Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19/Archive 2) (bot |
Tognella99 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
For consistency within wikipedia David Prowse should be removed from the list here. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Topotrivl|Topotrivl]] ([[User talk:Topotrivl#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Topotrivl|contribs]]) 04:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
For consistency within wikipedia David Prowse should be removed from the list here. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Topotrivl|Topotrivl]] ([[User talk:Topotrivl#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Topotrivl|contribs]]) 04:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::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. --[[User:Tognella99|Tognella99]] ([[User talk:Tognella99|talk]]) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:35, 31 December 2020
|topic=
not specified. Available options:
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Massively redundant duplication of nontrivial operations is wasteful. -Presearch (talk) 17:09, 19 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)