bother with precedents if you're going to change it on a whim just so you have something to fuck around with? Maybe others don't have this kind of time to play around; I know I don't anymore. The numerous inconsistencies which abound on this page have resulted in my decision to contribute as little as possible to it. From looking at the vast number of deceased people who are portrayed as still living across the encyclopedia, I'd bet that many others feel the same way. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In the three cases listed, ethnicity was central to the notable role of the deceased: they either wrote about or represented their ethnicity. In the case of Bill K. Williams, it does not appear that his ethnicity (Tlingit ) was critical to his role (that is, he was not elected because of his ethnicity). If that is not correct, please restore his ethnicity, with appropriate evidence. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I did it. I get that there's a certain pride when a smalltown boy makes it in the New World that a tribseman from Africa or Asia just doesn't get, because it's still so normal over there. But they're all people, and we consistently ignore their clans just fine, as we disregard other people's gangs, political parties and church groups. So long as they're famous for generic human stuff, anyway. I'm not endorsing forced assimilation or suggesting we wipe all record of his people from Wikipedia forever. Just here, for brevity's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, May 18, 2019 (UTC)