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 RhinosF1 (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 7 June 2020 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020: add reflist template). 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]

Please don't insult my intelligence . . . "you have more than one editor" (out of our many editors) . . . what more can I say. You won't win a war of words here, so we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Try not to take constructive criticism too personally. I have nothing against you. We all contribute with a common goal in mind, i.e. to improve Wikipedia. Editrite! (talk) 08:16, 7 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.[3] [4] [5] 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]
It's not a cause at all, just the unaccidental, unhomicidal and unsuicidal sort of manner. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an incredibly vague term. It’s akin to putting death as the cause of death. Rusted AutoParts 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that vague, to be fair, "death" can mean all three manners of "traffic collision". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just think of "natural causes" as actually saying "everybody dies", and then you should see why we don't ever include it. Ref (chew)(do) 11:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

@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]
Stop calling it your entry, I have already said you don’t own it. Also it’s not “naturally known” someone is adding credits. Anyway I’m just gonna say it one last time: you don’t own entries, this is a bizarre thing to get angry about, and and stop with the insanely bad faithed remarks toward me. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents (or pence, depending on your IP), this page is a dynamic page, in that its structure changes daily, sometimes every second. Rather than create further chaos that this thread discusses, I suggest composing entries in a sandbox before adding them here. This prevents anyone updating the entry as you decide on how it should be presented, then add it here, save, and walk away. More times than not, someone else will come along and add to/decrease/delete it, as is the ebb and flow of Wikipedia, a collaborative conceptual website. Wyliepedia @ 07:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good old "edit conflict" page is a firm friend of mine (I see it so often!). Basically, because I've not been quick enough to register an entry, someone else has invariably beat me to it. That's fair enough, so I leave it alone completely, unless there are tweaks needed to that entry. Beefing gets you nowhere here. (If the edit conflict is because of something else well, luckily, backspacing in Chrome displays the changes I tried to make and so I can try again - Microsoft Edge, however, is such a dog's dinner of the Chrome model that it completely fails to do that. Most frustrating.) Ref (chew)(do) 18:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this page needs retitled as "Deaths (and edit conflicts) of <year>", as it's notorious for it. I'm able to back arrow on my phone to my edit, copy it, then see if the EC happened on the same date I'm doing. Great if not, but not too horrible if so, unless there's a barrage of them before trying to squeeze mine in. Then, I just copy my addition, instead of the entire date. Or just give up. Wyliepedia @ 01:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide deaths

If someone has died by suicide, what is the "rule" about how we describe it? For example, there was a recent entry for a death where the cause was originally "suicide by hanging". This was later changed to suicide. I noticed a death yesterday (NZ time) where the cause of death was "suicide by hanging". I changed it to simply suicide as per the above example; it's been changed back to suicide by hanging. David French (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The method of suicide is included if it's reliably sourced. If not, it's left as suicide. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts

@Lugnuts: please, if you’re going to add in new entries, please start including a full citation. I’ve asked you a few times before to do this now, and at this point it’s incredibly frustrating to see the request ignored. Rusted AutoParts 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it - we've tried months ago to reach out and he heeds you not. Plus, there is absolutely no compunction for an editor to fine-tune his entries. Name, age, notability, source - basic pack drill. Look back, and you'll see who usually clears up after him (yours truly), so probably a waste of your typing this here. Heigh ho. Ref (chew)(do) 18:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Half tempted to raise a motion to have him topic blocked on the basis of not conforming to the required format after repeated requests to do so. Just fixed yet another one. Rusted AutoParts 16:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just said - there's no compunction for him to fine-tune, as the expectations stand. Why would you escalate this, other than having a real personal issue with another editor, frowned on here? Ref (chew)(do) 19:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is beyond frustrating at this point. It’s very evident that’s a format utilized here that they’re just refusing to adopt after multiple requests. If I can get blocked for not adjusting my signature right away after several requests, surely there’s something to be done about this. Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about your blocking for that ridiculous reason, but I suppose that was for inaction. His additions increase the content and our sum of knowledge (though not fully enough) rather than subtract, so he can't really be flayed alive for that. Anything that appears to be a vendetta (not is - appears to be) is not a solid base for complaint or reporting. By the way, to de-escalate this, just be assured I'm happy to plough through his shortcomings and let you ignore them yourself - I'll be along at some point soon to "develop LN entry", as I insist it's described in my edit summaries (he's already said he doesn't like me identifying his editorial lackings, but what's LN?). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no vendetta, appearance or otherwise. I'm mostly just venting, but it's absurd how often they've been asked to fill out their sources, not just by myself, and how they just choose to ignore it each time. And though ultimately their entries are of benefit, the refusal to adhere to the proper source formatting is just so very irritating. Rusted AutoParts 01:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are "Individuals" humans only, or does the entry for the dead Alligator stay?

I refer to the entry for Saturn the Alligator in the article for Deaths on May 23rd, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.202.125 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQs at the top of this page. Dead animals with their own article are allowed here. WWGB (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the FAQ section- Q: Why are dead animals sometimes listed in the article? A: Many animals (like Lonesome George) achieve notability similar to humans during their life. This article reports the death of any notable biological life with its own article, not just humans. We have a wide and varied notable non human deaths over the years...from trees to horses (mostly race horses) to mascots to various zoo animals and pets. Either have to have their own article before entry or a master article like UGA or Bevo.SunnyDoo, 20:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This globetrotting dinosaur isn't just welcome here, but the first-billed star of our little nook on the Main Page. Serves him right for having an educational biography online. Most of "his people" don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He even had a trophy wife...70 years old and he was messing around with 30 year olds...good times- when and if you have the energy i would suppose.SunnyDoo, 04:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly worth bragging to your old war buddies about when she's as pug-truckin' fugly as all of you are. Now an alligator in his 30s landing a current-model Brigitte Bardot, there's something to make the boys tip their hats and stop to talk a while! But guys like Saturn don't get that satisfaction, they have to settle for what the good lord gave them, and it always ain't pretty! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, though, animals cannot have nationalities. "American-born German-Russian alligator" reads like parody. Frickeg (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have citizenships, but are from or in places, and subject to those place's laws (as applicable, anyway). It's not even a personalization thing. Russian zoos, American aircraft and German newsreels are also not trying to be funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But not in the same way as humans. An animal cannot identify with particular countries in the way humans can, which is what these designations are there for; the fact that the alligator lived in Germany for a while does not make it German. It was still an American alligator. Our own article on nationality makes it clear that this applies to humans only, and frankly if you don't see why "American-born Russian-German alligator" makes us look silly I'm not sure I can help you. Would we talk about an "American-born Russian-German newsreel" for a newsreel (or even "American-made"?) that had been made in America but spent some time in Germany and Russia? Frickeg (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have a Romanian dog. She came into the country on an official pet passport, as required by law for export/import between the two countries. And pet/animal passports are not exclusive to dogs, so I think the subject may bear a little more thought (I have no actual opinion either way on animal nationality, as I am one who would prefer not to see animals here at all). Ref (chew)(do) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier after i reestablished the nationalities...each of the zoological creatures have extensive licensing and regulatory requirements that their keepers are responsible for. You cant simply pick up an alligator in one country and move it into another. Some of the species have to have immunizations in addition to their regular up keep. And in the cases of Pandas, they are leased to other countries but their citizenship is retained as Chinese as part of the breeding and showing program. All of this red tape, etc. is what it is...a nationality...maybe not in the human sense of the word, but in practice.SunnyDoo, 00:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, if you clink on the blue link on the main page to nationality, you get the Wiki definition- "Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state." The licensing requirements, etc make up the legal relationship. If you look at the Oxford definition, it is "The status of belonging to a particular nation," which again would be met through the extensive paperwork.SunnyDoo, 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you wrote "a legal relationship between an individual person (emphasis added) and a state". Next thing, these beasts will want citizenship and suffrage. Oh wait, that would be a donkey vote. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The crucial issue with "legal relationship between an individual person and a state" is not with the "legal relationship" bit, but with the "person" bit - animals, after all, are not people. If I understand your argument correctly, you are contending that only captive animals can have a nationality because only they need paperwork to travel between countries (and then only sometimes); wild animals must therefore be stateless by this logic. As for pandas, they are not citizens of China, they are owned by China, a very different concept.
Ultimately, though, nationality is a fundamentally human concept. Applying it to animals is an extremely odd thing to do: in this particular case, Google searches for 'Saturn "russian-german alligator", 'Saturn "russian alligator"' and 'Saturn "german alligator" return 8, 14 and 7 hits respectively (the middle one says 1260 but actually produces only 14 once duplicates are removed, and they are almost all Wikipedia mirrors). The sources simply do not support ascribing nationality to animals, even if it were a sound concept (which it isn't). It would make much more sense, if animals are included (and I, like Ref above, would really rather they weren't, but that's a separate issue), for them to be referred to by their species, which is far more relevant and informative. Frickeg (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup

(from CAWylie's talkpage):
Re this edit, when was it decided that World Cup wins would no longer be reported? I know Rusted AutoParts does not like the reporting of team successes, but I do not recall any consensus to withhold. For me, a World Cup title is more notable than an Olympic team gold medal. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. World Cups are not played every year. They are extremely prestigious in whichever sport they are in...rugby, field hockey or soccer. And I think the team achievement thing is just terrible. Someone like Pele for example...not only did it, but did it on the grandest stage. He was the youngest player ever to score a hat trick in a World Cup...the grandest of all stages. Not counting that because it was a "team exercise" is ludicrous. I think he is one of only a handful that played on 3 World Cup winning teams.SunnyDoo, 21:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if this is about Singh who I added last night, he was the manager of the '75 World Cup team for India. You can scream team all you want, but as the manager of said team, it is your strategy and player moves that will dictate what happens. So that is even more nonsensical in the "team" framework.SunnyDoo, 21:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than being "more notable" (subjective), World Cups certainly rank at least as highly as the Olympics, and should be included when linking achievements. And because many links to Olympic team golds are included with deceased sportsmen every week, team sport World Cup winners should certainly qualify for inclusion too. Alternatively, if you want to leave out World Cup team credits, you should leave out Olympic team credits as well. However, one concern for me would be the overloading of the subject line with every conceivable occasion on which success was achieved in either or both. There has to be some kind of control. Ref (chew)(do) 22:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judicious use of the "Rule of Three" will always resist overloading. WWGB (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Readded, but in a better way. I no longer care about page format. Wyliepedia @ 02:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State representatives

Who (@Star Garnet:) took the arbitrary decision to change all the "member of the XXXX House of Representatives" to "XXXX state representative"? That's not the way we do it. Should be reverted. Or do you find it better this way? Cause I don't. --Folengo (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed some. Wyliepedia @ 12:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it makes sense to me. I'd advocate reserving "member of" for non-legislative bodies and where it's uncommon/awkward/confusing (Lord of Parliament/peer). MPs, deputies and national senators are referred to by their common monikers (pretty certain deputy and senator shouldn't be capitalized with the new-ish rules), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the case across the board. For the US, that would mean "representative" or "senator", and for its states, "state representative", "state senator", "state assembly(wo)man" and "state delegate". For other titles used in May, that would mean "member of the National Consultative Assembly" —> MP, "member of the (Nicaraguan) National Assembly" —> deputy, "member of the (Hong Kong) Legislative Council" —> MP(?), "member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly" —> Victorian MP, "member of the (Canadian) House of Commons" —> MP, "member of the Catalan Parliament" —> Catalan deputy. Star Garnet (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not for that at all. What we have works as is, no need to get cute with common slang instead of the correct title/office.SunnyDoo, 20:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are using things like "Victorian MP", "Catalan deputy" etc., there is no reason the same shouldn't apply to the US. I am very strongly of the opinion that we should not do this for any country, and should use the proper term ("member of the [body]") in all cases. I do wonder, looking at some examples, whether the push towards abbreviation has been due to an increasing tendency to list multiple positions where I'm not sure this is necessary. Taking the first example I see on the page: Michel Gauthier was Leader of the Canadian Opposition. I don't think we need to include his period as a provincial MNA there (the MP terms maybe). Frickeg (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the Rule of 3 like everything else...most notable office first. As for the US thing, we dont abbreviate elected offices here with acronyms like they do in the rest of the world. It is somewhat amusing to me this discussion, because usually it is the English countries that are always telling the Americans that they are killing the language with such things as hip hop music and then they come up with phrase contractions (like footballer...we dont have baseballers or basketballers, etc) or using acronyms in crazy ways. Different strokes, different folks. I will say that we do have people pushing the word "presser" instead of "press conference"...and that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. We need to get that nipped in the bud before it spreads further. SunnyDoo, 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the follow up to that. It is local rules over global- which is why you have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the US and motor neuron disease elsewhere. Also why we have soccer players and you have footballers (maybe we should start calling them soccerers). And why we have regular football players and Canada has CFL players (although there are quite a few US notables that do play CFL as well and they are designated as such in cases where need be because of the different rules).SunnyDoo, 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do say "US representative", "New York (or NY) state senator", etc., though, which I think is the point. No one is suggesting we invent acronyms. Frickeg (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you guys say MP, which typically stands for members of parliament for the national branch of whatever country and is great for unicameral structures. However in the US, we will say member of the US House of Representatives for instance or member of US Senate in the national place as that is the title and cause of their notability. It is the same thing as member of parliament except we dont designate MHR or MS or even MC (as in Congress). Saying State Senator or Representative or whatever is actually making that different in form than the other as well as being a slanged contraction. Just because one is written out and one is an acronym doesnt make them different. They mean the same thing. Changing one or the other to some other form will make them different ie MP = member of the House of Representatives/Senate but doesnt equal US Representative or Senator.SunnyDoo, 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar- MP can also be misleading in bicameral legislative structures...one of the reasons I am in favor of places like India that do make an effort to split it up with the Rajya and Lok Sabha. We should be as specific as possible instead of using the generic term.SunnyDoo, 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think they're that different - they're both simpler, shorter forms of the same title. For us using, for example, "NSW MLC" for "member of the New South Wales Legislative Council" is still changing the form. "MP" is generally used for the lower house, but it is different in form from "member of the Australian House of Representatives" or "member of the UK House of Commons". As I said I'm against any of this abbreviation, but I don't think the US should be exempt from a rule that is being rigidly applied elsewhere. Frickeg (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Slanged contraction"? It's how they're referred to, both officially and in secondary sources, which are of course what WP is based upon. For example, results from the NYT: "member of the New York state senate": 21 articles, "member of the New York senate": 3 articles, "New York state senator": 572, "New York senator": 1391 (which of course doesn't always pertain to state senators), plus a small handful of the latter two abbreviating NY. Other legislators are titled as they would be addressed (e.g. MP Jogi, Deputy Goasguen, MNA Dufour, Senator Souplet, MLA Dallat, MPA Ansari), and it's strange that doesn't carry over to American politicians. (This is consistent with other offices, e.g. President Pajares, Prime Minister Youssoufi, Minister Lopukhin, Justice Nunn.) You are correct that bicameral legislatures should be disambiguated; in India, MPs should be referred to as MP Lok Sabha or MP Rajya Sabha. Star Garnet (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Ubbiali

What does "six-time Grand Prix winner" mean? Ubbiali is a nine-time world champion und has 39 race wins. --Intimidator (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only guessing (not my area of expertise, motor sports), but the six-times Grand Prix statement is consistent with his own article lead-in, at least as far as the 125cc class goes. I assume you add on the three 250cc titles to make the nine? If it's plain wrong in your opinion, it's there to be edited. (I think the "race wins" stat is a little too deep for a one-line obit entry.) Ref (chew)(do) 06:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to nine and added the WC bit. Tied for third all-time. Wyliepedia @ 06:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Ref (chew)(do) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogate

Why is this animal described as 'Male Horse' rather than 'Stallion' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greetham J (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not usually make note of sex or gender, unless part of a natural occupation title or a superlative. Arrogate's occupation is listed as a racehorse and the description of his notability indicates he won a notable award called the American Champion Three-Year-Old Male Horse. Vycl1994 (talk)
Thanks - It just seemed odd but if that's how the leftpondians talk, who am I to argue :) Two Nations divided by a common language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greetham J (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Colt (three year old) is more concise. Editrite! (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, "male horse" is part of a linked WP article. Proposal of a page name should be discussed there, not how it’s listed here. Wyliepedia @ 03:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do the ILL format for languages - are we allowing ILL format for Wikidata now?

See Beth Soldo as of my timestamp. Someone has linked throught an ILL tag to Wikidata (which tells us almost nothing helpful). Are we allowing this new development, as I don't think there is a consensus at the moment for that exact method in these pages? Input required below - the edit still stands (as of this timestamp, of course). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was never consensus to use ILL either. It just crept in and no-one objected. WWGB (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With language ILLs, at least the little link is concise (just squared parenthesis containing usually two letters). It seems to me that the new one plants in [Wikidata] obtrusively. Ref (chew)(do) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who wish for a glimpse to the past, {{ill}} use on this list was questioned in 2016, but had been in place before then. Consensus against Wikidata links via {{ill}} was formally established in 2018. Vycl1994 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the historical consensus clarification. Ref (chew)(do) 19:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

 Done With link to correct page on itwiki. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1] (in Italian)

.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_2020&oldid=961282840"