Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Disproportionate detail for politicians

For most entries on the list, the details of their notability are presented concisely:Writer, footballer, historian, guitarist etc. But for politicians, we have a list and dates of their incumbencies in several roles. Why the discrepancies? Should the politicians be pared back, or are we to encourage proportionate details for other roles? Kevin McE (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this detail is unnecessary. All the more so because these details will typically contain several wikilinks, and wikilinks contribute disproportionately to the ultimate size of the rendered webpage, which is pretty big even without them. – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A further consideration is size: this page is among the longest pages on Wikipedia, it's only going to grow and there's not much chance it's going to get split. We're sill some way off from exceeding the size limit, but at 1.3 MB, the page is still pretty big, to the point of being inconveniencing for many readers. Trimming the unusually long descriptions of politicians will help, and so would the removal of links (in descriptions or elsewhere), as these take up quite a bit of space in the html. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I would encourage proportionate details for other roles: writers (what books did they write), NFL footballers (team played for), actor (main films they starred in) - as long as there is a wikipedia article of said film, book etc. I don't think we should remove important information from list regarding politicians at all, no one else has ever recommended that, as putting just "politician" is wrong as there are so many different politicians in the list holding different roles: President, Prime Minister, Minister etc. You can't put politician for both a President of a country and a local Assemblyman as they aren't the same. There's a reason people have put all the political information in over the last nearly 2 years - because it's interesting. So we should leave it and expand others if needs be. 1IfYouSaySo (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: 1IfYouSaySo has been indefinitely blocked as an assumed sockpuppet. Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding similar level of detail to the other entries is an option, in principle. But in practice, this will affect the size in a bad way, and it's also easier to change the politicians to match the rest of the list than to change the rest of the list to match the politicians. Maybe the label "politician" is too broad – but there is a similar range of accomplishment for the other occupations and we don't seem to try making those sort of distinctions: a musician may be barely notable, or they may be a Grammy winner and a household name, but we describe both as just "musician". Still, I won't be opposed if added a little detail: if the politician was at some point a president or an MP in a top-level assembly, then that may be mentioned briefly. – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think adding more detail would be very good, such as Grammy winner as it's an interesting fact and I imagine readers would like to see it. I know you commented on length of the article and its size but I imagine the average wikipedia reader wouldn't mind since it's sortable and you can find info quite quickly within the article. Overall I think the article should be left as it, especially when it comes to politicians as that is their occupation or job and its why they are notable and it's how it seems to have been for nearly 2 years without complaint. I would definitely support you if you wanted to put (Grammy Award 1968) next to certain musicians, (Gold medallist 2004) next Olympic athletes, (New England Patriots) next to American footballers etc as it gives them the distinctions you mentioned above. 1IfYouSaySo (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: 1IfYouSaySo has been indefinitely blocked as an assumed sockpuppet. Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I would keep it as generic as possible to not worsen size concerns; there are already wikilinks to the people's articles that provide more information on them, and the list is already taking more than just a few seconds to load. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Having anything other than a generic description of the field in which the person was notable makes the field pointless for sortability. Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, with similar simplifications for bishops, judges and diplomats, some other simplifications/abbreviations to shrink page a bit. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 articles

Hello, With the article forever increasing in size, as more people die, I was wondering if I should make some articles by continent. I was thinking, for example, List of deaths due to COVID-19 in Asia and within the article would be the notable deaths, from this article, but split up by country. I think this would A) eradicate the problem we have here of it becoming the largest article on wikipedia and b) rather than scrolling continuously or having to make the place of death sortable, it will allow readers to view notable deaths by the country they originated in. If people like that idea I will start creating?. --TimeSprint (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I doubt we'll ever a get a consensus on spliting this behemoth, let alone on how to do it. By continent would raise some issues, such as if a Chinese person, for example, dies while on holiday in Italy, would they be on the Asian list, the European list, or both? A continent split would probably have three very big lists (Asia, Europe, North America), and a very small Australia one. My solution has always been by quarter, IE Jan 20 to March 20, Apr 20 to June 20, and so on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, but maybe we could get away with thirds (Jan–Apr, May–Aug, Sept–Dec)? Size is still an issue, but at least some users have gone and merged some date cells together so that it's been substantially reduced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for listening to my idea. What I would do, if I created the articles, is keep the place of death the same as the one that is currently used in this article. So if a Chinese person died in Mexico, then they would go in the section about Mexico or if a French person died in the United States then they would go in the US column as currently, in this article, that seems to be what happens. To your other point: I agree that some articles would be bigger than others, but they would be far smaller then the one that has all the notable deaths in, which should hopefully stop people's concerns about this article becoming the largest in wikipedia history. I'm the user who has been merging date cells as I noticed it really did make a difference in the article size. --TimeSprint (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

With the edits of the past 3 days, the size of the wikitext has gone down by almost a third (excellent trimming everyone!). I don't see size as much of an issue anymore, as the article isn't even in the top 400 articles by size. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa into List of deaths due to COVID-19. To my knowledge, no other nation has a similar article, and the content is entirely duplicative. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This page is too large as it is. The merge would increase the page size to almost 500K bytes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Due to this page's scope, the content should be here already. There are 69 deaths in South Africa currently recorded here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I find the List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa article more usable. It is not possible to sort the large list by date and country, for example, to find a lists of deaths in a country by order. This is due to the large list not having a consistent country column. It has a place of death column, with values like "South Africa", "South Africa (Cape Town)", which prevents proper sorting. The country article also provides an easy link to follow from the country pandemic page (I don't think it is possible to link to a pre-sorted version of the table, and it would probably involve lots of scrolling as well). The former could at least be solved by restructuring the data on the large page. Greenman (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Given that it would make no difference here, this is essentially just a delete discussion for List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa. I am rather surprised to hear that SA is the only country to have a list of notable persons' covid deaths. I should have thought that there would be plenty of interest in such articles for many countries, and that that would be a very appropriate content fork. Kevin McE (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Someone got bold and decided to do something about the unsuccessful split discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I think it would allow us to split the article into deaths per country. So I think it should stay the way it is and we can split the article by continent or by individual countries. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support we should have one list. Splitting by country ignores the fact that people sometimes die in countries where they are only incidentally. If the list has become just plain too long, we should consider deleting it on the grounds this is not a defining enough thing to list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was also thinking of splitting it by date. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone is proposing a split to this article: all this merge would do is to double check that those named in the SA article are already here. Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the main page is already way too large to merge the South African page into it. Also that the South African life will be hard to distinguish when combined into a new page. TapticInfo (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but only on the condition we split it by year or quarter. The size is currently so large that my browser hanged when I tried to add Vladimir Menshov (someone please do it). Ain92 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  You could ask Onetwothreeip, he is usually the one who handles splits. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be very irresponsible to do that without first establishing a consensus for a split, which has been sought but not found consensus a number of times. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because of the far-too-large size of this article. Rather than considering merges, we should be discussing more splits, letting go the idea of having just one article. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support all information from this page is already included in List of deaths due to COVID-19, so we wouldn't be losing any information as it's already there. Ladislyzk77 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, this page does not provide the same information. It is not possible to find a lists of deaths in the country by order of date, or by province, for example. Greenman (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, also I agree with Ain92 that the page should be split, at least by year into 2020/2021. Those could be linked from the usual Deaths by Year pages, and this page could be reduced to include only major celebrities and cabinet level politicians (as well as linking to the sub-lists, but I think just a disambiguation page isnt ideal either). jonas (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Otherwise we would have to create other list articles for different countries. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to, but anyone could. Is that a bad thing? Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Merge and then split List of deaths due to COVID-19. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal It's better to split the page by continent or year first. This way, it would not be too unwieldy. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Upon further inspection, splitting this article by year would be better since some people can die incidentally in another continent. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support it makes sense for the list of notable death due to covid 19 to all be in one article so why is south africa's list of notable covid 19 deaths any different and why does it get it own article? Either merge the two articles or give each country's list of notable deaths due to covid 19 the same treatment as the list of notable deaths due to covid 19 in south africa is getting. Thecornerwiki (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, they are not the same, and it is not possible to find a lists of deaths in the country by order of date, or by province, for example. Greenman (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support and then split the articles into continents for the following titles.: List of deaths due to COVID-19 in North America, List of deaths due to COVID-19 in South America, List of deaths due to COVID-19 in Africa, List of deaths due to COVID-19 in Europe, List of deaths due to COVID-19 in Asia, and List of deaths due to COVID-19 in Australia (continent). Steam5 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If this page is voted to stay up, it should follow this format for easier accessibility.

Year/Country/Name/Date

The current set up isn't appropriate. 2dmaxo (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Year should be separate articles if it's like that since it would not make sense for year column and date column to have other columns in between, especially given that the pandemic could last a few years. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

People on list with no individual article

In trying to save bytes yesterday, I discovered three names on the list who have no article individually, and who, I suspect, are thereby not proven to be notable to the standards of this article. I therefore removed Patrick Francfort (of The Gibson Brothers), Stefano d'Orazio (of Pooh) and Baba Zumbi (of Zion I). The last of these has now been re-introduced by @Shadowolfincubi:, although he has no WP article.

So what is the rule: to be included on the list does somebody have to have an article, or merely have to be named within an article? And what of those who are key to one event, such as Liu Fan and Carlos Escobar (still on the list)? Kevin McE (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I see your concern on this, especially when it comes to (sometimes lesser known) individuals in notable music bands, etc. I don't know what the answer is to drawing the line on that, and it is a good topic of discussion to determine. At least with Zion I, if I am to justify it to standard, the page does mention that Zion I became solely Zumbi's project later, his Zumbi name goes directly to the Zion I page (and bolded within too), I think serving to accommodate both his music project and personal (stage) name.

As for the topic, it can be very nuanced per individual; I feel potentially, some people who've made their achievement and "notability" within a group/pair or as siblings, etc., may arguably have "more notability" than even a few names already on the page, but could be potentially barred by such technicality, though I totally get the necessity of a standard too. I personally feel The Gibsons Brothers should qualify; I'd argue it could potentially be like barring the Wright Brothers by the same or a similar technicality. It's unfortunate sources can't back this page any longer either (it could help settle some of the debate per individual basis, I think), though I totally get why too. -- Shadowolfincubi (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

To my mind, it is a matter of whether there is enough biographical info (i.e., enough RS interest in the people as individuals rather than simply their being part of a collective) that there could be an article, except that there has been an assumption that no-one is likely to be interested in them on Wikipedia apart from the group to read the article. There is plenty on the Wright brothers, some but not much of Francfort, and even less on Zumbi and nothing on d'Orazio (in an almost entirely unreferenced article). The Liu and Escobar articles are about Covid deaths, so although strictly speaking there is not a biographical article on either of them, I would consider them exceptions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

On one hand, some of the other articles of individuals are no less brief, and no less only focused on their careers: Vicenç Capdevila, Jean Luc Rosat, Lorna Irungu, etc. just as much as creatives' projects are essentially why they are notable at all. With Zumbi, the page looks to serve to be BOTH Zumbi's personal page AND Zion I (as he shifted it into his own personal solo project), just as it is for Francfort among his brothers, and with the latter, briefness of an article is not a criteria to measure them of "lesser relevance" of a biographical page against the Wright Brothers, as any individuals in this page with large biographies versus individuals (like those examples I cited) with terse biographies. Again, this might be for individual basis, because of the malleability of how certain individuals creative projects closely relate to their personal identity -- Zumbi's death has completely defunct Zion I; whereas with d'Orazio, the band is not potentially defunct without him, the Pooh band page is purely the band page (and therefore, I'd say to be a different debate altogether from Zumbi's and Francfort's criteria of inclusion).

At least with Zumbi, I would argue the "assumption that no-one is likely to be interested in them on Wikipedia apart from the group" is just that- an assumption, that I feel is incorrect when Zumbi's death made articles across Rolling Stone, SF Chronicle [2], KQED, Complex, NME, Yahoo News, ABC7, HipHopDX [2] (part of Warner Music Group), BET, including articles headlining police investigations into his death, and garnering notable media and social media attention. -- Shadowolfincubi (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The assumption seems to be what underlies WP:BANDMEMBER, "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." If you believe that Zumbi has demonstrated individual notability and that an article on him would survive then WP:JUSTDOIT, although I think this list already carries too many pages created post-mortem for people whose notability is tenuous at best, that are reliant on obituary pieces in sources that meet RS, but are not much more than local press or trade bulletins (not saying that those you have given are). Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Aside from specifics of the Zumbi case, are we maintaining this article on the basis of individual articles only? Does consensus support removal of Francfort and d'Orazio at least, and others if they arise (I haven't spotted others in there yet, but they might be lurking)? Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Little bug

 Fixed

I can't edit it as it seems I'm not experienced enough, but the line about former french president Valery Giscard d'Estaing is not well written, the data are shifted (and the following lines too), there must be a pipe character (|) to move... Jean-no (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. An edit earlier today removed an entry without updating the rowspan. I've fixed that now [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you ! Jean-no (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Hello to all the editors here. You may have noticed that the protection on this page has been increased recently. This is because this article is currently the target of a very persistent community banned editor User:Marquis de la Eirron. This editor is a prolific sockpuppeteer, but perhaps worse they often engage in copyright violations and unsupported or frankly inaccurate edits. Their most recent incarnation here is User:TimeSprint as well as IPs from the Manchester, UK area. It is likely that this editor will reappear here. Assume Good Faith is obviously a key pillar at Wikipedia but nonetheless it is important for editors here to keep an eye out for any future socks. In the spirit of WP:DENY I will shortly be reverting and deleting some articles. Any editor can restore these edits, but make sure that you check any and all references as you will be taking responsibility for them now. --Slp1 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaders of countries

Hello. I was wondering, rather than just having " Politician" for Presidents and Prime Ministers, should we add President of India etc to people who have died. This would distinguish them from all other politicians, who we can keep as just politician. Let me know what you all think TimeSprint (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It was probably me who stripped it back to just politician. I wouldn't object strongly to a simple designation as you suggest, for head of state/govt at full sovereign state level, and hope it does not become a thin end of a wedge. But it would lose the advantage of having politicians grouped when that column is used for sorting. And please let's not return to the details like dates etc. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps each politician could have an endnote. For example, a president of a country can have Politican^A with the endnote for A being President. A symbol could be used instead. This would preserve the column sorting while providing details. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also in the rest of the politicians we could specify, putting for example "Mayor", "Senator", etc. Do not leave it so generic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

9/12/21 JEFF DAIELL AGE 69 1988 US Senate Candidate (Libertarian Party) .................................... 1990 Texas Gubernatorial Candidate (Libertarian Party) .................................... 2002 Texas Gubernatorial Candidate (Libertarian Party)

• • • ADDED***......................... Former Texas Libertarian Party chairperson

UNITED STATES (Houston)

Sources: (1) Wikipedia "1988 United States Senate Election in Texas" (editor's note: won 44,572 votes) ..........(2) Wikipedia "1990 Texas Gubernatorial Elections" (editor's note: won 129,128 votes) ..........(3) Wikipedia "2002 Texas Gubernatorial Elections" (editor's note: won 66,720 votes)

Other Source: Myself. I am a close relative, so I personally know that he died from covid-19. I also have permission from his immediate family.

• • • ADDED*** NOTABILITY, link to Official Libertarian Party wikisite: https://lpedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Daiell

Rdaiell (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: They need to be notable enough for their own article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Daiell doesn't have a Wikipedia article, which should contain information from reliable sources that establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Old merger proposal

Since the merge proposal has been archived and there was no consensus to merge, I'm removing the tags here and at List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa. Miniapolis 15:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to delete List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa instead due to being a redundant content fork. The main article already contains deaths in South Africa plus all other countries. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

Date: 30 October 2021 Name: Aleksandra Bubicz-Mojsa Age: 54 Notes: operatic singer and university professor Place of death: Poland Akinerov (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: They must be notable enough for a wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

Add Wasfi Kabha to list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasfi_Kabha#cite_note-3 JLKlein12 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Question: @JLKlein12: Is there any date of death provided? Morneo06 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I added him on the day of his reported death, as stated here. Jazzhands90 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already doneI closed the edit request tag per Special:Diff/1062638295 Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone update this list? This article hasn't been updated for 5 days. Qhairun (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Why this article hasn't been updated?

This article hasn't been updated for 3 days. Can someone update this please? Qhairun (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Qhairun, Wikipedia is a voluntary project and there isn't anyone who's assigned the duty of updating this or that page. Various people have contributed to this list over the past two years, and there may be all sorts of reasons why none of them have found the time or the energy to be here in the last week. If you see a gap, you can take the initiative and fill it yourself. If you're looking for a starting point, you may possibly find the list at Deaths in 2022 useful. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

Craig Ruddy, 53, artist, Australia (Byron Bay)[2] 118.209.236.63 (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you update this article please? This list hasn't been updated for 5 days. Qhairun (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So do it. Your request has already been answered below. Kevin McE (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Split by year?

So are we going to split by year or not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Splitting by year might run into PEIS issues with 2020 being particularly death-heavy. Half-years might be safer. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have said before that I would consider splitting the list to negate its purpose, and I will propose deletion if it is split. Could I turn that around to those proposing the split: if the only options were retaining it as a single list or deleting it, what would your preferences be? Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• • At this point I would say deleting it would be far better than retaining a gargantuan list that people are unwilling to actually source. With both the level of people having their deaths caused by Covid and the extent to which so many of these are people who were notable for something else decades ago, this does not seem to be a particular useful list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I support anything that isn't this gigantic list. I try to keep things as much as possible, but I'm not going to shed tears over something being deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

I suggest to add Meat Loaf / Michael Lee Aday, died on 20th January 2022, reportedly from COVID.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_Loaf#Death https://www.tmz.com/2022/01/21/meat-loaf-dead-dies-singer/ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/meat-loaf-us-singer-dies-facebook-statement-b977966.html https://www.looper.com/740420/the-truth-about-the-death-of-meat-loaf/ Sam Watkins (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Wait for better/more sources. Cause of death has not been publicly confirmed. The inference by some sources from the social media post doesn't seem to be sufficient to add him to this list yet. SpinningCeres 02:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Peregine (Peg) Broadbent; 56; Banking Investment: United States (New York) Wallywally384 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

change Jeremy Sivits age of death from 72 to 42. Gregology.net 21:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this is already done. RudolfRed (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fixed now. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

I also see people have begun to add sources, but we have virtually none compared to the entries. I really think we should require all entries in a list like this to be sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For some odd reason WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF is ignored here because of template transclution limits. Should be split to comply with our basic sourcing requirements for bios WP:BDP.Moxy- 16:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The entries are already sourced: it's just that the sourcing is in the linked article and not on this page. That question gets repeatedly brought up, so maybe time to add a FAQ section at the top? – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Uanfala, per WP:CIRC you cannot rely on other Wiki articles for cover - it says: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly". So each fact asserted in this article needs to be reliably sourced in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not about using content of other Wikipedia articles as a source. What is done here is the use of the same source for both articles concerned – the biography and this list – whilst retaining it only in the former. We wouldn't normally resort to such stylistic choices, but here we have no alternatives: adding refs back will cause the page to exceed several technical limits, meaning the list won't be able to display at all. This has been discussed many times before. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's why there's been a discussion about splitting the article up above to preserve sourcing as an alternative. It seems there's many who believe that splitting it by time would be most appropriate, though we might want to achieve a consensus on how much we should split it (i.e., by year, half-years, or quarter-years). I don't think WP:CIRCULAR should be circumvented in this case, as the articles being wikilinked can change (even though the particular source for their death is unlikely to do so). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing victim

Resolved

Tracey Penson Born: 2nd February 1969 Died: 7th February 2021, age 52 Cause of death: Covid-19 Location of death: Greenwich, United Kingdom Birthplace: Lambeth, United Kingdom Penson117 (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Our condolences, but this list is restricted to those who have an established notability and a wikipedia biography page. We should not forget the millions of other victims, and mean no disrespect, but this list makes no claim to list all of them. Kevin McE (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Split by year?

I remember a proposal a while back to split (or delete) this due to the size of the article, which was rejected. Now, the article has no references at all and is 300KB in size. Presumably COVID deaths will continue in 2022. I think the talk page needs to once again consider splitting this article, with the simplest approach being by year. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I support any split, because how the listicle got this big is ridiculous. Citations would be nice for each entry, but because of how big this page is, that's not feasible (thankfully some editors removed redundant code, so it loads somewhat faster). There's probably going to be a lot of bloat in 2020, so I'd separate into smaller divisions, like yearly quarters. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I too support the split. It would make things much more manageable. The 2020 article could be further split in quarters, while the 2021 article could be split in half as 2021 doesn't have as many deaths than 2020. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that the principle remains as I have seen it before: the facility of using sortability is the only thing that justifies the existence of this list. Once there is no sortability (as is the case when the list is split) there is no value in maintaining it. If it is not tenable as a single list, categorise and delete. Kevin McE (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Support - At the very least try and make Wikipedia look credible by following sourcing basics as per WP:LISTVERIFY. Split and source WP:MINREF.Moxy- 15:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Kevin McE. --Presearch (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• The idea of splitting was also floated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths due to COVID-19 (2nd nomination), and it seems to be appealing to many. However, I agree that this will effectively remove the full sorting options and so will diminish the utility of the list. And even if it's split by year, the resulting lists would still be unable to host traditional references as that would make them too big again (so for verification, people would still need to click through to the individual article). The current size of the page isn't excessive (it's only at #756 in Special:LongPages). There's been excellent work done in reducing its size, but there's still some more scope: unlinking the cities for example would reduce the resulting size of the html (which is what matters for readers), whereas simplifying the sorting template could push down the rendering time (which matters for editors saving changes). – Uanfala (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  The articles could even be split by half-years or quarter-years. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Moxy and Johnny Au. The 2020 list of deceased people will go under List of deaths due to COVID-19 (2020) and for the 2021 list of deceased people it will go under List of deaths due to COVID-19 (2021). Steam5 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • How about List of COVID-19 deaths in 2020, List of COVID-19 deaths in 2021, and very likely List of COVID-19 deaths in 2022 (as the pandemic is far from over despite being under a month away from 2022)? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Johnny Au: Did you say the propose titles for List of COVID-19 deaths in 2020 and List of COVID-19 deaths in 2021? Uhhhh.... Sure, why not! So I will change support for the propose titles List of COVID-19 deaths in 2020 and List of COVID-19 deaths in 2021. I will continuously support the split. Steam5 (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Either by year, or better still by quarter, with full references included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per list verify --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering whether these people !voting for split because that will mean that entries can carry verification are willing to commit themselves to populating the split list with all these references. If not, what is the outcome that they expect from this? Kevin McE (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I can help populate references, since the articles to those people should have a source that references their death. Once we narrow down how we're splitting the list, the question becomes how big each resultant list should be. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely it is the other way around: if there is a decision to split the list (or as I would see it, fatally undermine the value of the list by splitting it), then the decision on how to do that rests on how big a partial list is acceptable. Kevin McE (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the responses above, splitting the list into smaller ones seems to be in favour, so now it seems to be narrowing down constraints for each one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I strongly agree with user Kevin McE and user Uanfala on keeping the whole list for sortability. Also, the whole point of the list is about victims not years. Having a complete list sortable by year, age and country, etc is the main use of the page 82.32.16.48 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support by occupation (why the person is famous), and it's also sortable Thingofme (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support this list is way to big for Wikipedia. Split by quarter or year. Catfurball (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support split by year. The page is too big — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Split This list is just getting to long to have all as one. I really think a quarterly split makes most sense. We absolutely need to require references in the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced

Uanfala, according to WP:BURDEN, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Additionally, WP:CONLEVEL says, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

For those reasons, each entry in this list needs an inline citation, which does not include a link to another Wikipedia article because WP:CIRC says, Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source and Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

For these reasons we need to restore the tag that you removed until this article is policy compliant, which means inline citations and not links to other Wiki articles, or remove the unsourced entries from the list. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion is at #Sourcing above, the previous ones are in the archives. Just to sum up: 1) no-one is suggesting waiving the verifiability policy here, it's just that this requirement is satisfied in each linked article only (that's similar to what we do with dab pages); 2) it's technically impossible for this article to be in any practical way fully referenced: if it was, then it would exceed the size limit and the entire list will fail to display. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been suggestions to split this page into more manageable chunks to abide by PEIS, but no consensus was ever reached on how it'd be done. Frankly it'd be nice to have a separate column with references to each person's death, but there have been some editors bemoaning how that'd require a drastic rework of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)