Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19/Archive 2

Do not split table without consensus

The table was recently split but that will be undone because there is no community consensus for a split, and when last discussed, there was substantial opposition, as reflected in talk-page discussions (#1, #2) that are now archived. Bottom line: Get a consensus here on talk page, or do not split. --Presearch (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the split. It defeats the purpose of "sorting". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with being against splitting the table now, but I initially only did the splitting because I saw that odd maintenance tag, and therefore I was tempted to split the entire table. Now that I saw some decent reasoning as to not split, I no longer feel that splitting was the right choice. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Qwertyxp2000:. Thanks both for your energy and for your (follow-up) reflectiveness. As someone said, those who do not stick their necks out do not make progress. --Presearch (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, Presearch. I believe there was a Wikipedian saying out there that I still remember from years ago from my experiences from Wikipedia: "Be bold". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is "notable"?

I realized that the entry for Yevgeny Mikrin has been deleted, even if he is notable in the real world and listed as such in the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia page and there are real world articles citing his death. What's the criteria of "notability" for being listed in this page? Having an English Wikipedia article? --EquinoxeIV (talk)

References

• If you think he is notable create an article on him then add him to the list. We do not tolerate any red links in the list. Doing so would lead to mass confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How about only list those who had wiki articles before the time of their death? Dixtosa (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it is worth Mikrin has a two years old long article on Russian Wikipedia. I don't know if that makes him internationally notable. --Mlewan (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Silly name - needs changing - comment

Why in the world should this be called List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 when all deaths listed are in 2020? Maybe the editor meant List of deaths due to covid 19. Name is silly, incorrect and should be corrected. Spparky (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you are both right and wrong. But, you do make a good point. They all died from a disease. The name of the disease is Coronavirus disease 2019. And, they died from this disease in the year 2020. But, yeah, you do make a good point. I can see where it's unclear / ambiguous / confusing. Not sure on how to address the issue. But, at least, I wanted to give you an explanation for the title. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also ... above on this Talk Page ... someone suggested renaming the article title from List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 to List of deaths due to COVID-19. Maybe that will help? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't incorrect, just unclear. "COVID-19" is the official abbreviation for "Coronavirus disease 2019", the official name of the disease. However, it's more widely known as COVID-19, which is why it was since moved. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't correct or the article should not have been moved, whether it was silly or not. We do tolerate a lot of silly names... it's rather silly to have our article on six star rank focus on the proposed but never awarded US rank(s), when by any sensible definition Hermann Göring was promoted to six stars at the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony. But I have long lost that one! Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kumiko Okae

There are two entries for this person, one for April 23rd and one for April 30th MeBeMe3000 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by Emk9. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

individuals presumed to have died of COVID-19

How do editors feel about adding individuals where sources say the cause of death was likely died of COVID-19 (according to sources) but no test was performed? For instance, for Joel Kupperman, the New York Times says: 'His death certificate lists an “influenza-like illness (probably Covid-19)” as the cause, she said.'[1] and for Richard Fenno, the NY Times says: 'His son Craig said the cause was presumed to be the coronavirus, though his father, who was in a nursing home at his death, had not been tested.'[2]. I think it would be reasonable to add them to this list with a footnote explaining the specific circumstances, but I would like to get the opinion of other editors. GabrielF (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It was decided earlier to leave of unconfirmed cases. Also a few times reports came out that somebody died of COVID, but they hadn't been tested and later it was discovered they did not have COVID, like Richard L. Brodsky. Emk9 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, when I looked in the archive, I didn't see that discussion, but I've now found it. I think we should list cases where the source says that COVID-19 was probable or presumed, with a footnote, for the following reasons: (1) The CDC does include cases like Kupperman's, where the death certificate lists "probable" COVID-19 in their count of COVID-19 deaths, [3] although some local and state authorities do not. (2) Given the lack of availability of tests, we don't know whether any of the other people on the list had COVID-19 confirmed by a laboratory - if the source doesn't specify it's entirely possible that the family member or whoever informed the newspaper didn't specify whether it was lab-confirmed or not, or that the newspaper omitted that information. Keep in mind that our sources are typically obituaries, which serve a very different purpose from death certificates, where the cause of death is key information. So omitting "probable" or "presumed" cases gives a kind of false precision. GabrielF (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally am neutral on this, but think it would be good to have more people weigh in. Emk9 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There would need to be discussion prior to any move of page to "List of notable..."

A few minutes ago the page was moved from "List of deaths due to COVID-19" to "List of notable deaths due to COVID-19". I just moved it back. That's because there had been a discussion on this talk page in response to the proposal to move it to the shorter name at which the page was residing ("List of deaths due to COVID-19"). There had been a suggestion on the talk page to instead move it to the alternative "List of notable..." but that had NOT been the original proposal. If the page is to be moved to "List of notable..." there should be a new discussion, plus a consensus that supports an additional move. In the earlier discussion, there was some support for the idea of inserting "notable" in the page title, but there was also opposition (e.g., on the basis that it was already implied, and there was enough interest that there would be no deviation from such a scope for the page). Therefore a new discussion would be needed befor an additional move would be appropriate. --Presearch (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard Fenno

Can someone add Richard Fenno to the list (https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2020/04/28/richard-dick-fenno-dies-ur-political-scientist-preeminent-congressional-scholar-covid-19/3033029001/)? Thank you. --Enos733 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

NYTimes says he wasn't tested, so I'd wait for the discussion on "suspected" cases first. Emk9 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Best practices

I am aligning the table with the current best practices for tables

• All columns have a scope so screen readers can see them per MOS:ACCESS
• I am doing the painful job of spinning the refs into their own column.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent update to combine rows in Place of Death

I am inexperienced here, so perhaps I just can't find the discussion that preceded this change which surprised me.

With the edit to combine rows it may be more easily readable, but it has broken sorting.

Sorting by place of death results in names with no place of death.

IMHO, it also makes editing more difficult. If new information occurs for a person, or a person needs to be inserted, this display method gets messy. But that may be my inexperience showing.

Is this perhaps a standard for table display that I don't know about?

Also, I think it is not good for accessibility given the expectations of screen readers for handling tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoNomad (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

GeoNomad (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@GeoNomad: I have reversed the change, pending more discussion --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kim H. Veltman

There was an entry concerning the death of Kim H. Veltman, but somebody removed it. Could you please add it, because I can't find it in the history (there was a reference)?--Vojtek W (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I removed it because it had replaced a different entry and the source was for a different person. Checking his page, the source for his death is "Acharya, Madhu (2 April 2020), Dr. Kim H Veltman" which I'm not how to verify, since there's no publication information. Emk9 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

USA inclusion

At this point in time, USA has well over a quarter of the world's death total. I do not see that represented in this list, particularly since the death toll in the USA has been more active of late. I think marginally notable people from the USA are also covered better in en.wikipedia than they would be if they were from non-english speaking countries. Is it a fluke that notable people from the USA are not dying due to the epidemic at the same rate as the rest of the world, or is there another factor at play here? Trackinfo (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me be more statistical. Currently the list has 87 entries for the month of May, only 15 are from USA. In June, there are 16 entries, only one is from USA, zero in the past 12 days. In that same time almost 50,000 Americans have died attributed to COVID-19. Trackinfo (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a guess here, but I feel like the USA's rich have done a better job of protecting themselves than the rest of us. Also, in some cases, I read obituaries where I suspect COVID-19 as the cause of death, but the family does not release the cause of death. I don't know to what extent that happens elsewhere. --Jonboy (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The USA is also more likely to disclose the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 publicly compared to other nations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What an extraordinary assertion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Mohammed Nasim

@Emk9: I'm not sure to add Mohammed Nasim to the list. He was negative twice in covid-19 test (Reference: [4]). I think it's better to talk with other contributors. AdiBhai (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

All the articles I'd seen on his death say he tested positive before his death, and one notes that members of his household have also tested positive. They also say he was in the hospital for COVID symptoms initially, so that's why I listed him. If others disagree, feel free to remove him. Emk9 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I apparently misread the source, his last test was negative, so I'll agree that he should not be listed unless more information comes out. Emk9 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Emk9:, @Meghmollar2017:, Nasim was found tested positive with corona virus on June 1 (link and multiple other sources), he tested negative on June 9 (link), he died on June 13 and buried following COVID-19 protocol (link). So I wonder whether people could get infected with virus first, and die from the complications later, even the virus is not present anymore. What is the policy on considering a death due to COVID-19 (and also it is more likely to get false negative results than false positive one) ? Thanks! Dead.rabbit (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dead.rabbit:, Nasim was cured from Covid-19 and died of stroke. I think the equation comes like this and also think @Emk9: will agree with me. AdiBhai (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Dead.rabbit (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My phone hangs!

The list is too long and heavy. My phone often takes long time to load the editor page. And I'm quite sure many other mobile users also face the same problem like me. So, I suggest to divide the main "Deaths in 2020" section to sub-sections by month. This will help to add names more easily. -- AdiBhai (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Mohammed Nasim, again

I don't really see why Mohammed Nasim has been removed from the list. He was admitted for COVID-19; the stroke occurred during treatment.

This article: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2020/06/13/senior-awami-league-leader-mohammed-nasim-dies-at-72 states that: "Nasim, who served Hasina in four different cabinet roles, was admitted to the hospital on June 1 with Covid-19 symptoms, including fever and cold. His tests came back as positive later. Four days later, on June 5, he was rushed into surgery after suffering a stroke. He was kept on life support since then. A second test of his samples came back as negative, but his condition continued to deteriorate."

This other article: https://bdnews24.com/politics/2020/06/13/mohammed-nasim-al-leader-and-former-health-minister-dies-at-72 also says that "Nasim was hospitalised with a fever on Jun 1 and later tested positive for the novel coronavirus. With underlying health conditions, he had undergone brain surgery after suffering a stroke during treatment. Nasim was put in intensive care and later on life support, doctors said. Although he later tested negative for COVID-19, his condition showed no signs of improvement over the following days. Nasim had initially tested negative for the coronavirus but his wife and a house help had been confirmed to have caught COVID-19. But as his fever, cough and other health conditions began to worsen, the family got him admitted to the hospital on Jun 1 and a second test confirmed he had contracted the virus."

Blaming his death on "stroke" rather than covid seems to me like blaming the death of someone who was mortally shot and then suffered cardiac arrest as not being caused by the shooting. --Pesqara (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Because he has inconsistent test results. He could have had a different disease and the positive test was a false positive. Or he could have had COVID and the negative was a false negative. Since there's doubt over what illness he had, that's why I think he shouldn't be listed. Emk9 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

His wife tested positive. One of his house assistants tested positive. And he had COVID symptoms, besides one positive test; the medics treated him for COVID, not a different disease. Where is the doubt about what illness he had? All articles on his death explicitly mention COVID.--Pesqara (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @Dead.rabbit:

Mohammed Nasim was positive and all the Bangladeshi media widely disseminated such. In my previous message, I said that I was confused to add him. But when User:Emk9 added and latter removed his name, I took it as umpire's call. But however User:Dead.rabbit and User:Pesqara here clarify that they think Nasim should be included. Moreover The Daily Prothom Alo Print Edition, yesterday, published a cover page remembering victims of Covid-19. There they added Nasim at the very first. So, I've again included Mohammed Nasim to the list. AdiBhai (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinions on dividing this into sections

I just saw a user started dividing the list (again) into sections by month – I remember distinctly there being a consensus against this last time it was brought up. Cheers–Jérôme (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm personally against the subsections, because it makes sorting the list as a whole impossible.–Jérôme (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have reverted the subdivision undertaken against consensus. I remain against subdivision, for the reason I have given before, and Jerome has given here. I repeat that if the list becomes so untenable that it should be subdivided, that is probably evidence that death due to COVID-19 will have become so common that it is not worth a list, and should be maintained only as a category. Of course, the bloating of this list is exacerbated by the number of names on it that were not considered article-worthy until they died, and I would be very happy to see rigorous examination of these in AfD. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• The list is too large and it makes editing cumbersome especially from a mobile phone. It is making people's devices hang as was also mentioned by Meghmollar2017 above. The experience was same for me as well that is why I decided to subdivide. I think sorting is not a valid excuse to render this page in-editable for many editors. Subdivided lists can be sorted as well. I do not agree with the point of view of @Kevin McE: that the list has names not article-worthy. Wikipedia had a rigorous notability guidelines and the list only contains the names who are notable. If there are names who are not notable then their corresponding article should go through the process of deletion. To curtail the growing list, I propose first to divide it into separate subsections per month and then eventually creating separate lists for every year or if that is too large, creating separate lists for each quarter, for example List of deaths due to COVID-19 in 2020 (Q1). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I remain opposed to subdivision. It's useful to be able to sort the entire list. And the purpose of the article is to serve readers, not to serve the convenience of a subset of editors who happen to have particular devices that are burdened with slower connections. I have a connection that is slower than standard but I still had no problem editing the longer list. If a particular editor's connection is too slow to do an important edit, then they could potentially post a request for a change on the talk page. --Presearch (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

41.113.156.152 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

14 July

Stephen Susman [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E010:1100:14:6952:6700:6F06 (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

Entry for July 15 for Oscar Hugh Lipscomb should be removed as it it incorectly indicates Archbiship Lipscomb's death was caused by COVID-19. The news aticle linked reports that he died "after a lengthy period of physical decline", but does not say due to coronavirus. According to this U.S. News article the diocease (the Archbishop's employer) specifically reports cause of death was NOT coronavirus ("the archdiocese said his death was not related to the novel coronavirus") https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama/articles/2020-07-15/alabama-archbishop-emeritus-oscar-lipscomb-dies-at-88 Jscott9878 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Cannolis (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Moses Costa

@Dead.rabbit, Pesqara, and Emk9: Hello again! Here comes another situation like Mohammed Nasim with a little bit changed phenomena. Moses Costa, a Bangladeshi archbishop, died three days ago. He was corona positive but was recovered "three weeks" before his death. Unfortunately, he could not even leave the hospital and died on 13th July. But this time, media publish that he died due to stroke not Covid-19 (you can see this report). Should his name be added to the list? AdiBhai (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

May you please add William Charles Bannon (age 71, Pequannock Township, Morris County, New Jersey, USA) to this list? I will send you a electronic copy of his death certificate (04/22/2020) where it is clearly stated that Mr. Bannon died of COVID-19. Mr. Bannon was a great naturalist, sportsman, and raconteur. His burial information, although incomplete, is available at: https://www.findagrave.com/user/50440938/memorial

You may contact me, I. Will at i.will@probably.be, for supporting documents, including a copy of Mr. Bannon's death certificate.

This man should be on your list! PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME! 2601:642:C103:D96C:58DF:8722:B1F1:28D3 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Subject does not have an article. Write an article, establish notability with sources and then you can resubmit. Trackinfo (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again (24 July): Do not split table without consensus

The table was recently split but that will be undone because there is no community consensus for a split, and when last discussed, there was substantial opposition, as reflected in talk-page discussions (#1, #2, #3) that are now archived. Bottom line: Get a consensus here on talk page, or do not split. --Presearch (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This table absolutely needs to be split. Far too long. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Then make a proposal and invite a discussion. Do not attempt to circumvent community consensus. --Presearch (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Half a year after this page was started, Wikipedia editors still insist that "notable" people are male. The skew here is unbelievably heavy and has been throughout. You've come in for criticism on this very page before and refused to address it. This is just another example of why people regard Wikipedia as a collection of basement techbros with no social skills, people who are so relentlessly biased that they can't be relied upon to make a good encyclopedia.

I have stopped contributing and stopped suggesting that my students use Wikipedia as a starting point and have told them that it is no longer viable as a reliable source; I don't want to see it in their references or bibliographies. 2604:2D80:DA80:7200:91F3:7C50:E2DA:C6FC (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Do feel free to start an article about notable individuals who are missing from here. (On a related note, I think the best way to discourage students from using Wikipedia might be to make them factcheck articles, we are absolutely riddled with errors) – Thjarkur (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am appalled that any academic would ever have accepted Wikipedia as a reference, and even more so that you would have suggested it. But if you did consider it acceptable, then this seems (depending on your field: your failure to log in means that we can't see what your contributions that we will no longer benefit from have related to) a thoroughly unacademic reason to drop it. Otherwise see WP:NOTFORUM. Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thjarkur obstinately refuses to look at a well-known set of facts about why the commenting skew on Wikipedia is so heavily male. The burden of the world's unpaid labor already falls on women, but he either wants women to pick up YET MORE unpaid labor as Wikipedia researchers, where they are also routinely harassed and talked down, or he wants men at Wikipedia to pick up the slack and remove bias. Well, go to it, Thjarkur. The internet awaits you as a researcher digging out the names of women who have died of Covid. Perhaps you'd also like to define "notable" in a way that doesn't mix gender bias in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:DA80:7200:5093:679B:1866:1023 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to your positive contributions at WP:NOTABLE. Or are you just having a moan with no intention of trying to improve the project? And I am not sure how Thjarkur, or anyone else, can be accused of "obstinately refusing to look" at something that they haven't been referred to: which "well known set of facts" do you mean (and how do you know who has or has not looked at it)? Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

add request

pt:Rodrigo_Rodrigues and Sérgio Ricardo has gone due to COVID19.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigues needs an English page first and the translation of the source for Ricardo says "He has been hospitalized since he contracted Covid-19, from which he healed" so while it's likely COVID contributed we'd need a source that clearly states it. Emk9 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected no longer needed

Please unprotect this page immediately. 2605:E000:1528:8E5E:50C6:9F43:31F7:4DC9 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add

please can you add Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar, Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (1962-2014) BradyLee60 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The quote from that article "A confirmatory test result on July 31 showed him cured of the viral infection. However, he developed other health issues" doesn't seem to explicitly link his death with COVID. Likewise, this article says "According to hospital management, Nilangekar had defeated COVID-19 on July 30, but died due to further health complications. 'He was completely well post recovery. His condition later suddenly worsened owing to old age and comorbid conditions.'" So while I think COVID could have been a contributing factor to his death, without a source actually stating this I don't think he should be added.Emk9 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

To add

To add: Helen Jones Woods. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Cities in the United States

Recommend adding state for those not-internationally known US cities (e.g., New York City, Los Angeles, etc). Did that for Copake. Never heard of that town before reading it in this chart, suspect I'm not alone. Some city names, e.g., Saratoga, are used by more than one state. While the town in NY (with its famous racetrack) is better known, there are Saratogas in 14 other locations (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saratoga)

Will take on task if others view it as worthwhile. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how arrogantly narrow minded it appears to suggest that such a thing is necessary for US locations but not the rest of the world? If people want to know more about the towns in question, whatever country it might be in, that's what the links are for. Kevin McE (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sixto Brillantes

On Sixto Brillantes’ addition on the 11 August, please can Someone add Chairman of the Commission on Elections (2011-2015) thanks BradyLee60 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Abdullah Al Mohsin Chowdhury

On Abdullah’s inclusion, dated 29 June, can someone remove ‘Bangladeshi civil servant’ and just have Secretary of Defence or Defence Secretary (since 2020) as then when you search by notablility it comes up with others of a similar role and matches other additions to the article. Also on Nicholas Alfonsi, dated 16 March, can someone put ‘the’ in front of Senate as currently it isn’t grammatically correct. Thanks BradyLee60 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

John Bangsund: please add

John Bangsund, on the morning of 22 August 2020: long-time ambassador of Australia's science fiction fandom to the world; three-time Hugo nominee. I just can't handle the coding complexity of this thing; it has defeated me. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Rubin

You forgot about Bernie Rubin of Bernie & Phyl’s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:C181:B70:99D9:CDBA:F8CF:10FA (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

John Vannorsdall Sunday April 6 107.77.195.132 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To add

To add: Toots Hibbert. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Translations, 2

The following recent covid victims have Wiki pages in other languages, which could be translated into English and added to the list:

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ade_Firman_Hakim

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_Carbonell (article in Simple English wiki exists)

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopie_Latul

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A

Pesqara (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Additions / Deletion / Edit

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2020 for references.

Add 7 deaths:

• Sep 12 - Joaquín Carbonell 73, Spanish singer-songwriter and poet
• Sep 10 - Roberto Franco, 75, Argentine singer-songwriter and guitarist
• Sep 9 - Yopie Latul, 65, Indonesian singer
• Sep 3 - Antônio de Jesus Dias, 78, Brazilian pastor and politician
• Sep 3 - Ahmed Al-Qadri, 64, Syrian agricultural engineer
• Sep 2 - Datta Ekbote, 84, Indian activist and politician
• Sep 2 - Ioulia Stavridou, 68, Greek set and costume designer

Delete 1 death:

• Sep 4 - Lloyd Cadena (he died of a cardiac arrest and just happened to also have testes positive for COVID-19 but he didn't die of it)

Edit 1 death:

• Ismail Gamadiid - add age (59–60)

Thanks. :)

Everyone dies of cardiac arrest. What caused it? The article linked in his page mentions that "Lloyd was confined in the hospital on September 1 due to high fever and dry cough. He was tested for COVID-19 on the same day which the result came out positive on September 3". So he was hospitalized due to (not "with") clear covid symptoms, tested positive for it, and suffered a cardiac arrest and died.--Pesqara (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Added Antônio de Jesus Dias, all the other names do not yet have English pages so they are not allowed. Also added age for Gamadiid. Emk9 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Translations?

Perhaps the pages about these recently deceased Indonesian politicians could be translated and added to the list:

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadjmi_Adhani

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masud_Yunus

Additionally, the following three individuals do not have wiki pages in any languages, they are mentioned in the "Deaths in 2020" page: Karim Kamalov (Uzbek politician, governor of Bukhara Region (1997–2011, since 2020)), Nur Ahmad Syaifuddin (Indonesian politician, acting regent of Sidoarjo), Mac Hodges (American politician, mayor of Washington, North Carolina (since 2013)) --2.36.88.192 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Adhani was already added and I've now added Yunus since he now has a page. Emk9 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Faith Alupo

As far as I can determine, Faith Alupo is not confirmed to have died from COVID-19. As stated in her Wikipedia article, she had symptoms of COVID, but the cause of death is still undetermined. Of the universe (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant talk section from her Wikipedia page Of the universe (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is more recent than either of the two ones linked there (neither of which deny she died of covid) and states that "Pallisa District Woman Member of Parliament Faith Alupo died on Tuesday morning while she was receiving treatment at Mulago National Referral Hospital in what sources say was a result of Covid-19 infection". --2.36.89.95 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

On top of this, the article that states that her cause of death was still undeterminted dates back to 15 September, the same date of her death. For all we know, it could have been written before the ones that mentioned covid, as this was not yet known at the time. And then there's still the 20 September article that states she was being treated for covid when she died.

A person should be on this list if and only if there is a reliable source stating that their death was caused by/associated with covid. If new information has come out saying that she did die of covid, she should be added back to the list, with an appropriate citation. Of the universe (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Another proposal for a split

I've noticed how there has been 3 proposals for a table split to months now, so I think everyone knows what I'm asking. While aware of the thing about sorting, I would like to point out that when I tried to add an entry, the sheer length of the table resulted in my laptop nearly freezing. I expect that without a split, the length of the table may double by the time vaccine comes out, which would not be convenient to editors. Juxlos (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar problem. My browser froze for several seconds when I opened the text editor, and then once it unfroze, typing was very slow, with the characters taking seconds to load. Sortability is very valuable, but so is editability. Ideally there would be a way to preserve both, but I agree that the list may need to be split up. Of the universe (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing and respecting the existence of the earlier discussions. And the reason that you raise is a cogent concern. To me, however, it doesn't seem like it should outweigh the other concerns. Over the past 90 days the average number of daily views of the page was nearly 6000. And there are only a handful of editors, and frankly not a huge amount of editing that needs to be done (at least in comparison to other pages). The purpose of Wikipedia is to serve the readers, not the editors. An editor who is having difficulty doing an edit could in principle request the change on the talk page, and some other editor who doesn't have the same connection problem could implement it. I'll look forward to reading other discussion, but my first reaction is to reason as above, and think that the value to readers should outweigh the convenience of what I suspect is a small minority of editors. Best --Presearch (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. It might be useful to explicitly say that "An editor who is having difficulty doing an edit due to the length of the list can request the change on the talk page" in the "Split table?: Already discussed" section, as it would have been a good solution to my problem, but I didn't think of doing it. Of the universe (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I have added that suggestion to the rem note. Kevin McE (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Technical suggestion: The older information (first three months, then second 3 months) can be segmented into displayed templates without destroying the overall essence of the article, but reducing the editable space data requirements. Trackinfo (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Zindzi Mandela

Has her cause of death been announced in the end? Over two months have passed. --2.36.89.95 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything. Emk9 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yehoshua Kenaz

october 12 - Yehoshua Kenaz Famous Israeli writer סנפרמי (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Here : https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/culture/.premium-yehoshua-kenaz-one-of-the-greats-of-hebrew-literature-dies-of-covid-at-83-1.9228804 Also on Hebrew wiki: he:יהושע קנז • And now also on English wiki Yehoshua Kenaz

 Done Emk9 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Kenaz has been removed per this Jerusalem Post article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

List of COVID-19 cases including survivors

It's a shame that no form of the now-deleted page "List of people with coronavirus disease 2019" survived. ( Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 Example for Spanish flu: List of Spanish flu cases )

It might have kept track, for example, of heads of government who caught Covid. Along with Donald Trump, I know Jair Bolsonaro and Boris Johnson got it, but who else? Mporter (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the deletion discussion would legislate against the creation of List of heads of national government who contracted COVID-19 if you want to. See whether it is added to or challenged. Kevin McE (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dariusz Gnatowski, Polish actor, dies aged 59 in Kraków

https://www.onet.pl/film/onetfilm/dariusz-gnatowski-nie-zyje-odtworca-roli-arnolda-boczka-mial-59-lat/3vxtg0b,681c1dfa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.129.180 (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

An article on the English wikipedia needs to be created in order to add him to the list.--Pesqara (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yehuda Barkan one is israel most famous actors died from covid at age of 75

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Barkan סנפרמי (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ilana Rovina

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israeli-singer-actress-ilana-rovina-dies-after-infected-with-coronavirus-646113 סנפרמי (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Famous Israeli singer סנפרמי (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But we only include people with an article on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I was convienced she had an english article too. סנפרמי (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Article to add

Just created Joel Molina Ramírez — Mexican senator, first senator there to die of COVID-19. Died October 24. Year of birth is uncertain but articles said he was 75 months before his death. Raymie (t • c) 22:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandro Cohen

Sandro Cohen, Mexican poet born in Newark, died of Covid-19 a couple days ago. He has no article in English yet. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandro_Cohen --Menah the Great (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Please change Saeb Erekat's place of death from West Bank to Israel. He died in Hadassah Hospital ([6]), an Israeli hospital; per [7], this was at Ein Karem, part of the continuous pre-1967 Israel. 147.161.13.44 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done --TheImaCow (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

William Neikirk

William Neikirk was an author, editor, and former White House Correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. Niekirk died August 27th of Coronavirus Complications yet he is not on this list, Can he be added?

His Wikipedia page can be viewed here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Neikirk

 Done Emk9 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles to add

Besides the already mentioned William Neikirk, the following articles should be added: João Peixoto, Sérgio Trindade, Viktor Nikitin (writer), Adi Darma, Daniel Kopál, Gésio Amadeu, Yehoshua Kenaz, A. K. M. Mosharraf Hossain, Mirza Mazharul Islam, and Keshubhai Patel. --2.36.89.13 (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Did not add Sérgio Trindade since his article was previously deleted and is currently at AFD and did not add Yehoshua Kenaz since some articles (like this one) say COVID was not the COD. He was previously listed on this page was removed for that reason. All others added. Emk9 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Roy Edwards

This week, it came out that Wyoming Lawmaker Roy Edwards had lost his battle with COVID-19 on November 2nd, that according to his Son. Can he be listed on here? Thanks.

His Wikipedia Page Jazzhands90 (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

We used to have a "Notes" column

We used to have a notes column: at some stage somebody has taken it upon him/herself to relabel that as "Occupation". What it actually contains is a horrible mish-mash of professions, posts held, hobbies, notorieties, nationalities, dates, band membership, university affiliations, one off achievements and events participated in, with no clarity or consistency. Only for a very small proportion of entries does the column give succinct notification of the actual profession of the person in a manner that makes it suitable as a sortable column. If the list survives, what should we do with it? Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no list of Covid-19 deniers who died of (or at least contracted) Covid?

There's obviously some overlap with this list, but I've seen dozens of reports of people who claim Covid is a hoax or deny that is a serious disease and/or don't follow recommended protocols (mask wearing) and it seems to me they deserve their own page. Such a page would be a big hit as a reference in social media... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.74.141 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If we had more than 4 lines in another article devoted to Covid-19 denial, then a properly researched and sourced list might be worth some space in it. Knock yourself out. Kevin McE (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Split table?: Already discussed

There have already been multiple discussions about whether or not the table should be split (e.g., by month). The previous consensus has been to maintain a single sortable table. Therefore no editor should split the table without having obtained a community consensus through this talk page. Any discussion on this talk page should be conducted with awareness of the existence of earlier discussions. The purpose of this section is to alert readers to this fact, and to provide links to archived previous discussions. I am attempting to set up this section in a manner that will not by default be made invisible by the archiving bot after 7 days. The auto-archiving notice above says "Sections without timestamps are not archived". Therefore after I create this section on 4 August 2020, I will delete the timestamp after my signature.

Archived previous discussions about splitting the table: #1, #2, #3  

Bottom line: Get a consensus here on talk page, or do not split. --Presearch (talk)

Good move: I have also added a REM note at the top of the table to similar effect, because people making such an edit might not look here first. I for the reasons give by Presearch I won't sign, but I am Kevin McE and I am posting this at c18:45 UTC on 4 August.

This page currently has 532,520 bytes of markup. That's far too much. Bottom line: It needs to be split into several parts Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So what about deaths in 2021 (and afterwards)?

The list is headed "List of Deaths in 2020". If there is agreement that splitting the list is not desirable, or at least that by date is not the most suitable way of splitting it, and if the list article survives, what do we do about the sad but evident fact that deaths will continue into 2021, at least? None of the dates for individual entries include a year. Do we hope that we can get away with "Death was in 2020 unless stated otherwise" at the top (although this is sometimes seen in newspaper listings, I am not sure I have ever seen Wikipedia resort to it), or do we have to be ready to go through the c.900 entries adding '2020' to the date of death each time? Or is there a bot that can do that? Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deaths will continue for the foreseeable future (unless the virus is eradicated), so what editors are committed to here is a yearly listing - which should point to why this is not an encyclopedic endeavour (i.e. summarizing knowledge), more a low-level long-term data-gathering project. Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a list of notable individuals, and a vaccine will likely be available next year, it is unlikely this list will grow beyond 2021 or at worst 2022.Pesqara (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing claims like "90% effective." That would still mean some deaths every year. Did influenza deaths stop when vaccines became available? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A small percentage of a very large number is itself a large number, and given that COVID-19 is a PHEIC, a global pandemic, eventually we'll be getting a level of statistical, background noise deaths as with "the flu". We understand influenza, and we have the infrastructure for it; "the flu" is a real killer. We are currently grappling with COVID-19, and eventually we'll understand it and have the infrastructure for it similarly. kencf0618 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

[POV pushing section title removed]

Common wikipedia user here. The content of this page has been very informative so far and have made easier reseacrching about notable individuals who died of covid-19. Dear deletionists, please don't delete the information provided by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.5.231 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You could get the same information from Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I also use this page and find it valuable. Much of the world knows about Wikipedia. Hardly anyone knows about Wikidata and how it operates. I doubt that will change. This list continues to be viewed more than 3000 times per day on average. So advocating to eliminate this page because equivalent data could be found on Wikidata is not too different (at least rhetorically speaking<friendly smile>) than advocating to eliminate Wikipedia itself because most of its information could be found elsewhere on the web, or in Encyclopedia Brittanica. --Presearch (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Deaths.--Moxy 🍁 03:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Which is a good advert for why we were correct to ban Wikidata-generated lists on Wikipedia, unless one is going to try to defend "Great-grandmother with an easy laugh" as a biography. ‑ Iridescent 21:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the better cited lists on Wikipedia and people regularly challenge additions based on the sourcing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Deaths doesn't include a single citation, is bot-generated and uneditable (if you remove an item from it, the bot will immediately re-add it), and is jammed with original research (in a single randomly-chosen one-screen's-worth of the list I see "Wife, mother, collector of friends", "A heart for immigrants", "She stayed in touch with friends and was a successful Realtor" and "Life of any party"). Are we talking about the same page? ‑ Iridescent 06:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I'm talking about the list at List of deaths due to COVID-19 compared to Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Deaths --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bassam Saba

Bassam Saba (a Lebanese musician based in New York City), one of the most famous Arabic musicians in the United States, has just died of COVID-19-related complications. He is deserving of an article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

People to be added

The following individuals should be added to the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Shafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.89.152 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Article previously deleted and currently nominated for speedy delete. Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Ponomarev

 Already done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wakelam

 Not done We've previously agreed to leave off cases that were only "suspected" like Wakelam and Isaac Robinson. Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of Robinson, I made a quick search and a couple of more recent articles turned up, like this one and this one, that say he died of covid. --2.36.89.192 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muharram_(politician)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karim_Salman

 Already done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_(Glushakov)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamu_Ram_Gonder_(Daunkal)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shudegov

 Already done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghyslain_Tremblay

 Done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulmanap_Nurmagomedov

 Done Emk9 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

--2.36.89.152 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyacheslav_Kebich

--Zarateman (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zarateman, you can add them yourself. All autoconfirmed users can. --Pesqara (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

+

Rolands Tjarve https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolands_Tjarve Journalist, university teacher, public employee and broadcasting and events manager. Died on April 11 in Riga, Latvia in age 54. Reference: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/academic-and-media-expert-rolands-tjarve-dies-aged-54.a355619/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhurio (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

First to die of Covid-19

I believe the first person on this list should be the first person to die of Covid-19. The article says it's a list of notable people, but the first person to die of Covid became notable because he was the first. Right now it's a Chinese doctor who was the first to be invected in a hospital. If that makes him notable enough, the first to die certainly is. Dutchy45 (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have biographical notes on who this person is? Do you think an article about them that would not be deleted under WP:1E can be written with suitable sources? If so, knock yourself out. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No I don't! I was wondering when the first Covid death was and as a wiki-editor I naturally checked WP first. I tried google searching as well but couldn't find the answer. The doctor who is first now only got a WP-article in March. I actually believe he should fail the WP:1E rule. As should the first death, but we should include his name in this article without brackets. Dutchy45 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We'll need to define our terms. Index case, Patient Zero, etc. We've already learned that COVID-19 was in the blood supply and (in Milan, I think) waste water back in November, and as research continues there could be more precursors thrown up, deaths included. Some dude died of AIDS years before AIDS was a thing, for example. kencf0618 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't know that. Covid wasn't in Italy in November; the "study" that claimed so was debunked by other scientists within a few hours it had been published, without any peer review, on the journal of the same institute whose researchers had carried it out. They used a method that mistook antibodies caused by other coronaviruses for those caused by covid. Indeed, there was no trace of increased mortality anywhere in Italy in November-December 2019; on the contrary, it was slightly lower than normal until late February, when it started spiking in Lombardy and neighbouring provinces of other regions - and nowhere else, because the virus had only been in Italy for a few weeks at that point, not months. Covid is not something that can spread without being noticed for months.--Pesqara (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Outlier cases wouldn't necessarily have had the epidemic traction, so to speak.

55-year-old male from Hubei province: November 17, 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/first-covid-19-case-happened-in-november-china-government-records-show-report

CDC found antibodies in blood samples taken in nine states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/12/01/covid-cdc-study-says-virus-us-weeks-before-first-case-reported/6475864002/

RNA found in wastewater circa May 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/sanitation-wastewater-workers.html

Contemporary wastewater testing https://phys.org/news/2020-12-sars-cov-wastewater-solids-covid-.html

See where I'm going with this? kencf0618 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC about splitting the list

Due to the size of the article should the page be split, and if yes, how should it be done? By year? By quarter? I see the page split discussion has been raised several times before, but I think this needs a wider community input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The only appropriate way to split the list is the way it is done by List of fellows of the Royal Society. Create List of deaths due to COVID-19 (A, B, C), List of deaths due to COVID-19 (D, E, F), etc. Possibly not even with that detail yet. You can do List of deaths due to COVID-19 (A—M) and List of deaths due to COVID-19 (N—Z). There's nothing particularly special about people who died during certain time frames of the virus. Footlessmouse (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Also note, the article has more than doubled in size since the last conversation about splitting the list and, as the pandemic is ongoing, will just keep growing out of control. It was reasonable for editors to vote to keep the list in tact at that point in order to save sort functionality. That argument, however, is quickly becoming obsolete. I encourage editors to take this opportunity to discuss what should happen in the future, even if you think it should wait a while first. The need for sorting is far less important than the need for it to load efficiently and be usable on mobile devices, which is becoming harder and harder the longer it becomes. (as it stands, the article is over four times the size of what a normal article grows to before a split is pushed through). Footlessmouse (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I repeat what I have said earlier: if the list needs to be split, then that is because death due to this virus has become so commonplace that it is not immediately notable, and this list should be closed and deleted.

I totally understand that it was thought necessary and worthwhile at one time: but there was also good faith in the original existence of the list of people who contracted it, and very few people would argue for the re-introduction of that list. It was noteworthy, I believe, if a very UK based observation will be allowed, that to take two comparable deaths in terms of the national profile of the victims, Tim Brooke-Taylor's death announcement in April gave considerable prominence to COVID-19 as the cause, but in the reporting of Bobby Ball's death this week it was very much a footnote.

The UK's Office for National Statistics reports, Of all death occurrences between January and August 2020, there were 48,168 deaths due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) compared with 13,619 deaths due to pneumonia and 394 deaths due to influenza. Nobody, I assume, is suggesting that we should be setting up List of deaths due to influenza, and yet here we are trying to maintain that a cause of death that is 122 times more common is remarkable enough to be notable and listworthy. Let nationally important victims (allowing distinction between a footballer who was in the most important international squad his country has ever had, who had a national recognised nickname, and whose death was featured prominently in national television news and a guy who made less than 100 league appearances in a sub-national division, whose death was reported in the Salford Star) be noted in national impact of COVID-19 articles of course, but this has, I would suggest, ceased to be valuable and should remain only as a category. Kevin McE (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not the death that is notable - it's the individual. This is a list of notable peopl who died of covid, not of people who are notable for dying of covid. --Pesqara (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Brought here by a bot. I agree with Kevin McE that while death due to COVID-19 was inherently notable earlier in 2020, it is no longer, just as we do not have lists for deaths from heart disease, cancer, or the flu. I think the size of this WP page is an indication of that. I support deletion of the page. If it remains, I guess splitting alphabetically makes sense. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Heart disease, cancer, or the flu are not pandemics... --Pesqara (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

These are great points, I would also support deleting the page. The fact that red links are not allowed makes it a perfect duplication of the category. I assumed at first that it has historical notability, but the fact that it is so commonplace may mean it does not. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Never thought of this, but it is a valid rationale, and I'd support the deletion route too. However, I think right now it would be a snow keep, or more likely, a no-consensus (to delete) if it went to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Send to AfD There have been over 220,000 deaths in the United States. I'd think this is no longer as significant as it was when the disease first broke out. In other words, it is too common to be usable as a list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  If anything, I'd say it's more significant now than it was when it first broke out.--Pesqara (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Send to AfD The article has been unusable and uneditable now. It now take too long to load or edit. More 800 citations and too large table. Either delete it or at least split it.-Nizil (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. If the article is to be split, then maybe the split can be done via type of occupation/career rather than by date. E.g. one article for political figures, one article for athletes, one article for scientists, and so on. And then this specific article can remain as a set index. Velayinosu (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Split by name would be the best path in my opinion. --Pesqara (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment if the article is to be kept, it should be split by name, but I suspect that this should be a category as it's bound to get bigger and bigger over the next year. Smith(talk) 22:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• What do you all think about splitting by location (e.g., continent)? My thought is that if you're interested in who died, you're probably interested in who died in your home country. Otherwise, I'd split by date, because that's a useful organizing principle with actual subject-related meaning (e.g., people who died before we knew anything about how to treat severe cases). Also, splitting by name means that you're assuming there is only one "correct" way to spell a non-English name in English. Someone might go looking for a name in the 'wrong' spelling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Send to AfD or otherwise find a way of limiting the list by having notability criteria for cases (mentioned in medical literature for unusual aspects e.g.). Article as-is is fundamentally non-encyclopedic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, is List of Spanish flu cases non-encyclopedic as well then? Pesqara (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Send to AfD - as this is hardly the first time we've seen such unsustainable and unverifiable lists. Even the best of them wind up as collections of celebrities, documented by cites of gossip magazines. If we want them at all, I would contend that it should only be for rare diseases, but we must acknowledge that there is a wiki-ancient (2007) counter-precedent at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_people_by_cause_of_death. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Send to AfD — as painful it is, and as callous it may sound, I agree that it is very likely we will be facing even a page alphabetically subdivided will become too massive to serve practical benefit. I admire the effort of those involved in cataloging this all—it's important to remember—but I think focusing efforts on making sure Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic and its various related categories and subcategories is the most efficient and reasonable way to go about this. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

For info, and based on the comments above, I've now listed this article at AfD. I've left a note on everyone's talkpage who has commented. Apologies if I've missed anyone. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Post AfD comments

Hi. Thanks to all who took part in the AfD. Keep was the consensus for the list, as well as splitting the article. Not sure what the best way to do this is, but I was looking at Lists of centenarians which has sub-lists based on occupations of the individual. Would that be a viable option here too? If so, I'm happy to do the grunt-work on starting to split/create pages if that is agreed upon. I'll contact all those who commented on the AfD too. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there was a consensus about keeping the page, but not about splitting it (The result was keep. There is consensus that this is as of now still a manageable list, as long as it remains restricted to notable people. There is no consensus about whether the list should be split (e.g. by country), but that is a discussion better suited to the article talk page). Anyway, if we have to split it, I think the best choice would be either by name (maybe A-K and L-Z) or by date (I would say by semester, but maybe even by year: after all, 2020 is coming to an end, and with the arrival of vaccines it is quite possible that 2021 won't see as many notable deaths after the first months). By country, in my opinion, would be too dispersive, and by occupation would bee impractical - certain occupations would only have a handful of names (cyclists, for instance), and for certain individuals there are multiple occupations (example, José Manuel Mireles Valverde: doctor or paramilitary leader?). --Pesqara (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thinking from somebody looking for information then the split by occupation makes sense, its unlikely that lists by location would be of much encylopedic use, if you already know the Name then you can go directly to the persons article so no point in splitting by name or location. So support a split by occupation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we wouldn't consider splitting by month like we do with, say, Deaths in October 2020? Spiderone 18:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How about splitting it by month (e.g. deaths in April 2020, May 2020). The month one would be listed under would be based on date of death. PatriceMO1 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be the same as @PatriceM01:. By month would be best as months are the best defined sub-units of a year. Splitting it by quarter or half years would be awkward. I would have suggested by country or region, but that is already covered and includes other non-notable people as well. Alternatively, once we hit 31 December, this becomes only for 2020 and all 2021 deaths go into a new list. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• You can click now to sort it based on the date of the death, age of the person, their occupation, and location they died at. Perfectly fine the way it is right now. Dream Focus 18:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you keep the page intact but under each month create a template featuring the entries feeding in from different pages (templates if needs be). That way you keep the list fully intact without making it 540 + kb.† Encyclopædius 18:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Good suggestion.

If there is a need to split, I would split by years (2020, 2021, etc.). I would not recommend splitting by months. Banana Republic (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose split The AfD close included the statement "There is no consensus about whether the list should be split". As this is not the first AfD and the other results were to keep the list too, we just leave it alone. The current format of a multi-dimensional, sortable table is quite flexible and would lose value if it were split along one dimension. If technical issues arise, then the citations can be dispensed with as all the entries link to corresponding articles which verify and expand on the details. The citation templates and footnotes are quite bulky but of little interest to readers and so that would be a significant saving. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Not only must the page be split, it must be split into more than two parts. The page currently has 542,089 bytes of markup (it was 532,520 bytes just four days ago, which gives an indication of the magnitude of the problem). While we can quibble about the upper limit, something like a tenth of that is a starting point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • See WP:SPLITLIST on the issue. As for WP:SIZERULE, that applies to articles, not lists. I do agree that the list is long, and proposed breaking it by calendar years, if necessary. Banana Republic (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Banana Republic, in practice, SIZERULE applies to any page that you want people to be able to load on mobile or low-end devices, and any page you want people to actually read. Also note that SIZERULE itself currently says "apply less strongly to list articles", not "does not apply to lists". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia talk:Article size#SIZERULE. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What I think we need to figure out is: What's the point of this page? What do you imagine a reader would be looking for?

I can imagine someone coming to a "list of deaths" and not wanting to see any individual names at all, but to instead be looking for information like how many deaths happened per month/year/place – that is, a list of actual deaths, not a list of people.

But the page is actually a List of people who died from COVID-19. What do you imagine a reader would be looking for on such a page? Maybe to check whether a favorite celebrity is on the list? To see whether lots of notable people died in their home country? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to see a good answer to the above question. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose split for reasons already stated many times. I thought it was very arrogant and disrespectful of people to propose keep and split without having made themselves aware of previous split discussions and the overwhelming opposition to it here. Kevin McE (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose splitting in theory, but in practice I admit the list is getting a bit unwieldy in terms of loading time and editability. There are two sensible dimensions along which we could chop the list, time and location. The question is, is a reader more likely to be searching for deaths at a particular time or more likely to be searching for deaths at a particular location? I'd argue it's the latter, and so we might to do something like 1) organise the list by country sections and 2) split out large country sections into separate articles. Brycehughes (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• No split is best but it may be reasonable as size increases, but the number of new articles should be limited to minimize disjointing of content. If done by time, it should be e.g. half-years or quarter-years: months makes the individual pages too small and inconveniences the reader – forcing them to load a dozen-plus pages is no better than one large page! By occupation is absurd, since it has zero relevance to their death, and there are far too many potential categories of various sizes to fit everyone into. Reywas92^Talk 01:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose split for reasons stated many times. Also I'd propose that if size is an issue, drop citations >1 month old. Regarding large size, the primary concern should be disutility to readers, not marginal difficulties for editors adding names (they could always make a request on the talk page). However, if size remains a concern, then one option - not so good in my opinion - might be to drop all citations. But an alternative solution - hopefully a sort of workable compromise - might be to drop all citations more than one month old. That would greatly shrink the bytes of the current page, and slow its rate of growth. For names less than one month old (especially less than one week) there may be uncertainty about whether a recently added name should be included, and citations can be useful for verification. But more than a month old, presumably the situation and biopage have stabilized, and those who want a citation could find it on the linked biopage. Regarding purpose of the list, which some have questioned: FYI I check the list frequently as a heuristic way (FWIW) to monitor the pandemic's impact on notable people in countries that are rich/poor, English-speaking/otherwise, etc. Many people are more moved by anecdotes than by statistics, and deaths of notable people can provide illustrative anecdotes, which do not replace statistics but complement them. Thus no one need doubt the page has a purpose. --Presearch (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• My suggestion has been to create a chronological based series of articles, appearing on this main page as just part of the list. {{:List of deaths due to COVID-19 in March 2020}} That makes each section individually editable, almost transparent to an editor until after they have saved new content.

Second, I recommend we dispense with the sourcing requirement on list pages; all list pages. Instead, the confirmation of eligibility for said list, usually a minimum of two components, is clearly sourced within the linked article of the notable subject. That, in itself, precludes non-notable subjects from being added to the list. It saves close to 50% of the data usage, thus server delays etc etc. Trackinfo (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• • No, we absolutely need sourcing as a requirement. Verifiability says that any article must have its content verrified. Lists that do not hold to sourcing end up with contents on the list that at times have no mention of the issue in the article. see the 1918 flu pandemic list for an example of how bad tings get when we do not hold to any reasonable quality standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I said the sourcing was mandatory . . . on the linked pages. the confirmation of eligibility for said list, usually a minimum of two components, is clearly sourced within the linked article of the notable subject. This page gets a lot of scrutiny. The checkers can click the link and either see the sources, or not and thus can feel free to delete the entry. Trackinfo (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. Although I was in favor of not splitting the list at first, I have recently started to think that it is necessary to do so because of size problems. The list is already quite long and unfortunately it looks like it will get longer. I think the split can be done like we did in trwiki: tr:COVID-19 pandemisinden ölenler listesi. The main page contains a complete list of names only, while other pages referenced from this page contains tables divided into 6-month periods, such as: tr:COVID-19 pandemisinden ölenler listesi (Ocak-Haziran 2020) and tr:COVID-19 pandemisinden ölenler listesi (Temmuz-Aralık 2020). LostMyMind (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Now, that seems a good idea. If a decision to split the page is taken, this is a method I would support. --Pesqara (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot see what advantage the tr.wiki solution has over a category: it seems to produce an article that is as close a facsimile of a category as can be imagined, without the advantage of a link at the bottom of the page of each person named. Kevin McE (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Split by country I think this is the best way to split the article. Split by occupation ends up facing the issue of how to best categorize some people with long and varried careers. We should split people in general by national status. Not per se location of death, but location where they had their pemanent residence at time of death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment a list is an article. They are not meant to be unduly large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose split by country That defeats the object of the list and would be more suited to category browsing. We want a comprehensive list in one place, but need to deal with the 542kb size problem. Split using templates feeding into each month to spread the weight of it would be best IMO, and we'd then get to keep this in one place.† Encyclopædius 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The solution proposed by LostMyMind could also be a good idea. --Pesqara (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose split by country. We need a cohesive list. A chronological split can be assembled into a single visible article, the seams transparent to the reader . . . who would be the majority of the people accessing the article. Trackinfo (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose split by country I concur it's unwieldy as a page, but we need a unitary, comprehensive list. There must be a way to keep it all together and at the same time reasonably easy to maintain and edit. Basil II 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose split none of the proposals make more sense than letting this build --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support split as the article is too big with 552K size, and splitting is more necessary to reduce showing references and templates. ApprenticeFan work 05:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose split because the article is not that long and I feel we should wait until the pandemic has come to an end to see what we are left with in terms of content and volume of text. If the article like doubles or trebles in size by the end of the pandemic then finding consensus might be easier too. Patience is a virtue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content necessary

Per the discussion #References below, the WP:PEIS limit of this article has been reached and citations other templates at the bottom of the article are no longer rendering. Templates need to be removed from this page, and it seems the bulk are coming from citations, which means that the associated content will also need to be moved elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion made above was that references for deaths older than one month be deleted, with the expectation that anyone interested in references could obtain them on the linked article for the deceased individual. One month seems a period that is long enough for the overwhelming majority of asserted notable deaths to have stabilized in their information and sourcing, but short enough that it would greatly reduce the size of the present list. I haven't checked to see about the nuances of Wikipedia's sourcing demands. But even if this is contra to the letter of a sourcing demand, it seems within the spirit of WP's sourcing expectation (thus as a last resort perhaps an occasion for WP:IGNOREALLRULES). --Presearch (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We should remove all references for individuals on this article. By the time any entry and reference would be added to this article, there should already be content and references about their death on the entry's article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This list of deaths is insanity... not only is article absurd by Wiki standards (I mean why not compile lists of names of every person dying for various other reasons in a year) but vast majority of deaths can not even be substantiated (as nearly every country / state / province has entirely different terms and reporting metrics... as an example a person who dies in Ontario may not be counted in Saskatchewan due to differences in health systems reporting). The list should not be split, it should be deleted outright. Maybe keep a smaller list of notable deaths, or historical (eg 1st/last) deaths but otherwise this page has no place on Wikipedia Kav2001c (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)kav2001c

For the record: Earlier splitting discussions

For the record: Before December 2020, there were already multiple discussions about whether or not the table should be split (e.g., by month). Some pro- or con- arguments from those earlier discussions may still be relevant. The previous consensus was to maintain a single sortable table. For the record, here are links to the previous discussions:

Archived previous discussions about splitting the table: #1, #2, #3  

Archived notice about previous discussions (created 4 Aug 2020, auto-archived 6 Dec 2020): Notice

--Presearch (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please fix sorting function

Please fix the sorting function: when one clicks the "Date" column at the left to sort by most recent, currently the date that appears is September 30, 2020 rather than December 2020. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The table is already listed by date so you would have to unsort the date column, by selecting the sort function one or two more times. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, before someone "fixed" the date-column a couple of days ago it still worked as intended, you could switch from sorting "earliest to latest" to "latest to earliest". Now this doesn't work anymore. When I want to sort by date it first shows April 1 at the top, then September 30 and eventually it switches back to January. So, it's clearly broken. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC))

Onetwothreeip has essentially vandalised the page seriously compromised the utility of the page, as the unregistered editor and Lord Gon had described, and undertook this with no prior discussion or consent, and no thought as to what will happen after the turn of the year. It looks like a time-consuming process to repair it, and it seems fairly clear who should spend the time doing it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McE It took me less than a minute to press 'undo' on the edit, which you clearly didn't try to do yourself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad for you that it was possible to revert without losing the intervening edits, and thanks to Jazzhands for dateformatting the subsequent entries. Kevin McE (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

NewPP limit report

Parsed by mw1384

Cached time: 20201211144533

Cache expiry: 2592000

Dynamic content: false

Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1]

CPU time usage: 12.168 seconds

Real time usage: 12.465 seconds

Preprocessor visited node count: 68658/1000000

Post‐expand include size: 2097149/2097152 bytes

Template argument size: 29475/2097152 bytes

Highest expansion depth: 14/40

Expensive parser function count: 8/500

Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20

Unstrip post‐expand size: 92316/5000000 bytes

Lua time usage: 7.989/10.000 seconds

Lua memory usage: 21827048/52428800 bytes

Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400

Transclusion expansion time report

(%,ms,calls,template)

100.00% 10961.834 1 -total

60.68% 6651.168 2 Template:Reflist

32.59% 3572.286 624 Template:Cite_web

19.67% 2156.114 340 Template:Cite_news

11.07% 1213.647 1001 Template:Date_table_sorting

9.03% 989.992 788 Template:Age

{{reflist}} is not working as intended in the article. Could someone please check what's wrong?--Joseph 💬 11:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we've hit a size limit. We'll need to reduce the size of the reflist template to get it to load again. Looks like it's time to split the article. GabrielF (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, the WP:PEIS limit has been reached, which other COVID-19 articles have experienced. Like GabrielF said, the remedy would be to split the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion made above was that references for deaths older than one month be deleted, with the expectation that anyone interested in references could obtain them on the linked article for the deceased individual. One month seems a period that is long enough for the overwhelming majority of asserted notable deaths to have stabilized in their information and sourcing, but short enough that it would greatly reduce the size of the present list. I haven't checked to see about the nuances of Wikipedia's sourcing demands. But even if this is contra to the letter of a sourcing demand, it seems within the spirit of WP's sourcing expectation (thus as a last resort perhaps an occasion for WP:IGNOREALLRULES). --Presearch (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"A suggestion was made" - no. You made a suggestion, which nobody else seems to support, as it seems directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. You seem to agree that it against policy, as you're invoking IAR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Until you, I'm not aware that anyone went on record as disagreeing with the suggestion either. If you believe it's against policy, please give links and specifics. --Presearch (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Presearch, I'm not sure that that's a good idea. Aside from attribution issues, the column furthest on the right is already designated to house references, and removing older references can give well-meaning editors the impression that references weren't found for those people who would attempt to restore them.

I think some separation by date is probably for the best: it's very rare for notable people's causes of death to be corrected, and many article splits have been done on basis of date (e.g., Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 04:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reflections. My view is that it's possible that there may be no solution that most of us will feel good about. A lot of people have already gone on record as viewing separation by date as problematic (see previous archived discussions linked at top of page). I find it unclear which option is least bad. Until that becomes clear, I think it's worth working out the best version of each reasonable option. With regard to your concern about time window, it would be okay with me to discard references for deaths older than a week, although if size is not an issue, a month window would seem more conservative. With regard to your concern about the column furthest to the right, in the "discard references older than one month" approach, there could be a single generic footnote that is cited in each and every furthest-right cell older than one month. The cited footnote could explain that references for individuals who died more than one month ago existed when the individual was added to the list, and should be sought in the articles about the individuals. Such a single footnote would require minimal additional bytes and would not expand the size of the page. --Presearch (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

All references for individual entries should be removed. There's no reason to have them here if there are references for them in the entry's article. Going forward we will just have to ensure that those articles have the relevant content and references. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a possible solution. It becomes less work for editors to supply a source when a new entry is added before removing it after an arbitrary amount of time has passed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. But I think it's far from clear that it's less work to omit references entirely, for the following reasons: If new names added to this list need not have a reference, then we don't know exactly how many editors will feel obliged go and conscientiously view the biopage to see whether it has an adequate reference. If it's only one or two on average, sometimes it might be zero, which is too few to ensure adequately vetting of new names -- misinformation would accumulate on the list. But if on average dozens of editors vet the biopage connected to each newly added name, that's a lot of work for the community, and also duplicative and inefficient. Alternatively, if instead a covid-cause-of-death reference is required when a name is first added to the list, it's easier to vet the new name - just one single click is required. And in my view the amount of work to remove a reference when it's timed-out is almost negligible - it's an almost mechanical process - and batches of references can be trimmed at once (e.g., every few days). Adding up all such considerations, which alternative is least work and most accurate? --Presearch (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all a waste of effort to ensure a biography article covers the subject's cause of death sufficiently. We should completely outsource the "vetting" of entries to the biography articles and get the benefit of a biography article with more reliable content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Massively redundant duplication of nontrivial operations is wasteful. -Presearch (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I will make it more clear: effort is not duplicated, it is moved to a different place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That's merely your guess which you have merely asserted without providing arguments; However, I will not stand in the way of your experiment of removing the column of references, since there was no clearly demonstrable best way to proceed. Your way was not the only way to proceed, nor was it clearly the best, nor was there consensus. --Presearch (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In any case, action should be taken soon to remedy the situation. Start an RfC? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 04:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm indifferent and will not start an RfC. I'm not sure that eliminating the references as has been done is the best solution, and I have suggested an alternative that I still think might be better, but my opinions are not strong. --Presearch (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

- Gekkonen (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2020 (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. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

'List of COVID-19 cases including survivors' follow-up: heads of state who caught COVID-19

In a section now archived, I raised the possibility of a list of heads of government who caught COVID-19. Such a list has now been assembled: GZERO Mporter (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

So what about deaths in 2021 (and afterwards)? (Redux)

The discussion below is retrieved from the archive page in relation to an issue I raised in mid-November, was not resolved, and now relates to what will arise in less than two weeks. Given that there is no consensus in favour of a split of the table by date, we are going to have to either have people assume 2020 unless otherwise stated, or show the year of death for all those listed. Unless anyone has a better idea?

The list is headed "List of Deaths in 2020". If there is agreement that splitting the list is not desirable, or at least that by date is not the most suitable way of splitting it, and if the list article survives, what do we do about the sad but evident fact that deaths will continue into 2021, at least? None of the dates for individual entries include a year. Do we hope that we can get away with "Death was in 2020 unless stated otherwise" at the top (although this is sometimes seen in newspaper listings, I am not sure I have ever seen Wikipedia resort to it), or do we have to be ready to go through the c.900 entries adding '2020' to the date of death each time? Or is there a bot that can do that? Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deaths will continue for the foreseeable future (unless the virus is eradicated), so what editors are committed to here is a yearly listing - which should point to why this is not an encyclopedic endeavour (i.e. summarizing knowledge), more a low-level long-term data-gathering project. Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a list of notable individuals, and a vaccine will likely be available next year, it is unlikely this list will grow beyond 2021 or at worst 2022.Pesqara (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing claims like "90% effective." That would still mean some deaths every year. Did influenza deaths stop when vaccines became available? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A small percentage of a very large number is itself a large number, and given that COVID-19 is a PHEIC, a global pandemic, eventually we'll be getting a level of statistical, background noise deaths as with "the flu". We understand influenza, and we have the infrastructure for it; "the flu" is a real killer. We are currently grappling with COVID-19, and eventually we'll understand it and have the infrastructure for it similarly. kencf0618 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to simply replace all the format=dm in the datecoding to format=dmy (and remove the over-optimistic "in 2020" from the section header). Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. I would have liked more of a consensus, but there was no opposition, and more than half the time between raising the matter abd the crunch point had passed with no alternative solution being proposed. Kevin McE (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

With that being said, we still need to resolve the issue of the PEIS limit being broken, because it means nothing if people have to go into an editor to see where the references are coming from. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 20:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't get you: does that in any way affect, or become affected by, changing the code to show the year? Kevin McE (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that. Apparently someone's done away with the citations so that issue is solved. The concern I had was that it would have made a problem (which has been resolved, apparently) much worse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Arnold D. Gruys

Hi-Arnold D. Gruys died from complications due to COVID 19; he served in the Minnesota Legislature. He should be included in the list-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Aldo Andretti

Request for inclusion, though linked article does not mention but there have been more than 2 sources that said he had the virus. Done the 'homework' all you have to just do is add this bit in below

Source:

|- | 30 December 2020 ! scope="row" | Aldo Andretti | 80 | Race car driver and brother of Mario | United States (Indianapolis) 86.9.227.81 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Abdul Kader (December 26)

He doesn't seem to have an article, and the redirect is pointless. Therefore, we can either remove blue redirect link or create a redlink for a month or remove completely. Thoughts? Editrite! (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

David Prowse

It appears that his cause of death is not confirmed by major sources, cf Talk:David_Prowse

For consistency within wikipedia David Prowse should be removed from the list here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topotrivl (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, since major and reliable sources confirm that he died of covid. Removing him, or removing the well-established fact that he died of covid from his page to please a single user who does not want to hear about covid, would be against the standards of wikipedia. --Tognella99 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Which "major and reliable" sources are you referring to?? There are not given in this article!! (tabloids like the Sun and the Daily Mail are not reliable sources)

The folks over at the talk page for the David Prowse article Talk:David_Prowse have discussed this fairly extensively (PLEASE read that page), and they conclude that sources do NOT confirm Prowse died of Covid.

I personally do not argue one way or the other, but consistency is important

Topotrivl (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources that were linked in that page before two guys, operating as a mafia (Ivanvector and Eggishorn), deleted them and replaced them with other articles using the euphemism 'short illness'. These sources, that are neither The Sun or the Daily Mirror (a straw man used by the two mafiosi to void any opposition to their moves), are linked in that very talk page, where nothing looking like an extensive discussion took place. Sources, including Prowse's own daughter, confirm that he died of covid, but the two mafiosi (with a long history of teaming up to vandalize page together so that they can dodge edit war rules) have decided to hide that. What you did is unworthy of the standards of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:646C:244E:B957:2908:3C4:F120 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Hi! I would like to add a name to the sad list of deaths due to Covid-19. Saxophone player named Allan Cook died on January 2nd 2021 due to complications from Covid-19. He was a long time musician with many strings on his lyre: https://www.bandmix.com/allan-cook/

The reference of his death is his long time band member Dovydas/David Smash and also his own voice in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hGnnpAvdck

Kind regards, Christer Wikman ChristerWikman (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. This page is for a list of notable persons (i.e. persons with Wikipedia articles) to have died of COVID-19. Allan Cook does not appear to have a Wikipedia article. Steve Smith (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Please add:

28 December 2020 Agustin Eduardo Espinosa 67 Mechanical Engineer USA (California) 66.215.168.21 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 15:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Larry King

How come Larry King hasn't been added to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbyCabo (talk • contribs) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Larry King#Cause of death. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

Larry King Television Talk Show Host January 23, 2021 2603:9000:F805:900:DD8B:B018:A9B6:2CAB (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Omnipaedista (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Titles' of certain people

Certain individuals in the article e.g Brian Crowe or John Laws have been knighted or have sat in the UK's House of Lords because of their titles e.g James Gordon, Baron Gordon of Strathblane or Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath and I think that they should continue to be included, as they are used in their wikipedia articles and some are used in their wikipedia names, including those who are Lords in the UK. Another editor has attempted to delete them claiming that they are a "right wing fallacy" but I wanted to see what other editors think. I personally think they should be kept as they are notable individuals and readers would find it interesting, even if its morbid, to see knights and lords who have died from Covid. Ladislyzk77 (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that people, or titles (not titles'), are a right wing fallacy, and object to being misrepresented.

They are notable individuals, that is why they are on this list; the fact that the UK has a system of honours is not part of their notability. Nobody is suggesting that they be removed from the list, only that we display for them, as we do for people from every other country, unadorned names. I note that Ladyislyzk77 considers unadorned names appropriate for Crowe and Laws in this discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You said it on my talk page where people can view it. For both James Gordon, Baron Gordon of Strathblane or Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath their titles are part of their notability as if they didn't have them they wouldn't have been members the House of Lords. Other countries don't use titles like the UK does, which is why their names are unadorned. Ladislyzk77 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I know where I used the phrase: I did not say that titles are a right wing fallacy. You really need to read what both you and I write to have a meaningful discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Devashish Roy Choudhury

Name: Devashish Roy Choudhury Profession: Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Date: 20th October 2020 Place of Death: Ahmedabad (India) Source: https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/others/i-t-chief-commissioner-loses-life-to-covid-19/articleshow/78777088.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4001:7116:E04B:62AA:9156:3C4B (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting where unsightly template came from

This is to record that the template complaining that "This article does not cite any sources" has been on the page since 29 Jan 2021, when it was placed on the page by User:Moxy (DIFF), who asserted that "core policy can't be ignored because of format problems." But is "ignoring" what is actually being done? The earlier discussion that dropped the references intended that the sources would be verifiable via other Wikipedia articles -- articles about the specific notable deceased persons -- thus fulfilling the need to provide a means for checking sources, which is the main stated concern of the policy. Is there anyone who would care to argue that -- perhaps apart from any rare listed death that in good faith has been directly challenged on this page (and may therefore require an inline citation) -- such an approach, although unusual, fulfills the policy? It certainly seems to fulfill the spirit of the verifiability policy, even though it may not fulfill the particular mode of implementing the policy that is favored by the user who placed the template. --Presearch (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

#Unsourced?.--Moxy 🍁 09:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I will copy the remarks to the earlier section above to consolidate. So I'm striking them out here. Regards --Presearch (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Need some sources as per WP:LISTVERIFY. Plus must remember they are still covred by our bio policies WP:BDP--ĺMoxy 🍁 02:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References were removed for size consolidation in this edit as per talk and WP:PEIS. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What? Can't do that... verifiability is core content policy and can't be circumvented by some local talk. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Can't ignore Bio verification because there is a format problem....fix the format problem. Considering the mass amount of legal action going on with this cause of death we should at least follow some basic verifiability standards.--Moxy 🍁 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you are right. A bluelink to another article does not constitute a citation. Material must be supported in each article in which it appears ("Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit"). A 2–3 people–derived consensus is not sufficient to change a long-standing requirement supported by larger conversations and wikiwide guidelines. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In my view this page should be a parent article with links to continent or country articles with sources. Set it up by continent (in some cases sub divisions like North Africa) at first then country if need be in the future. This list is out of control size wise and a mobile view scrolling nightmare regardless if there's a template limit problem or not....only getting bigger.- I am willing to help if this is a viable solution to those of you that actually maintain this article.-Moxy 🍁 19:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Take a look through the talk archives at the previous discussions to split the page. Save yourself alot of time and effort and don't bother, as any idea will be shot down. No refs? No problem! Massive size? So what! There was even some wisenheimer who said the list would end in 2020 with a vaccine being available. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

wow ..surprised to see so many that dont care about accsibility or verification. The article can stand as an example of what not to do at our policy page.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is to record that the template complaining that "This article does not cite any sources" has been on the page since 29 Jan 2021, when it was placed on the page by User:Moxy (DIFF), who asserted that "core policy can't be ignored because of format problems." But is "ignoring" what is actually being done? The earlier discussion that dropped the references intended that the sources would be verifiable via other Wikipedia articles -- articles about the specific notable deceased persons -- thus fulfilling the need to provide a means for checking sources, which is the main stated concern of the policy. Is there anyone who would care to argue that -- perhaps apart from any rare listed death that in good faith has been directly challenged on this page (and may therefore require an inline citation) -- such an approach, although unusual, fulfills the policy? It certainly seems to fulfill the spirit of the verifiability policy, even though it may not fulfill the particular mode of implementing the policy that is favored by the user who placed the template. --Presearch (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I notice that the above critiques of the page's approach to sourcing conflate policy with style. The approach of the page as it stands now may be (arguably) adherent to core policy, but is clearly non-adherent to WP:Summary style, which explicitly affirms that "occasional exceptions may apply". Editors who are made very uncomfortable by stylistic exceptions will therefore be made uncomfortable by the page as it now stands. --Presearch (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Dont make readers search for verification and researchable information on some other page....especially when there is no verification to be had (i.e Ralph McGehee). Do right by our readers and follow our basic community policies over whats easier for you to do.WP:LISTVERIFY "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.--Moxy 🍁 09:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Difficulty of navigation

One long list (and soon longer) is difficult to navigate. I suggest this be broken up into smaller charts divided by month or at least one for 2020 and another for 2021. I suspect we will eventually need one for 2022 and beyond.Calmecac5 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hope that 2021 will be the last year we see deaths due to Covid-19. Maybe I am too much an optimists. I have been advocating some sort of navigation aid division for a while, but so far that has been shot down. I am just glad we killed the list of people infected before it turned into a truly unending monster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who used to care about drawing and (at least) quartering this dragon before the stupid battle decimated that part of my brain/soul, I can only share 10% of your enthusiasm, but believe me, I'm still straggling behind you two here most of the way. The better idea will prevail! Unless, of course, this difficulty simply never ends. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cloris Leachman

Actress Cloris Leachman – her death certificate was released today. Lists cause as a stroke with COVID-19 as a contributing factor. Eligible for inclusion? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lucía Guilmáin

Please add Lucía Guilmáin, 83, Mexican actress who died in Mexico City on 15 February 2021. Revelan que actriz Lucía Guilmáin falleció por COVID-19, Telvisa and Murió Lucía Guilmáin, primera actriz mexicana, a los 83 años, MilenioCalmecac5 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Hacksaw" Butch Reed

The wrestler's family is publicly attributing his February 5 death to a combination of heart failure and Covid. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.37.205 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

Add two more deaths due to COVID-19:

• Nancy Elizabeth Navarro Anyarin Age: 54 (Mayor of Pueblo District) Peru(Ica) Date of Death: 09 August 2020
• Julio Genaro Alejandro Pecho Garcia Age: 77 (Mayor of Subtanjalla District) Peru(Ica) Date of Death: 25 February 2021 LaTaMhelper (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Jim Crockett, Jr

The wrestling promoter and NWA president died on March 4 of COVID, according to his brother David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.37.205 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

107.143.44.71 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Modesta Echevarria Feb. 15 2021 Died of Covid. My name is Maritza Ouellette this is my mother. It took her within the week. How does she get added to the list.

 Not done: she would need to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about her to be included in this list, see WP:WTAF. Volteer1 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dying from COVID-19 sequelae

Hello. I added Rafael Palmero Ramos on this list but I'm not pretty sure if this is convenient. Palmero tested positive for COVID in January of this year, from which he recovered, but died on March 8 from a cancer that was aggravated as a sequel, as some sources said although not all specify his COVID-19 diagnosis. Therefore, I do not know if he could be considered a victim of coronavirus if he died from the sequelae, that is, indirectly. Thanks! Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The time allocated for running scripts has expired

Why do entries after March 17, 2021 say: "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leijona1824 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add Afaz Uddin Ahmed

Can anybody add Afaz Uddin Ahmed who died on July 18. Citations: [9][10] I can't for the editor window being too heavy to load. With regards — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Spurious "See Also" links

There is no reason I can see for "Green Tea" "Chicken Noodle Soup" or "Vitamin C" to be included in the "See Also" section. Their inclusion is likely to be taken by some as implying they have medicinal relevance to this disease, which is unfounded and potentially dangerous. I propose they be removed. CC0Rider (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Green Tea is recommended for many conditions, Chicken Noodle Soup as a cure-all especially in Eastern European Jewish culture, and Vitamin C as a panacea by the late Nobel Prizewinner Linus Pauling. All have the potential for making the users feel better, but I don't know if they could cure much, and certainly not COVID-19. None are "snake oil" hokum, etc., but are not likely dangerous as, say, hydroxychloriquine. I support your request for removal. Activist (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

how many of these notable people had wiki articles made after their death?

from what i can tell, more than half of the people on this list weren't notable until they were reported as a covid death. and some were not even reported as covid deaths. this list is obviously very contrived and corrupted and the fact that my mentioning this was previously deleted only helps confirm that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs)

Notability is a feature of the topics, not of fact of the existence of an article. There are millions of notable topics that we don't yet have articles about. – Uanfala (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be surprised by the number of notable people that only get an article shortly after their death, whatever the cause. It's a natural consequence of the death of notable people usually resulting in a burst of media coverage, and therefore attention on Wikipedia. Greenman (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Table

This table would better serve the Wikipedia public by being arranged by names in alphabetical order.

The reason is that none would readily have in mind a date of death for the deceased, but rather, the deceased name in mind.

2dmaxo (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The table is sortable, so the public can sort the entries by any column heading just by clicking on it. Also, I doubt readers would come here looking for a specific person to find out whether they died of Covid or when they died: they won't need to come here and search, they'd just go to that person's article, no? – Uanfala (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing article

Hello. I've just tried to add a name to the list but it isn't letting me. Does this mean I should make an account in order to add names or is there another way to do it? 208.127.199.37 (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the padlock image at top right tells you that the page is semi-protected: you need to have had an account for 4 days and 10 edits to be able to add. Or give the name here, ensuring it is someone who has a Wikipedia article and that the cause of death is sourced. Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, I have made an account. I will include the names and dates for you here if that is ok with you? Sorry if they are the wrong format.

28th of August - Giraldo González - Baseball player - Cuba

29th of August - Tudor Gunasekara - Politician - Sri Lanka

29th of August - Buddhadeb Guha - Writer - India

30th of August - Robert David Steele - Computer scientist - United States

31st of August - Kebby Maphatsoe - Politician - South Africa

1st of September - Adalberto Álvarez - Musician - Cuba

1st of September - Doug Green (Ohio politician) - Politician - United States

2nd of September - Hashibur Rahman Swapon - Poltician - Turkey

TimeSprint (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a source confirming Hashibur Rahman Swapon and Kebby Maphatsoe have died of Covid? Except for these two, I've added the rest [11]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have found a link for Hashibur Swapon and for Kebby Maphatsoe . Hope these are ok. TimeSprint (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

I've added Hashibur Rahman Swapon [12]. Do we have a better source for Kebby Maphatsoe? Articles like this cast doubt on the Covid claim. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, i've looked over some newspaper articles, however his family are saying that he didn't die from Coronavirus, so maybe we shouldn't add Kebby. Sorry for wasting your time. TimeSprint (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You haven't wasted my time at all: it's normal for it to take some back-and-forth before we can arrive at the right decision. Thank you for the all work you're putting into updating this list, it's appreciated. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References?

This article originally contained references for each list entry. This was a good thing (given the guidelines at WP:LISTVERIFY). However, at one point in November last year, the page exceeded the template size limit, which meant that some of the content couldn't be displayed any more. Because most of that was coming from the references, it was decided (see archives) to remove them. This solved the problem and allowed the list to continue to be fully displayed even now, when it's more than double the number of entries.

However, one editor has insisted that this list must have references. I don't see how that can – or should – happen. The fundamental policy of verifiability is already met, as each entry is for an existing article, and that article will have a sourced claim that the subject died of Covid. What is being violated here is LISTVERIFY: a guideline-level style preferences for having those sources also present in the list article. Ideally, we should strive to stick to the guidelines, but a defining feature of guidelines (as opposed to policies) is that they allow for common-sense exceptions. This list here is a clear case for such an exception, as following that guideline is not even technically possible. Any thoughts anyone? – Uanfala (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of splitting the list...? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they have, but no, it's not likely to happen. – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless a consensus can be reached on how the list should be split, this is going to be a persistent issue. There might be a way to get around it by invoking citation templates, but I'm not sure how much the software can take if that's done for every single one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The template argument size isn't the only parameter that will exceed the limits if we brought back citations. There's also "Lua time usage", whose limit we will almost certainly go over even if we bypass the templates and invoke the module directly, and the "Post-expand include size" limit, which we'll probably hit if we had any sort of citations with links, even if they're manually formatted one without any templates or modules. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It obviously needs splitting AND sourcing. I tried to address this in its early days/months, but it fell on deaf ears. Oh well. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources removed over article split? Absolutely the wrong decision. Cant ignore Wikipedia:Core content policies because of size...Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons.Moxy- 12:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)