Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Source

You may find this list useful in updating this page: https://www.technicalpolitics.com/articles/a-list-of-named-coronavirus-victims-updates/. --Orthorhombic, 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's someone who is notable, if someone wants to write the bio

Talk:John_LaPlante Victor Grigas (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a municipal traffic worker, not a notable person. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of nonsense that we should be avoiding. The guy was an acting commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation 30 years ago. Zaathras (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the inaugural. And possibly shortest-reigning, just seven months per our CDT article's list. At least Rebekah Scheinfeld put in the hours and chose to quit (though her crap stub doesn't say why). InedibleHulk (talk)

Credit for trying, Victor, but the notability doesn't seem to be there. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Birthday/age redundancy

I can't think of any circumstance where you'd want to sort by birthday instead of by age, or vice versa. I think birthday should be removed, as it may be the case that an individual's birthday is unknown but their age is known, but it will never be the case that their birthday is known but age is unknown. userdude 07:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I support removing the birthday column, completely superfluous when the age column is much more concise. They basically inform you of the same data. --Killuminator (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree and, in the absence of any voice to the contrary, done. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Convert this to table?

Should we convert this article to a sortable table for easier searching/finding? The first 3 rows might look something like this:

Date of Death	Name	Nationality	Birthdate	Age at Death	Notes
January 25, 2020	Liang Wudong	China	March 1959	60	Chinese doctor who was the first to die due to nosocomial infection
January 26, 2020	Wang Xianliang	China	May 1957	62	Chinese politician, former chief of Ethnic and Religion Affairs Commission of Wuhan
January 27, 2020	Yang Xiaobo	China	January 1963	57	Chinese politician, former mayor of Huangshi

Jhn31 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support such a change, so that it can be sortable in a number of ways, if and only if it remains one table, not the subdivided table that was introduced at the now deleted list of cases. I would strongly recommend a column for place of contagion (or death), which is more of note in terms of the spread of the disease than the nationality of the victim. Kevin McE (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support removing the date of birth column. It tells us the same thing the age column does but the age column is much shorter and to the point because you don't have to mentally calculate their age, saves space as well. --Killuminator (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I like it. You can also check Deaths in 2020 for more deaths that haven't been added yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Comment Now that this table starts to be (unfortunately) a bit crowded, can I suggest it be split into several ones. Traditional strategies include:

• By Place of Death (Asia, Europe, Americas, Africa)
• By Alphabetical Order (A-F, G-Q, R-Z)
• By Industry (Medical, Sports, Arts, Politics...)

My personal preference would be on the last one as it would also allow to QC why is person X added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D6E0:C8B0:3471:5863:9E3A:F8EB (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the table constrains one of the main benefits of a table: the ability to sort the entire list based on a particular characteristic. I realize we may have to split it eventually due to size alone, but let's not do it any sooner than we absolutely must. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

To be added

can someone add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Leber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.123.253.1 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

He was added to the list in this revision. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Schäfer

Are we sure he died because of stress related to the pandemic? On his article there is no direct statement that he committed suicide due to stress from the pandemic, and I can't read the sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Quote from the source given in the list, which is a translation of a speech given by Prime Minister Volker Bouffier: Bouffier also said that Schäfer had been living under considerable worry and stress because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. "His main concern was whether he could manage to fulfill the huge expectations of the population, especially in terms of financial aid," Bouffier said on Sunday. "For him, there was clearly no way out. He was desperate, and so he had to leave us. That has shocked us, has shocked me."[1]Renerpho (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle and the Prime Minister both are considered reliable sources, and the Prime Minister apparently referred to a letter left by Schäfer.Renerpho (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is true that this touches WP:BLP, and a Prime Minister is not the police.Renerpho (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources link his death to the pandemic, though I don't include other politicians. Seems straightforward for inclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

I could see an article like this being heavily over-populated and abused, are we sure this article is a good idea? Govvy (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion. Dollywares (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

When an AFD closes ... aren't we supposed to put some sort of template on this Talk Page, indicating that the result was keep? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For what it is worth this has been twice nominated and twice kept. Also the contentious deletion discussion on the earlier list of infected people had a clear consensus to keep a list of deaths even among those who wanted to delete the article on infections. As I said there, death is defining, infection for some is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Place of Death

Don't know who did it but just wanted to publicly thank whoever added the "Place of Death" column as I was intending to include a "city" column as the nationality/country column wasn't sufficient IMHO. So thank you and great work! Jccali1214 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a "country of Death" column while the French wikipedia has a "Lieu de décès" column.

For Princess Maria Teresa of Bourbon-Parma the French wikipedia says her death occured in the city where she was born, Paris, giving her a French nationality.

Here we claim Spain as country of Death with Madrid as city giving her a Spanish nationality.

Which is the right information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.235 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here Wikipedia article says she was born and died in Paris. Place of birth does not in all cases equate to nationality. We have one person here who had lived in France since 1955 still listed as a Spanish national. In that cases of 65 years in a country that might be justified, but there are people who have a nationality aquired at some later point in life, so we should make sure to reflect nationality at time of death and not at time of birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Place of death column uninformative

I assume that the purpose of the 'place of death' column is to track spread of the disease within countries. I would suggest that it is almost entirely pointless in that regard, for at least four reasons:

• it is not always reported, and then may be representative of where hospitals rather than place of infection is;
• readers will probably not know the location of many of these places relative to each other or to the major cities in the country (would you know whereabouts in France Neuilly, Calmart and Melun are without looking it up?);
• the sample is too small to be informative (1 in 6 of the UK sample are in Scotland: are we to assume that 17% of UK cases are in Scotland?);
• our sample is self selecting, and likely to be resident in major cities (We seem to have a great bias towards politicians in our perception of important Iranians)

There has been some discussion of this in the 'Nationality is mostly duplicative' section above, but it is not helpful to have a proposal buried under an unrelated header. Kevin McE (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I support removing that column OR merging the columns in the sense that a city can be listed in a bracket after the country. A lot of cells are empty because we don't know the cities where some of these people died. --Killuminator (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Scope of page: should indirect deaths be included?

Several editors have raised the issue of the scope of the page. If a source describes an individual's death as resulting from "complications relating to COVID-19", should it be included? Should suicides resulting from pandemic-related stress be included? What about suicides resulting from recession-related stress? Should such deaths as this be included if the victim is notable? @Amakuru, Killuminator, Johnpacklambert, Renerpho, Tenryuu, Kevin McE, P37307, Onetwothreeip, and InedibleHulk: Pinging editors who made comments regarding scope. userdude 20:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would say complications due to COVID-19 would count. I would not include failed tratements unless the person was diagnosed. I would not include a suicide, with the possible exception of a case of someone committing suicide to avoid suffering longer from COVID-19.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I brought it up was the first death in Ontario had its sources refer to the deceased as an individual who was discovered to have underlying health concerns and was discovered to have COVID-19 when examined. It seems Ontario has since attributed it to the coronavirus. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The reliable source links the death directly to the coronavirus pandemic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The Ontario case appears to be within the scope of this page. The other possible (but fictitious?) cases you describe should be handled on a case-by-case basis as they occur.Renerpho (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Poisoning oneself with a chemical in a drug mentioned by a politician as a potential treatment for a disease is four degrees too tangential, even if the accident victim has the disease. If someone commits suicide to avoid dying of the disease/pandemic/economy, they pretty clearly avoid this list. If someone has a presumptive car accident on the way to buy hand sanitizer, even if police later determine the brakes were cut, forget them, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as a person has an article, I would say that they could be included in a separate section as this relates to the pandemic overall. I believe that those that pass away from a medical reason should be included while those that do not should be considered if that time comes. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of what was said above. If someone dies from complications relating to the virus, then essentially the virus killed them. They're more or less the same thing as far anyone other than doctors and medical examiners are concerned. Either way, the virus was what caused their death. There's some medically nuanced difference between dying of coronavirus and of coronavirus-related complications, but we really don't need to worry about that. If it's more tangential than that, such as someone getting into a fatal car crash on the way to the hospital, or if some notable individual decides to be an idiot and drink aquarium cleaner or bleach (which people are also doing apparently) and dies, that doesn't count. If someone gets killed in a supermarket brawl over toilet paper (and there have been such brawls, though none fatal) that doesn't count either. Smartyllama (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm no doctor, lawyer or medical examiner, just find it concerning when citizens seem to think newswriters' and politicians' views on health and death are equal to or more valid than these actual authority figures who not only attended, but graduated from actual academic institutions. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to give my 2 cents that overall deaths not resulting from complications (e.g. suicides, robberies, starvation, etc.) should be included in the overall death toll but that's not the scope of this article and they should not be thus included. Otherwise, I enjoy the consensus choir that deaths from medical compliacations brought on by COVID-19 warrant inclusion. Jccali1214 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

With the article named as it is, we probably should include anyone who died because of circumstances that arise because of the pandemic. I note that the overwhelming opinion here is that those who can't distinguish between fish tank cleaner and malaria medication, and other hypotheticals raised, should not be in the article shows that the current title is untenable. Kevin McE (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Almost everyone who has died had 'underlying health concerns". I think in this case especially we need to follow reliable sources. Since we hear limit our content to notablepeople with reliable sources attributing their deaths to COVID-19 I think this will be workable, and avoid becoming the nightmare we saw with the 1918-1919 Flu pandemic article. Just make sure we source all entries to reliable sources, not twitter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Verified Twitter accounts of reliable sources are generally considered acceptable. While the reliability of someone tweeting about their own diagnosis is debatable, that's obviously not an issue for deaths so we don't have to worry about it right now. Smartyllama (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • So do we accept as reliable a verified twitter account that says the person died? As in it claims the person is saying they died?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have changed my view. I think if we can find reliable sources that link a suicide to the pandemic, or injesting fatal amounts of bleach, or fighting over toilet paper, than include them. Disaster death counts generally count people as tangentially. No assuming through OR any suicide in March 2020 is pandemic related though. We need reliavle sources supporting this attribution. I will also fight any article on someone where the article is created to cover a COVID-19 suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Our minister of finance has just committed suicide, with the pandemic cited as the reason in a speech by the prime minister.[2] Should he be added?Renerpho (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I boldly added Thomas Schäfer. I think it is time to discuss whether deaths by suicide are within the scope of this article, if the suicide is explicitly stated as being due to the pandemic.Renerpho (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC) If this article were moved to List of deaths from COVID-19 then I'd say deaths from suicides are out of the question. But in its current form, this is a list of deaths from the pandemic, which is different.Renerpho (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think adding this is taking it a bit too far. Should then we add too a hypothetical physician having a car accident while commuting to the hospital? This list should include only people with the disease. I would include though someone having a pneumonia as side effect. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think suicides should be included. This should be a list of people who died from an event (namely, the pandemic), not a list of people who died from the disease. There is a clear usefulness ten years from now of a list of people who died due to a historical event while there is less so for a list of people who died due to a novel virus. I think the specific cause of death should be included under the Notes column. I have added this for the entry on Schäfer. userdude 23:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC); edited23:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not add "secondary" deaths, likely suicide. There is strong concern that there are people with non-COVID medical conditions that are going to lose medical treatment access due to hospitals being dedicated to COVID and may die, and those could considered COVID-related deaths, but that clearly gets out of scope fast. Only include deaths where the body's succumbing to complications from COVID was cited as the cause, and nothing else. --Masem (t) 23:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A car accident is different from this, as there is no direct cause&effect link between the death and the pandemic (the accident may have happened the same way without the pandemic). The suicide is directly linked to the pandemic (see the source I linked above). As stated by UserDude, this article is concerned with deaths from an event, not deaths from a disease. Unless the article is moved somewhere else, the suicide, being caused by the event, should be in the scope of this article.Renerpho (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Moved comment.Renerpho (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to argue for that, then please either segregate the deaths that are not directly from COVID complications to a separate table or make a column that makes this distinction. I can understand that with the naming of the list as it is presently, that any direct or indirectly linked death should be included, but we should still distinguish those. --Masem (t) 05:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The pandemic has drastically reduced road traffic. Hard to fathom how a crash would've changed on a normal day, but easy to see why it could've. Stick with simple ripple effects, like pneumonia and SARS. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see a case for Wikipedia recording deaths tangentially connected to the disease, but would suggest a separate article: List of deaths linked to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I don't think the people who ate fish tank cleaner can in any sense be said to have died "from the pandemic". But I accept their deaths would not have happened but for the pandemic. jamacfarlane (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Marcel Botbol

The prominent Moroccan-Jewish musician Marcel Botbol (b. Fez, Morocco, 1945) died of COVID-19 in Paris on April 1, 2020. source 1 source 2 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If he was prominent, he'd have an article. But since someone said "COVID-19", he'll likely have a stub soon. Wait for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Robinson (politician)

Hi wikipedians, Please add Isaac Robinson (politician) to the table. Died on March 29, 2020 (aged 44) Death place = Detroit, Michigan, U.S. Description = American Politician from Michigan

Source = https://www.crainsdetroit.com/obituaries/state-rep-isaac-robinson-dies-suspected-coronavirus-infection

Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Confirmed name has been added to table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWP13 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

And removed because the cause of death seems unconfirmed. Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

They all do, pending autopsy. This one's first-published story just seems relatively unconvinced, leading outlets that echoed it to also "share" the cautiously skeptical gist. But if reliably-circulated doubt is where you draw the line, I completely understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kevin McE, can you clarify? From my edit, "Some of Michigan’s most publicized COVID-19 victims were ballroom dancers, including Michigan state Rep. Isaac Robinson and Wayne County Sheriff Cmdr. Donafay Collins, who also moonlighted as a DJ." If a different source is needed, here is NBC News: ["https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/detroit-still-clawing-back-financial-crisis-reels-coronavirus-claims-lives-n1175191 The coronavirus pandemic has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people around the world but it has taken a particularly painful toll on Detroit, where the growing list of deaths includes some of its most prominent citizens: state Rep. Isaac Robinson, 44; Capt. Jonathan Parnell, 50, the police department's homicide chief; and Dwight Jones, 73, a legendary high school basketball coach."] --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

When I removed it, it even had a footnote on the table stating that the cause was uncertain, and see the wording of the headline quoted above in the request to post. To be honest, I think that the same could probably be said for a huge proportion of entries in the list, and I suspect this change is journalists being less cautious than diagnosis being more certain, but if there are RSs now stating that without reservation, then obviously I can't object. But I do think that any claim to accuracy in this list is now down to the stringency of journalists and their ability to resist putting a subject about which the public are information ungry into any possibly related story. Kevin McE (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Info source

Another source of information about people for this article could be Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Deaths. Not a reliable, referenced source but this list might have some names this page doesn't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I was also thinking that come early April, this list could be broken up by month so it doesn't become too unwieldy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal fully. --Killuminator (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand your motivation, but we should delay splitting the list as long as possible. Right now, a reader can sort the entire table based on the characteristics that interest them. Once this list is split by month, the ability to sort will be hindered by an arbitrary criterion (month of death). There are other things we can still do to limit the size of the list. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of medical professionals who have died with COVID-19. (by Medscape) TGCP (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to places of death

This is a sortable table. That means that linking only the first occurrence of a particular piece of data doesn't work, because it won't (necessarily) be the first occurrence if the table is sorted some other way than the default. For instance: right now there are eleven instances of New York as the place of death, and by the default sorting only the first instance is linked, whereas sorting by name only the sixth instance is linked and when sorting by age only the tenth instance is linked. There are only two proper ways of doing this while keeping the sortability: either all the instances need to be linked, or none of them. The alternative is to remove the sortability. TompaDompa (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well the sortability is paramount because we don't know what individual readers will be using this list for. Beyond that, it doesn't matter very much if all the places are linked, and it also is no big deal if the first or sixth or tenth instance are linked, as this situation presumably applies to every sortable table on wikipedia with recurring values in one column. Not a big deal either way, in my opinion, but if we want to retain this shibboleth of only the first occurrence being linked, link them all. Jdcooper (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Within the context of this article, the only real reason for following a link to the place of death is no find where it is in relation to the major centres in that country ("Where on Earth is Melun?" "It's about 40km from Paris." "Ah, that fits within what I understand to be the main French concentration.") The cities with repeated links are Wuhan, Paris, Tehran, Madrid, Manila, London, New York, Belgrade and Sao Paolo: I really don't think anyone unaware enough to need to be told where they are is going to benefit from being told where they are in relation to other places nearby (or from the existence of an encyclopaedia) Kevin McE (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Style --- Date vs. ABC

For example:

1. Date List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

1. ABC in the german wikipedia (ABC): de:Liste bekannter Persönlichkeiten, die an COVID-19 verstorben sind

pro / contra ? Triplec85 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's a sortable table, users can order it however they like, so it's not an important problem either way. As for the default, I would support ordering by date, because this is more likely to be a topic of research for our readers than the first letter of victims' surnames. And those looking for "new items on the list" will likely find them grouped together in one place, at the bottom. Jdcooper (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's only sortable for Javascript users, so defaults sort of matter. I'd prefer no table. But as a second choice, sorted by date (descending or ascending). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar list for people diagnosed and recovered?

There has to be plenty of RS on notable people who have been diagnosed and recovered and would be a good list to help keep people’s spirits up. - Scarpy (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality is mostly duplicative

I propose removing the Nationality column from the table. In the vast majority of cases (95.5 out of 108, or 88%, as of this version), nationality is the same as country of death. Therefore, removing the column will help to de-clutter this list. In cases where they are different, the nationality can be noted in the Notes column. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I would support removing the column for cities as well. The particular cities where they died can be stated on their individual pages. I don't see much importance and informational value for including them. In some cases we don't even know the cities where these people died. We don't use cities on pages like List of 2020 deaths either. --Killuminator (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I would favor removing the city column, too. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's apparent whether we should remove the nationality or the location column. Both seem as relevant as each other, so what we could do is move the two columns together, and then merge them where the nationality and location is the same. That would still remove the vast majority of duplication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, visually. I don't know of any, however, to do that and preserve the ability to sort the table. Maybe there is a way that someone else knows... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Originally we had a nationality column (because Wikipedians seem obsessed by it, and apparently unable to imagine putting a person's name in a table without a brightly coloured rectangle next to it), but nothing about where they were struck down, which is far more relevant than their passport details (as if everyone can be neatly defined by one nationality) if the point of the list is about the impact of the disease. I wouldn't object to nationality being commented upon in notes. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Some people can have multiple or no nationalities as well. The Bourbon princess probably had dual French and Spanish citizenship but we don't have a source for such a statement. I agree that their passport is not relevant for this article, if the place of death doesn't match their passport we can point it out in the notes, like I did for the politician from the Republic of Congo. The place where they were diagnosed, treated and ultimately died are the relevant things. Also, regarding cities, I would also support a sort of merger for the columns with countries and cities in the sense that cities would be indicated in a bracket where the city is known. I suppose cities let you track the spread of the disease on a more micro-zoomed in kind of level but by merging the columns, we'd eliminate a lot of empty cells and potentially please both sides. --Killuminator (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• If we're going to drop one, it should be nationality, I'm neutral on that. Keep place of death because it shows how the pandemic is evolving over time. buidhe 10:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep both We have enough people who died in a place that was not the one connected to their nationality that both are relevant and they are clearly not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Nationality should also be kept. The pandemic's impact on the world is relevant, as is its spread. We only need to list primary nationalities. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Each individual death has no impact on any part of the world. Even world leaders have replacements in line. Only the overall stats determine which regions get which level of medical, financial and media assistance. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• If only one of nationality or country of death is kept, it should be nationality. Nationality provides information on the individual. Country of death might only serve to make this list used as a very poor tracker of the pandemic's spread. userdude 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC); edited 02:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove both - Honestly, the information is helpful to the reader, but List of HIV-positive people does it better by removing them for an expanded notes/comment section that includes the nationally. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Months not years?

The article is currently organised by year. We are in April so I think it would be more appropriate to organise by month. Munci (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see above discussions, there's no consensus to split the table which would make it difficult to sort. buidhe 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Data from Wikidata

Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Deaths.--Moxy 🍁 02:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we want to split at some point

This article has 113 entries. It looks like from the 2020 deaths page there is already another person to add for April 1st, and there may be others. We are also seeing a few people having articles created as they die. I am not sure exactly how big this article can get before it goes too big, but with rising death numbers in some areas we may see it grow quite quickly in the next 2 weeks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Have thought about this. For me, the only coherent way to split it would be to first divide this article into country of death, then split out country by country deaths when that part of the list gets big enough to warrant it. And I guess if that is the plan then it makes sense to reorganise it sooner rather than later because otherwise splitting it later would be a great deal of work. Jdcooper (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better just to split the article by month as with the normal "deaths in..." lists? Spiderone 17:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot of longer lists on WP and this one isn't that long yet. It could double or triple without being an issue. I oppose splitting without seeing dramatic expansion because a single unified table is the easiest way to find relevant entries. buidhe 22:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It could double in just a few days. Things are getting out of hand quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: @Johnpacklambert: I have a list List of notable people who have tested positive for COVID-19 (57 names). Create new article? —§—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  T3g5JZ50GLq, NO. That was deleted and upheld at DRV, so just don't. buidhe 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: OK, where is the DRV? —§— T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  T3g5JZ50GLq, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 19 buidhe 00:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Throwing this out here, should we split the table by months? It would make editing much easier and smoother something like how Deaths in 2020 is separated by months. I mean this table will sadly get longer as this pandemic increases, so it would be easier to keep track of and editing if we split it by months? Just an idea. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As the table for March 2020 would be the majority of the article, it seems like it's too soon to split the table, if splitting would generally be a good idea. We might also find that splitting by country/region is a better idea than by month. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If it is too big to be useful, then it is probably too big to be a relevant list to have at all. The point of having a table is to be able to sort it: if that is made impossible, then it has little or know usefulness. Kevin McE (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The idea that the large size of the article indicates a lack of relevance is a puzzling position to me. Just because it may reach a size where some manner of split per Wikipedia:Splitting is appropriate doesn't mean it should be thrown out altogether. I tend to agree with the earlier statement that it's too soon to split it now, but that it might become appropriate later, and that country/region may be better approach than splitting it by months. — Hunter Kahn 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason as we do not have List of deaths from heart attacks or List of deaths from cancer. Although it seems newsworthy now, if the number of deaths, and those eligible for this list, grows greatly, then it will become, within the context of this year at least, a thoroughly unremarkable cause of death. It has already moved a long way towards being a commentary on the extent of our SYSTEMICBIAS rather than a meaningful analysis of the pandemic. What do you consider to be the maximum number of names a list should have before we come to such a conclusion? Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand your appeal to WP:SPLIT. That specifically speaks against splitting a table:"These guidelines... apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• To me this seems more like an event than heart attack. We do have specific lists for a few cancers, so in some ways the "we do not list cancer" claim is false. As a user generated encyclopedia Wikipedia has uneven coverage. This has come to light when I have found that some countries have health ministers who lack articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes this list should be split by country of death, and if a few prominent people end up in their country of origin that’s no big deal. What’s important is to create a structure for data to start flowing into. This needs to be done sooner than later. 700+ dead today in just NY, 800+ in UK

This is happening so fast that unlike cancers or other ordinary causes, Wikipedia may end up being the only central source for such a list for this event. We are losing amazing talent, famous or not, but at least to list people who’ve come to prominence. Jennpublic (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks

I'm not entirely sure whether redlinks should be included, so here's a list of items from Deaths in 2020 and from Wikidata (the later curated):

Deaths in 2020

• Tarciso Stramare, 91, Italian biblist and writer.
• Black N Mild, 44, American bounce music deejay.
• Sérgio Trindade, 79, Brazilian scientist (IPCC).
• Ahmad Taheri, Iranian futsal coach.
• Mohammad Haj Abolghasemi, 71, Iranian military commander (Basij).
• Nashom Wooden, 50, American drag performer (The Ones, Flawless, Swoon).
• Borja Domecq Solís, 75, Spanish businessman and fighting bull cattle rancher.
• Pino Grimaldi, 71, Italian designer.
• Giovanni Blandino, 83, Italian sculptor and painter.
• Antonio García-Moreno, 87, Spanish priest, lawyer and theologian.
• Alan Finder, 72, American journalist (The New York Times).

Wikidata

• Joan Cuadrench i Aragonès
• Gonzalo Cerezo Barredo
• Valerio Moro
• Júlia Sigmond
• Llorenç Cassi i Morató

Circéus (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I for one do not think redlinks should be included, no. Moreover, I am a bit concerned about the rapid article creation for people who did not have articles before dying. Perhaps there are some people who do pass the notability guide and just were never noticed til now, but articles like Stanislas Ouaro, Siméon Sawadogo, Lucien Sève are garbage. @唐吉訶德的侍從: needs to slow down a bit before we have to deal with a mass of time-consuming AfD debates. Zaathras (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sève had a fr: article for years and looks notable to me (though his interest was in communist philosophy, so he was obviously poorly known in English countries). Ouaro and Sawadogo serve nothing to your argument,because they are not dead and can not be listed here at this point anyway. While I agree mentioning them contracting the disease is irrelevant, it is even more irrelevant to bring them up on this talk page. Circéus (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I bring those 2 up now because a single user is going on a dubious article-creation spree, when their only notoriety at the moment is the disease contraction. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I find it baffling that you are literally saying with no evidence whatsoever, that ministers at the national level are not notables. Just because you don't care about a country does not make content related to it nonnotable. Circéus (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Those two aside, I wonder how someone "obviously poorly known in English countries" can be considered generally notable in the English Wikipedia. If you can't find English secondary coverage of their lives, that means the English don't care. Neither do you Chinese and French-named instigators, you're just interested in viral death. Creates the illusion that celebrities are dying near-daily, this forced list, when most of these people couldn't stand on their own merits. It's a crap flood, good intentions or not, and shouldn't be encouraged. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

What I care is to uphold our actual policies. If other people somehow think only material in English is ever relevant to determining notability. I should damn well hope they're gonna run into opposition trying to get that applied­. Circéus (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not just whether the English world cares. When most or all of a bio is based on foreign-language coronavirus stories, that also suggests the particular victim's life is secondary. GNG wants independent coverage to focus significantly on the subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree about keeping out the redlinks, but @InedibleHulk:, you clearly have never read what WP:GNG says. Read it please, especially the part about the sources. @Zaathras:, if you find an article being garbage or its subject being non-notable, you can nominate it for deletion. Complaining about it here has no relevance and no effect. --151.54.238.115 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The first article listed above as "garbage" is on a government minister in Burkina Faso. Governement ministers, and in fact all national legislature members, are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is an international world-wide project. Just because this particular manifestation of it is written in English in no way means that sourcing needs to be in English. Creating such a rule would reinforce the Amero-centricity of the project that some of us have been trying to reverse for over a decade. As long as the source is secondary, from a reliable publication, and indepdent of the subject, we can use it without regard to language. The English part of the Wikipedia is that we write the contents in English, not that sourcing is in English. So if you think someone is notable, as any government minister of Burkina Faso clearly is, create an article on them and then add them to relevant lists and categories. However since rules for academics and some other psotions varry from project to project (I have been told that the Polish Wikipedia treats "all professors as notable", however this may in part be a result of the term being used in a more controlled way in Poland), just because a person has an article in the Wikipedia of another language does not mean they are notable. Although I would expect the vast majority of people who have articles in any Wikipedia who actually meet the inclusion criteria of that prokect would meet the inclusion criteria of all projects. The English wikipedia is weighed down with articles over a decade old that in no way come close to meeting our inclusion cretiria, on state beauty contest winners, on unelected candidates for congress, and on utterly non-notable porn stars, to name a few.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We should still be careful not to overcrowd the page listing people whose only noticeable "achievement" was dying of coronavirus. This article is supposed to be "a list of notable people", not "a list of notable death". For instance Jean-Jacques Razafindranazy's French wiki page was created 2 days after his death so one can argue that while his death was noticeable (first doctor dying from treating patients in France), he wasn't. Maybe a different table or page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D6E0:C8B0:3471:5863:9E3A:F8EB (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Per WP:LISTPEOPLE "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability." Notable scientists, businesspeople, artists and the first member of a specific category or group of people such as the US Military to die from coronavirus should be allowed on the list, especially if their death was reported in reliable, published source consistent with WP:RS. Kire1975 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose addition of people without an article. That is a standard that applies to many list articles. If we add others (even with a source) we are inviting addition of potentially thousands of additions. I understand that there may be people who are "firsts" in some area, such as first victim in a country, first victim in a profession, etc., but individual editors don't need to be making that decision because it's far too vague. And then we get into endless discussions on this talk page about who should be included. Requiring a Wikipedia article is straightforward and requires no debate. As with many list articles, if you want to add someone, please go to the trouble to write their article, even a short one. If the article doesn't get deleted because of WP:BIO, then add the name here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"" WP:LISTPEOPLE describes the inclusion of people who don't have wikipedia pages on lists as a "common exception". With respect, removing notable deaths because it's less work in the long run and breaking with "common" practice could be construed as downplaying and minimizing the severity of the plague. Kire1975 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't "less work". It's keeping an article from becoming unwieldy because everyone has his/her own idea about what is "notable". I could provide examples of many list articles that do this for that very reason (I won't clutter this discussion by doing so, but they're easy to find). Sundayclose (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think having an article is a reasonable test in this case. I could see the "first in a special category" cases ballooning. If we have the sourcing to justify an article, create an article. The one exception to having an article I would entertain is if we have a seperate article and a deletion discussion on the article decides that it is worth changing that article as a redirect to this list on the understanding that the death is notable but the life is not. However I would want that to be decided through AfD. I would not want people adding entries here that they do not think could justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We definitively need strict criteria on who should appear on this list. The vast majority of this (already very difficult to read) list is made of persons who had NO wiki page in ANY language whatsoever before their death. The relevance of the following people on this "notable" list is doubtful for a lot of them. They represent more than a third of the list. Some cleaning would be required and neat guidelines on who to add in the future should be clarified.

List of post-mortem wikipedia "notable" deads

• Liang Wudong
• Wang Xianliang
• Wen Zengzian
• Qiu Jun
• Hong Li
• Lin Zhengbin
• Liu Shouxiang
• Liu Fan
• Hadi Khosroshahi
• Reza Mohammadi Langroudi
• Lee Cha-su
• Nasser Shabani
• Francesco Saverio Pavone
• Stephen Schwartz
• Rose Marie Compaoré
• Sérgio Trindade
• Jean Leber
• Antonio Michele Stanca
• Carlos Falcó
• Aileen Baviera
• Jean-Jacques Razafindranazy
• José María Loizaga Viguri
• Usama Riaz
• Zororo Makamba
• Nashom Wooden
• Calogero Rizzuto
• Walter Robb
• Steven Dick
• Mohamed Farah
• Jenny Polanco
• Alan Finder
• John F. Murray
• Floyd Cardoz
• Angelo Moreschi
• Menggie Cobarrubias
• Luigi Roni
• Olle Holmquist
• Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma
• Jesús Gayoso Rey
• Rodolfo González Rissotto
• Chato Galante
• William B. Helmreich
• William Wolf
• Peg Broadbent
• Angelo Rottoli
• Lorena Borjas
• David Hodgkiss
• Milutin Knežević
• James T. Goodrich
• Tomas Oneborg
• Gita Ramjee
• Sa'ad Galadiman Patigi
• Viktar Dashkevich
• Daniel Yuste
• Wilhelm Burmann
• Rafael Gómez Nieto
• Branislav Blažić
• Bernard Epin
• Bernardita Catalla
• Bob Glanzer
• Rodrigo Pesántez Rodas
• Arlene Stringer-Cuevas
• Florindo Corral
• Muhammad Sirajul Islam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D6E0:C8B0:A8A3:767B:1DDB:D0F7 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the entries on your list, but Yuste for one has had an article for some years. While theer is only one story in the news, the media will be scratching around for other angles on it, and so lots of people who might not normally get coverage are being written about: if the media lower their thresh hold for writing obituaries, do GNGs oblige us to consider them thereby notable? I would be happy to see many of these at AfD, but in at least some cases they are people who have been missed while they have long met our GNGs for reasons of SYSTEMICBIAS. So I would suggest that we do not discard them in bulk simply because they have a new article, but they should be checked for appropriateness of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I knew it was a lot of them, but seeing it in a list is a whole other level of belief. Sheesh! But I'd hold off on AfDs until people can relax in productive groups again, and forget why these nobodies were ever temporarily noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• After the number of articles I have seen at AfD just new to today (at least 4) that have been around for 12 or more years with their only source being IMDb, I feel again how much Wikipedia has failed to reasonable enforce notability. I still think we should require every new article to go through the articles for creation process and stop allowing editors to unilaterally create articles. We have seen editors just so horribly abuse the ability to create articles, with Dedhamania, one user who went crazy creating articles on minor political figures in Louisiana and Dolvis and his crazy creation of articles on minor league hockey players I think we need to conclude the creation process is broken. With us almost at 950,000 articles on living people, and with 1989 being the year we have to most articles on people born in, I am always very hesitatant about either nominating for deletion or joining in AfD on articles on the deceased. I just think we need to go to making every new article go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Flag icons

I was wondering if we really need the flag icons in the article. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly support removing them. —GoldRingChip 19:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, on this occasion, I don't mind them. It portrays visually those countries where the virus has had the greatest impact. WWGB (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Measured in terms of dead pseudocelebrities only, anyway. But in general cases, deaths or dollars, France is not the leader. Not even second. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, on recount, Italy slightly leads France here. But I miscounted because the flags look too similar. The words are relatively more distinct at a glance, why not just use them to portray the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed them. This is a pretty clear-cut case of MOS:FLAGCRUFT. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. This has nothing to do with national pride. The flags are necessary because national tolls are being consistently talked about in the media as a way of evaluating the impact of the pandemic. Flags would not be necessary when the nationality of an indivudal is not the reason for their notability. In this case I would say that it is part of what makes the item newsworthy. Please restore. Sexyeamo —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Darn, I thought the flags were helpful. I'd argue they helped to visually distinguish the countries. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Flags being deleted is a bad idea. I would restore the flags. Flags are a critically useful visual aide which add a lot of value to the article. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Second this. Would like to see the flags back. Aecritter (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I support restoring the flags as well. The colorful visual element makes it much easier and faster to navigate a column with locations listed than reading lines of black text on a white background with gray tables ever could. This is especially true for visually impaired and glasses wearing individuals such as myself. I find them very helpful on other pages that utilize them as well. I realize that some people see them as pointless fluff, but please consider the points of view of people who navigate through life differently due to physical characteristics outside of our power. Besides, they were only used to mark locations of deaths, not to emphasize nationalities of people so the FLAGCRUFT point falls flat. --Killuminator (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I support restoring them, too. They were very useful.Renerpho (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I consider that flags added visual support. They are used regularly in this context, and avoid ambiguities (such as "American", which can be both "from the Americas" or "from the United States", but using the flag makes it clear). Eynar Oxartum (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Please support the flag icons. They were the best thing about this article. What is with people destroying Wikipedia articles recently. They visually support the article and readers to weigh up the information in their minds. User:sexyeamo 14:41 AEST 4/4/2020. —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The flags were helpful/useful. They should be restored. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support restoring the flags. They're easier to distinguish while scrolling through the list than blue-linked countries. userdude 23:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Flag icons have been restored.Renerpho (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree they were MOS:FLAGCRUFT and should be removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGCRUFT applies if there isn't good reason to use flags and to focus on nationality. There is good reason for either here: The flags serve as a useful visual aid, and nationality is among the main characteristics listed. There is good reason to assume that readers are looking for people from specific countries.Renerpho (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• The table has two relevant columns – country of death and nationality. It appears that the flags are being used for the former not the latter, so we should be clear about which is meant. Myself, I support the use of flags because they add some colour and iconic visual cues to what is otherwise a monotonous spreadsheet. And the coverage of the pandemic tends to have an large element of national comparison and rivalry, as the different populations and systems are tested by it. It's therefore like a war or Olympiad for which we also use flags. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If this were an article about pandemic media coverage, I could see a straight-up necrology resembling sport and war. But this is basically the Abridged Edition of Deaths in 20xx. Plenty more people read that much longer page without needing pictures. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this page is like the typical "Deaths in 20xx" necrology. I rather see this as a spin-off of the COVID-19 article, or part of the series of articles on that topic. And in that context, people have put quite some weight on nationality. Fortunately, nationality rarely matters in a necrology; but it does matter here.Renerpho (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's COVID-19 flavoured/tainted/inspired. But that doesn't make it any less a list of the year's "notable" dead. Put it in reverse chronological order, lose the deathplace, same essential idea as the main page (where nationalities do matter, just not flags). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Going to the section below, where there is concern about duplication of "location of death" and "nationality" and the idea that "location of death" is more important, then the flag icons are not appropriate per MOS:FLAG because they are no longer representing the nationality of the person that died. I understand that in this type of case, seeing how COVID spread from China to else where through notable deaths which can sorta be seen visually via the flag icons can help, but that's not an appropriate use. I don't know immediately what a better replacement would be through, but this isn't where flags should be used. --Masem (t) 17:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove flag icons Below there is a discussion about splitting with some wanting to avoid it. Removing the flag icons will keep the article file size down and make it so we can delay splitting longer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Get rid of the filthy flagicons, users need to understand just how hated they are, and stop using them—across Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 18:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove them: this is meant to be a list of people, but most attention is drawn to another column. Anyone who cannot distinguish between the words 'Iran' and 'Italy' without the need for brightly coloured rectangles has no business using an encyclopaedia. Or anything sharper than a spoon. Kevin McE (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into a remove/delete battle. The general opinion seems to be to keep flags in at least one column - it adds a lot of aesthetic value in my opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be for the benefit of the readers, not simply a plain text dump. Officially Mr X (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG is very explicit: "Never use a flag for birth or death place" Kevin McE (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And reading comprehension is clear about how plain text benefits readers. Everything sounds worse if you stick "dump" on the end. A flag dump is no different, just relatively shat upon here. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Put the flags back cunts. Stop ruining the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.231.79 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

All the gloubiboulga up here and that editwar there for a bunch of flags helps no one. Lets make a simple vote instead of you boys wearing out your finger joints in the middle of intense keyboard combat. --Spafky (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Who wants to keep the flags in at least one column?

me! --Spafky (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Who doesn't?

WP:NOTAVOTE Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Spafky, you called someone performing a routine maintenance edit as having nothing better to do. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo : Good Sir, I have a question for you...what does that have to do with this? Was this some attempt at discrediting me or something? I wrote legitimate arguments above here and you are trying to attack me on years-old edits, because it apparently seems like you have no counter arguments. Very mature of you :D --Spafky (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If either of you has an issue with the other, take it to user talk. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article." Kevin McE (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dump! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Remove all flagicons (both place of death, and nationality) per MOS. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• I still think we should remove the flag icons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Figi

Charlotte Figi has died from COVID-19. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

But maybe not. See Talk:Charlotte Figi ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when is it OK to guess someone's nationality?

As discussed in a previous thread, Wikipedians seem to think, with a splendid disregard for reality, that everyone can be neatly presented as being uniquely of one nationality. In this table, it further appears that when there is no evidence as to what nationality a person considers themselves to have been, Wikipedians think it is OK to take an unfounded guess. Jean-Jacques Razafindranazy has been listed as French, Malagasy, and now French again: his article presents no evidence as to what his actual nationality was; Peregrine Broadbent is described as 'English-American', and has been marked here as both American and British, without any of us knowing what his legal status was; Manu Dibango had French citizenship for 65 years. Who knows what other names on the list had dual or otherwise complicated nationality? If we don't have the humility to admit that we don't know everything, then we cast doubt on the things we do know. Kevin McE (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Typical Englishman! But true, too. As this site's only registered Commonwealth Wikipedian, I feel it's my duty to swear all sixteen realms to your side on this long road to rational national humility. But if any Australians, Jamaicans or Hondurans feel I'm abusing a self-granted privilege, feel free to dissent. Kevin makes a fair point, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it not be useful to add some sort of footnote for entries where nationality is disputed? At the very least this would help editors like myself from finding a reliable source for a nationality only to then be informed by those with information which they had not hitherto imparted that, “it’s not that simple”. --Egghead06 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a "Notes" column already. In practice, it contains job descriptions. But in theory, it could be used for notes on dual nationalities, dire comorbidities, noteworthy deeds...anything (except sex). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To Inedible: I live in England, and was born here, but am not English, or British: maybe that is why I object to such assumptions.

To Egghead, I had already imparted that link in the thread that you are now reading.

More generally, given that nationality is far more often an assumption than a piece of information that is in the public forum, we should be a lot more careful about asserting it, and in the case of a list like this, should not be a column presented as confident fact. Does anyone know whether Marcelo Peralta took out Spanish citizenship during his long residency there, perhaps to ease his travel around the EU? We only know about Pearson Jordan that he qualified for the Barbadian Olympic team: not that he was born there or that it was the only nationality that he had at that time, or that he retained that nationality throughout his life: he was in the US at least from 1976-1979 and again (or still?) in 2020. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Typical English wordsmith, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My point is not so much about assuming nationality. I get that it’s a bad idea. More that rather than leaving gaps, fill those gaps with a note of some sort to help and prevent some editor like myself finding a reference for a given nationality only to be told, again, that the person’s nationality is in dispute. That’s just wasted effort and needless repetition.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia's hubris means it abhors a vacuum, which is why I propose ditching of the nationality column. Kevin McE (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with removing nationality from this list. Readers can always access the article for any individual. Doing so in the case of those with disputed nationalities from this list would give then a definitive answer on nationality. E.g. Manu Dibango was Cameroonian, Peg Broadbent was English-American etc.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Latest addition, Mishik Kazaryan is causing the exact same nationality back and forwards!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Imagine what would happen if Queen Elizabeth II contracted the virus and died. You'd have all the worst sticklers on Wikipedia insisting that we should include everything from Antigua and Barbuda to the United Kingdom in the column for nationality. You don't even have to imagine anything really. This is exactly what happened on the page Time Person of the Year before the nationality section was completely nixed. The nationality column here should be nixed as well for all said reasons, irrelevant and sometimes speculative information. --Killuminator (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad the Verdunite Montrealer Quebecois Canadian wiseguy entry is gone, his dire comorbidities and sudden notability were "funny" enough without the convoluted part. The Queen looks mostly English to me, for what little it's worth. Time seems American. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → List of deaths due to COVID-19 – As the editor most recently reverting to the current title him/herself admits, people do not die of or from a pandemic, but from a disease. If it becomes a long term issue and numbers become untenable, then it might be necessary to limit and rename this again as something like 'List of deaths due to COVID-19 during the 2020 epidemic', but that is a decision for the future. In the meantime, let's be correct and not look like we cannot distinguish between a disease and the spread of said disease. Kevin McE (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Tentatively support but to List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 for consistency with Coronavirus disease 2019. The reason I say "tentatively" is because if there is another outbreak and it becomes a seasonal super-flu, then it might make more sense to split out the notable casualties into the pandemic which caused their deaths. However, I'm an optimist so I'm hoping that doesn't happen, therefore, for now, a move to the disease as opposed to the pandemic makes sense, although this may change depending on how the situation evolves. SITH (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I considered, but decided against, that because of the potential error (evidenced by some comments in relation to the now deleted List of people with coronavirus disease 2019) of people thinking that it was for cases/deaths last year. Kevin McE (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Some food for thought. Was this page created for the purposes of a) listing people who died of a particular disease or b) listing people who died during a certain historic event ? If the answer is a) it should go on forever and include everyone notable who dies of it, pandemic or no pandemic but if the answer is b) it should be restricted to the duration of this pandemic and the title should reflect that. --Killuminator (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Would also support List of deaths from COVID-19 per precedent and WP:CONCISE. The "-19" (as in 2019) already provides adequate historical perspective. StonyBrook (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support We are listing by cause of death. Not in connection with a particular event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The article starts with this sentence: This is a list of notable individuals who died from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The idea that these people are not being listed in connection with a particular event is manifestly false. --Killuminator (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A list by cause of death is impossible for this particular event, because the actual cause of death is undetermined in most cases. Italy, for example, has confirmed their statistics include deaths that may not be due to COVID-19, just because they happened during the event.[3]Renerpho (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The current category name implies that it would categorise all deaths during the pandemic, not just from COVID-19. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Possible rename: How about "List of COVID-19 related deaths"? Sounds a little wishy-washy but I think it should catch all of them. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 07:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support due to clarity Spiderone 13:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support --IndexAccount (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is that, in many cases, there is no way to tell whether someone who was infected actually died from the disease, or just with it. See here for an example about the difference, which official Italian sources made clear was an important distinction that can not be made at the moment. We can list people who died during the pandemic; we can not make a statement about the actual cause of death. Renerpho (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If you were to propose that as an argument for deleting the article, I would see a logic in it (although the majotiry of news sources see no need to make such a distinction, and the newsite you quote does not make a point of the distinction). But how do you consider that to be grounds for retaining the current name? Kevin McE (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this list ought to include any death that occurs while the individual is infected with the virus SARS-CoV-2. This does not require maintaining the current title — the current title can also be misconstrued as excluding those who died of COVID-19-related causes. An explanation in the lead that the list includes those who died directly due to the virus and those who died of COVID-19-related causes would suffice. userdude 05:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is difficult to do. For example, there are reports from some Italian cities where the death rate of non-coronavirus deaths spiked.[4] It is unclear why, and whether this is representative, but it could be that more than 80% of deaths from COVID-19 in this place go undetected.Renerpho (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "It is unclear why". Overcrowded hospitals easily lead to such spikes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D6E0:C8B0:3471:5863:9E3A:F8EB (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Renerpho's line of reasoning and support it fully. --Killuminator (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how somebody dies from a pandemic? Kevin McE (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you are not going to misrepresent what others are saying and set the terms of the discussion around a point that is not contentious in the first place. The name of the virus is already in the title name, but if you wish to replace it with the name of the disease for more accuracy, go do it. This is evidently a list tracking deaths of people who contracted a particular virus and disease during a particular pandemic and died from it (directly or indirectly) or died with it. The title should reflect that as well. The content of the page should reflect the first sentence and title as well, not open the door for this to be the most meticulously tracked death from infectious diseases page on Wikipedia. Also, the name of the associated category is Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. You might wanna give that a look as well. --Killuminator (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not clear what your !vote is here. You oppose a change from the pandemic to the disease as the cause of death in the title, but refuse an invitation to explain why the pandemic should be described as the cause of death. You want to retain the title that posits the degree of spread of a virus as the cause of death, object to a change that switches the 'blame' to the disease, and yet tell me to go ahead and make that change, apparently inviting me to ignore the WP:RM procedures.

Your opinion of what the list "evidently" is differs considerably from mine, and you will need to explain the process by which this name change will require this to be "the most meticulously tracked death from infectious diseases page on Wikipedia". There will be an expectation of a reliable source, as there is for any potentially contentious claim in Wikipedia: nothing more, nothing less. And the first sentence (and current title) failed to describe the content, as explained in the edit note: you have shown no inclination to remove those who died prior to the WHO declaration on 11 March.

The current name is also faulty because what we are currently experiencing is coronavirus disease pandemic, not coronavirus pandemic: that is intrinsic to the definition of pandemic, although that error is widespread within and without Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't my opinion on the list, it was the stated purpose of the article in the introductory sentence but fancy that, someone changed that in the meanwhile. I don't owe you any explanation regarding my most meticulous line because you yourself have this sentence in the move proposal - If it becomes a long term issue and numbers become untenable, then it might be necessary to limit and rename this again as something like 'List of deaths due to COVID-19 during the 2020 epidemic', but that is a decision for the future. and me saying that this might be the most meticulously tracked page for deaths from an infectious disease is nothing more than your own realization phrased under different terms. Your point regarding a potential removal of victims prior to an official designation of this event as pandemic is like designating the start of World War II at some point after the 1st of September 1939 because it wasn't a world war from day one. Even a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step and all that. This page has seen various ideas on how it ought to look like (separate sections for months, flags, additional columns) but your incessant pedantry is the only point being raised with walls of texts to follow it. I noticed a moratorium on a related page for your proposals because of their perceived disruptiveness. --Killuminator (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: it was never my proposal that the early deaths be removed from the article, but that the article's tatle and introduction don't exclude them. Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

strong oppose This is not a one-article change. Right now it's coronavirus across the board except for the article about the virus and disease itself. Even the category says "coronavirus"! 15:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So bad semantics and the impression of ignorance should win out, because it is too much hassle to be correct? Kevin McE (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE userdude 05:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Changed to Oppose because of the implication that the proposed title would exclude suicides or other pandemic-related deaths. userdude 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would expect this article to exclude suicides and "pandemic-related deaths" e.g. someone dying because their elective surgery was cancelled. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support, it's more clear, some died in 2019, others in 2020 (most in 2020), and it could remain in time, with deaths even beyond. COVID-19 is the specific virus that is a pandemic. Well, that's my opinion, my English is not perfect. --CoryGlee (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is the disease that is a pandemic. It is not the name of the virus, bit the pandemic is the disease, not the virus. Kevin McE (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. Killuminator raised a point above, which has not been addressed yet - the scope of this page appears to include deaths caused by the pandemic which are not directly a result of the disease. For example people who have some other condition which can't be treated because hospitals are overwhelmed. Or suicides resulting from pandemic-related stress. Those deaths would be attributable to the pandemic but not to the disease. Also, on another point, both the current name and the proposed name appear to omit the word "notable" from their definitions. Clearly this is not a list of all COVID-19 deaths, it is only celebrities and people who already had a Wikipedia article.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As to the first matter, WP:V. Of course names should not be added unless there is a RS clearly stating that their death is due to covid-19.

As to the second: MOS:LIST#List naming, WP:LISTNAME and WP:LISTPEOPLE. Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean WP:V? The scope of this article is people who died as a result of the pandemic. Your proposal to change it to the narrower scope of just those who died from the disease appears to have no justification. There is no need to separate out the two concepts, making the broader concept the more useful of the two.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, what do I mean? I mean what I stated: that any entry should be verifiable, from reliable sources, as should anything in Wikipedia. My proposal includes the term "due to": if a reliable source says that it is a contributory factor, then it is saying that the death was due to C-19. The current title could be construed to include those who never caught the virus, or developed the disease, but committed suicide because of their business going under, or had a stroke but the hospital was so overstretched with C-19 cases that they coulldn't be treated properly. Come to think of it, they really could be said to have died from the pandemic, but no-one is trying to make this list about such cases. Kevin McE (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone (not going to bother checking out who) changed the introductory sentence in the meanwhile without any noise being raised. If it stays that way, then the entire discussion moves in a different reaction because the stated purpose of the page is slightly different. Even the proposer takes into account that the list and name of the page might become a long term issue, necessitating a change of the name or the scope of the page. Are we supposed to add people indefinitely or limit ourselves to a very specific event/time period? As for including the word notable, I don't think it's necessary because there are all sorts of comparable death related list pages but they all include people notable enough to have page on Wikipedia, not necessarily the English language version of it. --Killuminator (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is that the list remain open indefinitely: I acknowledge that a further rename may be necessary when and if it becomes unmanageably long. Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - COVID-19 is the official name. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No, "coronavirus disease 2019" is the official name. "Covid-19" is shorthand. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support - COVID-19 is the official name as designated worldwide by the WHO. Regarding the other matters brought up and these discussions, it's clear that "notable" is self-explanatory. As far as cause of death, the virus kills no one. It's the complications of the virus that kills, such as pneumonia or organ failure, or exacerbation existing health or medical conditions. I don't think it should matter if a person has underlying medical conditions. The virus exasperates existing health conditions and results in a premature death. https://www.todayonline.com/world/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-named-covid-19-who P37307 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Coronavirus disease 2019" is the official name. "Covid-19" is shorthand. And yes the disease can kill you even without underlying health conditions. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's the disease that kills, not the pandemic. WWGB (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - to those saying that COVID-19 should be used because it's the official name, "COVID-19" is not the official name, it is an abbreviation for the official name, "coronavirus disease 2019". Natureium (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not more correct. If it needs to be moved, it should be moved to "List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019", as the official name. Natureium (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be a marked improvement on what we have at the moment, but the abbreviated form seems to be gaining the COMMONNAME upperhand, and the evidence of numerous comments in talk pages is that people read your proposal and think it will be about deaths in 2019. They shouldn't make that mistake, but the stupidity of many Wikipedia users has been revealed in these discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC) but

• Oppose The notable deaths are from the pandemic, not the disease itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

From it like how Seinfeld is "from the '90s", though, not how some notable deaths are "from heart attacks". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They've been killed by the pandemic, not only the disease. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A pandemic is just an international epidemic, which is a social concept. On an individual health level, the disease is virtually as effective, regardless of what's happening in the next body over, much less the next country over. Only perhaps slightly deadlier if pandemic awareness (created on March 11) makes one panic. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - These people died not from the disease, but from the pandemic. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 22:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you care to provide any grounds (medical, semantic, logical) for that assertion? People die because of a disease: the pandemic is simply a state of spread of the disease.Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Support The proposed name sounds more accurate to me. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – As long as the relevant article is Coronavirus disease 2019, then this article should be called List of deaths from Coronavirus disease 2019. They should change together. —GoldRingChip 20:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Natureium and GoldRingChip. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been well established that the title of the main article is based on error: hhy on earth would we spread the ignorance and stupidity so stubbornly represented there? Editors on one article might have decided that their ease is more important than an encyclopaedia being logically and semantically defensible, but that should not impinge on us here. Let's not turn this into another page where a proposal to name it accurately is defeated by intransigence and ignorance. Kevin McE (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I appreciate the breadth of this discussion as semantics is important. I would say the title should denote that these folks died /during/ the pandemic, since "from" the pandemic would imply people died from all sorts of factors of the pandemic, from lack of food or medical resources or even death. However, on the flip side, noting the name of the disease as the cause of death, which since that's correct and the nature of the cause of these deaths and I thus would Support such a name change, but not noting that the disease was the COD during the pandemic I believe is also not the best title. Thus, I believe List of deaths from COVID-19 during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I know everyone will say it's too long but it's the MOST accurate. Jccali1214 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Why limit it to deaths during the pandemic, though? jamacfarlane (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming a pandemic after a class of virus cannot possibly be the most accurate name. Kevin McE (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This argument is for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, not for here. Place Clichy (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support "One does not die from a pandemic" is a compelling argument, and one not yet refuted by any opposition voice. Very simple, and concise. Zaathras (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. One could still get the Black Death, even though that is not a pandemic anymore, and people will still get the virus after 2020 and/or when it is not a pandemic, either. Also there might be notable people listed on here who died before it was declared a pandemic — the title makes it unclear if they should be, though. Deaths from the disease are independent from if it is a pandemic or not. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The vast majority of deaths are old people with at least one other significant malfunction - they are the ones we are trying to protect by limiting the spread and not infecting each other. Most healthy people come through the disease with little or no symptoms (that's partially why it spreads so easily); in contrast with spanish flu (which was not Spanish) and Ebola, where previously healthy people also succumb. So the disease is the trigger that sets off the slide into death with additional causes. The phrase "death from pandemic" is preferable because it is less specific than "deaths due to COVID-19" and thus more in tune with observed disease behaviour. TGCP (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You die from the disease. It's just old age and health conditions make your immune system less likely to be able to fight it off. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support List of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019—the cause of death is the coronavirus, not the pandemic. We're including deaths on this list that occurred before it was declared pandemic. buidhe 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There are many types of Coronavirus, including SARS, MERS and several variants of the common cold. COVID-19 is its own notable entity. Kire1975 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – The relevant article is Coronavirus disease 2019, then this article should be called List of deaths from Coronavirus disease 2019. - Varmapak ^(talk) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as inconsistent with the naming of the other articles in this family of articles. I agree that some tweaking of the name might be appropriate to bring it into consistency with the other articles, but this isn't the right venue to repeat the push for renaming the suite of articles after "COVID-19". 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't see the suggested name as being any more correct than the current one, and to me the current one sounds more encyclopedic. I agree with userdude's rationale above, as changing it to "from COVID-19" would exclude deaths that were influenced or caused by the pandemic but did not occur as a result of the individual contracting COVID-19. For this reason I also oppose "List of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Other Change Either way I think the title should start with "List of *notable* deaths..". --XapApp (talk · contribs) 15:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  This is self-evident. If they're not notable, they don't belong a mention on Wikipedia anyway. The introduction line of the article mentions it, however. Place Clichy (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (or from...), per Coronavirus disease 2019. Place Clichy (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support List of deaths due to COVID-19 (or from...). The news seems to be using COVID-19 predominantly. Oculi (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This article should only include people who died directly from the disease. Whether someone died of COVID-19 is relatively easy for us to verify. It is harder to verify that someone died indirectly because of the pandemic, such not getting treated because hospitals are overwhelmed or committing suicide due to the pandemic. They may have died even with treatment or they may have still committed suicide regardless of the pandemic. – Anne drew 17:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support moving to List of people who died of coronavirus disease 2019. Oppose using the initialism "Covid-19". jamacfarlane (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: This is deaths during the pandemic. It is perfectly possible that the disease may remain endemic in some countries long after the pandemic is declared over by the World Health Organisation. It may take many decades from now before COVID-19 is eradicated worldwide. This article should stick to documenting deaths after contracting COVID-19 during the pandemic. Captain Cornwall (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split list into countries?

Hi could someone split the table out by countries and have countries as sections?

This list is gonna get very long, very fast. Now’s a good time to stucture it

Thanks! Jennpublic (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I lean towards a no, at least not at this stage. It's better to have a centralized list instead of dozens of lists with 7, 5 or even one or 2 names. If the page becomes really too big, it can be split chronologically. As per thinning the page, it would be useful having only one source per item. Some individuals have 3 references attacched, is it really necessary? --151.54.238.115 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to allow any split at this time. I live in Michigan where we are now getting over 100 deaths a day, yet the one notable person from Michigan who was put on this list was removed because it was not confirmed. I have seen some claims there are lots of unconfirmed deaths, but for now this is a reasonable sized list. Let us revisit size, scope and split issues in early May when we will have 2 months with lots of entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Technical note I just spent over four minutes, just on scrolling to the bottom entry (twice). Partly my own fault for using a TV box, but others are probably in this boat. Should have subsections, somehow, before May takes ten minutes (one way), let Deaths in 2020 guide us. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Click on "See Also", scroll up a tiny bit. Takes < 1 second. Kevin McE (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about writing, not reading. Reading's easy, I can move the page with the left analog stick. But in the edit window, can just hold down on the D-pad and wait, line-by-goddamned-line. Entries have six to twelve lines each! Deaths in 2020 entries have one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Splitting the table into smaller tables with headers would be useful. The current list is getting long and unmanageable. Perhaps dividing it into countries, and maybe regions if there aren't enough entries for a country. I know the situation is still developing, but that's why we should try to keep things organized so it won't be a bigger issue later. --ArchonBoi (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have said up the page, if it gets too big, then it has ceased to be a remarkable cause of death, and there should not be a list article at all. And as I quoted up the page, WP:SPLIT says "These guidelines... apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.". And not every death has a place reported: some editors seem justified in editing the table with a guess, but that surely cannot be an encyclopaedic standard. Kevin McE (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It it perhaps not such a bad idea. At some point we may want to split to separate pages. While it may end up not being a remarkable death if the disease becomes endemic, I think deaths in the pandemic remains a matter of note. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC).

• Oppose (at least for now). Splits would eliminate sortability. Sortability allows many different views of the data -- for example, by age. Or by country. Or by date. Splitting would eliminate this capacity for all except the single dimension on which the split is imposed, rendering the list less useful. If it grows overly long, then I'd advocate a chronological split (e.g., by month -- although perhaps early months could all be combined). Also, it's unclear it will become overly long, because notable people remain a small fraction of total people in the world, and will also be only a very small fraction of the deaths. --Presearch (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose And this goes for all these proposals... can we just wait until it's actually a problem? Why all this pre-tinkering? It's a list of text, not a rocket guidance system. We can easily fix problems if and when they occur. Brycehughes (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's neither a rocket guidance system nor a list of text, it's a table. Therein lies my clear and present problem. The ability to sort is not the useful learning aid it's cracked up to be. You want dates, default. You want nations, even my crap browser can "find" them (next and all). Already not a problem at our tried-and-true parent list, waiting is silly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Just dawned on me I could have "found" the entry I wasted time scrolling to (twice), so fuck it, complaint withdrawn. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• If I counted right we currently have 216 entries. That seems to me not large enough to justify splitting the table. For now it seems best to leave it as a sortable unified table.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam Clayton, Jr.

The reggae sound engineer Sam Clayton, Jr. has died of COVID-19. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks are not included. WWGB (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Order of columns -- why is "country of death" so prominent?

Is there a reason the "country of death" column comes before the "name of deceased" column? Surely "name of deceased" is more likely to be what the reader is interested in.

It would make more sense to me if the columns were, from left to right:

1. Date of death 2. Name of deceased 3. Age of deceased 4. Notes on why the person was notable 5. Country of death

172.58.22.172 (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I changed it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't need to keep specifying "of death/deceased", the readers know why they're here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that the reason is that initial interest in the list was not so much in the tracking of who the deceased individuals are (most of them are not of such a high profile that people come here looking for them) as in tracking the spread of the pandemic (see earlier discussions about the relative importance of nationality and place of death columns). However, the systemic bias present in Wikipedia means that it fails to plot that in any meaningful way. I don't have any strong opinion about whether the order of columns is changed, with the proviso that the notes column should be the last one. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Archbishop Aldo de Cillo Pagotto

died from a COVID-19 infection according to the reference in the portuguese Wikipedia. And apparantly his name is written di Cillo not de Cillo. 109.41.3.138 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition of two columns in the table

In the table, add

1. Sr. No. (Serial Number) as the first/leftmost column.

2. Sex/gender as the column after Age.

No thanks. Too hard to serialize by date and too easy to sex by name. It'd be clutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• With the disproportionate number of deaths being male I could see why people would want to track death by sex. However with a disproportionate number of people who we have articles on being male, especially of those born before 1975 and thus being more likely to be among the dead, I do not think the proportion of males in this list will indicate much. Since all these people have articles, if you want to know sex or other specific details, you can go to the article. No reason to clutter the list with more information. The one thing we might want to include is notes on how the diesease effected the victims, but I am not sure we have deep enough sources to say much about that. The polio list this will not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sergio Onofre Jarpa

Please add this individual to the list. Thanks. --190.101.210.150 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Split maybe

to sections like March, April, etc? Starzoner (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No. 129.70.160.212 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, and don't keep splitting discussion of it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Do not split' we have much longer death lists, not split at all. Many of these articles were created after the person died, and I think a few have gone to AfD. This is not meant to track the disease in any meaningful way, just to group notable people who died from it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Where are these longer lists? I want to propose splitting them (for easier editing, not meaningful tracking). This proposed split is getting a bit boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Not for now. This issue could be revisited if we start breaking templates on here like some of the heftier pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No, and stop these endless discussions of it. buidhe 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Do not split First I want to give credit to Johnpacklambert above. This is the first time he has not been advocating for the destruction of content, so this will also be the first time I am agreeing with him. Keep up the good work. I really do hope he will change and put his future efforts into improving wikipedia. Now, I would like to point to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States/New York State medical cases chart, where they have, poorly executed, allowed the user to compress, or more specifically uncompress the data. This template should show the curve, a significant piece of information. Instead, chopped off, the view is rather useless. On the list in question here, chopping off the data at any increment renders the broken up list useless. Why? To save space? What is the difference in significance between a notable person who dies on March 31 or April 1. Is it like the first baby born in the new year, decade or new millennium? The only difference is for the purpose of statistics. On which side of midnight did it occur? Breaking the list up only makes the perception to the reader of the list to be incomplete, which would be a wikipedia failure. In other words, wikipedia does not have a space limitation. We are here to present accurate, and that would mean; complete information. Trackinfo (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Please, there is no need for snide, irrelevant, and rude comments against other users. Recommend striking them. buidhe 09:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• No Keep it sortable as one list. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Somehow I do not see it benefitting Wikipedia to have promotional articles or articles on people who are in no way close to being notable. Nor does it benefit us to have links that go to the wrong article, or which I have found at least 15 in movie cast listings in the last week, and probably missed some. Having lots of links in such cast listings that do not go to any articles makes it more likely we end up with some that go to the wrong article. I have to also echo the fear of some that we are creating articles on people dieing from covid-19 who are not really notable. I am not sure we have any cases yet, but the large number of post death article creations means we need to monitor this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, nobody said this rising emotion surrounding newly-written nobodies was fear. More like disappointment. Bit of regret, a little pining (by my reading, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said suspicion. I think some of these new articles on the newly dead are on non-notable people, I am not sure of the matter yet in any particular cases, and I am so overwhelmed by how many over 10 year old articles we have on living actors backed only by the non-reliable IMDb that it is hard to see any problem with any article on someone who has passed away. Some times I just do not even try to work out deletion discussions on deceased people because it seems to me that Wikipedia's biggest problem is over covering the living. Most overly promotional articles are on living people for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure of it, personally. Living, dead, old and new, many should go. This reckless desire to fill this list isn't the only cause, maybe not even the main driver, just foremost for now. When it dies down, a purge will follow. But while the demand is strong, mass deletion of recent infected would just breed further (possibly stronger) dissonance, discontent and dissent. If you're in the mood to nominate living municipal traffic workers, I've a hankering to second that notion. No pressure, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait, we have articles on people most notable for being municipal traffic workers? I had no idea things were that bad. Right now I have a deletion nomination for a very minor living actress that has gone several days with no one else paying any attention to the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two, linked in Chicago Department of Transportation, one apparently thinks he's bigger than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition of items at the end of the table

At the end of the table, show

1. Average age.

2. Country-wise count.

3. Field-wise (politician, actor, scientist, etc.) count.

That I like. Sums and averages seem hot in the wider viral coverage, too. So shouldn't be controversial here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Average age of those we consider worthy of an article and die is fairly meaningless: if it is the same as overall average, it shows nothing, if it is different it shows our biases. And the other two will only show our biases. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The numbers mean nothing in any scientific sense. But they're already here, just unsummarized. Seems better to teach someone something useless quickly and in one place, if at all. Don't love the idea, though. Especially if a script can't handle the "field-wise" truth; forced human labour isn't exactly "cool", even for useless products. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Do not do average age. In the case of this disease since most who die are fairly elderly (although by no means all) it will not be that off. However I have not noticed many people in the 20-50 age range on this list, and there are more dieing in that age range than we would like. Some of the risk factors for death in that age range, such as having obeisity, probably do not occur at nearly the level among notable people as in the population at large. We don't need that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Eddie Cotton (referee)

No blue link, but a notable boxing referee.ESPNGoogle BooksNew York Times[5]. 86.173.126.143 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Christophe (singer)

The French singer Christophe died of COVID-19. COPD was a comorbility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EquinoxeIV (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Last column

The last column says "Country/City". Is this where the person is from ... or where he died? The column header should clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

List of deaths, so the default assumption of a reasonable reader should do as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I still think the article (column heading) should clarify. When a notable person dies, we are usually concerned with their history / nationality / where they are from / etc. ... not necessarily the specific town that they die in. In this chart, we probably are more concerned with the specific town of death (i.e., to track virus prevalence). So, I think the column heading should clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no "probably" about it in this death chart/death list/death table, the death town/death city and death country are the only focus. Only one age matters, too. Clear causes of death don't matter, but for everything else, death is the great equalizer, the common thread, the whole enchilada. Even the Notes are plucked straight from fresh obits. Saying "death" a bunch of times doesn't make tracking death, processing death or comprehending death any easier. It's just death for death's sake, overwhelming death, death-everywhere-style death. And that's without your unreasonable demand for one more grim reminder of things we all know. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: What on earth are you rambling on about? First: As far as "probably" ... OK, we both agree what this chart is being used for. So, then, what's the issue? Second: I didn't "demand" anything. I offered my opinion. Two different things. And exactly the reason that we have Talk Pages here, as far as I know. Furthermore, my "demand" (that is, my opinion) was hardly "unreasonable". (Maybe a dictionary would be helpful here?) Third: I changed the column header to "Place of death" ... which is perfectly fine ... and unlikely to cause the psychological trauma that you imply it would. Others can weigh in. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply needlessly restating the obvious here might cause psychological trauma, just pointless. Maybe "demand" is a bit strong, sorry. But you seem to somewhat want it, which seems unreasonable to me. You don't need it, you already know it's nothing about birth here. Are you playing Devil's advocate for hypothetically stupid people? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

When date and place were the first two columns, it did seem unnecessary, but since the order of columns was changed (without waiting for any discussion), it probably is worth having a clearer column header. What is there now seems fine. Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

general comment

Could I suggest that this table is split into separate tables for each month, as it is becoming unweidly, and difficult for editing and viewing alike Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose splitting it into each month would make it non-sortable by other characteristics. It is not so large a split would be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Other victims

Some victims not included in this list. Maybe not so famous but still interesting.

Francisco Garcia 21 Spain, football coach Elham Sheikhi 23 Iran, futsal player Dilek Tahtali 33 Turkey, doctor and nephew of politician Ramis Topal Christophe Pras 36 France, rugbyman Cyril Boulanger 37 France, judio champion Jean-Philippe Ruggieri 51 France, head of Nexity Abdurakhman Martazanov 64 Russia, Ingushetia chief mufti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.173.250 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Henry Miller (lawyer)

I started a new stub on this past president of the NYS bar association, who according to his son-in-law died of Covid-19. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

DRAFTs

FYI, there exists Draft:List of Medical Professionals Who Died During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Draft:Covid-19 and Doctors Dying in Clinical Service ; which you (editors) may wish to merge or just redirect to this article or the other one COVID-19 pandemic deaths -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 → List of deaths due to COVID-19 – The previous RM for this article closed from Wugapodes stating in part There was some discussion over whether the new title should use "COVID-19" or "coronavirus disease 2019". ... Generally, few participants expressed strong opinions on this point, but given the comments from opposers, it seems that "coronavirus disease 2019" has a stronger consensus than "COVID-19". A month later, it's clear that this is the outlier position. It is inconsistent with pretty much every other "main" article linked from COVID-19 pandemic and goes against the current consensus for COVID-19 articles that 2. Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. Link 1, Link 2. On the merits, "COVID-19" is more concise while being equally accurate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I concur with Sdkb. The current title is ambiguous if not misleading. It could be read as people who died of Coronavirus in 2019. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Wwwhatsup: The ambiguity hadn't occurred to me; that's a good point! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support to match the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as someone who started the above mentioned RM with the same objective (although that was from a different, and more erroneous, standing title). The confusion mentioned by Wwwhatsup was the reason I preferred the abbreviated name for the disease at that time: the COMMONNAME situation has clearly shifted in favour of that abbreviation since then. This article is about the disease rather than the pandemic, so that mass page move (in which I was something of an instigator) is not really relevant here, but it is fitting that this page fits the WikiProject suggestion cited. Kevin McE (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support to match the main article and other articles that have recently been moved to fit the same pattern. Jokullmusic 17:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support for similar reasons to the above; WP:COMMONNAME has clearly shifted. A further revision might clarify that this is named individuals and not statistics (which is what I came to the page looking for). 196.247.24.20 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support with a suggestion: I think it should be renamed list of notable deaths due to COVID-19. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this rename to Notable deaths due to COVID-19 as previously mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.247.24.20 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Support the above per WP:PRECISE. —Madqueencabbage (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:TITLECON. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I'd be fine with the proposed title, or the alternative suggestion of "Notable deaths due to COVID-19". Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notable is implied, and mentioned in the lead of the article. Plus there's enough people watching and working on this list to ensure that non-notable entries are removed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: The reason I support "notable" is because that word seems the most concise way to say that this page is only selected people, as opposed to COVID-19 pandemic deaths. "List of", by itself, tends to imply "complete list of" , which this page does not attempt to be, so the current name risks MOS:EGG from unpiped links, which seems to me to be a sign of a bad article title. 196.247.24.20 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Just because I didn't expressly say so above, and agree with Lugnuts "Notable" is implied. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and above. 172.254.96.122 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Notability is implied, per Lugnuts and WP:CONCISE. StonyBrook (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We've already renamed all the COVID-19 pages, which is WP:COMMONNAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Seeing that many many other articles of the same name have been changed to "COVID-19", I see no objection to changing this article's name to the new proposed name. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• 'Rename to List of notable people who died with Covid-19. The notable needs to clearly modify people not death. Also, "due to" is in many cases too strong an assertion. Cause of death in reality is complicated, all we can say for sure in all cases in they had the virus when they died, cause is more complex, and there are bound to be a few cases where it does not really fit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Previous moves

Looking at the target history (to be overwritten)

23:33, 4 May 2020‎ EmausBot talk contribs block‎ m  60 bytes +7‎  Bot: Fixing double redirect to List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 rollback: 3 editsundo Tag: Redirect target changed
23:21, 4 May 2020‎ EmausBot talk contribs block‎ m  53 bytes -7‎  Bot: Fixing double redirect to List of deaths due to COVID-19 pandemic undo Tag: Redirect target changed
23:44, 10 April 2020‎ EmausBot talk contribs block‎ m  60 bytes -8‎  Bot: Fixing double redirect to List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 undo Tag: Redirect target changed
07:05, 2 April 2020‎ Ymblanter talk contribs block‎  68 bytes +68‎  ←Redirected page to List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic thank Tag: New redirect

Hopefully this RM will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

</div

Possible COVID-19 death to add to the list

• This might be eligible for inclusion in the table: Kiing Shooter. TJMSmith (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Christophe is reported to have been died of COVID-19, yet his family reported a previous condition as the cause of dead. Would he be included? Equinoxe

Date of death

All deaths are post-January 1, 2020? I thought that they have been finding (or, "re-classifying") lots of deaths from late 2019 (November, December) ...? No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of notable people (i.e. people notable enough to have Wikipedia pages) who've died to COVID-19. Even if they're realizing COVID-19 may or may not have existed a month earlier (and even though there were obviously people who died to COVID-19 before January 25th), there aren't any notable people with Wikipedia pages that we know of who died to COVID-19 before January 25th. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I am aware that this is a list of notable deaths ... not just any-old-death. Still, I assumed that there were some before January 1. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources identifying someone we have an article on as having died with this disease before January 25th, 2020, you are welcome to add them to the list. I have severe doubts that you will do that. In the US the "back dated" case that has got the most attention was a death in California in early February.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I am not really "up" on this news. I just thought that I read something about them finding a lot of cases from 2019. I assumed some were notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)