Talk:Deaths in August 2021

First lady

Thailand being a monarchy, the spouse of the Prime Mibnister cannot be called "first lady". This characterisation is redundant in monarchies.—109.242.23.161 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A prime minister is a governmental position and not part of any monarchy, and as such can indeed have a "first lady" in situ. Please clarify your objection based on what I just said. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Refsworldlee What I meant was that usually in monarchies there is no talk of a first lady, because there is a queen. And, now come to think of it, wives of prime ministers aren't called first ladies even in republics because that is usually the president's wife. Prime ministers' wives are rarely called first ladies. --109.242.23.161 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Taking the monarchy aspect out of it altogether makes more sense. And it seems that the majority of governmental structures in the world only afford the title "first lady" to a presidential spouse, not a prime ministerial one. (There is also no mention whatsoever of the term "first lady" in the article relating to Boonruen Choonhavan.) Following this rationale, the reference made to "first lady" in the list of deaths has been removed. If any other editors have a contrary view, please air it here before making an edit to the entry at Deaths in 2021. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Another editor has more accurately described it in her subject line, without reference to "first lady". Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sean Lock

There is still uncertainty over his death date. The Guardian explicitly states 16th August here, while some other sources go for 18th, the date it was announced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Guardian is a very RS, that’ll do me. WWGB (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

So why is he still listed under the 18th? Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Times[1] and The Telegraph[2] put it at August 18, not sure which is correct. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen the Guardian cite until now. For me they’re the go to cite for English DODs. I think now it is the 16th and all other 18th cites were utilizing the day he was announced as passing as the DOD. Rusted AutoParts 13:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: not saying you're wrong, but why's that? I don't know enough about them to know why The Guardian may be more reliable for death dates than The Times/The Telegraph. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Theyre generally considered the best citation. When it comes to reporting deaths they do two versions: the news report than an obituary. And within the obituary we can normally garner any missing details, like DOD if it wasn’t previously disclosed. For the most part no sources indicated Locks DOD aside from Telegraph, which put in 18th. But given Guardian is putting it was the 16th, it indicates that’s the DOD. Rusted AutoParts 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: It's a little thing called "making assumptions". Just as some Wikipedia editors do that when inserting/moving/removing information in these pages, so do newspaper editors, especially when announcements received by them are vague. I know it's a time of grief, but I wish those issuing announcements of decease would just be up front with the details they know about a death, including days or dates of death. By the way, as a Brit, I can vouch for the good standing and first class fact-checking done by The Guardian. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think most UK editors would see The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Grauniad as being equally reliable. But the first two have a paywall and so are less accessible. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Re "who cares" - probably those editors still discussing it at Talk:Sean Lock? Classic case of tail wagging the dog? I thought this list was meant to follow the articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Heard via Talk:Sean Lock this page goes with 16th. FYI most RSs currently go with 18th per the table below:

Table summaring the RSs of DOD

RSs for DOD as 16th	RSs for DOD as 18th
The Guardian (Anthony Hayward) [3]	The Times (no byline, newspaper of record) [4]
	The Daily Telegraph (no byline, newspaper of record) [5]
	The Independent (Jacob Stolworthy) [6]
	NME (Adam Starkey) [7]

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But note further developments at Talk:Sean Lock. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In respect of comments above - Number one: Nice table that. Number two: We avoid hidden messages like the plague, and certainly anecdotal ones such as the source comparison one I removed. Number three: There is no tail and no dog for one to wag the other. What makes anyone think that one particular project (Sean Lock) has "bragging rights" over another (Deaths in 2021)? The consensus here is the consensus here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The date was fixed here before there was any consensus over there. I was more concerned about consistency than "bragging rights" - isn't this article in some way "dependent" on all the source articles? I don't see why notes should be regarded as the plague. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

By the end of the month, our massive list of the deceased makes for slow page-loading times, especially when you look at just how much inflated text is present in the edit coding. Sticking in unnecessary hidden messages just makes that problem worse. It's exactly why we use simple cite here too. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's that long, maybe the monthly article should be spilt. But 12 extra words are going to slow up the page load?? I see. In that case I won't add a template to note that the current source does not support a cause of "lung cancer". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am inclined to agree with you on the CoD variation, and I think you should add it. The template would not be anecdotal or frivolous, so it's a valid inclusion in my book. And as for "12 extra words", that's your contribution. With open season on adding willy-nilly hidden messages, expect others to inflate edit code to ridiculous degrees. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it was "willy-nilly open season" quite yet. And I certainly wouldn't want to delay the page loading. "Lung cancer" seems to be factually correct. So it's a case of "seebs" on my part, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Don Everly

Just wondering if Don Everly will be deleted after 30 days since he does not have his own article? 71.125.47.95 (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Phil Everly remains listed, so Don should too. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Shared articles containing substantial bio on the deceased qualify to stay, always have done (that would be date/place of birth, something about their personal/professional life and death details). A redirect to a shared bio differs greatly from a redirect to a scant mention in an article about a related entity or subject. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I ask because in 2017 when country singer Troy Gentry, one half of the very successful duo Montgomery Gentry was killed, he was unceremoniously removed from here after 30 days because he didn't have his own article. Even though always part of the duo, he was quite famous in the industry. 71.125.47.95 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Entry restored at Deaths in September 2017 - thanks for pointing that error out. If you see any others, post them here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, Gentry also slaughtered a captive bear, but you don't need to be a nice person to appear on these lists. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ted Dexter national team

This is true, but he was also their captain for 30 appearances. Should this be mentioned?

• national team (captain)

Darcourse (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not something that is usually included. Although notable, it's more a statistic than a strong notability. Perhaps others feel differently. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall that we have ever reported team captaincies in these lists. He is notable (WP:NCRICKET) on account of being a player, rather than a captain. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Euphemize Geronimo's death or leave it undetermined?

Folengo seems to think Geronimo was put out of his misery, despite the government who ordered his killing not releasing a cause of death to the woman from whom he was violently abducted (she alleges torture). Everybody on that talk page and a good chunk of the wider outragosphere agrees sugarcoating this is bullshit. I find it difficult and disgusting to liken this manner of death to suicide, on so many levels. What say you all? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

For the benefit of those unfairly paywalled overseas, I transcribe the following under fair use provision:

"They had no idea what they were doing and tortured him. They didn’t ask for help – they were cruel beyond words and incompetent. They should be struck off. I’m going to find out who they are. I want to know every single detail. Unless these people are dragged out by their hair, I don’t know how we’re going to find out, and that’s just unforgivable.”

That was his best friend, but I am still InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've never been a fan of including animals here, but I go with the consensus nonetheless. So you'll understand if I say I don't care much - the whole animal destruction thing is couched in over-emotive language and primed to create arguments such as the one ongoing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Stripping aside overemotion, though, the basic argument remains that euthanasia has a meaning which doesn't logically fit this death. And even if we consider it to be a manner of death that doesn't need a cause, like suicide, we need consensus, like we needed for suicide. Any "care" in that regard? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I was happy with lethal injection (similar to capital punishment) but that is unclear at present. Let's wait till the government announces the COD. WWGB (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I care about consensus, of course I do. The modern penchant for elevating animal kinds to the same levels of consciousness as homo sapiens is a different matter, but we don't want to get into that here, do we? Let's wait for an official word to describe the CoD, as suggested above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We report facts here, so let's wait on the reported COD, should there be any announced. It would be insensitive to speculate on this morally hot-button issue. Wyliepedia @ 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ed Asner

This is getting on my nerves so I’m opening (what shouldn’t be necessary) a discussion to write in stone what three credits should be listed with him so we never have to see the entry edited over this again. I have contended since the get go that his career was broader than just playing one character on two different series and that placing one of the shows in would reflect his time in that role. But this has been repeatedly been swapped out. I contend it should be Mary Tyler Moore (due to the longer time spent on it), Up (highlights voice acting) and Elf or JFK (highlights film career). Since his individual Emmy wins aren’t listed and it’s just a generalized “7-Time Emmy winner” line due to his high amount of wins, I don’t think it should be factored in given they also highlight wins for shows not listed. This again shouldn’t be necessary but I’m pretty done with editors like @TedR23: or @BurienBomber: coming out of the woodwork every several months or year to chide me and uncivilly call me a dictator over this, so input please. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. For me, his most memorable and high-profile starring role was as Lou Grant, so that should stay in as far as I'm concerned. His JFK role was not nearly as memorable or important. Pretty quick, something semi-permanent needs to be formulated under rule of three, but most of all the bickering needs to stop and the edit summaries kept clear of expletives. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn’t be so annoying if Ted specifically said why they were making the switch from the get go as opposed to just changing it without a given reason. I’m not committed to JFK because it’s what I tossed in when Elf was apparently such an appalling selection. It’s hard to nail down what’s most relevant and important to the person given as that can change by who you ask. Some might push for Freakazoid, or Elf, or Roots, etc. My core point is Asner has more to him than just Lou Grant so taking two slots of the max 3 to highlight this I just don’t agree with. If others disagree here so be it I just wanted to more broadly reflect his long career Rusted AutoParts 21:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

But his Mary Tyler Moore contribution was less notable overall. Longevity doesn't enter into it - he was just a supporting player on that show and not in the spotlight like he was for Lou Grant. You seem to create problems by repeatedly linking MTM and Lou Grant where they shouldn't be linked in the context of his career. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then Lou Grant could be there. Ted has been the one reinserting it. I suggested keeping MTM instead due to tenure of time but he was the main in the titular LG show. Plus, as I had thought beforehand having just LG highlights his time in that role overall too as we are listing his character name. Rusted AutoParts 04:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Options:

• Ed Asner, 91, American actor (The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Lou Grant, Up) 3
• Ed Asner, 91, American actor (The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Elf, Up)
• Ed Asner, 91, American actor (Lou Grant, other title, Up)

These pages are about notability, not breadth or variety of career. For me (and, I suspect, many others) Asner was most notable for MTM and LG. I might argue that he was next notable for his roles in Roots and Rich Man, Poor Man as he won Emmies for each role, but I understand that his performance in Up was critially acclaimed. As for JFK, it's not even mentioned in Asner's Wikipedia article.

We are going to continue having these disagreements until we can agree on criteria for the three films/books/songs etc that are to be reported for creative individuals. Hope springs eternal. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the options above, I would !vote for MTM, LG and Up. WWGB (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

See, I never remember him from Roots or Rich Man, Poor Man. Though never a formal vote, I too would go for Option 1. This is not through taking any one side or the other, just the logical choices according to my own perceptions. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have repeatedly changed Asner's credits to reflect option 1 for the same reasons outlined here - those are his most notable roles, and the fact that he was 'Lou Grant' in two different television series does not make a difference (in my opinion) - again, they are two separate shows, they are two separate genres and those two roles were his most notable and most high-profile. Given that, I also agree with comments here that the Ro3 are not so much a variety of one's career but one's most notable roles. But, what I find absolutely appalling is when I twice edited his entry to reflect this, and included reasons, I am met with Rusted telling me to 'Fing stop." Absolutely inappropriate behavior. No one editor should feel they are at all superior and Rusted mentioning the fact that I do not post often is meaningless. I visit daily but do not post daily. My contributions here, whether I post five times a day, or twice a year, doesn't matter. Rusted went so far as to leave a personal message on my page referring to what he called my "obnoxious obsession." We're all here to contribute in a meaningful way. No one editor should feel that they, and they alone, get to decide which acting credits are appropriate as has happened several times. Five seperate editors attempted to change Asner's credits since his death but every time Rusted reverted their attempts. The consensus here, so far, appears to be that MTM, Lou Grant, and Up are the most appropriate credits to list, in that order. That is what I and other editors have tried, but we were met with Rusted's refusal to accept and instead, we were labeled "obnoxious." You're right, I do not post often, but perhaps I will. My words of advice - turn down the rhetoric, listen to other people, and be civil. (TedR23 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC))

You don't explain why you make your switches unless pressed about it so it comes off as random switching which is frustrating. Richard Herd, Joe Ruby. You explain why you switch Asner's credits then I explain why I don't agree but then you quietly switch them again anyway. I highlight your gaps in edits because for the most part swapping out titles seems like the only thing you do on the site. If I see an explanation of why it's happening I won't be so inclined to revert the change. Rusted AutoParts 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

All it takes is a good rationale in an edit summary to quell reversions. Or anything in an edit summary. I currently have issues with one particular editor who changes things for no apparent reason and provides no edit summary entries for them at all. I hope this particular issue is resolved though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS inquiry

@Rusted AutoParts:, explain why a totally illogical piped link on the Carol Harris entry is “MOS around here.” The normal use of piped links is to shorten an entry, but avoid surprise, (see WP:RICKROLL) so given that there are 10 zillion halls of fame, doesn’t it make sense to note which one? Please point me to the relevant guideline you use. Montanabw^(talk) 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to distinguish the nationality from their Hall of Fame induction, you must not have seen the other entries on this very page with that exact format when inserting this selective change. Carol Harris’s nationality is not “American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame”. These entries need to be as concise as possible, so any means to keep the entry short as possible is utilized. These are practices adopted by the frequent editors of these pages. Rusted AutoParts 01:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Her entry is concise, but if nationality is always included ( and I can see how saying “American, [[American…” would look weird), would it work to say “American, [[American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame|AQHA Hall of Fame]] equestrian,” instead? There’s multiple equestrian halls of fame, so using the acronym would avoid the WP:RICKROLL problem. Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to alter the current status quo, the reader isn't being misled or hoodwinked, they can simply click to see which HOF they're in, hoover over even to see where the link goes. Typing out the full name of the HOF adds needless space and abbreviating the initials of the HOF itself is something I don't know about. I suggest getting hold of other frequent death article editors for their input because that would be a change that would need to be applied to other entries. Rusted AutoParts 03:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You folks seriously need to look at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and consider how bitey you are to well-meaning newcomers to your “neighborhood”. (I’ve been on WP for 15 years, never edited here before…and man, you guys definitely don’t welcome well-meaning outsiders) Compared to the style used for other places where brevity is valued, such as disambiguation pages (where I have edited for most of my 15 years, and where they have clear guidelines), you DO have a different style and your “that’s the way we do it around here” attitude is quite uncivil. I have insufficient motivation to crusade for a rules change here, particularly where comments about changes are already answered with a sarcastic “good luck”, but if you’ve got a house style, you could at least write it up in more detail, because you obviously get a lot of drivebys. And seriously, adding one or two words to a hall of fame link isn’t going to break the wiki. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry how are my comments bitey? Rusted AutoParts 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not “my” singly, it’s at least three individuals, who appear to be regulars. Read the edit summaries for the Harris entry by all users, some linked here. Should be obvious. Montanabw^(talk) 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t find that very fair, from what I’m seeing the editor was edit warring over the format despite being informed of why they were reverted and being asked to discuss it. Rusted AutoParts 16:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there was something of a discussion, though I do agree that discussion via edit summary tends to not end well. That said, this house style is a little different from other areas of Wikipedia, and your level of fierceness in defending it reminds me of WP:MEDRS—but they deal with life and death information whereas you are only dealing with… Death. You were not the individual who initially bit, but I found it rather stunning how quickly your crew was to race off to ANI and demand an “off with her head” over what is your project’s somewhat non-standard use of piped links and a reasonable difference of opinion over commas. (Also, your remarks about brevity fail when several sports figures seem to have half the teams they’ve ever played for listed in their entries, making it run into at least two lines of text. Seriously — one extra word explaining which Hall of Fame someone was in really isn’t going to break the wiki.) What upped the ante was the canvassing to form a tag team on a completely different page, and while it was in the gray area of improper canvassing, (though they should not have stated their own opinion per WP:canvass) one of the people involved just archived that discussion (and not earlier ones) in a manner that suggests they hoped to evade scrutiny. I’m rather disappointed. I think this discussion probably has gone on as long as it needs to, and I don’t see a consensus forming as far as a need for a little more civility. But I hope you take the situation to heart and consider that people of goodwill can get frustrated if they are bodyslammed for a good faith attempt to be involved. Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)